Page One
Letters to the Editor
THE REAL PROBLEM
Editors, Daily Planet:
In response to the Planet’s lead article on the Harrison House Adult Shelter, bad air is not the problem. Families living on the street or in crack houses is the problem.
Boona cheema, who has spent much of her life working with these people and is aware of all the environmental issues, feels the expansion of the Harrison House facility is needed by the homeless community. If somebody out there has a better idea (land that is available for free and a neighborhood that will be receptive to providing daily services to 130 homeless individuals) we would all be thankful for them to step forward and give us an alternative.
But if the choice is between having people live on the street or giving them a roof over their heads, I don’t think you will find many of these people—or those who provide them social services—advocating that, due to the air quality, they should continue to live on the street.
Doug Fielding
•
OVERREACTION
Editors, Daily Planet:
How can students be expected to deal with the mixed message sent by the co-principals at Berkeley High School? The threatened consequences for streaking may be suspension, expulsion or ... financial reward? The Bushism aside, the draconian measures suggest a serious lack of understanding of young people. And whither proportion and tradition?
Bonnie Hughes
•
LOANS, NOT GIFTS
Editors, Daily Planet:
C. Osborn’s letter (Planet, May 27-29 edition) shook me up with its details that Patrick Kennedy “received $15.3 million in state money for the Gaia building” plus millions more for his other projects. So I logged onto the indicated Abag Web site and discovered to my relief that these monies were loans, not gifts.
It may be that low-interest funds should not be available to builders of mass construction, but that is a somewhat different topic. If these loans were to be forgiven when not repaid, that would be a hot story. Is there any evidence that this is the case here in Berkeley?
But thank you, C. Osborn, for telling us about a very interesting Web site.
Victor Herbert
•
TRUE REGRET
Editors, Daily Planet:
Gray Brechin must be the one crying crocodile tears (Letters to the Editor, May 30-June 2 edition) because many people truly do regret the loss of the Doyle House in downtown Berkeley. We are the citizens, merchants, historians and architectural preservationists, among others, who respect the historical and architectural merit of the Doyle family home. Mr. Brechin’s portrayal of the merit of the house is confusing since at least three experts testified that the Doyle House did indeed possess historical and architectural merit.
Berkeley’s architectural history is not only about the wonderful and sometimes quirky architecture of well-known architects like Maybeck and Morgan. It is also about the builder-designer architecture of the working people and the history that goes along with them. What place more than Berkeley should celebrate both its urbane and inherent architecture and history?
Mr. Brechin should know that the Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association (BAHA) does not oppose appropriate in-fill development. BAHA does oppose wanton destruction of historic resources. BAHA sued the City of Berkeley for failing to conduct an environmental impact report (EIR) when demolition looked imminent. An EIR would have explored the options available to the developer: retention, removal or reduction. Instead, after an attempt at moving the house to a nearby site, the city permitted the developer’s demolition of a building with historic merit and a lively future on another site.
Moreover, review under CEQA concerns a variety of issues including historic and architectural. The John M. Doyle House was a good, if plain, example of Berkeley’s late 19th-century, vernacular architecture. It was also one of very few remaining in downtown. It was associated with a figure central to the incorporation of Berkeley in 1878, whose 125th anniversary the city is celebrating this year.
BAHA chose not to appeal the court decision for reasons of good stewardship. BAHA will continue to monitor the City of Berkeley’s environmental review process.
As for the “financial consequences” imputed to the BAHA directors, I should note that Mr. Kennedy personally threatened me with a lawsuit. Now that is a “SLAPP”—a nuisance suit against public process.
Berkeley deserves better.
Austene Hall
Legal Committee Chairman
BAHA
•
NOT ENOUGH
Editors, Daily Planet:
I was saddened to see yet another of Berkeley’s historical buildings bite the dust. When I first moved to the city 30 years ago, I was struck by the fact that there were so few older buildings still intact. Since then awareness of the value of older buildings has grown, but evidently not enough in some cases.
