Page One


Thursday August 09, 2001

Free market has rules 



If I may be indulged another response, I feel compelled to correct a misconception about free markets as expressed by Robert Clear (Aug.. 6) when he stated that an “unregulated market has no way of dealing with externalities.” An externality is an uncompensated effect of an activity such as pollution.In a truly free market, there are property rights to all resources, so when a polluter invades other people’s property, including their bodies, with such poison, he gets sued for trespass and damages. This payment eliminates the externality and creates incentives to minimize the pollution. Contrary to critics, a pure market does not mean “anything goes” but rather has ethical rules prohibiting and penalizing harm to others. 


Fred Foldvary 




Citizens’ group okayed projects council approved 


I’m amused by the Planning Department’s choice of the redevelopment projects to describe successful projects which are being overlooked. Most of these projects were approved by the Council in 1994 and the live/work project at 1631 5th St. was approved in May of 1987. The Project Area Committee and the residents of West Berkeley have been working tirelessly for years to get these projects underway but much of their time is spent trying to scale back much needed repairs to make up for constantly rising construction costs and a budget which is whittled away by administrative and (Planning Department) staff costs which average $500,000 a year.  

Redevelopment is a state program funded by money which is diverted from the county. Redevelopment is not a city program and it’s just as well.  

There aren’t too many city projects which would be allowed to run up over $3 million in staff costs over 6 years without ever putting a shovel into the dirt.  




Remember the surplus? 



Last November, the Democrats asked voters, “what part of ‘Peace and Prosperity’ do you want to change”? 

Remember the revenue surplus? It was supposed to pay for social security, health care, and reduce the national debt. Now, we see that Bush’s tax refund for the rich must be paid for by additional borrowing that increases the debt. Consumers are paying extortionary prices for energy to Bush’s backers, while our environmental health is being deregulated. 

Other nations look aghast at us, as the Bush government breaks international treaties that have kept the peace for 30 years, and disclaims new treaties designed to prevent the catastrophe of global warming. 

Last November, a half-million-strong majority answered, “neither,” but Bush stole the election anyway, and is sledgehammering away at both peace and prosperity. 


Bruce Joffe 



Mayor probably tried to save scout situation 



Although I don’t know all the facts in the furor over the Japanese Boy Scout incident, because of Berkeley’s unique relationship with the media, a minor, local matter can easily be expanded into an international crisis.  

My instincts tell me that our mayor, Shirley Dean, tried to make the best out of a potentially embarrassing situation created by the ever mischievous councilmember, Kris Worthington. Give credit to our mayor who tried to make a positive spin and save face for Berkeley’s liberal image.  

As for Worthington, I would like to see him banished from Berkeley, preferably confined to Al Capone’s former cell on Alcatraz island. Exile after all was the punishment the Greeks in ancient Athens imposed on politicians who abused their public office.  


Dennis Kuby  



UA Homes problems can be solved  


It would be a mistake to read Jon Mays’ article “After years of promise, UA Home slips” and walk away with the notion that housing for the homeless is not secure or is unsupervised and riddled with illegal activity.  

Many of the formerly homeless individuals who reside at UA Homes and similar buildings have mental health and other health problems, and permanent housing with supportive services ended what in many cases was years of homelessness. The Corporation for Supportive Housing has worked with Resources for Community Development (which owns UA Homes) and other Alameda County supportive housing providers for the past nine years in an effort to increase the number of high quality supportive housing units for the homeless. 

Is illegal drug activity appropriate at UA Homes? No. Should such activity be stopped? Yes. But just as illegal drug activity should not be tolerated, we should also not tolerate inadequately funding supportive housing such as UA Homes that try to improve the health and increase the self-sufficiency of formerly homeless individuals. In order to provide quality supportive housing, UA Homes must have sufficient funding to provide the necessary health and human services, community/resident activities and vocational/employment services to chronically homeless individuals.  

While Mr. Mays’ article repeatedly hints that decreased funding is one of the underlying problems, it is never explicitly stated. Adequate and predictable funding has not been available to continue vital social services and resident activities, ensure appropriate property management and support organizations like RCD that are willing to take the risks necessary to create and own this kind of housing.  

Providing supportive housing to formerly homeless individuals will cost more than what is currently allocated for this purpose in Alameda County.  

But the cost of providing supportive housing is far less expensive than the hospitals and jails that house the homeless when they are not in supportive housing. I was heartened by the quotes indicating that Mayor Shirley Dean is still interested in maintaining on-site services for UA Home residents. The Mayor, along with many others, recognizes that the long-term solution to chronic homelessness is housing with support services. Communities throughout California and across the nation deliver excellent supportive housing with adequate government support. We can do better in Alameda County. 

Like most supportive housing sites, UA Homes has a “good neighbor policy” to make sure that it works with community residents and others to develop and operate quality housing sites. I strongly believe that by working with its surrounding community, with the support of Alameda County and the City of Berkeley, and with the involvement of its tenants, UA Homes will be able to address the community’s concerns, enhance its provision of quality supportive housing and have a positive impact on the neighborhood.  

Tangerine M. Brigham 

Program Director, Corporation for Supportive Housing 















midsummer games 


Wed, 08 Aug 2001 15:58:34 -0700 


J M Sharp  







More on our local Wimbleton, Judith. Here's another serve from the CM into the University's court. J 





August 3, 2001 


Edward J Denton, AIA 

Vice Chancellor -- Capital Projects 

University of California, Berkeley 

644 Barrows Hall 

Berkeley, CA 94720 


Dear Ed: 


Thank you for your letter of July 31, 2001 about the NEQSS Draft EIR. I appreciate the generous offer to 

extend the comment period through August 15, 2001. This would allow the City staff and interested 

community members some additional time to prepare comments to the document and the campus' proposed 



I would, however, appreciate it if the campus were to offer an even longer extension on the comment period 

for the NEQSS Draft EIR. As you must know, the projects proposed in the Draft EIR will have a 

substantial impact on the campus and its immediate environs. The City Council, community members and 

the City staff are deeply concerned that even with the extension you proposed there will not be enough time 

to develop the thorough and in-depth analysis/response deemed necessary by community stakeholders. 


A longer extension would push back the date when the Final EIR for the NEQSS projects went to the 

Regents for approval. Should that happen, then the future Regents' meeting with the NEQSS Final EIR 

approval would likely not be held in the Bay Area (with easier access for community members). I would 

prefer, of course, to have the Final EIR meeting convened where our community can directly comment to the 

Regents. I believe, however, that a longer comment period for the Draft EIR is more important than 

convenient access to that future meeting. 


Therefore, I again request that the campus extend the Draft EIR comment period for a full 60 days to 

October 1, 2001. An extended timeline is essential so that full community input can be garnered on the 

wide variety of project impacts outlined in my letter of July 26 to Chancellor Berdahl. These impacts are 

significant enough to warrant an extended comment period to the NEQSS Draft EIR. 




Weldon Rucker 

City Manager 


cc: Mayor and Members, City Council 

Chancellor Robert Berdahl, UCB 

Wendy Cosin, Acting Planning Director 

Tom Lollini, Planning Director, UCB  





Tax refund 


Dear Daily Planet,  


We sent half the refund to the Alameda County Community Food Bank and the  

second half to the Children’s Hospital Foundation.  


Marian Wolfe