Page One

Gaia higher  

Editor:  

For several months this past fall and winter, I wondered what was under the huge black shroud that dominated the skyline east of Shattuck Ave. in downtown Berkeley.  

A few weeks ago, the shroud was removed, and lo and behold, there was the steel framework for the much discussed “GAIA Building” rising several stories above everything around it.  

My recollection was that after strong opposition from preservationists, the City Council has approved an 87 foot structure, on the condition that a “cultural center” be located at street level.  

Well, it turns out the developer, Patrick Kennedy of Piedmont, has managed, with the concurrence and connivance of the Zoning Department, to raise the height of the building to 116 feet, or 11 stories, far above what the permit allows, and far above what the majority of Berkeley citizens want to see downtown.  

What we now have are several upper-level lofts, two offices, and a two-story elevator tower that are not in the permit, and a “mezzanine” above the ground floor retail area that exceeds the state building code.  

On top of this, there is no obligation at this point that any type of cultural center will actually occupy street-level space, as the GAIA bookstore, which was to serve this purpose, is out of business.  

How the City Council and the Zoning Department let this brazen developer get away with all these violations would make an interesting story, especially when any attempt to raise the height limits downtown has repeatedly met with strong, broadbased opposition from Berkeley residents.  

Could it be that Berkeley is like many other places and Mr. Kennedy’s contributions to a number of City Council campaigns is keeping our guardians of the public trust quiet?  

Art Goldberg 

Berkeley 

Berkeley votes for those who support rent control 

Editor:  

In their respective op-ed letters assailing the City of Berkeley Draft General Plan’s (DGP) inclusion of language supporting the city’s 20 year-old, voter-approved Rent Stabilization Ordinance, both Peggy Schioler ( “Increased Supply Will Solve Housing Woes,” March 9) and Frank Davis, Jr. ( “city Must Not Include Rent Control in Plan,” March 13) demonstrate that they are dramatically out of touch with the overwhelming majority of Berkeley citizens.  

In criticizing the DGP, Ms. Schioler and Mr. Davis ignore reality: Since 1994, Berkeley voters have elected commanding affordable housing majorities to the city’s Rent Stabilization Board.  

Affordable housing candidate slates have won the last four consecutive Rent Board election contests. The DGP’s language simply reflects this fact, and the mandate of Berkeley’s citizens.  

In defending her rental property owner group’s efforts to expunge DGP Rent Ordinance language, Ms. Schioler - an unsuccessful, real estate industry-backed Rent Board candidate - insists it is a “popular misconception” that Berkeley tenants are low income. Ms. Schioler’s statement is factually inaccurate.  

According to the 1990 U.S. Census, Berkeley’s median yearly tenant household income was $19,500. By any reasonable standard, this figure would be considered very low income. For comparison, Berkeley’s median yearly owner-occupied household income was about $50,000 (these respective figures, relative to 1990, will increase upon release of the 2000 U.S. Census data).  

Ms. Schioler also criticizes the DGP’s goal of constructing, rehabilitating and/or purchasing 6,500 affordable rental units over the next decade or so to confront the city’s unprecedented affordable housing crisis. She asks where the city will acquire the funds for this critical goal.  

One potential source is a small percentage of the enormous windfall profits that large rental property/real estate firms and companies operating in Berkeley have reaped since 1996 (when the state Costa-Hawkins rental vacancy decontrol law became effective).  

Increasing the city’s business license tax by a modest one percent on real estate firms owning large rental unit buildings would generate millions of affordable housing dollars over several years.  

Chris Kavanagh 

Berkeley 

Move for Berkeley power not new 

Editor: 

The modern history of public power in Berkeley dates to a proposal by the late Dr. Walter E. Packard, a reclamation expert. In 1965 he requested that the City Council investigate the feasibility of acquiring the electrical distribution facilities of PG&E. 

City Manager John Phillips then drew up Reports No. 65-514 and No. 66-19, both of which favored the Packard proposal. On February 15, 1966, further discussion of the matter was scuttled abruptly by a vote of the Council, which was unanimous except for one absent member. Mr. Phillips shortly thereafter resigned to accept a similar post at Pasadena, a city which already had public power. 

Angered by the cavalier treatment of the power issue by elected officials, the three candidates running for the Council in March, 1967, under the banner of the Community for New Politics, advocated an immediate feasibility study of take-over of PG&E.  

While none of these three were elected, the power issue surfaced again in the early seventies via two successive voter initiatives that would force the Council to launch the feasibility report. The second of these lost only by the absentee ballot.  

In a speech before an executive seminar in Santa Barbara on February 27, 1975, Richard A. Clarke, an official of PG&E, revealed some of the methods used to turn back the threat of municipalization. A purloined copy of the speech inspired an article "How to Steal an Election", which appeared in a small local newspaper (Grassroots, May 19-June 1, 1976).  

The matter of public power lay dormant in Berkeley for the next quarter of a century. However, with the revelation that PG&E has been sending profits to a holding company while claiming bankruptcy, the prospect of yet another bailout, and the threat of escalating rates, the issue has experienced something of a recrudescence.  

By the narrowest of margins the Berkeley City Council on March 20 of this year voted funds to accelerate examination of the merits of public power. 

Ratepayers and taxpayers are once more aroused and are starting to wonder why it is so difficult to stimulate the interest of elected officials in public power, a community asset of proven value.  

J. B. Neilands 

Berkeley 

Conflict  

of interest 

The Daily Planet received this letter directed to the Fair Campaign Practice Commission.  

I am writing to bring to your attention unfair campaign practices by City Councilmembers Margaret Breland and Maudelle Shirek.  

Margaret Breland and Maudelle Shirek each had campaign headquarters at 2517 Sacramento St. (formerly the address of the Outback Clothiers), from September through November, 2000. I have two separate issues concerning this:  

• Shirek reported no rent payment for her use of this space. Breland reported rent only for September. This property is owned by developer Ali Kashani. Considering the great amount of business Mr. Kashani does with the city of Berkeley, this constitutes an unfair campaign practice.  

• Having taken contributions-in-kind in the form of free rent from Kashani, I believe that Breland and Shirek were obligated to recuse themselves from the vote on the HUD Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program, Item 60, on the Berkeley City Council Agenda of Tuesday, March 20, 2001. Kashani is site owner and developer for the proposed University Neighborhood Apartments, and as such will be a major recipient of funding provided by this program.  

The vote on this item by Shirek and Breland, profiting as it does their benefactor, therefore constitutes a conflict of interest.  

Merrilie Mitchell  

Berkeley