Page One
Elect knowledgeable bus rider to AC board
Editor:
As the outgoing representative on the AC Transit Board for Berkeley, Albany, and West Contra Costa County, I have carefully examined the qualifications and records of the candidates running for my seat on the Board. The choice is clear. I urge you to vote for Joe Wallace.
Joe has a long record as a champion of the best interests of the public and of AC Transit.
• Joe rides the bus every day. He knows the special needs of women, families, commuters, seniors, kids, and disabled persons for safe, reliable public transit.
• He has been a strong voice at regional agencies for adequate funding for bus services.
• Joe played a leading role in bringing the No. 376 bus to North Richmond to serve the needs of people in that impoverished community for night service to employment sites and medical facilities.
• He is an effective leader. He is a member of the steering committee for Urban Habitat programs, chair of the AC Transit Riders’ Advisory Committee, a member of the board of the North Richmond Neighborhood House, and chair of the North Richmond Municipal Advisory Committee.
Joe’s endorsers include a member of Congress, State legislators, local elected officials, community leaders, and many ordinary citizens, as well as the Sierra Club, the Berkeley Democratic Club, and Berkeley Citizens’ Action.
Joe’s skills, experience, and integrity will make him an outstanding AC Transit Director. He will be a strong, responsive and effective representative for all of us. Please vote for him on November 7th.
Mim Hawley
AC Transit Board Member, Ward I
AC should trade in polluting monsters
Editor:
“Bus” -- a huge, noisy, polluting vehicle that runs in a static state with disregard to neighborhoods, traffic lights, environment, bicycles, pedestrians and passengers. After commute hours, buses can be see on Telegraph, Shattuck and College Ave., at times, two and three bumper to bumper with the front bus transporting all the passengers and the other two empty. In the late evening hours on College Ave., it is not uncommon to see these monstrosities running pass midnight with one or two passengers. Not only does this produce unnecessary traffic, noise, pollution and consumption of petroleum products, but it serves as a stage for the ineffective and uncreative AC Transit management. It is disturbing that AC Transit does not employ an analyst to research and report recommendations. Can it be so difficult to replace these inefficient monstrosities with small economical vans to serve the one or two passengers after commute hours? This would provide more street for bicycles to pass, less pollution, less noise, conservation of petroleum products and it will cut costs for AC Transit not only for bus purchases, but for fuel and maintenance.
Robert Radford
Berkeley
Police behavior was inappropriate
Editor,
I feel it is necessary for me to respond to the incident reported on the front page of last Thursday’s Daily Planet, in which my wife, Carrie Sprague, was publicly singled out at the Berkeley City Council meeting by the President of the Berkeley Police Association.
Later, in the hallway outside the Council Chambers, Carrie was surrounded by 20-30 hostile and shouting police officers. Towering one and a half feet above her, Randy Files, President of the Police Association, threatened her with arrest and shouted that all the members of the Police Association personally hate her to the cheers of his cronies.
It is ironic that some police officers blame Carrie and other neighbors for their difficulties in finding parking for their personal vehicles. During many, many planning meetings for the new Public Safety Building, Carrie repeatedly addressed the need for adequate Police Department employee parking.
Unfortunately, neither the Police Department nor the Police Association ever sent representatives to these meetings to discuss employee parking. In addition, Carrie sent a letter to the Berkeley Police Association more than a year ago requesting that they meet with neighborhood representatives to discuss mutually beneficial solutions to parking problems. No response was ever received.
I believe that the personal hostility toward Carrie has come about because she has worked for effective enforcement of the Residential Permit Parking ordinance. She continues to insist that police officers may not disrespect our law or our neighborhood.
As for the effort by some Police Association members to bully Carrie, I can assure all those who are concerned for her safety that she was not in the least intimidated. Having lived with me for 20 years Carrie readily recognizes bluster without substance when it occurs.
Stan Sprague
Berkeley
Police inappropriate 2
Editor:
The debate over controlled neighborhood parking took an abrupt turn last week when police officers affiliated with the Berkeley Police Association appeared at the City Council to lobby for parking access at the Civic Center (Daily Planet, Oct. 19)
The action marks one of those rare moments when the BPA rank-and-file having publicly demonstrated. As city employees, police officers have every right to demonstrate. And there was nothing wrong with them chanting, “What do we want? Parking! When do we want it? Now!”
However, when shouting officers, and in particular the president of the BPA, Officer Files, targeted local neighborhood activists at council, it raises questions about proper police conduct. To publicly single out particular residents as the source of their parking woes, was not only shortsighted, but unprofessional.
Berkeley officers should realize that their parking ticket woes are to be blamed on their employer, the City of Berkeley, and not local residents. Further, most residents are in support of city employees having off-street parking at their work places. Certainly adequate parking is demanded of other large businesses in Berkeley.
A decade ago, the city committed itself to reducing both its fleet size and the number of employee commuter cars when it signed onto the Clean Air Act. Throughout the nineties, Berkeley government unfortunately did nothing to address these two issues, preferring to exempt itself from any changes in this area of transportation.