As a past member of the Environmental Commission I was also dumbfounded that a preservation commissioner who has such an obvious conflict of interest could be allowed to sit on that body. Each commissioner appointed to each commission must sign a no-conflict form stating they or their interests do not stand to benefit from any decision the commission may make; recusal is not an option. On my commission a very valued and knowledgeable individual had to leave because of just that.
It appears that city staff does not enforce all requirements on all commissioners equally. Does Patrick Kennedy wield undue influence elsewhere? How would we know?
Dale Smith
•
LEASE AMENDMENT
Editors, Daily Planet:
On June 10, in a tiny line item tucked into an attachment in the back of its annual budget, the Redevelopment Agency is being asked to throw away an incredible opportunity to reaffirm its commitment to low-income housing; to take advantage of new HUD tenant home ownership programs; to comply with the goals of the newly approved Housing Element; to increase the amount of housing funds available to the city; and to bring some of the security and pride of home ownership to a small, established, low-income community. This item, with no detail or description, states simply: “Oceanview Gardens Lease Amendment ... Complete June 10, 2003.”
The 62 unit Oceanview Gardens housing development was built in 1984 on agency property by a private developer with funding from the Redevelopment Agency and CHFA. The developer was granted a 20-year lease on the land in order to allow a reasonable return on his construction and management costs; and that lease was to expire in 2004, at which time the project would revert back to the agency. The property is exempt from taxes and provides little or no benefit to the agency or the city. The PAC has been aware of the upcoming reversion of ownership for more than two years and, as recently as February and March of this year, had been requesting staff to look into the possibility of converting these units into a tenant-owned and managed limited equity coop.
The lease amendment, if approved through this budget, would instead give the developer an additional 30-year lease on the property. Redevelopment Code requires that agency leases be adopted by resolution after a properly noticed public hearing, but neither the PAC nor the public was afforded the opportunity to discuss or comment on this long-term lease. The PAC learned of this lease extension just two weeks ago, but was told by staff that it was already a “done deal.”
Many of Oceanview Gardens’ resident families have lived there since the project was completed in 1984. Most have been there over 10 years. They have proved their commitment and vital interest in the community and are truly major stakeholders in this project. Tenants have expressed a great interest and desire for an ownership opportunity and the chance for more self-determination, but the fear of retaliation has a very chilling effect. As with all project-based Section 8 housing, eviction means not only the loss of a home but also the loss of the ability to find new housing since the subsidized funding belongs to the developer and not to the residents.
The agency, with no public input, is now faced with the decision to grant one corporate developer a 30-year plum; or to give an existing community a small chance at the great American dream of home ownership and the sense of belonging, the pride and the tiny bit of security that it provides. With HUD’s new Section 8 home ownership programs both the project and the community at large could benefit financially from the return of housing funds to the city instead of to the developer. The community would also reap the rewards of the immeasurable intangibles achieved when people are allowed to have a say in their own future.
At the very least, the Agency should hold this item over for public notice and comment. Let’s hope they make the right decision.
Rhiannon
•
A BERKELEY TREASURE
Editors, Daily Planet:
There’s a proposal to reduce the hours of the Tool Lending Library, particularly by closing it on Thursdays. I realize that budgets are tight, but reducing the lending library’s hours will deprive Berkeley residents of this much needed and much appreciated resource. While no library should have its hours reduced, we do have a main library and four branches from which one can borrow books and reading materials.
We have only one library which lends tools. Lines at the Tool Lending Library are already long. I understand that there have already been staff reductions. I urge you to keep the staff you now have. The main reason the Tool Lending Library is so wonderful is due to Pete, the library’s founder, and the current staff. They know about tools, they can advise you on how to get a job done, and they do an amazing job of maintaining these tools, so that every tool borrowed works, and works well.
Without the Tool Lending Library, many Berkeley residents could not perform needed repairs. My neighbor, who is a renter, could not have borrowed the clippers to trim the bushes which block his doorway. I would not have been able to borrow the longer ladders needed to repair my gutters.
When something breaks, you need the tool then. Do not close the library, even for one day. The Tool Lending Library is a Berkeley treasure.
Dan Peven
Editors, Daily Planet:
One thing which does not seem to have changed with the “new” Planet is the constant stream of hilarious word-substitutions and homophones which are not caught by spell checkers (or proofreaders).
