Page One

BANANAs best for NIMBYs  

Editor: 

Berkeley desperately needs more rentals. City policy regarding new construction has, however, been swayed by vocal NIMBY groups. These Not-In-My-Back-Yard factions materialize on an ad hoc basis all over town every time anyone comes forth and presents a plan to construct multifamily housing anywhere in town. 

There are always some existing residents who will be affected by the project and mount a protest. 

So decisive is the influence of these various groups on council members and their commission appointees, that a general policy declaration would be in order. I would like to suggest “The City of Berkeley has gone BANANAs (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything).”  

Peggy Schioler 

Berkeley 

Rent board cause of renter grief 

Editor: 

Too bad William Inman’s recent portrayal of Randy Silverman (”Homeless reporter painfully lands Berkeley apartment,” Aug. 5) omitted the real reasons behind Inman’s struggle to find housing. Inman need look no further than Silverman and his colleagues on the rent board for the chaos that potential renters find these days. 

For years, Silverman has fostered a climate of hostility toward rental housing providers and has supported draconian regulations that have hurt students, removed thousands of units from Berkeley, and virtually guarantee no turnover whatsoever in more than half of Berkeley’s apartments. 

The leading cause of Berkeley’s housing shortage is not directly related to the overall causes plaguing other east bay communities. Instead, the leading cause is people like Silverman, who continue to promulgate irrational, destructive policies and ordinances that are purely anti-housing. Silverman has never done anything to improve the situation facing people like Mr. Inman. He is most proficient, however, at exacerbating the chaos. 

Mr. Silverman’s latest hate crime against rental housing providers will only bring further destruction to rental housing and nothing but aggravation to those searching for housing in Berkeley. Silverman’s eviction control measure was approved by the City Council recently in the wee hours of the morning with no public input after Councilmember Linda Maio, herself a landlord, conveniently exempted her rental dwelling from the ordinance. 

Inman and others like him, in search of that elusive apartment in a nice Berkeley neighborhood, can look forward to many more years of frustration as long as people like Silverman and Maio are in control. 

Leon Mayeri 

Berkeley 

Rent control cause of renter grief 

Editor: 

I was touched by William Inman’s story about trying to find an affordable place to live. I too tried setting out to find a new place to live, only to be sent home packing by the extremely high costs. I was dumbfounded when I heard the price of a small studio apartment in Beverly Hills. I, like your author, thought it would be nice to live there.  

The weather was good. There were job opportunities, (though unlike William, I was unemployed). Yet there was little opportunity for me as I tried to find an affordable place. 

Looking back I realize that lots of other people had the same idea about my proposed new home, and that the high demand had increased the price of the limited supply. It’s too bad everyone can’t live in Beverly Hills, I thought. 

Well, everyone can’t live in Berkeley either, even if it is a city that prides itself on inclusion. Over the years, controls on rents have caused landlords to sell their properties in search of better investments. 

Most of the time, these rentals were sold to people who really wanted to live in the homes. This decreased the stock of rental housing, even as demand seemed to increase. (Just watch that supply and demand thing in action.) The less housing there is available, the higher the price for it.  

Unwittingly, the proponents of rent controls exacerbated the problem.  

There is a housing shortage in Berkeley. But no set of ill thought out laws will correct the problem in the long run. If you provide a friendly business environment for landlords, you will get more of them.  

Though you may think landlords are bad, the more of them that there are, the more rental housing we will have, and rents will stabilize without the “assistance” of any board. 

Tom Nemeth, a landlord (though never in Berkeley) 

Oakland 

Walkers for “cure” need facts, not lip service  

Editor: 

After losing my wife to breast cancer, it is with much interest I read the letter touting the Avon-sponsored breast cancer walk written by Barbara Scheifler, Mary Zoeller and Ellie Goldstein-Erikson (Letters, Aug. 5). 

Although their intentions are highly admirable, the results of their actions will amount to nothing more than feeding the corporate machine that has been a major obstacle in understanding health and disease today.  

The corporate message is clear: continue toxic drug therapy, mutilating surgery, radiation and more; continue pushing mammograms as the only sensible choice; never investigate causes. 

Do these walkers know that many of the same companies which profit from chemotherapy drugs (including the Bay Area’s own Zeneca), also profit from the sale of pesticides with known links to breast cancer?  

They have, in effect, made millions on both ends while women continue to drop like flies of the disease. 

Some of these same companies also sponsor walks and races for “the cure” to whitewash their deeds. Today, anything remotely connected with cancer cures or cancer treatment translates into big money. 

It is important to note that in the case of Avon, it is mandatory that walkers have health insurance and agree to raise $1,800 prior to the event. If you can’t raise it, you must donate it.  

Even more noteworthy is the fact that 65 cents to the dollar raised from the Avon Walk, never gets close to any breast cancer organization. The remaining small change (35 cents on the dollar) feeds “the war on cancer;” a misguided, endless war that has been lost long ago, yet the money continues to flow for a “cure.” 

Perhaps these Avon-walk participants should ask Avon where the $7 million went. 

In short, these walkers are being used; tricked into thinking they are doing something to help find “a cure” for breast cancer, when, in reality, they are unwittingly taking part in one of the cruelest marketing ploys since Joe Camel.  

Michael Bauce 

Berkeley