Features

Letters to the Editor

Tuesday September 21, 2004

CREEKS ORDINANCE 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

On Sept. 28 the City Council will consider revisions to the Creek Ordinance, that would prevent homeowners whose house is destroyed by fire, earthquake or other disaster, and is near a creek channel, whether open or not, from rebuilding what was lost without going through lengthy and costly hoops. 

Because so much is undefined in the proposed ordinance, we face a Pandora’s Box of regulations needed to implement it. Among the unknowns created are to allow rebuilding only if there is not a: 

• “Significant adverse impact on the creek.” How can a homeowner demonstrate that rebuilding the house has no “significant adverse impact” on the creek, when that term is not defined? This gets us into Kafka-land, with the homeowner taking on the burden of trying to prove an unknown. 

• “Feasible alternative.” Are there cost limits to what is feasible for the homeowner to spend on paying engineers, architects, etc. to explore alternatives? Are there limits to requiring an alternative that would cost more than just rebuilding what was lost? Why is it the homeowner who is made responsible for developing alternatives, when it is the city that wants them? 

It is certainly appropriate to conform to current building codes for safety and health. However, it is not appropriate to make homeowners trying to rebuild after a tragic loss of their house to go through undefined, costly and onerous hoops. Rather, the goal of the city should be to facilitate rebuilding and a return to normalcy after a disaster. 

Those proposed requirements attempt to turn the clock back to a time when Berkeley was undeveloped. That concept is unrealistic and inappropriate in a built-out community, and those requirements should be dropped altogether. 

Cy Silver 

 

• 

SEAGATE PROJECT 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I attended the Zoning Adjustments Board Hearing on Sept. 9 wherein Seagate Properties scored a corrupt victory for their proposed project (2041 Center St.) and I am still stunned.  

The ZAB heard well-reasoned opposition from the public and, as evidenced by their original vote, realized that this monster project, possibly over a creek, needs an environmental impact report (EIR). Then City Planner Debbie Sanderson began a dogged campaign to convince them that they were wrong. 

Amazingly, she succeeded; the ZAB voted again, this time to allow the project to proceed without an EIR. 

If one of our eloquent speakers (who were giving up their free time to attend this meeting because they actually care about Berkeley) had had equal time to rebut Ms. Sanderson, the ZAB may well have seen the foolishness of her recommendation. 

My understanding of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is that it affords the public a chance to study and comment on a project which may affect their environment. That hearing took place, I believe, for the public to be heard. Instead, a biased staffmember commandeered it on behalf of the developer. 

Berkeley residents are being fleeced by exorbitant taxes which finance more staff per capita than any other city in the Bay Area, if not the country. Sadly, we are paying the salaries of staff who are working against us. 

Gale Garcia 

 

• 

BLANK FAMILY RESPONSE 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I am writing in response to Steve Pinto’s recent letter to the editor, which states “Go Away Blank Family.” 

While Mr. Pinto has a First Amendment right to express his opinions, he does not have the right to call the Blank family heirs “greedy” and communicate this falsehood to your entire readership. 

I am the daughter of Jerome Blank and an heir to the Blank Family Trust. I have never thrust myself or my name into the public spotlight and wish to be respected quietly by my friends, neighbors, colleagues and relatives. Mr. Pinto does not know me, and I definitely am not greedy. Mr. Pinto has maliciously and willfully defamed my name and thus has committed libel. By printing his disparaging comments, your newspaper has become a party to his action.  

Mr. Pinto has made a malicious statement about me, my mother and sister, which exposes us to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, and may cause the public to see and treat us, the living members of the Blank family, with less respect. It was hard enough to lose my father, but to have to put up with Mr. Pinto’s needlessly malicious comments is difficult, as well. (Anger management classes may solve his problem.) 

In his editorial, Mr. Pinto wished to state his opposition to telecommunication antennas being installed atop my late father’s office building. However, he strayed from his point by blaming my father for his support of the building of the Safeway Store on Solano Avenue in l964. (A little late, don’t ya think?) He insinuated that my father was a liar because he “promised” no negative effects, such as traffic and excess garbage, on the environment by the then new store. My father may have been a brilliant man, but he was not prescient. Who could have foreseen the massive population growth in Albany 40 years later? In the ‘60s, Albany was losing residents to the suburbs, and most families possessed only one car. Dad was not a liar. He was the most honest businessman most people have ever known, which is why he won the affectionate sobriquet “Mr. Albany.” Pinto’s argument against the antennas could have been very strong had it not been laced with hatred. 

Shame on you, Mr. Pinto! Shame on you, Daily Planet! 

Marcia Blank Kelly 

Topeka, Kansas 

 

• 

MEASURES OF J, K, L 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I am writing in support of the Berkeley tax measures J, K and L. It is important for the taxpayers of our community to remember that we as individuals received both federal and state (vehicle license fees) tax cuts last year. These cuts were paid for in part by reductions in funding to our city, cutting important services.  

As I understand it, a middle class Berkeley citizen will pay out significantly less money as a result of J, K and L than received from the Bush and Schwarzenegger cuts. I want to support the important services our city provides to everyone who lives here and I ask my fellow citizens to do the same. 

Adlai S. Leiby 

 

• 

SUTTER HEALTH 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

A recent article in your publication questions Sutter Health’s charity care program and alleges that Sutter overcharges uninsured patients. I had a very different experience and I think it’s important that your readers hear another story—my story.  

