Features

EXCITING POTENTIAL 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

The hotel and convention center proposed by UC and the mayor of Berkeley holds exciting potential for downtown Berkeley. I read both the article (“Mayor, University Set Downtown Hotel Plan,” Daily Planet, Nov. 21-24”) and the letter by Steve Geller with interest.  

Kriss Worthington was quoted as saying it could be a wonderful contribution or a horrendous nightmare. If, as suggested in the article, the transformation includes museums, and, as mentioned by Dona Spring, daylighting of Strawberry Creek, it could be phenomenal. If parking is foregone, in favor of demonstrating how well public transit can serve such a center, it could be a bold, world-class vision and model.  

The site’s yard-stick proximity to the downtown BART station, and frequent service by AC Transit make it is easy to see how a relationship between local transit, the hotel and it’s visitors would be readily established. Bus passes and BART tickets could be dispensed right at the center, along with a kiosk of clear transit information, resources and popular Bay Area destinations. Visitors could be educated and inspired by their Berkeley experience when they return home. 

The image of a “babbling brook,” mentioned by Steve Geller in his letter, on the hotel grounds, and Center Street restaurants being creek side is an oasis-like mirage in this metropolitan area. And it wouldn’t be a phony Las Vegas-like water “feature.” It would be a natural feature long covered by a busy street. This would truly be a retreat. The opportunity is too good to pass up. The university and the future developer could be recognized as visionaries world-wide, if it was designed with green principles built in; not just in the building materials, but how the hotel and convention center is operated. 

Now, when I juxtapose that image with a “traditional” or “conventional” hotel and convention center with underground parking, I lose hope, get discouraged and want to stay away. Far away. If a parking lot is built with no thought or encouragement given toward transit, it will be another car-culture frenzy. The thought of the increase in car volume resulting from this potential underground parking lot is unbearable. As it is, I bicycle, BART or walk downtown. How anyone could plan to build such a huge structure downtown Berkeley in the image of the car-dominant paradigm is beyond me. Thinking must be done outside the box for this one, or the downtown environment will be destroyed by car culture. 

Here’s another perspective: One underground parking space costs $40,000! How many parking spaces will be needed? Besides the $40k per space, what cost would there be to the environment from pollutants? To the health of pedestrians? To the dining pleasure of the cafe patrons across the street? What would underground parking do to the creek? What would the creek do to underground parking?  

Imagine if that money were spent to educate and promote available transit to travelers. Imagine if that money were invested to improve transit and to daylight the creek! What if the money were invested in a local shuttle? What if all downtown travelers benefited from this diversion of parking money, so that transit improved for everyone, and downtown automobile congestion decreased overall as a result of this project?  

I know details are yet to be worked out, but I hope that in Berkeley, we can work together to create a vision to be emulated elsewhere; a cutting-edge environment for hotel and convention-goers. Building parking spaces is the no-brainer, default position. This new project can help solve the traffic congestion problems downtown, not add to them. The challenge would be to create a model vision, a pedestrian oasis and retreat for business travelers, tourists and the rest of us.  

Marcy Greenhut, President 

Berkeley Ecological and Safe Transportation  

• 

MISPLACED BLAME 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I thoroughly enjoyed reading that Mayor Tom Bates blames editorials and letters to the editor for the flame-out of the deceptive parcel tax (“Mayor Kills Parcel Tax Vote After Firefighters’ Rejection,” Daily Planet, Nov. 25-27). Meanwhile, up on Telegraph Avenue, everybody’s spare-changing for fire safety. 

Carol Denney 

• 

ROLLING BACK THE CLOCK 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I was stunned at Tuesday night’s Berkeley City Council meeting when Councilman Gordon Wosniak, in a 12-minute attack against IRV, suggested that had IRV been in effect when Abraham Lincoln ran against Stephen Douglas, Douglas would have won. 

What he failed to mention was that women and blacks were not allowed to vote. Is this councilman suggesting we roll back to the days when only white male landowners have the right to vote? 

David Heller 

• 

GIVING IT AWAY 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

In a Nov. 25 letter, Steve Geller praises UC’s proposed hotel/convention/museum megaplex on Center Street. But he wants to omit its underground garage, bring Strawberry Creek to the surface, and close off Center Street as a “pedestrian mall.” 

I think most Berkeley residents would agree that these preferences are precisely upside-down. In particular: 

First, UC absolutely must conserve its printing press building at Center and Oxford, even if it’s reused to house the museums. This is a significant Art Deco structure—and the U.N. Charter was printed there. Its destruction would represent an irreplaceable loss of history. 

