Page One

Letters to the Editor

Tuesday November 07, 2000

Dear readers: to give a fair shot to last-minute letter-writers, we’re trying to include as many election missives as we can. We’ve cut them all, probably evoking equal anger among the writers.  

Judith Scherr, editor. 

 

Yes on V 

Editor: 

If you love your library, as I do, be sure you vote YES on Measure V, which does not raise taxes, but allows the Library to spend the Library Tax. 

If you have been around as long as I have, you remember Proposition 13, which cut library hours and money for books, and devastated city services. We passed the Library Tax to insure that we would have our library, but must renew the tax every four years.  

I love my library because it is the original recycler, providing all those books, magazines, newspapers, and cassettes for us to use and reuse thousands of times. None of us has money to buy or space to store all the information and entertainment we need and want, and our library helps us get what we need.  

Join me in voting YES on V to continue that service.  

Art Serna 

Berkeley 

 

Yes on P 

Editor: 

We all value our library, and want library facilities to be seismically safe and accessible to the disabled, and to have modern computer technology.  

Four years ago, Berkeley voter passed Measure S, to renovate the Central Library and City Hall. 

Our libraries provide outstanding services, and our greatly appreciated by the community. Last spring, Berkeley voters supported Proposition 14, the State Library Bond Act, by an overwhelming 87 percent.  

The State list of libraries needing renovation includes all of Berkeley’s branches. To apply for state renovation funds, we need local matching funds. For those libraries which receive funding, the state would provide 65 percent of construction costs, and local funds would provide the matching 35 percent. Measure P would provide local funds allowing Berkeley to apply for state or other matching funds.  

The library has been accountable in using tax money. Let’s improve our Branch Library facilities by supporting Measure P.  

 

Glen Gilbert 

Berkeley 

 

No on P and V 

Editor: 

The Daily Planet has been a valuable addition to the Berkeley landscape. However, your front page article in last Friday’s edition headlined “Measures P and V will keep Berkeley libraries healthy” makes a mockery of journalism, in my judgment.  

It was not a news article; in was an editorial encouraging voters to tax homeowners to fund a library. City bureaucrats and council members are not ignorant. Elections to heap special taxes on those making mortgage payments are always planned for times when there are the most voters in town when the University is in session.  

The article, artfully states that measure P will cost the average Berkeley property owner about $1 per month. It conveniently omits the cost for Measure V – in my own case, an annual library tax of $312.64. Like the sales tax, these homeowner fees can be highly regressive with no relationship between wealth and income, and an ability to pay,  

Indeed, these tax measures are placed for the most poetic of causes: books, pretty trees and toasty warm swimming pools for the disabled. Never will you see a measure to impose a special tax so that Berkeley can maintain the highest employee/resident ratio in the state.  

 

Bruce McMurray 

Berkeley, 

 

Yes on S & W 

To the Editor: 

The value to a community of parks that are well maintained is incalculable. Clean, inviting open spaces make a town more livable. Many thousands depend on parks for active recreation while others enjoy them for walking or picnicking. Even those who rarely use a park benefit from the urbane beauty it provides to all passers by. 

Now is the chance for Berkeley’s voters to make a real difference in our quality of life. Make sure that all our public open spaces are properly cared for.  

Support our parks. Vote yes on S & W. 

Carol Thornton 

Berkeley 

 

Yes on S & W 

Editor: 

Measures S & W for our parks have an impressive, bipartisan endorsement list that includes Congresswoman Barbara Lee, Assemblymember Dion Aroner, Mayor Shirley Dean, Vice Mayor Maudelle Shirek, and Councilmembers Olds, Worthington, Maio, Breland, Spring, and Armstrong. These parks measures have the support of both the Berkeley Democratic Club and Berkeley Citizens Action, as well as the Cal Berkeley Democrats and the Green Party of Alameda County. 

Perhaps even more telling, they have the enthusiastic support of environmental groups such as the Sierra Club, the Golden Gate Audubon Society, and the Urban Creeks Council of California and volunteer groups such as Berkeley Partners for Parks, the Association of Sports Field Users, Habitot Children’s Museum, and the Albany-Berkeley Soccer Club. 

