A week after throwing its support behind a medical marijuana ordinance that many saw as one of the most pot-friendly in the area, Richmond’s City Council voted unanimously Tuesday night to scratch a number of the ordinance’s most controversial clauses. In a separate move, the council agreed to allow city voters to decide on a new pot tax.

Mayor Gayle McLaughlin, along with Councilmembers Nat Bates, Jeff Ritterman and Jim Rogers, all reversed course on a number of key aspects of the pot ordinance Tuesday that they had insisted on during their July 20 meeting, agreeing instead to pass a modified ordinance that will cap the number of marijuana dispensaries in town to three, and place new restrictions on how and where such clubs can operate.

“It’s harder to shrink back than to expand [the ordinance],” McLaughlin said Tuesday in defending her about-face, explaining that last week’s first reading of the ordinance was too lax.

In a separate move later in the evening, the council voted to place a November ballot measure before city voters asking whether to charge dispensaries a 5 percent tax on all marijuana sales.

Tuesday’s move to amend the city’s medical marijuana ordinance represents a substantial beefing up of the ordinance’s original rules, which some anticipated would turn Richmond into a regional hub for pot sales.

The version of the medical marijuana ordinance that was originally passed 4-3 by the council July 20 did not place a cap on the number of dispensaries allowed within city limits. It also placed the responsibility for granting medical marijuana business licenses to the city manager’s office, and limited medical pot shops to parts of town designated as commercial zones.

All of those stipulations were amended Tuesday: The Richmond Police Department will now oversee permitting and code enforcement for the three permitted marijuana dispensaries, and marijuana clubs will now only be allowed in C-3 commercial zones like the Hilltop Mall – effectively eliminating a number of current dispensaries from consideration for one of the new licenses.

Additionally, the council made amendments Tuesday that restrict patients to purchasing a maximum of one ounce of marijuana from a dispensary per visit, and stipulated that applicants for a marijuana license be scored on a point system, which has yet to be devised.

“This is a disaster,” said John Clay, who runs Pacific Alternative Health Center, a Point Richmond-based dispensary. “The level of ignorance on the council is staggering.”

Every ordinance the council passes must go through two readings before being enacted into law. While most ordinances are approved on second reading with ease, it appears that an avalanche of public feedback swayed the council into revising the ordinance this time. Because of the breadth of Tuesday’s revisions, the newly approved ordinance will have to go through a second reading, scheduled for the third week of September. The council takes its yearly recess during August.

On his popular e-forum, Councilman Tom Butt earlier this week sent followers a letter to the city council from Police Chief Chris Magnus that asked that the council to reconsider it’s initial plans for the ordinance – particularly handing oversight of the process to the city manager’s office instead of the police. On Tuesday, McLaughlin cited Magnus’ letter as one of the reasons for changing her mind.

In addition to modifying the marijuana ordinance, the council on Tuesday voted unanimously to place a 5 percent tax on all pot sales before city voters this November. Councilman Butt, who wrote the measure, initially called for a 10 percent tax, but backed off that plan. Both Berkeley and Oakland are planning to let voters decide on similar pot taxes: Berkeley’s would tax medical marijuana sales at 2.5 percent, while Oakland’s would charge 5 percent of all marijuana receipts. Both of those cities are proposing a 10 percent tax on marijuana sold for recreational use, effective only if state voters approve Proposition 19 this November and legalize non-medical marijuana use.

Richmond’s ballot measure will contain no such distinction between medical and recreational marijuana use – rather, it taxes all pot sales equally. Marijuana dispensaries currently pay a 9.75 percent state sales tax on marijuana they sell, although most of that money goes to the state, rather than to the city.

Tuesday’s agenda also called for the council to direct city staffers to draft an ordinance that would regulate and tax large-scale marijuana farms in Richmond, similar to a move Oakland gave final approval to Tuesday. The discussion was cut short, however, when Councilwoman Ludmyrna Lopez moved to have city staff simply investigate the matter and report back for a study session in January. That motion passed 5-2, with Councilmembers Bates and Maria Viramontes opposing.

Clay, the Point Richmond dispensary operator, was clearly upset by the council’s decisions Tuesday. “We got our butts kicked,” he said as he left the chambers.

One of the most repeated pleas from the dozens of medical marijuana users and dispensers on hand Tuesday was for the council to halt the legal orders dispensaries are facing to close up shop. All eight of Richmond’s current dispensaries have been ordered to shut down for operating without a business license (which is currently impossible for a dispensary to obtain). Several representatives for the collectives suggested instead that the city agree to allow the dispensaries to stay open until the new ordinance takes effect.

The council ultimately agreed to meet next week, during the August recess, to discuss the matter in a closed-session meeting. The last time it considered the matter, the council voted 4-3 in closed session to continue its litigation against the dispensaries – although if Tuesday was any indication, nothing relating to marijuana is set in stone just yet.

John Ziesenhenne, who served on Richmond’s city council from 1982 to 1993, has filed paperwork with the City Clerk’s office announcing his candidacy for mayor in November’s general election.

Ziesenhenne, the CEO of M.A. Hays insurance company, is currently the only person who has officially filed for either the mayoral or city council races. Mayor Gayle McLaughlin has already stated she plans to seek re-election, and many City Hall insiders have speculated that other members of the council may take aim at the city’s top post, as well.

The former councilman said he plans to campaign on the need for jobs in Richmond, and will work toward lowering the city’s crime rate. Further, Ziesenhenne said, as mayor he hopes to improve what he sees as poor etiquette from the office.

“I haven’t seen Richmond at a lower point in regards to the lack of leadership from the mayor’s office,” Ziesenhenne said Tuesday from his Broadway office. “With the lack of communication, the lack of teamwork, the lack of respect, and the lack of civility that’s going on, bringing respectfulness back to City Hall is greatly needed.”

Ziesenhenne said he favors plans to build a hotel and casino development at Point Molate because of the number of jobs it would create, although he said he’ll keep an open mind about the proposal until after the November elections, when city residents will vote on an advisory ballot measure asking whether they support the plan. Current plans for Point Molate include building a 4,000-slot Indian casino, to be run by the Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians.

