Page One

DEEPEN COVERAGE 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

 Thank you for Mr. Geluardi’s update on the “Battle for West Berkeley.” It is always good to know what is happening in our part of town. I hope the Planet will deepen its coverage of such subjects a bit further, however.   

Curiously, the article did not mention the West Berkeley Area Plan, the framework that theoretically guides public municipal policy on land use in West Berkeley. Was that because city officials aren’t paying any attention to it either?   

Any decision about how to revise Berkeley policy with regard to preserving a light industrial area and space for artisans and artists would best be developed in the context of a “plan” of some sort, one that considered and balanced the community’s various objectives. 

Yet, Berkeley’s charter city status means that its land-use plans wither faster than their ink dries — Berkeley’s plans have no bite, don’t have to be implemented, are rarely read and are immediately forgotten. So without a meaningful framework, don’t expect reasoned debate, objective facts and development of a serious public policy; instead we shall be served another display of raw political mud-wrestling, and you can bet it is richly funded by the same development interests who expect to profit from office construction in West Berkeley.   

 Howie Muir 

• 

NO TAXES FOR WAR 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

The following is a letter sent to the IRS by a taxpayer who responded to the “Books not Bombs” ad in the Daily Planet. The pie chart Mr. Duran refers to can be found at: www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm. 

Dear Uncle Sam, 

In a fit of righteous jubilation — a most patriotic sentiment — I’m writing this morning to inform you of my refusal to pay the full amount of taxes you request from me today. I was born here and taught to love my country because it was the best country in the world. Reality shattered that illusion years ago, but the nightmare unfolding on Earth this year puts me at odds with this government in the most serious way possible. 

The United States is engaged in imperial roulette. Our leaders stoke fear while promising peace in the form of perpetual war — an absurd predicament that has been discredited by some of the finest human thinkers of all time, including Martin Luther King, Jr. and Albert Einstein. The Bush Administration, armed with horrific systems of modern warfare, is the most corrupt regime in the world. From now on you should consider me unwilling to pay for the murder of even one man, woman or child perpetrated by these thugs. 

Terrorists kill taxpayers because taxpayers fund slaughter and mayhem in countries that spawn terrorists. It’s a vicious cycle, and each person whose dreams have been disturbed by massacre must work to stop it. According to the pie chart on page two of the 2002 1040EZ booklet, 18 percent of 2001’s taxes will pay for war. Research shows that this is a misleading figure. The amount of money spent on war represents something closer to 47 percent of federal income taxes you collect. 

I hereby withhold 47 percent of my owed taxes because I am unwilling to be a cog in your war machine. To pay such a tax, I would have to stand in opposition to the power that guides me, and I am unwilling to do so. Only a fool would mistake Bush’s lies for God’s truth. Where in the Bible does Jesus say that peace entails dropping laser-guided bombs on innocent people? I’m not a Christian, but I’m terrified by the realization that many of my fellow taxpayers, and our “leaders,” are people who call upon Christ while executing billion-dollar acts of murderous thievery. This hypocritical and bloodthirsty oil junta does not represent me, and I will not fund its most satanic and unforgivable deeds. 

    The taxes I withhold this year will be donated to a nonprofit organization that battles poverty in this country. Now, there is a war worth fighting. If you will be rational and submit to fighting only poverty (America’s deadliest enemy), and if you will redirect my tax dollars from programs of technological military supremacy to the development of economic justice in America, I will resume payment of my war tax with great haste.   

Gil Jose Duran 

• 

WELL REVIEWED 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Kudos to Betsy Hunton for her review of the play “Partition.” This play is one of the most profound theatrical experiences we’ve had in ages (and it’s funny).  

Too many reviewers write intelligently but miss the mark.  

Ms. Hunton is a rare reviewer that can actually understand and convey the essence of the play. 

Michael Mendez 

• 

SKATE PARK STATUS 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

The following letter was addressed to Berkeley City Council: 

Why is the Berkeley Skate Park still closed? The Berkeley City Council needs to take a hard look at the costs and benefits of this closure and either decide to open the park or call for the demolition crews.  

The initial and continuing reason for the closure of the skate park is detectable but minuscule (and sometimes undetectable) traces of Chromium 6 in the expansion joints of the large bowl of the park. As I understand it, city staff is looking for someone to say this low level of Chromium 6 poses no short- or long-term health risk. But because no research has been done in this area, there’s no established health threshold. So city staff is taking what it feels is a cautious and prudent approach to the problem by shutting down the skate park. 

But we don’t live in a “no risk” world. Certainly not the skaters who regularly find skin and bone meeting the concrete and steel rails of the skate park. When skaters were attending the design meeting for the skate park, the place looked like an advertisement for orthopedic surgeons in Berkeley. Skaters on crutches, in ankle casts and wearing wrist casts were regulars. One of the primary reasons for building the park was to take these skaters off of traffic-filled streets, out from behind the buses belching their diesel fumes, and away from the carbon monoxide-filled parking garages. They were regularly getting $100 tickets from police and having their skateboards confiscated. And this is where they have again been sent since the closure of the skate park and while city staff looks toward a “no risk” solution.  

