Page One
An open letter to the Board of Education
Editor:
I am writing to follow up on the appeal I made to the School Board last night to take a leadership position in addressing the health issue of overly heavy backpacks and their potential for causing serious, permanent injury to our children's bodies. I am requesting that the Board place this item on the agenda for the next School Board meeting and following meetings as necessary, and that this district-wide problem be addressed in a new Board Policy as quickly as possible.
The student-parent protest at Longfellow Wednesday morning was a great educational experience for students. They weighed their backpacks, helped each other calculate their backpack's proportion of their body weight, and learned that a 15 percent or greater proportion puts them at risk for serious, lifelong, spinal, neck, and shoulder problems. They took a brief survey asking if they think their backpacks are too heavy; if they've had to see a doctor because of their backpacks; if they would use lockers or a locked room if it were available to store their things during the day; if they would use a camel, elephant, llama or horse to carry their backpacks if they were available at school; if their parents or teachers could lift and carry their backpack; and what ideas they have for solving the heavy backpack problem. 22 students took the survey; 13 had backpacks weighing 15 percent or more of their body weight. More students will participate in the survey when the weekly, parent-produced Longfellow MiniNews runs it in the next couple of weeks. Both the Berkeley Daily Planet and West Contra Costa Times ran excellent stories and photos about the protest today; the Voice may also have a story in tomorrow's paper.
I suggest that students and their families affected by this problem be given opportunities for input, both to determine how widespread the problem is and to find out what their suggestions might be, in order to find workable solutions. I suggest that the School Site Council "Safety Committee" at each school be used to gather data and input at the site level by surveying the students and families in meetings, via print surveys, in school newsletters, etc. This data can be quickly gathered and will help the District and individual schools come up with solutions.
Lockers are not the only possible solution to this health problem, and I have never suggested that. Many people are suggesting them. But my point is that there are a variety of solutions out there; what we need to do is to quickly identify and implement them. In the last couple of days I have heard some very creative solutions suggested by parents and students alike including:
•Creating backpack check rooms (like luggage check rooms)
•Subsidizing rolling backpacks for kids who walk to school
•Offering transportation to kids who live closer than a mile to school heightening the teaching staff's awareness, so that, for example, they might stop requiring students to bring every piece of paper the class has generated since the beginning of the school year with them to class every day
•Getting textbook publishers to offer free access on the internet, and making sure all students have internet access at home purchasing textbooks that are published in sections to lighten the load.
I suggest that the Board act quickly on this issue, before the District becomes the target of many individual lawsuits or a class action lawsuit by families who are incurring medical and other expenses and damages due to this problem. I'm sure the District would rather spend its money on things other than lawsuits.
I know that we can solve this problem together with and for our children. The PTA Council will be drafting a Resolution for the California State PTA and National PTA on this issue. I would be happy to help work on solving his problem and to discuss any part of this issue with the School Board. My email address is cpapermaster2@home.com.
Cynthia Papermaster
Berkeley
An open letter to police chief
and city officials
Editor:
I am writing with serious concern regarding the safety of your officers, and the public at large.
On a recent evening while having a personal conversation with two citizens at the northwest corner of Durant and Telegraph, we observed one of your bicycle patrol officers repeatedly travelling past us in both directions on the roadway of Telegraph, which is a one-way street.
The young woman who was present politely called out a warning that the officer was violating the California Vehicle Code. The officer then stopped in the middle of the street and politely informed us that the Berkeley Municipal Code grants an exception for his behavior. The officer stated that he had been told this by the city.
The woman present clarified for him that such was true for emergencies, but that he was obviously not on an emergency call (which he agreed with).
I then notified the officer that while the Berkeley Municipal Code does grant an exception to police officers for riding bicycles on sidewalks "who determine in good faith that riding or operating a bicycle on the sidewalk is necessary to perform official duties" (B.M.C. 14.68.130c), that there is no such exception granted (and none possible) with regards to travelling the wrong way on the roadway of a one-way street on a non-emergency basis.