“Richmond needs to do a much better job of getting people back to work,” Ziesenhenne said. “Having an 18 percent unemployment rate, we need to work diligently to bring good jobs into the city, to bring environmentally friendly jobs into the city, and to put people back to work.”

Ziesenhenne, 53, a North and East resident and Richmond native, graduated from Harry Ells High School and Contra Costa College before getting a degree in U.S. History from UC Berkeley in 1980. After spending over a decade on the city council, he returned to work for M.A. Hays Co., a property and casualty insurance broker, eventually working his way up to CEO.

“I think not being in the political mix [lately] gives me a fresh view of the city compared to some people on the council, and having a fresh voice and fresh leadership is something Richmond needs right now,” he said.

Despite the lack of names officially entered into the races, the field for both city council and mayor appear to be taking shape. Incumbent Mayor McLaughlin, and city council candidates Jovanka Beckles and Rhonda Harris have already begun walking precincts to raise awareness for their campaigns, and several other candidates for council have constructed campaign websites and are beginning to fundraise as well.

Councilmembers Maria Viramontes, Ludmyrna Lopez, and Jim Rogers are all up for re-election. The election will be held Nov. 2.

Candidates for mayor, and for open city council seats, have until Aug. 6 to declare their intention to run. Candidates must provide at least 20 signatures showing support from city residents, and prove they live in Richmond and are registered voters. City Clerk Diane Holmes said Monday that while she generally encourages candidates not to wait until the last minute to file their paperwork, it’s not uncommon for candidates to hold out a few weeks. The filing period opened July 12.

“I anticipate candidates to start filing this week and next,” Holmes said. “They’re probably out gathering signatures right now.”

In addition to Beckles, a member of the city’s planning commission, and Harris, who is the CEO of real estate firm R.F. and Associates, another likely City Council candidate is Eduardo Martinez, a retired schoolteacher who is being endorsed by the Richmond Progressive Alliance. Former Councilmen Gary Bell and John Marquez have also informally announced their candidacies for the council, as has former council candidate Corky Booze. Virgina Finlay, the president of the city’s Chamber of Commerce, has also said she plans to run for council.

Lesser-known candidates are also likely to join the fray: Rodney Alamo Brown has created a Facebook page announcing his candidacy for mayor, as has Ervin Roquemore, who says he’s running for city council, although both appear to be relative newcomers to the political scene.

Ziesenhenne had said as recently as June that he wasn’t planning a mayoral bid. There is considerable buzz among City Hall insiders that Ziesenhenne won’t be the only challenger to McLaughlin, who narrowly beat out Gary Bell and then-incumbent mayor Irma Anderson in 2006. Councilman Nat Bates, who served two terms as mayor during the 1970s, has thus far denied a 2010 mayoral bid of his own. But his name continues to surface in rumors, and he reportedly sent a survey to supporters earlier this year to gauge interest levels in his candidacy.

Councilwoman Viramontes has also been rumored to have mayoral ambitions. Both Viramontes and Bates are seen as business-friendly and favor plans to build the large Indian casino at Point Molate — a plan McLaughlin, a Green Party member, opposes. Both Viramontes and Bates are vocal foes of the mayor, and often clash with McLaughlin during council meetings.

Should Bates and Ziesenhenne both run, they may end up jockeying for some of the same endorsements: Both men are members of the Black Men and Women Political Action Committee, and Ziesenhenne, who is white, has donated in the past to the Black-American PAC, which has traditionally supported and helped finance Bates’ re-election campaigns.

“It’s certainly an issue that’s out there,” Ziesenhenne said of potentially running against Bates, whom he described as a friend. (The two served briefly on the city council together during the 1980s). “But hopefully I’d be more convincing to constituents, whatever candidates are running,” he continued. “I have to believe that. Otherwise wouldn’t have filed papers.”

Just one week after passing its first-ever ordinance regulating medical marijuana dispensaries, the City of Richmond on Tuesday will consider joining Oakland at the cutting edge of pot law.

City Councilman Tom Butt, who last week voiced the strongest opposition to the city’s new plan to grant business licenses to medical pot dispensaries, is now proposing the city craft laws to allow, regulate and tax large-scale medical marijuana growers, similar to a controversial move that neighboring Oakland is also considering.

Oakland’s City Council will vote Tuesday night on whether to allow four large growing facilities within city limits — a move that passed a first reading last week.

In addition to regulating and taxing large-scale pot growers, Butt is also recommending that city council agree to place a measure on the November 2 ballot that would set a 10 percent tax rate for medical pot shops. All new taxes must be voted on in an election.

Currently, Oakland taxes marijuana dispensaries 1.8 percent of their gross receipts, although the city may ask voters to consider a pot tax hike this November, as well. Berkeley is also considering a ballot measure that would tax medical pot at a 2.5 percent rate.

The Nov. 2 ballot will also ask state voters to decide on Measure 19, which would legalize recreational marijuana use.

“It looks like this train is not going to stop,” Butt said of the booming medical marijuana industry. “And if that’s true, I want to make sure Richmond gets all the advantages it can out of going down that route — getting as much tax money we can from these operators.

“If we’re going to do this, we ought to do it comprehensively – not just do the part with the most benefit to the dealers,” Butt added.

Ken Estes, founder of the Grandaddy Purp medical marijuana collective, speaks about his dispensary during the July 20 City Council meeting. Photo by Ian A. Stewart.

Richmond’s City Council still has to pass a second reading of last week’s ordinance. The new rules allow for an unlimited number of medical pot dispensaries in town, as opposed to the initial plan to allow only three. The ordinance, which passed 4-3, does restrict pot shops to parts of town that are zoned for commercial use, and calls for a 1,500-foot buffer between any dispensary and a high school. Dispensaries must also prove their non-profit status, submit to criminal background checks of their managers, and provide adequate security and bookkeeping records.

