Page One

Congrats for Planet coverage of NAB protest 

Editor: 

Kudos to the Daily Planet for actually covering the protests taking place during the National Association of Broadcasters’ convention in SF. I have not seen coverage of the protests on any of the local news stations. It just goes to show that everything the protestors are saying about having no access to fair media is true. 

Independent newspapers like the Daily Planet and Public Access television stations like Berkeley Community Media are so important in our society today so people can actual say what’s on their mind and get their message out. Keep up the good work. 

Kari Shaw 

Board Chair,  

Berkeley Community Media 

Developer does not address core issues 

Editor: 

Patrick Kennedy’ºs recent letter (9/23) indicates that Panoramic Interests and its business associates are not comfortable addressing the substantive issues that actually concern the 400-plus neighborhood residents who oppose his current mega-plex, institutional design for 2700 San Pablo Avenue. 

This is not about affordable housing (only five to ten of the more than 48 proposed units would be designated as affordable).  

This is not about seniors or disabled housing. We would welcome that. This is not about “[i]mproving neighborhood retail opportunities and amenities.” There are a number of vacant storefronts in the immediate vicinity that are still awaiting commercial tenants.  

This is not about making our area safer. My experience is that Shattuck Avenue is a more dangerous thoroughfare. This is not about “[l]ess car dependency.” Any person who has taken any of the bus lines on San Pablo to downtown Oakland knows that such a trip takes longer than a BART ride from Berkeley to San Francisco.  

The well-known transit problems of this area ensure that the project will increase car dependency. This is not about improving the tax base. The skyrocketing property values in the area have taken care of that concern quite nicely, thank you. 

What this dispute is about, and what concerns many of us who live here, is that the proposal is too massive and brings with it too many adverse environmental impacts. Put simply, the local residents have asked that the project be scaled down – not eliminated – to three stories or less.  

Panoramic Interests wants five stories. The many academic arguments Mr. Kennedy makes in support of urban housing as a general concept can all be satisfied under a three-story design, a design which would also be consistent with nearly the entirety of development along San Pablo Avenue and the West BerkeleyPlan. 

The only reason I have heard from Mr. Kennedy’s representives that speaks solely to the issue of three versus five stories is that unless the structure is five stories, the project allegedly will not turn an adequate profit (they say the same for an as yet unseen four-story proposal).  

Fair enough. However, when asked to “show us the books” so that we may confirm or dispute this representation, I and others have been told that they don’t “have to” show us their numbers and that we must simply take their word for it – a clearly inappropriate response to a legitimate, if not critical, question. 

Finally, Mr. Kennedy closes his letter by concluding that “[d]evelopment like this will improve the city, and protect existing neighborhoods.”  

I respectfully suggest that he may greatly benefit from listening to the people who actually live here near his proposed development (and who also live in Berkeley).  

ºOur day-to-day collective experiences can provide a wealth of verifiable data about the needs of and solutions for the San Pablo Avenue area. 

Douglas Press 

Berkeley 

Editor: 

I enjoyed your Sept. 21 article about “car-free day” and about H.H. Bliss, the first known person killed by a car. The local bicycle enthusiast who publicized the 101st anniversary of Bliss’ sad demise did a fine job of getting his message out. Just as he did in commemorating the 100th anniversary last year. (Although I have no fear that these successes will make him complacent about putting his message out again during next year’s 102nd anniversary -- whatever his message is.) 

In the interest of balance, though, shouldn’t we also identify the first person whose life was saved by a motorized ambulance? After all, hitching up horse teams took a while, and they didn’t move that fast. Yet victims of heart attacks and other emergencies often need medical intervention within a few minutes if they are to survive. 

And for a more complete picture, shouldn’t we also estimate the number of lives saved since cars cleared our cities of horse poop and resulting swarms of disease-carrying flies? The “car-free” cities of the 1800s weren’t idyllic, nor were they pristine. 

In any case, after reading your article, I drove home better-informed about the whole parking-industrial-media-gasoline-prison-IMF- World Bank-anti-train, anti-fun, anti-outdoor-play conspiracy. But the next day, I read that Europeans had mostly observed the European Union’s “car-free day” by driving to work in heavy, gridlocked traffic. Maybe we really need cleaner cars and better transit, not onanistic, ineffective car-bashing? 