Second, the underground garage is essential: UC must replace the parking it would remove by destroying its Addison/Oxford parking structure. And it must provide parking for the new traffic that its megaplex would generate. 

Third, it’s time for city leaders to finally drive a silver stake through the unworkable notion of “daylighting” Strawberry Creek. This would be an unimaginably costly, disruptive, and uncertain undertaking for a city government that is (a) broke and (b) incapable of keeping even small public works projects within schedules or budgets. 

At best, it would open the creek to fast food waste and toxic runoff. Creek fans should go see Strawberry Creek upstream on the UC campus (where it runs above ground for everyone’s enjoyment). 

Note how much trash the creek suffers even in this sheltered environment. Let’s hear a plan to better clean up and protect the creek’s exposed portion—not to endanger its safe underground stretch. 

Fourth, closing off Center Street should also be forever forgotten. Center Street is a transit corridor, a gateway to the UC campus, and an essential pressure-relief valve for a downtown that’s already too congested. 

Finally, UC should not own the hotel property—Mr. Geller seems to agree with me here—and the hotel should rise no higher than the Downtown Plan’s allowed five to seven stories. UC ownership would deny the city important property tax revenue. And UC’s exemption from local zoning would deny the public any control over the parcel’s future development. 

Let’s hope city officials have finally learned their lesson from UC’s past encroachments elsewhere. It’s time to take our city back—not give more of it away. 

Tom Brown 

• 

WISHFUL THINKING 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Steve Geller’s letter (“Planning Ahead,” Daily Planet, Nov. 25-27) makes some good points about the exciting new possibilities for a hotel, conference center, art museums, etc. in downtown Berkeley. But on one point he reveals some wishful thinking, shared, I’m afraid, by too many of our fellow citizens. 

Mr. Geller suggests that “The conference center shouldn’t need much parking...... visitors arriving by air can ride BART directly from either OAK or SFO.” He thinks “Maybe the hotel can get by with minimal parking.” And he believes that in due course Berkeley residents will free up spaces “by using transit instead of monthly passes. Evening restaurant and theater -goers will come by bus.”  

If we follow through on this line of thought, I suggest we’re in for a disaster. First, no one coming to a conference from Fresno, Modesto, San Jose, Santa Cruz, or Santa Rosa is going to fly. They’ll drive. So will many from Sacramento and even Los Angeles, especially if family members are with them. Second, Berkeley theaters and restaurants can say goodbye to their patrons from Walnut Creek, Alameda, the Oakland hills, Marin County and countless other places if they’re expected (especially at night) to wait for a dwindling, sometimes unreliable or even non-existent bus service.  

For the past three decades I’ve heard well-meaning people suggest less reliance on cars and more on public transit. During all that time, things have gone in the wrong direction. Transit has faced increasing challenges, required more and more subsidies, and been compelled to reduce service. Goodness knows it’s a necessary part of our lives, but except in a few limited instances, public transit is never going to be a serious rival to the private car (least of all at night), and the sooner we realize that, the better. Mr. Geller lives in an urban part of town, on a major bus route. So do most people who prescribe the bus for others. I can only suggest they come to terms with the fact that cars have been around for well over a century, that good reasons exist for their popularity, and that regrettably, the way to a achieve an exciting downtown is not by wishful thinking.  

Revan Tranter 

• 

ANIMAL SHELTER 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I was delighted to read that Mayor Tom Bates agrees with animal shelter supporters, shelter staff and members of the community that an animal shelter “would be great” on the southern portion of the two-acre site at Sixth and Gilman streets—the old Urban Ore site. (“Red Tape Snares Animal Shelter,” Daily Planet, Nov. 25-27). 

Those of us who always envisaged the new animal shelter there did so because of the high visibility without encroaching on a residential area. On the Council Sub Committee and at the Humane Commission, we are very aware of the traditional image of animal shelters as nothing more than warehouses to store and kill unwanted animals. Our alternate view—of an exceptionally well designed, landscaped, family friendly, living, community resource—is gaining momentum as more municipalities are taking pride in their animal shelters and putting in place reform policies to end the tragedy of pet overpopulation and high euthanasia. 

I wish to correct the suggestion in the article that animal shelter supporters have rejected other sites for scant reason.  