I like to collect these, sometimes adding commentary.
My favorite from the “old” Planet was the article on the fruitlessness of discussing a recent school board junket, since it was a “fete accompli.”
So far my favorite from the “new” Planet is in the review of “Under Milkwood” (with peanut butter and gobs of grape jelly?) by the “Welch” poet and sandwich fan, Dylan Thomas.
I haven’t quite decided if these are deliberate (intellectual humor) or routine editing errors, but if the latter, remember that while some are funny, some may substantively change the leaning (sic) of the article.
Paul Marcus
Oakland
•
TITLE
Editors, Daily Planet:
Chris Kavanagh, member of the Berkeley Rent Board, doesn’t get it. In an effort to explain and defend this unjust, wasteful agency he invokes the obfuscating specter of bureaucratic minutia.
It is hardly worth responding to his misrepresentations, but it is worth noting that the Rent Board on numerous occasions hired “experts” to determine annual rent increases and then ignored the paid expert’s recommendations, approving significantly lesser rent adjustments. The Rent Board’s commitment to injustice is only outweighed by its willingness to waste public money.
The facts are simple—rent control is unjust and unfair.
Because rent control has no means testing (it does not consider the finances of those who receive its benefit) it grants subsidies (artificially low rent) to a random group of citizens. The granting of these subsidies tend to inflate the rent of those not lucky enough to be of this privileged class.
There are tenants from economically advantaged backgrounds with higher incomes than the property owner(s) compelled to subsidize their rent. The enthusiastic willingness of the Rent Board to administer a system so profoundly unjust further demonstrates the moral bankruptcy at the root of this wasteful agency.
Rent control is ineffective and counter-productive. It has resulted in the loss of rental housing units contributing to our housing shortage and increasing rents on those not of the random benefactor class. New housing is built in Berkeley only because new housing is exempt from rent control.
Rent control has reduced the number of small scale (mom-and-pop) type landlords, causing a consolidation of ownership in the hands of large property owners who can afford to “wait out” or legally maneuver this Kafkaesque system. Essentially, rent control promotes the corporate ownership of housing.
Rent control has created a bureaucracy intent on Orwellian record keeping and engaged in Orwellian intrusions into private lives and homes. This same bureaucracy has wasted 24 million dollars of public money and never created a single housing unit but rather created regulations discouraging the creation of housing.
Rent control usurps the fundamental right of citizens to negotiate contracts, thus undermining the social weave created by person to person agreements—a weave crucial to the fabric of civilized life. Rent control presumes the inability of the individual to choose and negotiate and opts instead for the imposition of bureaucratic authoritarianism. It is the insulting assumption of citizen as child and government as mommy-daddy.
As Kavanagh and his cohorts continue on their self-deluded path, imagining they are doing good, they instead do harm, not only to individuals but to the psyche of the Commons. They promote policy that creates polarity. They perpetrate injustice that erodes fundamental faith in government. They lead the assault against the creative on behalf of slothful and wasteful bureaucracy.
If the Rent Board had any commitment to justice or common sense it would conduct one final vote—it would vote to abolish its own existence. With this Byzantine bureaucracy gone we could redirect the wasted money to a housing fund that provides subsidies to those who need it and allows the creativity of the marketplace to do the rest.
John Koenigshofer
Editors, Daily Planet:
I really like the Berkeley “Earth Sculptures.”
The tuning fork is said to be in resonance with one of the vibration
frequencies of the earth. That’s way below what we can hear, but there’s
a little bell at the base to make a sound one can hear. Perhaps some day,
when the Hayward Fault lets go, we’ll see the tines of the tuning fork in full vibration.
The new sculpture is more mysterious. It looks like a pile of mud. Actually, that’s what it is. The sign says it represents (consists of?) French and German porcelin clays and Dutch ceramic stoneware. To me, it looks like a chunk of ancient earth, dating from before Berkeley land was rolled up from seabed to make our hills. The blues in it look like Serpentinite, the rock formed when clay is put under extreme pressure.
Steve Geller