 

Nancy Carleton 

Chair, Support Our Parks 

 

Vote Nader 

Editor: 

Ralph Nader is not accountable for the politics of George W. Bush and those who chose to vote for him. That is their own choice for what they think we need in this country, just as it is my choice to vote for Nader. I am voting for Nader because he is the only politician who has ever said anything even remotely close to what I feel.  

I am inspired by his words and think that if given the chance he will stand by them. 

I feel the presidential election is there so that we the people can elect a leader to represent us. To chose someone who’s beliefs resemble our own. I can not change by beliefs and in turn I cannot change my vote. Lately as the election draws near I have been receiving an onslaught of opinions from Gore voters claiming that I must vote for Al Gore, for no other reason than to prevent Bush from getting into the white house. I don’t like Bush Jr. just as much as I don’t like  

Bush Sr., but my dislikes have nothing to do with who I think should be president. For far to long the American people have fallen into believing that we have a two party system. The belief runs so deep that even the newspapers refer to “the two candidates” as if there were no one else running.  

 

Isaac Jones 

Berkeley 

 

The problem is not Nader, it’s the system 

Editor: 

A vote for Nader is NOT a vote for Bush. Nader’s candidacy is not the problem, the problem is that in the current system of voting, you can choose one candidate only. The Green Party has been proposing for several years now a system of voting under which you can rank the candidates:you would indicate on the ballot your 1st choice, 2nd choice, 3rd choice etc. 

The candidate who got the least of the 1st choice votes is eliminated and then you examine the 2nd choice votes and you distribute them appropriately to the other candidates according to what was the 2nd choice of each of these votes. 

This procedure is repeated until 1 candidate gets over 50 percent of the vote. This way, if your first choice does not win, your vote still goes to the second choice or third choice. 

Perhaps it is too late to implement this voting system this election. However, Gore could promise that such system will be in case THE NEXT ELECTION. 

Ghaouar Camij Toschian 

Rivera  

Dear Neighbors, 

I am writing to ask for your support in my campaign for re-election to the Berkeley School Board. From the very first day I took office in 1996 I have been working hard to improve Berkeley’s public schools. As a teacher I know what works in the classroom and how to get results. 

That’s why I played a key role in the funding and implementation of the District’s early literacy plan and have pushed for high standards, reliable assessments and genuine accountability. 

As your School Board Director these past four years, this last one as President of the Board, I have focused on the areas of academic quality and student achievement, including: Implementation of the District’s early literacy plan; adoption of world-class, high academic standards in English/Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Sciences and visual and performing Arts; Improvement of services for our English language learners; expansion of after-school programs and approval to teach Algebra to all students in the 8th grade 

Joaquín J. Rivera 

President Berkeley School Board  

Morton 

To my fellow Berkeley Citizens: My name is Sherri Morton and I am an African American parent of three children in the Berkeley Unified School District and a candidate for Berkeley School Board Director. 

I am a hard worker, ask my husband. I am a good mother, ask my children. I am a dedicated fighter, ask my friends. 

I have participated in myriad committees, served as vice-president of the PTA for Cragmont, and was this year president elect. I have made a number of contributions in the BUSD, but what I offer today are tangible results and a desire to continue in the fight for our children. I participated on the Cragmont II/USP (Immediate Intervention for Underperforming Schools Program) to ensure that while the needs of all children were being addressed, the needs of children of color were not neglected. While the target Academic Performance Index goal for our students was a ten-point increase, the actual increase achieved by the African American students was 117 points, and the overall increase was 124 points. These results demonstrate that with a receptive principal, concerned parents, a dedicated staff and community, we can raise the bar for all children.  

Sherri Morton 

School Board Candidate 

 

 

MEASURE Y 

We are seniors living in rented apartments in Berkeley. We are going to vote for Measure Y, and we urge all other voters to do the same. 

Measure Y protects seniors, the disabled, and long term tenants from owner, or owner relative, move-in evictions. 