The concerns of Civic Center residents parallels the experience of the neighbors living around the Public Works Corporation Yard in District 2. These neighbors have fought a futile battle to reduce city employee on-street parking for over twenty years.
In 1992, the city’s traffic engineer performed an employee parking study at the corporation year. The parking study, set against current numbers, shows a significant increase in employee on-street parking. Frustrated residents have even resorted to identifying and counting city employee cars, the very activity which so enraged the police officers in question.
Perhaps the greatest deterrent to open dialogue in a neighborhood dispute is the phrase, “I can arrest you.” This statement was repeatedly shouted by Officer Files as he and other BPA members took their demonstration outside council chambers and directed their ire at a single citizen. He only stopped when their conduct was challenged by some of the public who had joined in the yelling match. It is doubtful that any of those young officers stopped to consider the chilling effect such threats and actions have on public discourse and participation.
The officers in question would be quick to state that they were off duty. Yet, when the would-be arresting officer asserted, “I can arrest you,” is this officer then still off duty? Even if officers are technically off the clock, they should never display the kind of conduct witnessed both inside and outside council.
Moreover, this is an inappropriate use of one’s position and should be subject to review. Two years ago, the noted criminal lawyer John Burris spoke in Berkeley about police conduct and civilian review. He stated that the greatest asset to any officer is not the gun, baton, or pepper spray, but the officer’s ability to listen as well as to communicate respectfully.
L.A. Wood
Berkeley
City keep out
Editor:
I find it a little disheartening that the Berkeley City Council has once again stuck its nose where it does not belong and making things just a little bit harder for business owners to run their own businesses as they see fit. Their consideration of an ordinance to ban certain types of cigarette displays is just another sign of the utter insignificance this City Council has to real life problems.
I understand the need for people to want their children not to smoke, and if the city is serious about wanting to stop children from acquiring cigarettes, it would be simpler to send undercover teens into these stores and see if cigarettes are available for sale to them. If it is, fine the business. Why create another silly ordinance to take away the rights of business owners? The argument that certain types of display makes it easier to steal cigarettes is even sillier. Most of the displays I see at convenience stores around Berkeley are located behind the cash register (including the one at the Fast Mart which is discussed in the article). It would take an effort to steal anything from it and if the teens are stealing it, who is the victim, the store or the teen?
Leave the business owners to do what is right. If stealing becomes a problem, they will do something about it.
The only thing more disappointing about this subject was the article itself. The article contains at least 4 intelligent arguments for the ordinance. The only counterpoint available was a “no comment” from convenience store manager located not more than 200 feet from your office. I know of at least 5 stores within that range and not one of them was quoted. Couldn’t you have found at least one owner to quote? I don’t think asking for a semblance of unbiased coverage is too much to ask of a quality newspaper such as yours.
Jim Tamietti
Berkeley
(Editors note: our reporter John Guluardi called a number of business owners in an effort to find an opposing view, but found none. Thanks for stepping forward.)
lion. A full analysis of the services the city provides the university’s extensive, expansive, dense land uses needs to be renewed and include new UC developments. A look at one city project, sewer rehabilitation, may serve to put the issue in perspective.
According to an Aug. 14 Public Works Commission communication to the Planning Commission, deferred sewer maintenance is currently nearly $500 million, double the city’s total annual budget. As the largest single user of the city’s sewer system, UC is contributing $250,000 annually toward repairs as noted in Hegarty’s letter. At that rate, it will take 500 years for UC contributions to fund even twenty-five percent of current sewer repair needs.
If the repairs were done today, as some argue is prudent, what would be the cost per person? If the city paid all the cost, each resident of Berkeley would pay $5,000. On the other hand, if the state were to pay the total bill, the cost for each resident of California would be about $20.
This is only one example of the burdens which seem unreasonably heavy for one small city’s taxpayers. The city and UC both have an interest in good maintenance of the city’s basic services. The city cannot fund these services alone with its severely reduced tax base.
It seems reasonable and fair to request that the state consider taking more responsibility for state institutions, particularly when these are located in dense urban areas where the state institution has displaced many revenue generating land uses and constitutes a comparatively large proportion of the land uses, and thus the demand for services. This does seem fair!
Nancy Holland
Berkeley
841-0214
Editor:
I am writing in response to a recent later to the Editor and a news article, concerning proposed university development in the Southside neighborhood.
The letter from John English, titled “UC must respect the historic district” states that the proposed Centralized Dining and Student Services Building should conform to its historic neighbors and that the university has ignored the concerns of the city committees and commissions and concerned citizens. From my own close involvement with the project I can say this is not true.
Conformity and contextuality in architecture are highly subjective - and controversial matters. One building’s attempt to “blend in” with its neighbors may be seen by some as mimicry or a cartoon of older features and styles. Another building may express an individuality some may feel is intrusive to the surrounding character.