One of the sites, 15 feet from the railroad tracks, was so noisy that the realtor suggested we put in triple glazing and keep the windows permanently closed. Another site is earmarked to be part of a new bike trail linking Emeryville and Berkeley and requires a substantial swath of the land, and the site on Carlton Street, west of Seventh Street near the railroad tracks, is so close to the Bayer plant that many people felt the proximity to a company engaged in live animal testing would present an image problem for the Berkeley animal shelter. 

As to the comment attributed to me, that the land swap could have been accomplished with more political support, reporter Matt Artz misunderstood me. I told him I agreed with Mr. Cowan’s assessment that the deal was too complex.  

I do stand by my remark that it takes guts to put the animal shelter with it’s affordable ‘well-pet’ clinic where it should go—at Sixth and Gilman, and hope that the city will be able to craft a deal with BUSD to facilitate the bus yard moving elsewhere and for the animal shelter to be built there. It can become the centerpiece of an energized neighborhood, to the benefit of the local communities and every Berkeleyan. Animal shelters are part of our community, they enhance an area, they encourage children to learn about animals. In short: An animal shelter is a good neighbor.  

Jill Posener 

Chair, Council Sub Committee on the New Animal Shelter 

• 

NOT OUT OF SIGHT 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I am puzzled by the claim that an animal shelter on University and Third Street would be “out of sight, out of mind,” and that this “hidden location” would mean fewer volunteers and less connection to the community. (“Red Tape Snares Animal Shelter,” Daily Planet, Nov. 25-27). 

Just build it with a sign on the roof that says it is the animal shelter and calls for volunteers. The sign would be visible to everyone using the University Avenue freeway entrance—and this would be one of the most visible buildings in Berkeley. 

This is not brilliant urban design, but it is an obvious way to end the current impasse and get the shelter built. 

Charles Siegel 

• 

VOTERS NOT STINGY 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I deeply resent Mr. Artz’s uncalled-for editorial comment about “Berkeley’s increasingly stingy voters” in a purported news story about the woes of the animal shelter. Berkeley’s homeowners pay some of the highest property taxes in the state. Perhaps Mr. Artz should try paying property taxes on a limited income before he makes any more snide remarks about Berkeley voters. Maybe he should also give up trying to report news and confine his opinions to the editorial page. 

Helen Ettlinger 

• 

XXXXXXXXXX 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

In his op-ed commentary (“Public Demands Tax Accountability For Tax Payments,” Daily Planet, Nov. 21-24), John Koenigshofer again perpetuates the myth of thousands of “untaxed” Berkeley renters who don’t contribute to owner property tax obligations. 

Also, in an earlier letter (Daily Planet, Nov. 17-20), Mr. Koenigshofer assails the Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board’s annual citywide rent increase/adjustment process, or Annual General Adjustment (AGA), as “unfair.” 

As a real estate industry professional associated with a Berkeley-based firm, I can appreciate what apparently motivates Mr. Koenigshofer’s ad hominin polemical attacks against both the elected rent board’s policies, and the city’s 1980 voter-approved Rent Stabilization Ordinance, which regulates nearly 20,000 rent controlled units citywide. 

The rent board’s AGA calculation includes 27 separate rental property owner expenses, taxes, fees, utility costs, etc. To cite several components: During 2002-03, the Peralta Community College and East Bay Regional Park tax assessments both declined by—12.30 percent respectively. 

During the same period, for example, the following AGA components remained flat or increased: city business license (0 percent), street lighting (0 percent), lead abatement (0 percent), insurance (1.6 percent), school bonds (1.6 percent) and property taxes (2 percent), to list a few items. 

As required by the California Supreme Court and the city’s rent ordinance, rental property owners in Berkeley are entitled to a constitutionally mandated “fair return” from their property investment. Accordingly, a one percent AGA rent increase (plus an additional $3 per unit per month) was provided for all units that already receive the state Costa-Hawkins vacancy decontrol—or full market rent—increase (the average rent for these units is now $1,220 per month).  

Since 1980, AGA adjustments have kept pace with Bay Area inflation, and maintained the constitutionally mandated ”net operating income” (or profit) level for all rent controlled units in Berkeley.  

Omitted from Mr. Koenigshofer’s letter is any mention of the years 1990 to 1994: During that time, a real estate industry-backed rent board majority increased Berkeley’s rent levels by an unprecedented 50 percent across the board leading to extreme hardship for many renters. 

If Mr. Koenigshofer feels passionately that the current rent board or the rent ordinance is ”unfair,” I urge him again to devote his time and energy to campaigning on behalf of—and democratically electing—candidates who better reflect his views rather than complaining. 

Chris Kavanagh