Page One

END DECEPTION 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

It was interesting to read Carol Barrett’s claim that she resigned from the Planning Department because of discourtesy by members of the Planning Commission. Considering the record of the department over the past few years, embarrassment by the department’s incompetence, rather then discourtesy by commissioners, would be a far more appropriate reason to resign. 

Among other things, the Planning Department signed off on plans allowing Patrick Kennedy to place less affordable units in the Gaia Building than originally promised; failed to provide proper notice to appellants in the 2517 Sacramento St., resulting in a court ordered re-hearing by the City Council; failed to properly review the Negative Declaration on the Molecular Foundry, and were caught in the act of trying to get council approval for a General Plan they changed the language in. This last item of deception no doubt created, or increased, distrust on the part of planning commissioners, but for all these things the Planning Department has no one to blame but themselves.  

I have nothing against Carol Barrett, but if her leaving causes other city officials to behave more honestly it will probably be a good thing. Still, it would be foolish to presume that her resignation solves the problem. Other members of the Planning Department who have been playing these games long before Ms. Barrett came to Berkeley should also be asked to leave.  

Planning departments everywhere favor development, so it is fine for them to argue for development before councils and commissions. It is quite another thing for city staff to act dishonestly, deceptively and at times unlawfully. That is what our Planning Department has been caught doing time and time again. Berkeley needs honest city officials, not those who lie, mislead and deceive. In this time of budget deficits staff members who have acted dishonestly and deceived the public should be the first to go. 

Elliot Cohen 

• 

DOYLE HOUSE 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

When developer Patrick Kennedy of Panoramic Interests cried foul last week because preservationists prevented him from demolishing the historic John M. Doyle House on University Avenue — “We have contracts signed that would have to be broken and we already have the financing for this” — your readers should know that the dots don’t connect.  

Mr. Kennedy’s financing for the Touriel Project, intended to replace the Doyle House, is in large part from a state bond low interest loan in the amount of at least $4.5 million, courtesy of the Association of Bay Area Governments. The Alameda County Board of Supervisors approved the ABAG financing in July 2002 contingent upon the Verification of Zoning and Local Approvals. In a city of Berkeley statement, dated July 10, 2002, zoning officer Mark Rhoades signed the verification document, stating all permits had been obtained at that time for the proposed 35-unit Touriel Building. 

In fact, on July 10 no permits had been secured for the Touriel Project: 

1 — The Landmarks Preservation Commission designated the Doyle House a Structure of Merit on June 1, 2002; 

2 — The Landmarks Preservation Commission refused to approve a demolition permit on June 1, 2002; 

3 — The Zoning Adjustments Board hearing did not take place until July 11, 2002, one day following the signing of the document verifying approvals. 

After July 11, permits approved by the Zoning Adjustments Board were still subject to question by the public, pending appeals which were filed to the City Council. When the City Council ultimately cleared the permits for the Touriel Project in November 2002, by law the public had the right to challenge the council decision, which the Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association did. 

How can Mr. Kennedy cry foul when the public is questioning the demolition of a historic resource for which he obtained “affordable housing” financing based on a document containing erroneous information, signed by a city official prior to the hearing at which zoning approval could be granted? 

Lesley Emmington Jones 

• 

RENT CONTROL 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I wonder if it ever occurs to the rest of Berkeley residents that those citizens living in rent-controlled apartments are rarely heard from in the opinion columns of the local press. Could it be that we might fear being harassed by landlords who could triple their rents, due to vacancy decontrol, if they could find a way to evict us? I have no doubt that the owners of this building would be delighted to replace me with a new tenant at a much higher rent. I am equally certain that I would not be able to live and work in Berkeley were it not for the reasonable rent and increases (most years) that I have paid for two decades, thanks to Berkeley’s Rent Control Program. 

If rents are down “by all accounts,” as the Berkeley Property Owners Association claims (Letters to the Editor, May 2-5), what is their explanation for the high vacancy rate? Why aren’t people standing in line to rent these decontrolled apartments? The BPOA is fond of bemoaning the curse of rent control while speaking of “lowered rents” in units that went sky high after vacancy decontrol. In the rundown building I live in, and in others around Berkeley, vacant apartments are held off the market as owners refuse to lower rents, while others are rented for three times the previously controlled rate. These often go to students, who stay for a year and move on, replaced by students whose parents can pay the high rent. 

Name Withheld 

• 

REVIEW POLICE POLICY 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

While riding my bicycle up Durant the evening of May 1, I was surprised to be confronted at the Ellsworth intersection by what appeared to be a military occupation force of about 20 police in riot dress. Their manner was threatening, harsh and mean as one officer blocked others and me from crossing the street in the pedestrian lane on a green light. I felt intimidated and demanded to know why they were there and by what authority he was blocking my right to cross the street. 

On the far side of the intersection, I could see a small crowd carrying Earth flags and moving away up Ellsworth. Another person on the corner said they were breaking up a May Day parade. The confronting officer replied, “Get off the street or I’ll hit you with my stick,” which he waved menacingly in front of me. They continued to block other people and my freedom of movement, and refused to answer why they were still there. They maintained a bullying stance. 