In most cases where a new building is inserted in the midst of older, well-designed neighbors a very careful design process is necessitated. In a neighborhood as rich and varied as the Southside, this process is mandated. This careful process took place in planning the Centralized Dining and Student Services Building, proposed at the center of Bowditch and Channing.
As part of the Underhill Area Master Plan, of which the dining facility is a component, the campus prepared detailed design guidelines for the properties involved, guidelines that called for inclusive designs sensitive to the scale and character of the neighborhood. While the campus does not prescribe a design style when planning a new building, a palette of materials and colors was recommended. Further, the guidelines prescribes a strong relationship of new buildings to the street, building massing broken down to a neighborhood scale, and creating pedestrian-active sidewalks.
The guidelines intent was realized in the new Centralized Dining and Student Services Building. This design was not easy to achieve, as any new building on this site would have its challenges. But the neighborhood building style is quite eclectic. The site’s neighbors include the brown-shingled Anna Head School across the street, the stuccoed Casa Bonita adjacent, a modern apartment building faced with plywood to the north, and the shingled Shorb House diagonally across Channing. No style predominates, and how each “fit in” to each other is a highly relative notion.
The campus Design Review Committee, chaired by Harrison Fraker, Dean of the College of Environmental Design, held numerous meetings to resolve the building’s design and to refine its elements to be a good, albeit modern, neighbor. The massing, fenestration, orientation, and materials (still being developed) have been carefully debated and eventually received a recommendation for approval.
At each meeting I transmitted the comments of the City Design Review Committee and Landmarks Preservation Commission, and the concerns of local citizens; these comments played a constructive role in the buildings evolution.
I have two comments on the Friday, Sept. 29 article “Campus pavilions may be leveled.” In the article, Landmarks Preservation Commission member and BAHA staff Leslie Emmington Jones asks the question, “...Does the southside of campus become a neighborhood community based on the needs of the community or an institutional expansion zone...?”
My first comment is that the Southside is and has been a campus-oriented neighborhood since its initial development in the 19th century. Indeed, the land was once owned by the campus and was sold to finance the nascent College of California, UC’s predecessor. In this neighborhood the university is also “the community.” the notion that the university is not an integral part of this neighborhood belies the fact that 8,000 of the 10,000 residents are students, that the churches, businesses and apartment buildings are here due to the university’s presence, and that the ongoing and celebrated vitality of the neighborhood is due in major part to the university’s presence, reputation, and stature.
My second comment is that we need to transform the seemingly endless debate over the future of the Southside into a true dialogue between campus, city and community. The Southside Plan had true promise when it started out almost three years ago. Campus and city worked effectively as a team gathering information and holding many meetings with community and campus members. The opinions on the direction of future plans were as diverse as Berkeley is today. This process resulted in the Draft Southside plan published last January.
Since then, contrary to the initial agreement between the city and the University, the City Planning Commission has decided to develop its own Southside Plan without the active partnership of the University. The University awaits the results of this effort.
I am hopeful we can find common ground between town and gown, and not create barriers to dialogue or dig into opposing positions. The Southside has traditionally been a place of creativity and toleration. Only if the campus, city and community approach this effort in a spirit of cooperation, rather than confrontation, will it be possible working to create a common vision for the Southside.
David Duncan
Community Planning & Urban Design Manager
Capital Projects
UC Berkeley
Subject:
John Geluardi’s Article for 10/24/00
Date:
Thu, 26 Oct 2000 17:27:05 -0700
From:
Jim Tamietti
Organization:
Environmental News Network
To:
Dear Editor,
I find it a little disheartening that the Berkeley City Council has once again stuck it’s nose where it does not belong and making things just a little bit harder for business owners to run their own businesses as they see fit. Their consideration of an ordinance to ban certain types of cigarette displays is just another sign of the utter insignificance this city council is to real life problems.
I understand the need for people to want their children not to smoke, and if the city is serious about wanting to stop children from acquiring cigarettes, it would be simpler to send undercover teens into these stores and see if cigarettes are available for sale to them. If it is, fine the business. Why create another silly ordinance to take away the rights of business owners? The argument that certain types of display makes it easier to steal cigarettes is even sillier. Most of the displays I see at convenience stores around Berkeley are located behind the cash register (including the one at the Fast Mart which is discussed in the article). It would take an effort to steal anything from it and if the teens are stealing it, who is the victim, the store or the teen?
Leave the business owners to do what is right. If stealing becomes a problem, they will do something about it.
The only thing more disappointing about this subject was the article itself. The article contains at least 4 intelligent argument for the ordinance. The only counterpoint available was a "no comment" from convenience store manager located not more than 200 feet from your office. I know of at least 5 stores within that range and not one of them was quoted. Couldn’t you have found at least one owner to quote? I don’t think asking for a semblance of unbiased coverage is too much to ask of a quality newspaper such as yours.
Jim Tamietti
Berkeley, CA
510-644-3661 ext 20 daytime
510-644-3005 fax
jtamietti@enn.com