Well, that solution doesn’t seem very likely. So the Berkeley City Council ought to take a close look at the costs and benefits of this closure of the Berkeley Skate Park. They need to hear the facts from city staff, solicit input from the community the skate park was designed to serve and listen to all the tales of gloom and doom that will be offered by concerned but most likely uninvolved community members. Then they should either reopen the park with whatever liability disclaimers they need to post (and let city staff know that barring some profound change, the park is to remain open) or put a wrecking ball to the place. 

Doug Fielding 

• 

BALANCE 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Just wanted to drop you an e-mail to say how much I loved reading the article “Cheering for the Intruders Among Us” by Zac Unger. As one of those who makes his living battling invasive species, I can’t say I agree with his science, but Unger’s article was entertaining to read. He reminded me that, as with so many other things in life, there is a balance between our ideals and the realities we ultimately must accept.  

Yes, I agree that invaders like oxalis in Berkeley neighborhoods are preferable to many other things that might take up space there (WalMarts, porn shops, etc.) On the other hand, I do think there needs to be places where we’ve done our best to protect (and perhaps, even reclaim) those plants and critters that thrived before the dominating influence of mankind.  

Modern society has given us lots of tremendous advantages. I, too, would look pretty scary in a loincloth, and I’m glad that I don’t have to share my commute with bumper-to-bumper buffalo. I enjoy the closeness of my neighborhood Starbucks and I’ve even been known to drop in a freeway-close McDonald’s or two. But the conservationist in me is happy that they don’t allow Starbucks in wilderness areas and that there are a few places where the buffalo still roam. Further, if I should ever decide to wear a loincloth, that there are places where I can wear one without worrying about sitting down in a bunch of star-thistle.  

Joel Trumbo 

Staff Environmental Scientist 

CA Dept. of Fish and Game 

Rancho Cordova 

• 

INVASIVE DAMAGE 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I enjoyed reading Zac Unger’s lively cheer for weeds. Pulling and cutting invasives along our creeksides and waterfront over the past five years, I have also developed an appreciation for these worthy foes.  

Cape ivy, smothering and killing every other plant along many acres of our shorelines, providing virtually no habitat for wildlife, is the Zen plant, winning by yielding. Shallow-rooted and easily removed, it also breaks easily. Even a leaf that floats downstream can sprout, and stems can root after a year’s drying.  

Perennial pepperweed, choking the open flats where shorebirds probe (and San Francisco Bay’s flats are of worldwide importance for these long-distance migrants), scatters millions of seeds on wind and water. A fragment, eroded into salt water, can drift ashore months later and grow. Spiny yellow star-thistle, poisoning horses and making park walks painful, has been described as Mother Earth’s answer to overgrazing. 

But the reason for combating invasive weeds isn’t, as the article implies, chauvinism or nativism. Invasive species are an escalating worldwide problem resulting from the huge increase in population, world trade and travel — the same conditions that recently brought us West Nile virus and SARS. In India, our familiar garden lantana, a South American native, has made millions of acres useless for farming; in Africa, where California’s Monterey pines are drying up seasonal watercourses vital to farming and livestock, the problem is the same.  

A relatively few species, brought into new conditions, are able to spread explosively. Often this is because they come without the many pathogens and predators that check them in the community where they evolved. In other cases, they cross with relatives they otherwise wouldn’t have met. Or they find conditions where their survival tools instead let them take over — using up the water supply, changing the soil, or exuding chemicals that poison other plants. 

It is irresponsible to let loose a flood of such challengers — as crop experiments, as garden plants, as contaminants in seed — and then sit back and say “let nature run its course.”  

Volunteer weed warriors like me hope to keep some species from being overwhelmed too suddenly. We hope to keep some of the beauty and diversity that were the heritage of all humans. We have no answers, but we are at least obliged to try. 

Susan Schwartz  

• 

EUCALYPTUS 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

What I find incredible about Mr. Unger’s paean to invading plants is not his admitted ignorance of gardening, but that he is an Oakland firefighter. Over 70 percent of the fuel in the cataclysmic Oakland fire of 1991 was Eucalyptus trees, many of which were killed the year before by a hard frost to which they were not adapted. Trees which fall down when burned. So tell me, if a 250-foot flaming Eucalyptus tree falls, and Mr. Unger is not there to see it, does it really set the neighbor’s house on fire? 

Debra Ayres 

Davis 

• 

PRO-NATIVE 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I am responding to the entertaining article “Cheering for the Intruders Among Us.” The main point Zac Unger misses in his comparison between plants and people who move into our neighborhoods is diversity. People from other cultures bring their own views, mores, talents and inspirations. They add depth to our culture that we wouldn’t have otherwise. In contrast, the two plants he names, Eucalyptus and Yellowstar Thistle, do the opposite. They crowd out nearby plants until there is only a monoculture where they live. Just as I thrive by being part of our multicultural community, the local insect, bird and animal species thrive by having a range of plants in their ecosystem. Mr. Unger, it’s possible to be “pro-native” without being anti-immigrant.   

Invasive plants that come here are outside their native ecosystem. The insect and animal species that kept those plants in check in their original location are not here to balance the plants’ growth with the local natives that still compete with insects and animals. When the bottom of the food chain changes, it has effects all the way up. I don’t want to lose any more natives, plant or animal.   

Another point missed is that a garden of natives requires less water and less work. They’re used to our climate. They were here before we were gardening. 

Katherine Greene