We have all recently received 2 large slick cards in the mail which try to make us believe that Measure Y helps large landlords and hurts small ‘mom and pop’ owners. 

This is outrageous. These cards say, in very small letters, that they are paid for by ‘No on Y’. They do not give the name and address of the sender, which is required by law. But we do  

know that the ‘No on Y’ Campaign Committee is primarily financed, to the tune of more than $60,000, by the large landlords and Real Estate interests themselves! There is apparently no limit to the election deceptions and frauds of the 

Large landlords! 

Laurence Harris  

Frances Rachel  

Helen Lima, same,  

 

 

P&V 

The Daily Planet has been a valuable addition to the Berkeley landscape. However, your front page article in last Friday’s edition headlined “Measures P and V will keep Berkeley libraries healthy” makes a mockery of journalism, in my judgment.  

It was not a news article; in was an editorial encouraging voters to tax homeowners to fund a library. City bureaucrats and council members are not ignorant. Elections to heap special taxes on those making mortgage payments are always planned for times when there are the most voters in town when the University is in session.  

The article, artfully states that measure P will cost the average Berkeley property owner about $1 per month. It conveniently omits the cost for Measure V – in my own case, an annual library tax of $312.64. Like the sales tax, these homeowner fees can be highly regressive with no relationship between wealth and income, and an ability to pay,  

Indeed, these tax measures are placed for the most poetic of causes: books, pretty trees and toasty warm swimming pools for the disabled. Never will you see a measure to impose a special tax so that Berkeley can maintain the highest employee/resident ratio in the state.  

 

Bruce McMurray 

 

Berkeley, 

 

 

Measure Y 

 

Editor: 

I have been a renter in Berkeley for close to eighteen years, a community activist and former City of Berkeley employee. Measure Y on the upcoming ballot is an initiative that has the potential to make it better for all renters and will not affect small landlords. It was deeply disturbing to read the misrepresentations, half-truths, and blatant falsehoods in the “No on Measure Y” pieces that hit the mail this weekend. First of all, the direct mail piece is illegal since it carries no address or ID number for the "No on Y" as mandated by the State Elections guidelines. Next, the people represented in the various mailers are not in fact real Berkeley citizens, but actors poising as the personalities depicted in the pieces.  

Fact: Measure Y protects senior and people with disabilities who are renters! If Measure Y passes, tenants who are 60 years or older and have lived on the property for 5 years or are disabled and have lived on the property for 5 years cannot be evicted. The current law allows landlords to evict senior and people with disabilities who are tenants.  

The opposition’s reasoning that passage of Measure Y causes a loss of Berkeley rental units is about as logical as a starving person refusing food. The only way for rental units to go down is if landlords stop renting their units. Hello, does anyone think that landlords are going to stop renting units because of Measure Y? Hardly, landlords will continue to rent units at their inflated prices, but once Measure Y passes, they won’t be able to unfairly evict tenants who have been occupying units for 5 years under the guise of owner move in for a short period of time and then jack up the rent. 

Fact: Landlords who own 3 or fewer residential rental units in Berkeley and own no other residential rental units in Berkeley are exempted from Measure Y. Fact: A majority of No on Measure Y campaign contributions have come from parties OUTSIDE of Berkeley. $15,000 of the $54,643 raised against Measure Y was donated by the Issues Mobilization Political Action Committee, based in Sacramento is more than the total funds most City Council candidates have. Yes on Measure Y is a community based grassroots effort with contributions from people who live and work in Berkeley. 

 

Angela L. Johnson 

Long-time Berkeley resident  

 

36 not the answer 

 

Editor: 

California’s Proposition 36 has merit in that it will lower the number of people unjustly persecuted from going to jail. This proposition would also aid the state’s mental health providers. Where it fails is it implies anyone who uses drugs needs rehabilitation. 

