Page One

In Economics 101, they talk about a choice between guns and butter. 

At the Berkeley Redevelopment Agency meeting Tuesday night, agency members tried to pick between a bike bridge and a parking garage. 

In the end, the bike bridge got approval – $1.3 million from the Redevelopment Agency. That left about $1.7 million in the pot that could be spent as partial funding for a parking structure or for other Redevelopment Area projects. 

The bike-wheelchair-pedestrian overpass – still on the drawing board after more than five years – was originally expected to cost about $4.4 million. Funding would come from the state, city and the Redevelopment Agency. 

But inflation hit the project and bridge plans were modified, so actual bids for the project came in at about $5.3 million. 

The project faced a $1.3 million shortfall thanks to the higher bid and other increased costs associated with the bridge. 

At first, staff wanted to use General Fund money, but city councilmembers, who serve as the governing board for the Redevelopment Agency, pointed to the unspent redevelopment funds. In its five-year spending plan, the agency had called for a $3 million expenditure on a “possible central parking facility for the Fourth Street retail district.” 

Councilmembers – especially those who believe that building a parking structure will attract more traffic rather than alleviate the problem – focused on the word “possible.” They argued that since a firm decision on the expenditure of funds has not been made, the money could be redirected. 

Berkeley’s Redevelopment Area stretches from Cedar Street south to University Avenue and from Sixth Street to the Eastshore Highway. The area’s property taxes – more precisely, the increase in its taxes after the area was formulated – are put into the agency for projects within the area’s boundaries, projects that will improve the area, and low-income housing anywhere in the city. 

The bike bridge project is located just outside the Redevelopment Area, but most of the councilmembers said the bridge would benefit the area, so they were able to vote the funds to support the bridge. 

Public testimony focused mostly on whether it is appropriate for the public to subsidize a parking garage. 

Denny Abrams, who developed much of the Fourth Street area, said that it is wrong to call funding for the $8 million garage a “subsidy.” 

“It is considered an investment,” he said, asking the council not to redirect any of the $money toward the bike bridge. 

Abrams offered to get property owners together in a Business Improvement District to fund the remaining $5 million for the project, if the Redevelopment Agency would allocate the $3 million. 

“We want you to support (small businesses) with a garage,” he said. 

Patsy Slater, co-owner of Fourth Street’s Slater/Marinoff Furniture backed Abrams’ proposal. She underscored the need for parking to keep Fourth Street on the cutting edge. “We are competing with Emeryville,” she said. 

Slater asked agency members to look elsewhere for funds to supplement the bike bridge. 

Others, however, lined up to back the bike bridge and fight the parking structure. 

“Speaking as a taxpayer, I don’t want my money going for a parking garage,” said Berkeley resident Eric Forno, arguing that the overpass will bring cyclists and pedestrians to Fourth Street. 

Victor Bull, who owns a software company near the Fourth Street retail area, said the lack of Fourth Street parking is a development and zoning problem. 

“Developers created the parking problem by not creating parking for their own development,” he said. “Why bail out the developers who did not have the necessary foresight?” 

The question of whether the Agency will spend the remaining $1.7 million on partially funding the parking garage will be discussed at a future meeting. 

Seven councilmembers voted to use the almost $1.3 redevelopment funds for the bike bridge, with Councilmembers Diane Woolley and Polly Armstrong abstaining.