Page One

To the Editor: 

In her letter to the Daily Planet (Aug. 13), Councilmember Dona Spring questioned the adequacy of plans to retrofit old City Hall at 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way. Her concerns about access and fiscal prudence need to be addressed, but I suspect she is confused about the recommendations of consultants to the city who helped prepare designs for the ballot measure. 

First, it's important that the overriding purpose of measure J is to preserve and strengthen this heavily-used building. The consultants concluded that: “In the event of a major earthquake, the existing building is subject to extensive damage and potential instability, rendering it a major life safety hazard, with potential loss of life and loss of the historic building.”  

Ms. Spring favors adding a new, free-standing building on the south side of old City Hall for spacious council chambers, an option suggested by the consultants. The cost of this addition would be $7 million in addition to the $21 million required to retrofit the main building. The prudent decision of seven members of the council was to postpone the addition of the new building in view of the many important, unmet needs in Berkeley. 

The planned retrofit of old City Hall will not change the size of the council chambers. The seating arrangements will be determined by the council after hearing from several commissions, including the Commission on Disability. Access for disabled persons will be improved throughout the building. No one has seriously suggested that seating be reduced to “less than 60,” as Councilmember Spring claims. An overflow room that can be added behind the council chambers will be ideal for the public hearings that typically bring large numbers of people to council meetings, some of whom must now stand in the corridor. 

I agree with Councilmember Spring that new and larger council chambers would be ideal. But I disagree that “making do” in a safe and restored building will be a hardship. Measure J will improve conditions in the building for all of us and it will respect the pocketbooks of taxpayers. Most important, the building and the people using it will be safe.  

The bonds authorized by this measure will incur interest, as Ms. Spring points out. But in the future, both principal and interest will be paid in inflated dollars so that, just as with mortgage payments, the future burden is lightened.  

Measure J is a fiscally prudent, sensible solution. I strongly urge a “yes” vote on this measure. 

Mim Hawley,  

Councilmember, District 5