New medical marijuana dispensaries are also subject to a public hearing process, in which neighbors have a chance to voice concerns to city staff.

It’s unclear how many large-scale marijuana-growing operations there are in Richmond, although Butt suggested that some do already exist.  Richmond is currently home to eight dispensaries, which are facing civil injunctions for operating without proper business permits. The new ordinance will not do anything to change the status of that litigation; rather, all dispensaries will have to submit to the same application process to acquire a new, proper license.

Councilmembers Nat Bates, Jim Rogers, Jeff Ritterman and Mayor Gayle McLaughlin voted in favor of the ordinance last week, while Butt, Ludmyrna Lopez and Maria Viramontes voted against it.

Should the ordinance pass a second reading, city staff would begin accepting applications for marijuana vendor permits within 30 days.

In his weekly e-mail blast, Butt forwarded his followers a letter sent from Richmond Police Chief Chris Magnus that took issue with several aspects of the new dispensary ordinance; primarily, that the city manager’s office (and not the police department, as Magnus recommends) will handle permit applications. Magnus also warned that dispensaries could prove vulnerable targets for crime, given the amount of marijuana and cash that flows in and out of the shops.

“I believe that as a general governing principle, it is better to start with more stringent regulations of a new business model that has the potential to be problematic — and then determine over time if those regulations should be relaxed or otherwise modified,” Magnus wrote. “It is almost impossible to strengthen lax ordinances and laws or reform already established business practices after problems are identified.”

If the council is unable to pass the ordinance’s second reading Tuesday night, the issue will have to be put on ice for a few weeks. Tuesday marks the council’s last regular meeting before breaking for August recess.

Richmond residents will get to vote on whether the City Council should approve a plan to build a casino at Point Molate, City Council decided Tuesday night. Only trouble is, the vote won’t count for anything.

The council voted 4-2 to place an “advisory” ballot measure on the November 2 statewide election ballot, asking Richmond residents whether or not they approve of a plan to build a proposed 4,000-slot Indian casino at Point Molate. An advisory measure does not carry any legal weight – rather, it serves as a public opinion poll of sorts.

The winning advisory measure, written by Councilmember Tom Butt, was approved by councilmembers Nat Bates, Jeff Ritterman, Mayor Gayle McLaughlin, and Butt. Councilmembers Maria Viramontes and Jim Rogers voted ‘no,’ and Ludmyrna Lopez abstained.The motion beat out a similar measure proposed by  Viramontes. The language in the two measures was nearly identical, except that Viramontes’ proposal asked whether the city should “approve a project including a casino with shoreline and open space protections at Pt. Molate.” Butt’s proposal did not include any language related to open-space protections.

Members of the City Council listen to arguments for and against a measure to survey public opinion regarding a casino plan during Tuesday's council meeting. Photo by Ian A. Stewart.

The casino is part of a larger plan for a $1.2 billion hotel resort at Point Molate being developed by Upstream Point Molate, LLC. The developers are planning to partner with the Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians to operate the casino. A 2004 Land Development Agreement between the city and Upstream has been extended six times – most recently extended until April 2011 – to negotiate the terms of the plan.

Jim Levine, the project’s lead developer, sent members of the council a letter on Monday urging them to drop the advisory ballot measure entirely, arguing that voters could not make an informed choice about the plan before its final Environmental Impact Review has been finalized. The EIR is expected to be finished sometime this fall.

“We understand that opponents of the project believe they have a better chance of scoring political points by contesting the project without the facts,” Levine wrote. “Why else would they push for a project vote just ahead of the release of the EIR and prior to the conclusion of the public outreach process?”

Members of the crowd Tuesday voiced overwhelming support for the ballot measure, touting the need for community input in what has become a highly divisive issue in Richmond. John Salmon, a Napa-based executive with Upstream LLC, spoke out against the measure, but found little support from the crowd, several of whom held posters reading “Let us vote.”

Vice Mayor Ritterman said that unless residents vote overwhelmingly in one direction or another on the issue, the measure is unlikely to make much difference to policy. Ritterman, who has stated in the past that he opposes the casino plan, also said that because of the amount of money likely to be spent on advertising for the advisory measure, a vote couldn’t necessarily be considered an accurate poll of residents’ feelings.

“It all depends on how you spin [the results],” Ritterman said. “Those who’ll win will say, ‘Majority rules, so we get our way.’ My feeling is if it’s 50-50, that tells you it’s a big problem for our community – one guys feels one way, and his neighbor feels another. It’s a wedge issue that divides our community, so that’s a vote in favor of not going with [the plan to build the casino].”

In other gambling-related news, on Tuesday the council heard a proposed ordinance that would update the city’s laws relating to bingo games. The new ordinance would remove the current restriction on the number of days per week that bingo halls could host games, and updates laws pertaining to prize money, police presence and alcohol sales. All bingo games in Richmond must be conducted by nonprofit groups and for charity, and the games’ organizers must now submit to a criminal background check in order to host bingo nights.

The issue, benign as it may seem, actually stems from an incident earlier this year in which the city revoked a gaming license from the Marina Bay Bingo Club, an American Legion-sponsored club that purported to raise money for war veterans. The Legion’s post commander, Eddie Welbon, was found to have a criminal history of fraud and money laundering, leading the city to shutter the club. According to its Web site, the Marina Bay Bingo Club is still searching for a new nonprofit group to run its bingo games.

The incident caused considerable embarrassment for the city, which had made a great spectacle of the bingo hall’s grand opening in March.

The revised bingo ordinance should come back before the council for a final vote next week.

Corky Booze (left) and Jackie Thompson pose with a Perennial Purple Tree Collard, the newly minted official "green" of Richmond. Photo by Ian A. Stewart.

In other news Tuesday, the council approved plans to double the funding for its popular sewer lateral grant program to $200,000. City residents can apply for a grant up to $30,000 from the city to help pay for repairs to their sewer laterals – the pipes that run under sidewalks to connect individual homes’ sewers to the city-run system.