Although it is the right direction it stops far too short. It is right to stop people from unknowingly hurting themselves, but it is unethical to deny them their civil liberties. What makes one happy is determined by ones own personal feelings and tastes. Truthfully, this decision should not be for anyone to decide but themselves. Intervention is necessary if the individual is clearly a danger to him or herself, the same as with any other mental illness. If the individual competently knows the dangers and accepts that risk, the decision is in their hands. It is acceptable to take risk doing many other activities that are potentially hazardous, so how is it unacceptable to use something proven safe? Drugs are not dangerous when used correctly. Education is the best way tostop drug abuse.  

 

Jim Jarboe,  

Berkeley 

 

 

Yes on all but C 

 

Editor; 

Berkeley voters have many city, county and school ballot measures to vote on. May I suggest an easy way to differentiate the good from the bad and the ugly. Please vote yes on A to Z except for C. THANK YOU.  

 

Kriss Worthington 

Berkeley 

 

Gore and Bush are different 

 

Editor: 

The current edition of Newsweek has an article by Jonathan Alter highly critical of Ralph Nader for “by refusing to admit there are deep differences between Al Gore and George W. Bush, by clinging to this emotionally satisfying but factually inaccurate notion of a “DemRep Party,” Nader is squandering his most precious asset-his intellectual honesty.”  

“Start with the environment, which the Green Party is supposed to be about. Beyond his support for gun control, why is Gore in such trouble in a state like West Virginia? Because he won’t roll over for the coal and chemical industries that run the state. They know he is the most serious environmentalist ever to run for president..... The Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth.........have enthusiastically endorsed Gore over a GOP candidate who argued in Texas that compliance with clean-air standards should be “voluntary.”  

“Or take campaign-finance reform, the signature issue of many Naderites. A recent poll showed that voters actually thought Bush would be better on that issue than Gore, though Bush opposes reform and Gore supports it.” 

Nader voters are under the illusion that a Bush era is somehow harmless to them-a mere interlude to rally their cause.  

 

Sig Cohn  

Berkeley 

 

 

Letter-writer does not understand 

Editor: 

I read Michael Larrick’s, “Vote no on school bonds,” (11/6/00) and as a parent who has worked actively in Berkeley schools for the past 6 years, I was offended.  

He trashes the schools, the district, and in effect all of us who work so hard for our schools and our community, but in six years I don't recall ever hearing his name or seeing him raise his hand in all of those meetings, where we have been working so hard to improve our children's schools. He talks about the billions of dollars spent on education as though it all goes to Berkeley students.  

He refers to State & Federal funds as though they are enough to pave the streets with gold. We have in California more students than any other state. And we spend less per child than most other states.  

I sat on the Superintendent's Blue Ribbon Committee on the Budget last year, and I don't remember the letter-writer offering solutions there either, 

The message, “Vote No On Education” is shallow and offensive. 

Mark a. Coplan 

President, Berkeley PTA Council 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Editor 

California’s Proposition 36 has merit in that it will lower the number of people unjustly persecuted from going to jail. This proposition would also aid the state’s mental health providers. Where it fails is it implies anyone who uses drugs needs rehabilitation. 

Although it is the right direction it stops far too short. It is right to stop people from unknowingly hurting themselves, but it is unethical to deny them their civil liberties. What makes one happy is determined by ones own personal feelings and tastes. Truthfully, this decision should not be for anyone to decide but themselves. Intervention is necessary if the individual is clearly a danger to him or herself, the same as with any other mental illness. If the individual competently knows the dangers and accepts that risk, the decision is in their hands. It is acceptable to take risk doing many other activities that are potentially hazardous, so how is it unacceptable to use something proven safe? Drugs are not dangerous when used correctly. 

Education is the best way to stop drug abuse. 

 

Jim Jarboe, Berkeley 

 

 

Dear Editor; 

Berkeley voters have many city, county and school ballot measures to vote on. May I suggest an easy way to differentiate the good from the bad and the ugly. Please vote yes on A to Z except for C. THANK YOU.  

Kriss Worthington 

Berkeley 

 

To the Editor: 

 

The value to a community of parks that are well maintained is incalculable. Clean, inviting open spaces make a town more livable. Many thousands depend on parks for active recreation while others enjoy them for walking or picnicking. Even those who rarely use a park benefit from the urbane beauty it provides to all passers by. 