Tom Brown 

Berkeley 

To: Berkeley Daily Planet ATTN: William Inman, staff reporter 

Fr: Caleb Dardick, Project Manager, Ed Roberts Campus 

Re: Perspective piece for Daily Planet’s opinion/letters page (575 words) 

Dt: September 22, 2000 

Dear William, thanks for giving the ERC an opportunity to tell its story to the Planet’s readership and respond to your September 18th story. I hope we can see this appear in Monday’s Planet. Any questions please contact me at 510-704-0130 or email cdardick@hotmail.com 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Title: The Ed Roberts Campus will be a good neighbor to South Berkeley  

Byline: Joni Breves, chair, Ed Roberts Campus 

Ed Roberts, one of the founders of the Independent Living/Civil Rights Movement for people with disabilities, once said, “There is nothing like building a movement on success. Whenever we have brought ourselves together, whenever we have joined various disabilities together, we find our strength. Our strength is in our unity.” 

When Ed died in 1995 we lost a great unifier but not our belief in the importance of individuals, organizations and agencies working together in coalition. As a memorial to Ed Roberts, the ERC embodies the values of the Independent Living Movement by establishing a center dedicated to fostering collaboration and improving the services and opportunities for people with disabilities locally and worldwide.  

The ERC is a nonprofit partnership of nine disability organizations that will share a home. The ERC will cluster a range of disability services in one location and provide convenient, easy access via public transportation. The ERC will be a state-of-the-art, universally designed, transit-oriented campus located at the Ashby BART Station in south Berkeley. The facility will house the offices of the nine partners. We hope to include a conference center, a library on the Disability Movement, a computer/media resource center, a gym/fitness center, a café, a small children’s play center, and a mix of neighborhood-serving retail and office lease space.  

All summer long, outreach to the neighborhood accelerated as ERC community liaisons traveled door-to-door introducing the project, distributing the ERC newsletter, and listening to people’s comments and concerns. We held several informal “kitchen chats” in neighborhood homes to share information about the ERC and to learn what the community would like to see along the Adeline corridor.  

The neighborhood has a strong residential character with an active community. The community is concerned about the type of development planned for the BART property, the traffic it will generate, and the impact it will have on the neighborhood especially in terms of parking. The ERC is committed to integrating these concerns into its plans.  

Currently, the ERC is poised to carry out the first phase of the architectural design. It is the level of design that enables the community to contribute valuable input that will shape the design of the ERC. This phase is the most creative portion of the design work, the point where the design team lays out how the facility might look, fit onto the site and connect to the neighborhood. On September 13th, over 70 community members met with the architects for the first of a series of design workshops to develop a vision for the site.  

At that meeting we got many comments from the community about the scale and location of the ERC. Please be assured that the suggestions of the community will have an important influence on the design of the ERC facility. The partner organizations are very interested in being good neighbors, and welcome the opportunity to share ideas and discuss options. We are also interested in finding ways that neighbors can participate in the programs offered by the ERC and welcome suggestions that could possibly be incorporated in our plans. We will convene another community meeting as soon as the architects have some design concepts for everyone to consider. We are excited by this process and welcome the community’s active participation – that’s what we mean when we say, “our strength is in our unity.” 

For more information please call our community liaison, Priscilla Banks, at (510) 698-2039 Ext. 1452 or email us at: info@edrobertscampus.org  

(The ERC includes Bay Area Outreach & Recreation Program (BORP); Center for Accessible Technology (CforAT); Center for Independent Living (CIL); Computer Technologies Program (CTP); Disability Rights Advocates (DRA); Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF); Through the Looking Glass (TLG); Whirlwind Wheelchair International (WWI); and World Institute on Disability (WID).) 

Subject:  

Kennedy Letter Misses Mark 

Date:  

Mon, 25 Sep 2000 00:40:25 -0700 

From:  

“Douglas Press”  

To:  

opinion@berkeleydailyplanet.com 

Editor: 

Patrick Kennedy’s recent letter (9/23) indicates that Panoramic Interests and its business associates are not comfortable addressing the substantive issues that 

actually concern the 400-plus neighborhood residents who oppose his current mega-plex, institutional design for 2700 San Pablo Avenue. 

This is not about affordable housing (only five to ten of the more than 48 proposed units would be designated as affordable). This is not about seniors or 

disabled housing. We would welcome that. This is not about “[i]mproving neighborhood retail opportunities and amenities.” There are a number of vacant 

storefronts in the immediate vicinity that are still awaiting commercial tenants. This is not about making our area safer. My experience is that Shattuck 

Avenue is a more dangerous thoroughfare. This is not about “[l]ess car dependency.” Any person who has taken any of the bus lines on San Pablo to 

downtown Oakland knows that such a trip takes longer than a BART ride from Berkeley to San Francisco. The well-known transit problems of this area 

ensure that the project will increase car dependency. This is not about improving the tax base. The skyrocketing property values in the area have taken care of 

that concern quite nicely, thank you. 