Council also unanimously passed a resolution to oppose state Proposition 23, which would suspend AB 32, a 2006 state law regulating air-pollution standards, until state unemployment figures drop below 5 percent for an entire year. AB 32, also known as the Global Warming Solutions Act, requires the state to reach 1990 levels of greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2020. Councilmembers McLaughlin, Ritterman and Butt proposed the council resolution.

In a move that drew a few chuckles, Councilman Butt also proposed a resolution naming the Perennial Purple Tree Collard as the city’s official “green.” Butt pointed to the collard’s nutritional value (it’s rich in calcium, vitamins A, B1, B2, B9 and C), close historical ties to Richmond (it was brought to Richmond from the American South most likely during the city’s WWII-era boom) and toughness as reason enough for the city to adopt it. The plant is currently the “mascot” of Urban Tilth, a non-profit group promoting urban agriculture.

The motion passed unanimously.

Tuesday’s session, which was highlighted by a packed house, lasted until nearly 2 a.m., when council members ran out of gas and voted to postpone the final two agenda items until next week.

By the slimmest of margins, Richmond’s City Council voted Tuesday night to pass a significantly more liberal version of an ordinance regulating medical marijuana dispensaries than originally planned.

The ordinance, which was constantly revised and amended throughout a tense, boisterous and at times comical council session, seeks to regulate how and where medical marijuana can be sold in the city. Despite the fact that Richmond is currently home to eight different pot dispensaries, the city has never formally regulated the suddenly booming business. City prosecutors have been filing cease-and-desist orders over the past several months to many Richmond dispensaries, and seeking civil injunctions against others for operating without a proper vendor’s permit.

The new ordinance, which still needs to make it through a second reading next week, will not limit the number of pot clubs allowed within the city limits — an important and controversial change from the draft ordinance’s original proposal of a three-dispensary limit. The amended ordinance also did away with plans to require dispensaries to be at least 1,000 feet away from each other, and for the police department to oversee the permitting process, instead handing that duty to the city’s administrator.

“I like the idea of having more, smaller dispensaries,” Mayor Gayle McLaughlin said. McLaughlin was joined by councilmembers Nat Bates, Jim Rogers and Jeff Ritterman in supporting the ordinance. Councilmembers Tom Butt, Ludmyrna Lopez and Maria Viramontes opposed.

While the move seemed to please many in the standing-room-only crowd — many of whom spoke on behalf of the city’s dispensaries — it clearly didn’t sit well with everyone on the council.

“What we’re seeing is a move to make Richmond the regional center of [medical marijuana distribution],” Butt said. “At the end of the day, though, it’s just about money and greed. These dispensary owners are being disingenuous, they’re confused, and most of them are carpet-baggers who come to Richmond because they thought they could get their nose under the tent and run their business here.”

Much of the council’s draft ordinance was modeled on a similar pot ordinance passed by the city of Long Beach earlier this year. The ordinance sets limits on where dispensaries can operate: not within a 1,500-foot radius of a high school, or a 500-foot radius of a school housing younger children, a community center or a library. The pot clubs must also be located within an area currently zoned for commercial use.

John Clay, the manager of Point Richmond-based dispensary Pacific Alternative Health Care, addresses City Council Tuesday night. Photo by Ian A. Stewart.

The motion to pass Tuesday’s ordinance beat out an opposing motion favored by councilmembers Lopez and Viramontes, which would have kept intact the limit of three dispensaries, and required the police force to govern the permitting process.

Businesses hoping to obtain one of the Medical Marijuana Collective Permits will have to submit a lengthy application to the city’s administrator, complete with proof of their non-profit status, criminal histories of their managers, and a county health department sign-off if they plan to make pot-laced foods on site.

Thirty days after the ordinance is approved — a second reading should appear before the council next week — businesses can submit their cannabis applications to the city, which will announce public hearings to all property owners within a 750-foot radius of the proposed dispensaries to determine whether or not to grant the permit.

Most members of the audience Tuesday appeared to be supportive of the new guidelines, although John Clay, the manager of Pacific Alternative Health Care, a Point Richmond-based dispensary, remained more tepid in his support.

“I think it’s good,” Clay said of the ordinance. “They could have done a lot worse, certainly. I think it’s decent.”

The ordinance does not include any mention of a special tax on medical cannabis. Oakland reportedly expects to raise around $1.5 million in pot taxes this year via a 1.8 percent sales tax passed last summer, and the Berkeley City Council just placed a measure on the November ballot calling for a 2.5 percent sales tax on medical pot, and a 10 percent tax on recreational pot, should it be legalized by state voters come November.

Meanwhile, many of Richmond’s pot dispensaries are currently facing civil injunctions for operating without a permit. The new ordinance does not appear to have any effect on that litigation, a fact several collective members bemoaned Tuesday. The council had previously voted 4-3 during closed session to continue prosecuting out-of-compliance dispensaries, according to Ritterman.

Richmond’s City Council had originally planned to wait until after November, when the state’s voters will decide whether to legalize recreational marijuana, to consider a marijuana ordinance. Ultimately, though, the council moved forward with the plan as a result of public outcry from medical pot users and providers. The city, which has seen the number of pot collectives grow from around three to as high as 10 over the past year, is relatively late to adopt a pot ordinance, compared to many other Bay Area cities. Oakland first introduced guidelines to selling pot in 1998, with stricter rules passed in 2004. Berkeley first passed a pot ordinance in 1997 and San Francisco has had rules on the books to govern marijuana sales since 2005.

State Proposition 215, passed by voters in 1996, allows residents to legally buy and use marijuana for medical purposes.

Richmond’s lack of formal rules for selling medical marijuana likely caused the sudden rise in pot businesses, according to many dispensary owners and directors. Other businesses driven out of Oakland, San Francisco and other cities after ordinances were passed there may have set up shop in Richmond as well.

Arthur Mijares, a member of the Contra Costa Anti-Marijuana Initiative Task Force, a citizen-run group that holds monthly meetings in Concord, acknowledged that medical marijuana dispensaries have a legal right to sell pot to their members, but questioned the ways that many patients go about obtaining a referral.