Now is the chance for Berkeley’s voters to make a real difference in our quality of life. Make sure that all our public open spaces are properly cared for.  

 

Support our parks. Vote yes on S & W. 

Carol Thornton 

Berkeley 

 

 

Editor: 

Ralph Nader is not accountable for the politics of George W. Bush and those who chose to  

vote for him. That is their own choice for what they think we need in this country, just as it is  

my choice to vote for Nader. I am voting for Nader because he is the only politician who has ever said anything even remotely close to what I feel.  

I am inspired by his words and think that if given the chance he will stand by them. 

I feel the presidential election is there so that we the people can elect a leader to represent  

us. To chose someone who’s beliefs resemble our own. I can not change by beliefs and in turn I can not change my vote. Lately as the election draws near I have been receiving an onslaught of opinions from Gore voters claiming that I must vote for Al Gore, for no other reason than to  

prevent Bush from getting into the white house. I don’t like Bush Jr. just as much as I don’t like  

Bush Sr., but my dislikes have nothing to do with who I think should be president. For far to long the American people have fallen into believing that we have a two party system. The belief runs so deep that even the newspapers refer to “the two candidates” as if there were no one else running.  

 

Sincerely,  

Isaac Jones 

Berkeley 

 

 

 

 

Ghaouar Camij Toschian  

 

A vote for Nader is NOT a vote for Bush. Nader’s candidacy is not the problem, the problem is that in the current system of voting, you can choose 1 candidate only. The green party has been proposing for several years now a system of voting under which you can rank the candidates:you would indicate on the ballot your 1st choice, 2nd choice, 3rd choice etc. 

If any candidate x1 gets over 50% of the 1st choice vote, x1 wins. 

The candidate who got the least of the 1st choice votes is eliminated and then you examine the 2nd choice votes and you distribute them appropriately to the other candidates according to what was the 2nd choice of each of these votes. 

This procedure is repeated until 1 candidate gets over 50% of the vote. 

This way, if your 1st choice does not win, your vote still goes to the 2nd 

choice or 3rd choice. 

 

Perhaps it is too late to implement this voting system this election. However, 

Gore could promise that such system will be in case THE NEXT ELECTION. 

Ghaouar Camij Toschian 

 

Editor: 

 

Measures S & W for our parks have an impressive, bipartisan endorsement list that includes Congresswoman Barbara Lee, Assemblymember Dion Aroner, Mayor Shirley Dean, Vice Mayor Maudelle Shirek, and Councilmembers Olds, Worthington, Maio, Breland, Spring, and Armstrong. These parks measures have the support of both the Berkeley Democratic Club and Berkeley Citizens Action, as well as the Cal Berkeley Democrats and the Green Party of Alameda County. 

Perhaps even more telling, they have the enthusiastic support of environmental groups such as the Sierra Club, the Golden Gate Audubon Society, and the Urban Creeks Council of California and volunteer groups such as Berkeley Partners for Parks, the Association of Sports Field Users, Habitot Children’s Museum, and the Albany-Berkeley Soccer Club. 

 

Nancy Carleton 

Chair, Support Our Parks 

Past President, Berkeley Partners for Parks 

 

 

 

Dear Neighbors, 

I am writing to ask for your support in my campaign for re-election to the Berkeley School Board. From the very first day I took office in 1996 I have been working hard to improve Berkeley’s public schools. As a teacher I know what works in the classroom and how to get results. 

That’s why I played a key role in the funding and implementation of the District’s early literacy plan and have pushed for high standards, reliable assessments and genuine accountability. 

As your School Board Director these past four years, this last one as President of the Board, I have focused on the areas of academic quality and student achievement, including: Implementation of the District’s early literacy plan; adoption of world-class, high academic standards in English/Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Sciences and visual and performing Arts; Improvement of services for our English language learners; expansion of after-school programs and approval to teach Algebra to all students in the 8th grade 

I would be very honored to have your vote on Tuesday. Thanks in advance 

for your support. 