I by then had become inwardly terrified, my blood curdled, and a deep revulsion of militaristic occupational forces acting against civilians on the street here in America rose to a peak. I had my share of military force in World War II as an aerial gunner on a B-24, and for one year as a POW in Nazi prison camps. The scenes came flooding back of Warmacht guards shouting “Rous Mitt” as they broke up our baseball game crowd and other violations of their petty security rules. My sense of victimization surged as I equated this show of military force with my World War II experiences, the U.S. wars against small countries, Sept. 11 and the invasion of Iraq — all of which involved threatening of civilians.  

The scene got more ridiculous as I continued to demand them to disband and stop blocking the street. An order was shouted and they all like automatons did an about face and assembled into a two-abreast column. The column headed south and, with a sharp command, turned west on Durant toward the stalled traffic. Simultaneously, one of the apparent commanders walked to within five feet of where I was standing and threw down a smoke grenade, and then several more 15 feet down Durant.  

The point of this protest letter is that the Berkeley Police Department, the mayor and City Council need to review their training for crowd control and their policies for appropriate show of military force. One shoe does not fit all circumstances. At the point I came in on the May Day parade breakup there appeared to be no cause for the threat of “I’ll hit you with my stick.” (I have his badge number and name.) However, let us forgive, forget and rid our society and the world from the clutches of the “military mind.” 

Ken Norwood 

• 

PROPERTY TAX INEQUITY 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Thank you for publishing Barbara Gilbert’s article on Berkeley’s approaching budget deficit. I agree with her that this is an important issue affecting all of Berkeley’s residents, though I think that there’s more to City Council’s lack of attention to budget matters than just the dull nature of the topic. Thanks to Proposition 13, and the inability of City Council to diversify the city’s tax base beyond property taxes, there’s a major discrepancy between the people who make decisions in Berkeley and those who finance the city’s budget. 

All residents in Berkeley are paying property taxes, either directly as homeowners, or indirectly as part of the rent tenants pay to their landlords, who, in turn, pay property taxes. Yet, City Council, eight of whom are longtime homeowners in Berkeley, pays only a fraction of the property taxes that newer residents are paying. The Alameda County Web site allows the public to view property tax assessments and tax payments throughout the county. Doing some quick research, I looked up the assessed value of the seven homeowners on the council whose addresses are public on the Internet (Gordon Wozniak’s address is not public, and Kriss Worthington rents an apartment). 

The average net assessed value of these seven is $93,209 — Bates ($45,800), Breland ($89,500), Hawley ($92,600), Maio ($74,000), Olds ($62,000), Shirek ($32,000) and Spring ($256,600). According to the city of Berkeley’s Web site, residential property taxes are assessed at 1.2263 percent of the value of a property, so the average councilmember is paying about $1,143 per year in property taxes. 

Compare this to the $510,000 average assessment for a new homeowner in Berkeley (according to the California Association of Realtors) and you realize that a new homeowner, who is often trying to scrape together enough money to make a mortgage payment, is paying about $6,254 in property taxes, or more than five times the property tax that our City Councilmembers are paying. This is not to mention the property transfer tax, which would add an additional $7,500 to the tax bill of a new resident who buys a house in Berkeley. 

Given the disproportionately small amount of taxes paid by the council, is it any wonder, then, that City Council seems so unresponsive to financial issues that impact city residents? While I’m not blaming the councilmembers for Proposition 13 (I would bet that they all voted against it 30 years ago), I would hope that, as the representatives of all Berkeley’s residents, they would be more sensitive to the financial impact that their decisions have on younger residents. 

Richard Brooks 

• 

REDUCE TRAFFIC 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I read with interest the letter from Paul Kamen about the possible Berkeley ferry. It would be great to board a ferry at Berkeley Marina and ride across our beautiful bay to San Francisco, and perhaps other places — just like the old days. A boost in the bridge tolls might provide the funds to get it all started. 

There are a few big downsides. It’s only fair to point them out. 

1 — Right now, public transit is running a deficit. AC Transit is cutting back service. BART needs an earthquake retrofit. The down economy has reduced revenues from sales taxes. Now is not a good time to spend public money on yet another form of public transit, unless it’s thought that buses and BART will not satisfy future transit demand. 

2 — Plans for the Berkeley ferry always include large parking areas. Ferry riders appear unwilling to board the ferry from buses. But the Berkeley pier now has frequent bus service — the #51 bus. It’s not like a suburban BART station. Bay area air pollution is bad enough without more car engines being started on the bay shore. 

3 — The Vallejo ferry has been a success, but the Richmond ferry failed. There’s some question whether the Berkeley-SF market will support a ferry, given that one can now make the trip by BART or TransBay bus. 

My opinion is that we should spend the extra bridge tolls on things which reduce congestion on the Bay Bridge and its feeder routes. This means cutting back on cars, so I don’t like those plans for a parking lot at Berkeley Marina. I’d like the ferry a lot better if it increased rider traffic on the buses, not car traffic on Berkeley streets. 

Steve Geller