“It’s the law now, but that law is being abused,” said Mijares, who was not at Tuesday’s council meeting. “It’s just an open can of worms. Anyone, and I mean anyone, can get a [medical marijuana] card. You just apply and pay your $75 and say, ‘I’ve got headaches or back pain.’ …  The amount of card-carrying cannabis [patients] is way inflated.”

Tuesday’s marijuana debate, which lasted over three hours and seemed to test the patience of every member of the council, was not without its fair share of pothead humor – seemingly a staple of any cannabis-related discourse. But the best line of the night went to Councilman Bates, who, while heaping praise on one of the city’s dispensaries, pointed out, “It’s definitely a green business.”

Almost two years after workers broke ground on an ambitious renovation effort at the 84-year-old Richmond Municipal Natatorium, better known as The Plunge, the giant Point Richmond swimming pool is nearly finished.

Workers were mostly relegated to touch-up work Thursday, as the pool prepares for its August 14 grand opening. The interior of the building is nearly complete, with only a few fixes left to go. The pool is filled with 320,000 gallons of water, and the giant mural that covers the western wall appears complete. Save for some landscaping work that is yet to be done in the pool’s front yard, the construction appears to be a success.

“It’s just little stuff now,” lead architect Todd Jersey said of the ongoing work. “We’re putting in the floors, installing the heaters. Then it’s just a lot of clean-up.”

Opening Day for the renovated pool is set for August 14, when members of the trust that helped fundraise to pay for the construction work will give tours of the building and, for the first time since 2001, let folks take a dip in the 9,600-square-foot pool. “We’re starting to see, ‘Oh wow, it’s really coming together,’” Jersey said.

The Plunge, originally opened in 1926, was the largest indoor swimming pool in the state until it was closed in 2001 because of its deteriorating condition. Voters in Richmond originally turned down a ballot measure that would have paid for its reconstruction, but ultimately the city was able to front the majority of the $7.5 million bill through redevelopment funds and small donations.

The renovation has largely remained true to the pool’s historic design – the row of windows above the second-story observation deck is original, as is much of the tile on the mushroom-shaped fountain that has been moved from inside the pool to outside the building. Workers installed a raised “doghouse”-style roof above the pool that more closely resembles the original and are getting ready to hoist a giant sign above the building in the style of the original which read “Municipal Natatorium.”

For more information about the Plunge’s grand opening, visit www.richmondplunge.org.

The effect of blight on some of Richmond’s poorest neighborhoods can be hard to quantify. Vacant, decrepit and boarded-up homes surely depress home values for entire blocks around them. But the loitering, the squatting, and the drug use — it’s harder to put a number on how that affects a neighborhood.

 But now the City of Richmond says it has a number: Three-quarters of a million dollars. At least that’s how much money, in unpaid fines, the city is levying against the owners of “nuisance properties” in the form of tax liens. The property tax liens, which will be formally served August 6, are for a wide range of complaints, from having overgrown yards or too much trash piling up around the house to leaving property vacant or damaged.

 The liens are meant to serve a dual purpose: To recover city funds spent on sending crews out to do work on blighted homes, and to urge property owners, many of whom are difficult to track down, to take greater responsibility for their lots.

Code Enforcement Manager Tim Higares, pictured here last December at a foreclosed home on Fourth Street, presented City Council last week with a list of property owners that will be receiving a tax lien for past-due fines related to nuisance properties. File photo by Yuanxi Huang.

 Tim Higares, the head of the police department’s Code Enforcement division, which issues the fines, presented the City Council last week with a six-page list of property owners who will be receiving a tax lien beginning next month. The value of the liens ranges from as low as $250 to as high as $60,000. The council approved the list, allowing the city to more aggressively seek repayment for long-overdue nuisance-property fines.

 Higares said most of the unpaid fines are imposed on property owners whose homes are in such bad shape that city workers have had to come out and either work on the house or board it up. Many of the largest fines the city has issued — usually around $30,000 — are the result of $1,000-per-day penalties against homeowners until they fix up their properties. Many of the homes on Higares’ tax-lien list are in the northern tip of the Iron Triangle, bounded by the Richmond Parkway on the west, MacDonald Avenue on the south and the BART tracks to the east.

 The largest fines, however, are often directed at homes that have been repossessed by banks, Higares said. Bank-owned homes in foreclosure — a significant percentage of Richmond’s housing stock — represent some of the city’s most damaged and neglected properties.

 “The banks are the worst property managers I’ve ever encountered,” Higares said. “All we get from them are excuses. The only time we hear from them is when they have somebody who wants to buy the property, and then they’re surprised they have $30,000 in fines.”

 Homes cannot be sold until a property tax lien, or other such fines, have been repaid.

 Richmond’s foreclosure ordinance states that all homes, whether bank- or individually-owned, must be maintained and secured. In some cases, the city requests a warrant to enter a vacant home and will replace the locks, board up windows, and clear trash and debris. That bill gets sent to the property owner — often the bank — but according to Higares, is seldom paid back.

 Patrick Lynch, the director of Richmond’s Housing and Community Development division, agreed that the banks that own notes on homes in town have been a headache for city staff to deal with.

 “The banks have done a tremendous disservice to the local community,” Lynch said. “What do you think [foreclosures] do for the community? Who’s going to pay for the police to go out there, to take off the graffiti, or to board it up? They’ve made a strategic decision not to incur those costs. They push it on our side, to the city, and it means less money for positive activities. And it disproportionately affects cities like Richmond.”

 There are currently 1,426 homes in Richmond in foreclosure or in default, according to RealtyTrac.org, a popular Web site that tracks foreclosure listings — roughly 20 percent of the city’s total homes. Another 604 are up for auction by banks, the final stage of foreclosure.

 The Code Enforcement division fields between 15 and 20 calls per day complaining about blighted homes, Higares said. His office also has 37 officers who patrol the city looking out for illegal dumping, abandoned cars, and other forms of blight.