Joaquín J. Rivera, President Berkeley School Board and Candidate for 

re-election 

 

 

Editor: 

The current edition of Newsweek has an article by Jonathan Alter highly critical of Ralph Nader for “by refusing to admit there are deep differences between Al Gore and George W. Bush, by clinging to this emotionally satisfying but factually inaccurate notion of a “DemRep Party,” Nader is squandering his most precious asset-his intellectual honesty.”  

“Start with the environment, which the Green Party is supposed to be about. Beyond his support for gun control, why is Gore in such trouble in a state like West Virginia? Because he won’t roll over for the coal and chemical industries that run the state. They know he is the most serious environmentalist ever to run for president..... The Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth.........have enthusiastically endorsed Gore over a GOP candidate who argued in Texas that compliance with clean-air standards should be “voluntary.”  

“Or take campaign-finance reform, the signature issue of many Naderites. A recent poll showed that voters actually thought Bush would be better on that issue than Gore, though Bush opposes reform and Gore supports  

it.”..........  

“Nader voters are under the illusion that a Bush era is somehow  

harmless to them-a mere interlude to rally their cause.  

Sig Cohn  

Berkeley 

 

MEASURE Y 

We are seniors living in rented apartments in Berkeley. We are going to vote for Measure Y, and we urge all other voters to do the same. 

Measure Y protects seniors, the disabled, and long term tenants from owner, or owner relative, move-in evictions. 

We have all recently received 2 large slick cards in the mail which try to make us believe that Measure Y helps large landlords and hurts small ‘mom and pop’ owners. 

This is outrageous. These cards say, in very small letters, that they are paid for by ‘No on Y’. They do not give the name and address of the sender, which is required by law. But we do  

know that the ‘No on Y’ Campaign Committee is primarily financed, to the tune of more than $60,000, by the large landlords and Real Estate interests themselves! There is apparently no limit to the election deceptions and frauds of the 

Large landlords! 

Laurence Harris  

Berkeley 

Frances Rachel  

Helen Lima, same,  

 

P&V 

The Daily Planet has been a valuable addition to the Berkeley landscape. However, your front page article in last Friday’s edition headlined “Measures P and V will keep Berkeley libraries healthy” makes a mockery of journalism, in my judgment.  

It was not a news article; in was an editorial encouraging voters to tax homeowners to fund a library. City bureaucrats and council members are not ignorant. Elections to heap special taxes on those making mortgage payments are always planned for times when there are the most voters in town when the University is in session.  

The article, artfully states that measure P will cost the average Berkeley property owner about $1 per month. It conveniently omits the cost for Measure V – in my own case, an annual library tax of $312.64. Like the sales tax, these homeowner fees can be highly regressive with no relationship between wealth and income, and an ability to pay,  

Indeed, these tax measures are placed for the most poetic of causes: books, pretty trees and toasty warm swimming pools for the disabled. Never will you see a measure to impose a special tax so that Berkeley can maintain the highest employee/resident ratio in the state.  

 

Bruce McMurray 

 

Berkeley, 

 

 

 

 

 

To my fellow Berkeley Citizens: 

My name is Sherri Morton and I am an African American parent of three children in the Berkeley Unified School District and a candidate for Berkeley School Board Director. 

I am a hard worker, ask my husband. I am a good mother, ask my children. I am a dedicated fighter, ask my friends. 

I have participated in a myriad of committees, served as vice-president of the PTA for Cragmont, and was this year president elect. I have made a number of contributions in the BUSD, but what I offer today are tangible results and a desire to continue in the fight for our children. I participated on the Cragmont II/USP (Immediate Intervention for Underperforming Schools Program) to ensure that while the needs of all children were being addressed, the needs of children of color were not neglected. While the target Academic Performance Index goal for our students was a ten-point increase, the actual increase achieved by the African American students was 117 points, and the overall increase was 124 points. These results demonstrate that with a receptive principal, concerned parents, a dedicated staff and community, we can raise the bar for all children.  