I emphasized that I was not suggesting that such behavior was necessarily unsafe if done responsibly by an experienced cyclist. However, I expressed my sincere concern that he had been misled, and that were he to be struck by a motorcar, he would be considered at fault. This is the same risk that cyclists face every day when they try to make the best of a legal system and streets system that has been generally designed without regard for the needs of our most healthy and safe vehicular mode, the bicycle.
I have frequently complained about the lack of knowledge (and frequently, the lack of sensitivity) that Berkeley Police officers have of the rights and responsibilities of bicyclists and pedestrians. In this case, it is clear that the officers themselves are being put in danger. In other cases, citizens suffer when false citations are issued, false orders are given, or police reports falsely fault a bicyclist or pedestrian who has been stuck by a motorcar.
The city has a responsibility to educate its officers as to the rights and responsibilities of bicyclists and pedestrians.
Such education is recommended by our Bicycle Plan.
Such education was also recommended by bicycle advocates in a series of recent meetings held with representatives of the Berkeley Police Department, the Bicycle-Friendly Berkeley Coalition, the Bicycle Civil Liberties Union, and participants of critical mass (including myself), mediated by a staff member of the Police Review Commission.
I and others were very troubled to hear the BPD representative, Captain Pittman, say that motor vehicles are not a public safety hazard and require no special attention from police. He further claimed that his officers did not need any education regarding the rights and responsibilities of bicyclists and pedestrians. His primary, explicit goal was to shut down or control the local monthly critical mass ride, without doing anything about the massive everyday critical mass of cars we call "rush hour,” although the number of hours increases each year.
Since that time, many people are reporting an increased instance of citations of bicyclists, including a disabled man using his bicycle as a crutch on the sidewalk, and people locking bicycles to parking meters. While increased enforcement is recommended in the bicycle plan, education for bicyclists, reducing the fines for bicycle violations, education for police officers, creating an infrastructure that accomodates bicycles safely, and creating a bicycle diversion program (education not inCARceration) are also recommended there. So why jump directly to enforcement unless you want to persecute and punish people simply for trying to do something healthy and kind, riding a bicycle?
On top of this, our city has been issuing illegal misdemeanor tickets for "riding" on sidewalks and parking to parking meters. Why should the punishment for such actions be so much more severe than the punishment for a motorcar that blasts through a stop sign? Unless the message is that Berkeley hates bicycling, and will do whatever it can get away with to rid the streets of these lifesaving vehicles.
The City should IMMEDIATELY take proactive steps to correct these injustices. No officer should be lied to or endangered by misinformation. No citizen should be persecuted illegally or legally for choosing to ride a bicycle for the benefit of us all.
Jason Meggs,
Director
Bicycle Civil Liberties Union
Not all landlords are ‘profiteers’
Editor:
Congratulations to the Daily Planet for its excellent coverage of last week’s public hearing on the Draft General Plan (DGP), including landlords’ en masse presentations. Chairman Rob Wrenn’s subsequent dismissal of “the myth of the wealthy tenant” was, however, quite misleading if it is not accompanied by an even stronger rejection of two other myths which permeate Berkeley’s thinking on the subject of rental housing. We refer to the popular misconceptions that tenants, as a group, are poor and exploited,while all landlords are wealthy profiteers, tainted somehow by the fact that they own rentals. The truth, of course, lies somewhere in the middle of this muddle of myths.
The shortage of rental housing forces prices up – in Berkeley as elsewhere in the Bay Area. The way to bring them down is to increase supply, which could be accomplished by encouraging development and investment. Instead, the DGP offers a Ponzi scheme with the City buying up 6,500 rental units to keep them “affordable.” Where will it get the money for such an acquisition, and how would that increase the supply of rentals?
Peggy Schioler
Berkeley