 “People complain to us about their health and their safety,” Higares said. “There could be high and dry weeds around the house they’re afraid are going to ignite, or in some of these vacant, abandoned properties, there could be squatters, pimps, prostitutes, you name it. So our job is to eliminate blight, and stabilize communities. But because of the economy, it’s becoming quite a challenging task.”

 Lynch pointed out that foreclosed homes work against the city in several ways: In addition to becoming magnets for squatting and drug use, abandoned homes don’t provide the city with tax revenue, and bring down the value of homes nearby, which ultimately means less tax money from those homes, too. Throw in the money it costs the city to maintain or patrol around abandoned properties, and you have a serious drain on the city’s resources.

 “Sometimes we feel we’re just … like we’re just trying to plug the hole in the dam,” Lynch said of dealing with Richmond’s foreclosures. “There’s all this water pushing up behind you, and you’re trying to plug it up with your finger. But at a certain point, you just run out of fingers.”

The timing of Tuesday’s request from the Richmond Police Department to the City Council for permission to purchase $84,000 worth of Tasers admittedly wasn’t perfect. But, law enforcement officials say, it was inevitable.

Ultimately the City Council approved the Taser-brand stun-gun purchase order unanimously during a wide-ranging weekly meeting Tuesday night, but not without some teeth-gnashing. In order to make the purchase, the council had to knowingly break its own resolution directing city staff to avoid doing business with companies in Arizona until that state repeals SB 1070, the controversial immigration bill.

The Richmond Police Department currently uses Taser-brand “electronic-control devices” that it purchases through an Arizona-based vendor called ProForce Law Enforcement, which police say is the sole vendor for the products on the West Coast.

During its May 5 meeting, shortly after Arizona passed SB 1070, Richmond’s City Council had voted unanimously to formally oppose Arizona’s immigration law and pledged to have city staff refrain from doing new business with companies headquartered in Arizona.

Earlier Tuesday, the federal Justice Department filed a lawsuit against Arizona, asking for a permanent injunction against the law, which brought the issue back into the forefront of the news just in time to make Tuesday’s council decision that much more awkward.

“I’m sort of conflicted about it,” Councilwoman Maria Viramontes said before Tuesday’s council meeting. “On the one hand, I understand the reasonableness of the request – [the police department] probably has a contract – but I’m upset about the Arizona law, and I really like the idea of communicating that [through the ban].”

Viramontes said she was unaware that the police department’s sole vendor for the Taser stun-guns was located in Arizona until Tuesday.

“The next few days are kind of sensitive on this issue,” she said. “I’m curious why it came up right now.”

The X26E-model Taser stun-gun that the Richmond Police Department uses. Photo courtesy of Taser International.

The request for new Tasers takes on added significance for many in the Bay Area in part because, in addition to breaking the council’s resolution against doing business with Arizona, the purchase also comes against the backdrop of a high-profile police-shooting case in Oakland involving a Taser that’s heading to jury deliberations this week. One of the central questions in that case is whether former BART Police officer Johannes Mehserle mistook his pistol for his Taser before fatally shooting a 22-year-old man in the back. That case has been ongoing throughout the summer, and a verdict is expected this week.

Police Lieutenant Mark Gagan said the department is simply making the request as part of its yearly reassessment of the department’s equipment, since the fiscal year just ended.

The purchase of 75 Tasers, plus holsters and cartridges, will be spread out over the next three years. The purchase is meant to replace Tasers that have been in use for more than five years, and to equip some 60 officers who currently don’t carry one of the electronic-control devices. The Taser gun is designed and marketed as a “less-than-lethal” alternative to handguns.

On June 15, the department requested permission from the council to purchase nearly $100,000 worth of Remington 870 shotguns and Glock handguns from a San Jose-based vendor.

“I absolutely understand the council’s resolution and why they made it,” Lt. Gagan said. “And we have been in compliance with it. But in this case, we have no other choice, so we really are relegated to asking for this purchase. We’re not asking this light-heartedly.”

Gagan pointed out that the department has cancelled plans to have members of the force’s helicopter unit travel to Tuscon to participate in a training program there out of deference to the city’s resolution.

In its staff report to the council justifying the Taser purchase, the department points out that the Richmond police force has already sunk close to half a million dollars into Taser-brand products, and that switching to another brand would cause problems.

“Requiring the Police Department to substitute out another [electronic-control device] product for the Taser is like a company or governmental unit that had invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in PCs suddenly being required to do business only with Apple,” the report says.

According to information its Web site, ProForce Law Enforcement, the police department’s Arizona vendor, provides equipment to several departments in Northern California, including the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office, the Concord and Walnut Creek police departments, and the California Highway Patrol.

The question of whether police should carry Tasers at all has also been a sore subject for many people in Richmond, including Mayor Gayle McLaughlin, who initially voiced concern about the devices when police first began carrying them in late 2007.

While Gagan said Richmond Police officers are subjected to stringent Taser training that goes beyond state-mandated guidelines, the weapons have caused some controversy here recently. In April, a BART Police officer used his Taser to subdue a 13-year-old boy near the Richmond BART station. The incident led to BART police being ordered to turn in their Tasers until receiving further training.

The X26E Taser model uses compressed nitrogen to shoot two metal probes carrying an electrical charge into a subject. The probes are attached to the Taser device by thin, 35-foot-long electrical wires. The probes can transmit 1,200 volts of electricity into a subject, causing “neuro-muscular incapacity,” which temporarily impairs a person’s ability to move.

After Tuesday’s council meeting, Mayor Gayle McLaughlin said that she felt comfortable, if not entirely pleased, with the Taser purchase based largely on semantic grounds. Because the Arizona immigration law hasn’t gone into effect yet, McLaughlin explained, Richmond’s ban on Arizona hasn’t begun yet either, meaning the Taser purchase checks out.

In other business during Tuesday’s council meeting, several members of the council, as well as speakers from the audience, engaged in what could only be described as an act of monumental irony – spending close to half an hour arguing about ways to speed up council meetings.

