Page One

Pedestrian-oriented environs good for mental health 

Editor: 

I’m writing as an ecopsychologist, to express what I believe to be a valuable perspective on traffic in the city. Ecopsychology is a field of study and practice that focuses on the impact of environment on the human psyche. Many ecopsychologists, including myself, agree that urban settings can often be psychologically harmful. The reason for this has to do with negative sensory input such as that from the smell of car exhaust, the noise of traffic, and the monotone dullness of gray cement. These negative sensory stimuli cause the senses to partially shut down so that they take in as little as possible of this abrasive input. When the senses shut down, parts of the psyche, including emotional and spiritual aspects also suffer because they cannot be mirrored by the environment.  

Sensory input from the natural world around us is a vital component of psychological health.  

With regard to traffic in Berkeley, I’d like to support two projects. The first is the development and implementation of a clean fuel shuttle bus system that would go to all BART stops, shopping districts, employment centers, residential areas and satellite parking lots for commuters.  

The Draft General Plan speaks of trying to attract new riders to public transportation with little success in the past few years. Speaking for myself as a typical female resident of Berkeley who also works in the city, I would use bus service to get around town if it was frequent, reliable, clean, safe and pleasant.  

Even if I thought that bus service was reliable, I would still not want to ride a bus that was noisy and smelly as are the AC Transit diesel buses. Their size and design are also problematic in that the deep cavernous interiors of the buses are intimidating to enter.  

Berkeley citizens are longing for bold solutions to traffic problems that will make the city pleasant and fun to get around in.  

The second traffic related project I want to support is a car free, pedestrian downtown. I’m aware that this idea is deemed impractical by those who quote commercial interests as fearing that their businesses will suffer if cars can’t drive to them. I believe that businesses would do much better in a pedestrian downtown.  

As an ecopsychologist, its my sense that people in Berkeley want communal spaces where human interaction doesn’t take second place to the automobile. I think this can be seen in the success stories of pedestrian commercial districts in cities around the country. A day spent in a downtown setting without cars and traffic could bring a delightful sense of freedom and even community. 

The parking problems, noise and traffic are too horrendous. But in a pedestrian downtown sidewalk patios for cafes and restaurants could expand and become destinations to spend time at rather than places to grab some easy food on a harried lunch break. The street might have outdoor entertainment; and in combination with more trees and greenery, not to mention the daylighting of the creek, our downtown could be unbeatable as a dynamic, thriving, and wonderful place to be. 

In past decades Berkeley has fallen behind other cities through its lack of ecological or environmental initiatives relating to cars and traffic. As a result we are being overwhelmed by twentieth century gridlock and pollution. Help bring Berkeley into the 21st century, and make Berkeley a place that all of its citizens can be proud of. 

Fran Segal, Ph.D. 

Berkeley 

Proposal curtails freedoms 

The Daily Planet received this letter, edited for length, addressed to the City Council, dated April 14. 

Re: Proposed adoption of a new Chapter 13.47 requiring advance notice to the Chief of Police for large events. 

At the April 17 City Council meeting, the action calendar will include an item entitled “Advance Notice to the Police Department.” We are asking you to vote against this item. 

The proposed ordinance would cover any “large event” that takes place in Berkeley that is not covered by chapter 13.44 (“march, demonstration, assembly or parade, festival, street fair, concert, block party, or any other gathering on any public street, sidewalk or alley within the City”), 13.46 (“entertainment events in residential occupancies”) or 6.46 (“park events”). 

That means it would cover any event that is not in a public park, private residence or city street. 

It would cover any event which is open to the public that is held indoors or outdoors, and it would apply to events that “can reasonably be expected to draw over 500 persons, whether or not all prospective attendees are ... able to attend.” If an event is planned at a venue that accommodates 250, and unbeknownst to the organizers, 500 people show up, this ordinance would apply. This definition of events would most certainly cover events which are political in nature. 

We also object to the city manager maintaining a list of operators and promoters since this list will most certainly include people who plan events of a political nature. Hence, the city would maintain a list of people who do political organizing in Berkeley, reminiscent of the list the FBI kept on communist party members in the fifties. 

The ordinance has a complicated notification time schedule which is burdensome. The information that event operators/promoters must provide the police department include: description of event, rules for its conduct, name address and phone number of all persons responsible for the promotion and conduct of the event, extent of advertising, expected number of attendees, and security arrangements. 

Based on these factors, the chief of police may require the promoter/operator to provide security not to exceed one security person per 25 attendees. For many events, this would be cost prohibitive. For an event for 500 people, this would be 20 security personnel. At the modest rate of $8 per hour, it would cost $1,000 for a 5-hour event. 

We are concerned that the number of security personnel required will be prejudicially applied based on the “character” of the event, i.e. the type of event, with raves, political events, or events which might be perceived by the chief as drawing people of color, being required to provide the highest attendee/security ratio. 

We are opposed to this item because it impinges on our constitutionally protected “freedom of assembly,” and can be selectively enforced.  

COPWATCH 

Berkeley 

Be TV, don’t kill it 

Editor:  

In honor of “Turn Off Your T.V.” Week, April 23 - 29, we propose a radical alternative to keeping your set off. Instead of watching television or avoiding television altogether, head down to Berkeley Community Media and learn how to make some television. There is much to complain about when it comes to the quality of television, but don’t withdraw completely from this valuable, pervasive, and exciting educational and entertainment medium - take matters into your own hands and put what you want to watch on T.V.  

Berkeley Community Media is a wonderful community media resource that not only operates public access channel 25, which is available to cable subscribers in Berkeley and airs government, educational, and an amazing variety of community-produced programming) but offers low-cost classes to the community in camera operation, editing, studio production, and more. BCM also offers fee-based taping and editing of community events, and will air the results.  

BCM is a community bulletin board, a learning center, a blank canvas for video-artists-in-waiting, a virtual campfire around which to share our stories. It has so much to offer and too few Berkeley residents know about it. Come down and visit the staff, members, and volunteers at the center at 2239 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, on the Berkeley High School campus, between Bancroft and Allston. Our hours are Monday - Thursday, 1:30 - 9 p.m., Friday, 5 - 9 p.m., and Saturday, 10 a.m. - 4 p.m.  

We understand and sympathize with the grievances of the “Kill Your T.V.” faction, but we think we have a much better solution - don’t kill your T.V., be T.V.  

Sonja Fitz 

BCM Board of Directors