Features

It seems everyone—politicians, voters, letter writers and editorial columnists—expressed surprise—shock even—at the process by which a small San Pablo card room could morph into a super-size slot machine mecca.  

But another deal being crafted nearby des erves an equally critical look. 

In October, 2002, just as Berkeley’s bitter mayoral battle was about to be decided, the Berkeley Daily Planet reported that then candidate Tom Bates had “facilitated” a deal whereby the East Bay Regional Park District woul d purchase 10 (or more) acres from Magna Corporation—which owns Golden Gate Fields racetrack. This land would be used for soccer fields, in spite of the fact EBRPD openly stated it doesn’t like including sports fields on their property. And in spite of th e fact that EBRPD has thousands of acres “land-banked,” closed to the public because of a lack of maintenance funding. 

The deal was heartily approved by local Sierra Club spokesman Norman LaForce and Robert Cheasty, the leader of Citizens For The Eastsho re State Park. The logic was that this removed the threat of ballfields on the Albany Plateau, part of the proposed Eastshore State Park. Tom Bates is quoted as saying that this deal could be settled by election day! The Sierra Club and playing field advo cates endorsed Bates for mayor of Berkeley. 

Doesn’t sound so bad, right? 

Those of us who questioned the Magna/Bates/EBRPD/Sierra Club soccer field deal asked “What does Magna get in return?” And as time has passed, we finally have our answer. It isn’t a pretty one, nor should it give any comfort to people who look to their local environmental groups for advice on land use. 

The Magna Corporation has been expressing their desire, for years, to build a 600,000-square-foot retail/hotel development on their north parking lot facing Buchanan Street. This scheme, along with the proposed ferry terminal at the base of Gilman Street, as well as visions of Gilman becoming a commercial strip, would make much of the Berkeley/Albany Waterfront look just like Emeryvi lle.  

In March this year, Norman LaForce was still talking tough: “We will sink any ferry boat that tries to get into Gilman,” he is quoted as saying. In the same Daily Planet article the myth was perpetuated. “They (environmentalists) are fighting a hot el and entertainment center planned by Magna Corporation….” 

So, imagine our surprise (not really) when just a few weeks ago, the same Norman LaForce announced at a public meeting that the Sierra Club had its own development plan for the north parking lot—325,000-square-feet of hotel and shopping. Right on the waterfront, right on top of the new state park. 

So this was the payoff for the 2002 deal for East Bay Regional Parks to buy the planned soccer field acres. Instead of 600,000 square feet, Magna Corporation gets environmentalist support to build 325,000 square feet.  

A recent Daily Planet article provides the information that a telephone “poll” being conducted might be forming opinion rather than receiving it. Obviously, Magna Corporation sees the prime waterfront site by the Albany Landfill as one of the most lucrative casino paydays this side of the Nevada border. 

And in the letters page, writers are expressing outrage at the decimation of the meadow in the Eastshore State Park “design” process. This land, which Norman LaForce declared the most ecologically sensitive area due to the abundance of bird and animal species, has been clear cut and surrounded by a chain-link fence. Clearly the nesting Northern Harrier liked the meadow just the way it was—non-native plants et al. 

The homogenizing and sanitizing of this newly created state park waterfront might yet prove to be an albatross around the necks of those who fought so hard for it—because the state will control and regulate how you can use yo ur local parks, and Magna Corporation has the Sierra Club’s blessing to build a 325,000-square-foot commercial center sitting like a festering boil on the face of the park.  

In their determination to see the Eastshore State Park built, the very people who fought valiantly to prevent development of the waterfront in the ‘70s may have inadvertently helped create a development nightmare. 

Those of us who spoke out against the restrictions implicit in a state park—saying we wanted cities to maintain control of urban parks to meet the needs of local people—were mocked in public meetings, and ignored by politicians, environmentalist leaders and planners alike. 

Thankfully there are many in Berkeley and the surrounding cities who still have the urge to protest. It is never to late to show our disgust—at the ballot box, in the media, in City Council chambers and in the parks themselves. 

›x