Councilman Nat Bates, who abruptly left the council’s June 22 meeting in protest of its length, argued on Tuesday that the City Council should limit the number of presentations it hears and awards it often hands out. During the June 22 meeting, council awarded nine separate certificates of recognition. But the debate quickly turned into a finger-pointing debacle between Councilman Bates, Mayor McLaughlin and City Council candidate Corky Booze over the way the council recognizes members of the public.

Two of Asama Ayyad's younger siblings hold up photos of the 20-year-old Ayyad, who was shot and killed last week outside his Richmond mosque. Photo by Ian A. Stewart.

Bates also accused Councilman Jim Rogers of honoring some Black city residents and businesses at council meetings simply to court the Black vote. Booze, who was in the audience, followed the exchange by lighting into Councilman Bates for not standing up enough for the city’s Black community. “Don’t blame somebody else for helping the African-American community when you’re the only African-American on the council,” Booze said.

The council ultimately agreed to exercise a bit more self-discipline in adhering to the three-commendations-per-meeting limit.

Pot dispensary owners in Richmond got some good news – but not much – during Tuesday’s meeting. City councilmembers remained tight-lipped about upcoming plans to establish a system to track and regulate where and when medical marijuana dispensaries operate in Richmond.

Several of the city’s estimated eight or nine dispensaries have faced injunctions and penalties in recent weeks for failing to have a proper business license. Currently, the city is not zoned for a pot dispensary anywhere, meaning any cannabis club in Richmond is technically operating illegally. Pot club owners have been pressing the council to establish a way to grant their businesses the relevant licenses.

The council apparently discussed the issue during closed session, but did not disclose the specifics of a new plan, except to say that it will likely unveil a new ordinance relating to the matter at its July 20 meeting.

Tuesday’s meeting started on a somber note, as several family members of Asama Ayyad, the 20-year-old El Cerrito man who was gunned down in Richmond last week outside his Cutting Boulevard mosque, spoke before the council.

Police say Ayyad was on his way home from evening prayers at the Al-Noor Mosque when 19-year-old Nickie Donald of Richmond allegedly shot at Ayyad’s car, killing Ayyad but not a teenage passenger. Police say Donald mistook Ayyad’s car for that of a gang member.

The council formally recognized Ayyad, as well as the two other Richmond homicide victims that died last week, by closing Tuesday’s meeting in their honor.

* This story was updated July 7 to correct a factual error.

The median household income in unincorporated North Richmond is $8,763, less than half the federal poverty level for a family of four. In Richmond proper—itself considered an economically disadvantaged town—it’s a little more than $50,000.

 It’s this stark divide that reminds you that however economically bad things are in Richmond, where 17.5 percent of the city’s residents are unemployed, things just to the north are even worse.

 But amidst the poverty and joblessness that mark life in North Richmond for so many, there does appear to be a faint bit of economic hope on the horizon. Redevelopment agencies at both the city and county level have begun discussing the possibility of including North Richmond as part of the city’s “Enterprise Zone,” a state-drawn boundary that affords businesses a number of tax credits for operating and hiring within the distressed area.

 Businesses inside the zone—which currently includes about 90 percent of Richmond—can submit vouchers that turn into state tax credits for hiring employees from the city’s poorest neighborhoods, or for making facility upgrades to buildings inside the zone. The hope is that by giving companies incentives to do business in distressed areas, the state program can help boost local employment and entrepreneurship.

 Thomas Mills, the head of Richmond’s Economic Development Department, estimated that between 100 and 150 businesses inside Richmond’s Enterprise Zone have submitted vouchers for the rebates since the program began more than 15 years ago—the majority of which are larger retail stores, including several that operate inside the Hilltop Mall.

 Extending tax benefits to businesses in North Richmond would encourage companies already there to hire locally, which could take a dent out of the area’s unemployment rate, said Richmond Chamber of Commerce President Judy Morgan. But perhaps more beneficially, she said, it could encourage new businesses to move in and set up shop, creating more jobs.

 “It’s another tool to attract businesses,” Morgan said. “There’s a lot of land in North Richmond. It’s not just a little housing area. All the way out there to Parr Boulevard and the Richmond Parkway—there’s a lot of opportunity there.”

 Once city and county staffs finalize a study demonstrating that North Richmond is sufficiently economically distressed to be included in Richmond’s zone, both the Richmond City Council and County Board of Supervisors would have to sign off on the plan before an application can be sent to the state’s Housing and Community Development department, which manages the Enterprise Zone program. According to Mills, though, the plan should be an easy sell.

 “I wouldn’t, at this point, anticipate [the County Board of Supervisors or Richmond City Council] would go against a sensible plan like this,” he said.

 The city and county would have to come to an agreement on which jurisdiction would process paperwork like business licenses and other permits inside the widened Enterprise Zone. But the sides do have a recent template to work from: Two years ago, the unincorporated area of Bay Point was co-opted into Pittsburg’s Enterprise Zone—the only other such zone in Contra Costa County—giving Richmond leaders something of a blueprint for how to proceed with the North Richmond expansion.

 According to city staff, there aren’t any plans right now to involve other nearby economically distressed areas, like Bayview-Montalvin, home to a 20.4 percent unemployment rate, Rollingwood (23.6 percent unemployment) or San Pablo (21.4 percent) in the zone. 

 Rosemary Viramontes, who works in the city’s “RichmondWORKS” job-training program, said she expects the city to apply for an extension to its boundary by the end of the year, although the state could take as long as a year to process and approve the application. Viramontes said that after more than a year of job losses in Richmond, her department is just now beginning to see an increase in the number of vouchers being turned in—a sign, she said, of new hiring. “It leads us to believe things are starting to turn around,” she said.

 By getting businesses in North Richmond plugged into the tax credit program, the county redevelopment agency is hoping to capitalize on that job growth, however slight it may still be.