I am interested in working for the community as a whole and for those students that are underperforming in particular. I joined this race as a  

concerned parent, and have remained in this race, despite the politics, for  

the same reason. I am by choice, by nature and by design an active parent  

and an advocate for all children, particularly children of color. I ask for  

your vote. Thank you. 

Sherri Morton 

 

Please remember to support measures AA and BB, and vote no on proposition 38. 

 

 

November 4, 2000 

 

Dear Editor: 

 

I have been a renter in Berkeley for close to eighteen years, a community activist and former City of Berkeley employee. Measure Y on the upcoming ballot is an initiative that has the potential to make it better for all renters and will not affect small landlords. It was deeply disturbing to read the misrepresentations, half-truths, and blatant falsehoods in the "No on Measure Y" pieces that hit the mail this weekend. First of all, the direct mail piece is illegal since it carries no address or ID number for the "No on Y" as mandated by the State Elections guidelines. Next, the people represented in the various mailers are not in fact real Berkeley citizens, but actors poising as the personalities depicted in the pieces.  

 

It’s so important NOT TO BE FOOLED by such despicable tactics of tokenism, window dressing of putting people in wheelchairs (and a disable vet no less), and portrayals of inaccurate situations in ads to obscure the real facts. Let’s review the facts, shall we? 

 

Fact: Measure Y protects senior and people with disabilities who are renters! If Measure Y passes, tenants who are 60 years or older and have lived on the property for 5 years or are disabled and have lived on the property for 5 years cannot be evicted. The current law allows landlords to evict senior and people with disabilities who are tenants.  

 

The opposition claims, "Measure Y will hurt renters", I don’t see how protecting seniors and people with disabilities can hurt renters. In addition to the fact that there are housing discrimination laws against seniors and people with disabilities. Measure Y is supported by senior housing groups such as tenants at the Redwood Gardens and Strawberry Creek housing complexes and advocates for people with disabilities such as Miya Rodolfo-Sioson, Chair of the Commission on Disabilities. 

 

The opposition’s reasoning that passage of Measure Y causes a loss of Berkeley rental units is about as logical as a starving person refusing food. The only way for rental units to go down is if landlords stop renting their units. Hello, does anyone think that landlords are going to stop renting units because of Measure Y? Hardly, landlords will continue to rent units at their inflated prices, but once Measure Y passes, they won’t be able to unfairly evict tenants who have been occupying units for 5 years under the guise of owner move in for a short period of time and then jack up the rent. 

 

Fact: Landlords who own 3 or fewer residential rental units in Berkeley and own no other residential rental units in Berkeley are exempted from Measure Y. The opposition claims that "Measure Y only affects small owners" this couldn’t be farther from the truth. Measure Y assures single family homeowners and small landlords are not restricted from moving in to their homes. 

Fact: A majority of No on Measure Y campaign contributions have come from parties OUTSIDE of Berkeley. $15,000 of the $54,643 raised against Measure Y 

was donated by the Issues Mobilization Political Action Committee, based in Sacramento is more than the total funds most City Council candidates have. Yes on Measure Y is a community based grassroots effort with contributions from people who live and work in Berkeley. 

 

The argument that Measure Y is hard on landlords is bogus and insulting. Measure Y does not prevent a landowner from moving into their own property, but it does limit landlords who have other options because they own other units or other rental property from evicting long term, senior or people with disabilities in order to take advantage of skyrocketing rents at the expense of tenants who have lived in units for 5 or more years.  

 

Quite frankly I’m a little sick and tired of hearing how hard it is for people who have the privilege (and luxury) of owning property to rent units in Berkeley. Give me a break! Yes, people who own property have rights, but they shouldn’t have the right to evict someone from their home of years just because they want to greedily take advantage of the booming economy and make a fast buck by kicking out someone who has made their unit a home for years and is paying a lower rent. Remember, there was Costa Hawkins that set rents at fair market value (and instituted substantial increases), so landlords can hardly cry foul.  