What this dispute is about, and what concerns many of us who live here, is that the proposal is too massive and brings with it too many adverse 

environmental impacts. Put simply, the local residents have asked that the project be scaled down-- not eliminated-- to three stories or less. Panoramic 

Interests wants five (5) stories. The many academic arguments Mr. Kennedy makes in support of urban housing as a general concept can all be satisfied 

under a three-story design, a design which would also be consistent with nearly the entirety of development along San Pablo Avenue and the West Berkeley 

Plan. 

The only reason I have heard from Mr. Kennedy’s representives that speaks solely to the issue of three versus five stories is that unless the structure is five 

stories, the project allegedly will not turn an adequate profit (they say the same for an as yet unseen four story proposal). Fair enough. However, when asked 

to “show us the books” so that we may confirm or dispute this representation, I and others have been told that they don’t “have to” show us their numbers and 

that we must simply take their word for it-- a clearly inappropriate response to a legitimate, if not critical, question. 

Finally, Mr. Kennedy closes his letter by concluding that “[d]evelopment like this will improve the city, and protect existing neighborhoods.” I respectfully 

suggest that he may greatly benefit from listening to the people who actually live here near his proposed development (and who also live in Berkeley). Our 

day-to-day collective experiences can provide a wealth of verifiable data about the needs of and solutions for the San Pablo Avenue area. 

Douglas Press 

Berkeley 

--  

Subject:  

opinion piece 

Date:  

Sun, 24 Sep 2000 10:34:32 -0400 (EDT) 

From:  

Carol Denney  

To:  

opinion@berkeleydailyplanet.com 

Micropower Is Here to Stay by Carol Denney 

Micropower radio refers to low power broadcasts over a small area, under 100 

watts and reaching from 1 to 5 miles from the signal, depending on the 

height of the antenna, the receiver, and the terrain. Micropower 

broadcasting is as old as radio, which is a very young medium. 

In 1979 the Federal Communications Commission banned micropower 

broadcasting. The airwaves, which by law belong to the public, were even 

then a playground for the rich, with a few small stations trying to stay 

afloat as alternative voices. 

In 1993, in response to the pro-military coverage of the Persian Gulf War, 

Stephen Dunifer and a small group of activists decided to challenge the 

rules criminalizing micropower by simply going on the air. Many across the 

nation and around the world did the same, and a micropower movement, which 

had existed for decades, caught fire. 

Federal Court Judge Claudia Wilken denied the FCC an injunction to stop Free 

Radio Berkeley’s broadcasts in January of 1995, despite the FCC’s claim that 

they would suffer “irreparable harm.” FRB went from three hour broadcasts on 

Sunday nights to a 24 hour indoor project open to anyone who wished to join. 

Hundreds more people, inspired by the court decision, went on the air to the 

FCC’s dismay. 

By the year 2000, the FCC had given up the idea of criminalization, instead 

supporting regulations which would keep the “pirates” under their thumb. The 

matter might have stopped there, but the National Association of 

Broadcasters, a group representing the wealthy owners of commercial radio 

stations, was outraged at the idea of micropower enjoying even a small 

sliver of the broadcast spectrum.  

Hundreds of people took to the streets September 23rd, 2000, to protest the 

National Association of Broadcasters’ convention in San Francisco, 

recognizing it as the lobby for the wealthy interests which have the FCC and 

the politicians in their pocket. I kept thinking to myself, while watching 

the music, the theater, and the puppets, how eight years ago what we wanted 

was to put the monopolization of media on America’s plate, and that we 

succeeded.  

In court, the FCC won the right to tell Free Radio Berkeley to go back to 

square one and get a license. Out there in the streets on September 23rd in 

the hail of pounding drums, there was no question that community radio is 

here to stay. No matter what happens now, it will be hard to go back. Too 

many people have experienced the simple practicality of micropower. 

The matter of regulation is currently stalled in congress. In the meantime, 

hundreds of micropower broadcasters go on bringing neighborhood radio to 

their neighborhoods. Some have applied for licenses, some aren’t going to 

bother. At Free Radio Berkeley we used to say, “tune in, turn on, and take 

over.” The best thing to do about crappy media is make some of your own. 

Editor: 

Aweek ago you printed a story about an 11 year old shot by a Modesto swat team.The boy, Alberto Sepulveda was killed and the police have tried to say it was a accident. No major newspaper ran half the story that you did. 

None of the major newscasts televised this important story. Thank you 

very much for informing the public on stories like this, and I hope this 

will be an ongoing part of your newspaper.My congradulations.Thank 

you. 

BOB TORRES