 Long a home industrial manufacturing operations, North Richmond now has only a few large employers. Laidlaw Transit, the school-bus manufacturer, and furniture company Palecek, Inc. both have operations on Parr Boulevard, and both have more than 100 employees, according to the Chamber of Commerce. But outside of that, there aren’t many big companies looking for employees.

 North Richmond, which boasts the unenviable title of having the county’s lowest median income (and indeed one of the lowest in the state), has in recent years been a target for county-supported revitalization efforts. A general plan for North Richmond, which is still being finalized by the county’s redevelopment agency, calls for rezoning much of the area between San Pablo and Wildcat creeks for mixed residential and commercial use, and building a number of new housing and storefront units there. The two most recent housing developments in North Richmond, the Parkway Estates and Bella Flora homes, while advertised as low-income housing, have at least begun to attract a little more money into the area, according to County Supervisor John Gioia.

 “Really, the issues [facing] North Richmond are exactly the same as in parts of the city, and in the Iron Triangle,” Gioia said. “It’s one of these things where jurisdictional boundaries have gotten in the way of what makes the most sense.”

 While the plan can’t be seen as a cure-all for the problems of poverty and crime in North Richmond, Gioia said, it is at least a cause for hope. “We’re optimistic about this,” he said.

A big Brazilian flag can be seen from the intersection of San Pablo and MacDonald avenues in Richmond. Smart BR Coffee, a Brazilian restaurant-coffee house at 4820 Bissell Avenue, has the flag painted covering the front of its building. During World Cup matches, the restaurant’s parking lot fills up and cheers can be heard from the street in the middle of the day.

In addition to a Brazilian flag outside, the café flies fabric flags of the U.S., Mexico, Honduras and South Africa both inside and outside the building. “Welcome,” reads one big sign hanging on the interior. There’s a wall covered with flyers, postcards and cards advertising the many Brazilian events and businesses all over the Bay Area.

A crowd watches the Brazil vs Chile game at the Smart BR Coffee in Richmond. Photo by Veronica Moscoso.

“I come here to eat typical Brazilian food, find friends and community and watch the game,” said Cesar Menezes, a Richmond resident and Brazilian immigrant whose work maintaining soccer fields is flexible enough that he can come and watch the World Cup at Smart BR Coffee.

Menezes was one of about 60 people who showed up at the restaurant to watch Brazil’s national soccer team play Chile at 11:30 a.m. on Monday. Most of the spectators were Brazilian and were wearing the team’s T-shirt, caps or some item that represented their country.

Opened just eight months ago, Smart BR Coffee is a spot where Brazilians who live in or near Richmond come to have a little taste of home. Richmond has only three Brazilian restaurants, but different Brazilian communities organize events to make sure they gather together with their compatriots.

The Brazilian Consulate in San Francisco estimates that there are 40,000 Brazilians living in the Bay Area. “We don’t really know because we don’t have them registered,” said Rosana Sa, Assistant for Cultural Affairs from of the Brazilian Consulate.

The high rents in the Bay Area have led many Brazilian immigrants to choose to live in Richmond because housing is more affordable. Menezes said that’s the case for his friends and himself. “I found a cheap place in Richmond and it’s a nice place,” he said.

Two printed Brazilian newspapers — Brasil Best and Brazil Today — circulate in the Bay Area. Three of Richmond’s Christian churches — the Bay Area Brazilian Church, The First Presbyterian Church and the Church of the Living God — offer Portuguese-speaking ministries.

Olavo Dourado, owner of Smart BR Coffee, happy to show World Cup matches at his restaurant. Photo by Veronica Moscoso.

William Silva, or “Pastor William,” as his parishioners from the Bay Area Brazilian Church know him, said that Brazilian immigrants usually work in construction, as baby sitters, drivers, delivering newspapers and in the hauling business. “They work hard,” he said.

Olavo Dourado, owner of Smart BR Coffee, said that he was one of the first Brazilians to move to Richmond 23 years ago, and that during the past 20 years the population grew. However, “about 30 percent had left in the past two or three years,” Dourado estimated, saying that the recent economy here had pushed some immigrants to go back to their home country.

Eddy Delima immigrated from Brazil 24 years ago. He’s seen the growth and decline of the Brazilian population, too. Delima is member of Saint John the Baptist, a Catholic church in El Cerrito. On Sundays his church offers mass in Portuguese. According to Delima, about 140 Brazilians are members of this church, and half of them are Richmond residents, including himself.

Delima was one of the organizers of Festa Junina, a traditional Brazilian June Festival related to St. John the Baptist’s holy day. The festival took place June 5 at Richmond’s Veteran’s Hall, where more than 500 people showed up to enjoy the Brazilian food, live music, costumes, and a play. Delima said that events like these are important because, “We want to celebrate our culture and keep it alive.”

Acording to Delima, Brazilian immigrants work too hard and don’t have much of a social life, so his hope is that, “if they are feeling homesick, they can come to the event and have fun for one day,” he said.

Maria Rodman watches the World Cup and cheers for Brazil at Smart BR Coffee. Photo by Veronica Moscoso.

“We get together to celebrate because we are lonely,” said Thais Silva, owner of Pikanha’s steak house, a Brazilian family-owned restaurant in Point Richmond. She said that Brazilians like to hear happy music and to feel at home with one another because, “We miss our country.”

Pastor William says that most Brazilian immigrants in Richmond are young people in their twenties who left their families behind. “They work so hard that they don’t have a life anymore,” said the pastor.

Like Delima’s church, Pastor William’s Bay Area Brazilian Church also organizes events, like a Brazilian celebration this past Saturday that included capoeira, food and music. “People started to came at eight in the morning until eight at night,” he said. His church has a TV screen where parishioners can watch the World Cup games — they had one last Sunday, when Brazil was played the Ivory Coast, which was followed by a barbeque.

Maria Rodman, who was born in Brazil and is now a U.S. citizen, has lived in the country for 38 years. She came from Berkeley to the Smart BR Coffee to watch the match against Chile together with other Brazilians, “We are patriots, we like soccer games and we like to cheer up together,” she said. Brazil beat Chile 3-0.