 

Here are some more facts, the average market unit prices between January 1999 and July 2000 for a studio is $745; the average rent for a unit that has not had a vacancy since January 1996 is $512. The average market unit price between January 1999 and July 2000 for a one bedroom is $995; the average rent for a unit that has not had a vacancy since January 1996 is $602. For a two bedroom the figures are $1,367 and $748 respectively; and $1,745 and $1,068 for a three bedroom. Needless to say, without Measure Y, some landlords (the money-grubbing, absentee large landlords) would have the economic incentive to evict long-term tenants from their homes in order to rent units at markedly higher rents. We need Measure Y to protect tenants who have lived in their homes for 5 years or more; who are seniors or a person with disability. 

 

Read the City Attorney’s summary in the Voter Information Pamphlet and get the straight story. Don’t be fooled, vote with the people of Berkeley, not outside interest and large landlords who do not want to place any limitations on evictions. I encourage all renters including long and short term tenants, students, senior, people with disabilities, and small "mom and pop" landlords to get out and vote YES ON MEASURE Y! 

 

Angela L. Johnson 

Long-time Berkeley resident  

 

6 not the answer 

 

Editor: 

California’s Proposition 36 has merit in that it will lower the number of people unjustly persecuted from going to jail. This proposition would also aid the state’s mental health providers. Where it fails is it implies anyone who uses drugs needs rehabilitation. 

Although it is the right direction it stops far too short. It is right to stop people from unknowingly hurting themselves, but it is unethical to deny them their civil liberties. What makes one happy is determined by ones own personal feelings and tastes. Truthfully, this decision should not be for anyone to decide but themselves. Intervention is necessary if the individual is clearly a danger to him or herself, the same as with any other mental illness. If the individual competently knows the dangers and accepts that risk, the decision is in their hands. It is acceptable to take risk doing many other activities that are potentially hazardous, so how is it unacceptable to use something proven safe? Drugs are not dangerous when used correctly. Education is the best way tostop drug abuse.  

 

Jim Jarboe,  

Berkeley 

 

 

Yes on all but C 

 

Editor; 

Berkeley voters have many city, county and school ballot measures to vote on. May I suggest an easy way to differentiate the good from the bad and the ugly. Please vote yes on A to Z except for C. THANK YOU.  

 

Kriss Worthington 

Berkeley 

 

Gore and Bush are different 

 

Editor: 

The current edition of Newsweek has an article by Jonathan Alter highly critical of Ralph Nader for “by refusing to admit there are deep differences between Al Gore and George W. Bush, by clinging to this emotionally satisfying but factually inaccurate notion of a “DemRep Party,” Nader is squandering his most precious asset-his intellectual honesty.”  

“Start with the environment, which the Green Party is supposed to be about. Beyond his support for gun control, why is Gore in such trouble in a state like West Virginia? Because he won’t roll over for the coal and chemical industries that run the state. They know he is the most serious environmentalist ever to run for president..... The Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth.........have enthusiastically endorsed Gore over a GOP candidate who argued in Texas that compliance with clean-air standards should be “voluntary.”  

“Or take campaign-finance reform, the signature issue of many Naderites. A recent poll showed that voters actually thought Bush would be better on that issue than Gore, though Bush opposes reform and Gore supports it.” 

Nader voters are under the illusion that a Bush era is somehow harmless to them-a mere interlude to rally their cause.  

 

Sig Cohn  

Berkeley 

 

 

Letter-writer does not understand 

Editor: 

I read Michael Larrick’s, “Vote no on school bonds,” (11/6/00) and as a parent who has worked actively in Berkeley schools for the past 6 years, I was offended.  

He trashes the schools, the district, and in effect all of us who work so hard for our schools and our community, but in six years I don't recall ever hearing his name or seeing him raise his hand in all of those meetings, where we have been working so hard to improve our children's schools. He talks about the billions of dollars spent on education as though it all goes to Berkeley students.  

He refers to State & Federal funds as though they are enough to pave the streets with gold. We have in California more students than any other state. And we spend less per child than most other states.  

I sat on the Superintendent's Blue Ribbon Committee on the Budget last year, and I don't remember the letter-writer offering solutions there either, 

The message, “Vote No On Education” is shallow and offensive. 

Mark a. Coplan 

President, Berkeley PTA Council