I was recently treated at a Sutter emergency room and admitted into the hospital. My wife and I have a small savings, own our home and make a very modest income—one that qualifies us to benefit from charity care. The financial office caseworker explained the program and suggested options that allowed me to be considered for Sutter’s charity care program. Even though I had some savings, the Sutter representative suggested that I keep it instead of using it to pay my hospital bill because, “I’d need the money to get back on my feet.” 

You can’t imagine how badly I needed that break and how thankful I am. The public keeps hearing the accusations, but I felt it important that your readers understand all the good that comes from charity care. Without it, I don’t know where I’d be today. 

Bill Farnsworth 

Sacramento 

 

• 

U.S. HEGEMONY 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

According to the recent news, Bush is leading Kerry in polls by 10-11 points. Most probably Mr. Bush will be re-elected. His re-election shows that people in the U.S. endorse his policies, his war, etc. One should note that Hitler was fully supported by the nation of Germany. So long as the Americans want to drive their SUVs and to wastefully use half of the resources on the planet, then they should approve someone like Mr. Bush to go around the world and exploit other nations. I believe that people in the U.S. have to look at themselves first rather pointing finger at Mr. Bush and his regime. Perhaps it is better that Mr. Bush gets re-elected, because he will help the U.S. empire fall sooner than later. Once the U.S. empire has fallen, the rest of the world will be free of its hegemony. 

Yash Indrajit 

 

• 

MEASURE H 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Becky O’Malley’s recent editorial (“Down at the Alligator’s Ball,” Daily Planet, Sept. 17-20) gives an unseemly example of a City Council candidate and current Zoning Adjustment Board commissioner accepting campaign contributions from people who have an interest in ZAB and council decisions. Berkeley’s current system of campaign fundraising means this “fishy” situation is too often the norm. 

Fortunately, there is a better way. Berkeley Measure H would make candidates responsive to Berkeley voters, not beholden to their donors. That is why Congresswoman Barbara Lee, the Sierra Club, the National Women’s Political Caucus, Common Cause, and dozens of others have endorsed Measure H. Vote yes on Measure H on Nov. 2—because democracy matters. 

Dan Newman 

 

• 

YES ON H 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

One would expect mudslinging and dirty politics to dominate the presidential election. I had always thought, however, that misleading statements and assertions without basis in reality had no place in our municipal public debate. Then I read Keith Winnard’s response (Letters, Daily Planet, Sept. 17-20). 

Winnard apparently has not done too much of his homework. He attempts to scare Berkeley residents by claiming that with Measure H “City funds may have to be spent to support the campaign of an anti-Semitic, racist homophobe!” I guess he does not know that the qualification requirements to receive public funding are high enough to ensure only serious candidates with deep community support can run for office. To receive public funds, a council candidate must collect 100 separate $5 contributions in district from registered voters. Mayoral candidates must collect 500 $5 contributions from registered voters in the city. Would anyone in Berkeley consider giving a $5 qualifying contribution to a self-proclaimed racist, anti-Semitic homophobe, let alone 100 people? I certainly wouldn’t, and I imagine Winnard wouldn’t either… 

Winnard apparently doesn’t know that at present incumbents generally outspend challengers two or three to one. I don’t understand Winnard’s logic that by making challengers financially competitive, incumbents somehow gain an advantage. Certainly all evidence in Maine and Arizona points to the contrary. 

Where fair and clean elections systems have been working extremely well for years, not once has a frivolous or vanity candidate qualified for public funds. All that the systems have done is increased participation in the political process (voter turnout has increased), made elections more competitive (incumbents are frequently challenged, what a noble thought!) and restored trust in government (elected officials are responsive to voters, not donors). 

Sam Ferguson 

Co-Chair, Berkeley Fair Elections Coalition, Yes on H 

 

• 

LARGE BUILDINGS 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

How do you feel about the many very large buildings that have been built or approved in recent years? 

Do you think it’s time to stop for a while until we see how we like these buildings and what their effects are? 

Michael Fullerton 

 

• 

COMMUNITY 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Being a real part of a community goes beyond the fact of living in a community. It goes beyond a casual “hello” and “how are you?” to your neighbor. No, being a part of a community is much more involved than this. In order to be a part of a community, one must first possess a sense of community. 

What is a community? Well, the dictionary defines community as ‘a body of people living in the same place under the same laws.’ According to this definition a city is a community. A state is a community. And a country is a community. This is plain and simple. Now, let’s focus on ‘a body of people living in the same place...’ and break it down a bit. 

Every ‘body’ is composed of individual parts. The ‘body’ called automobile is composed of wheels, tires, bumpers, an engine etc. A ‘body’ of people, like an automobile, can also be broken down into individual members that collectively make up the whole...Each person, like a car part, is different. Therefore each community is different. Each is a collection of different people. A collection of different ages and backgrounds. Each community has certain needs and concerns...but at the same time a community again is composed of smaller factions that connect with the whole picture. 

A community can have a collection of communities within itself. A church is a community in itself, while being a part of the braoder community it is located in. The same is true for a school. And each of these individual communities have an effect on the whole community. All of this is plain and simple. Now let’s break it down to the lowest denomination, the individual. 

An individual is like a pebble or a grain of sand. An individual has his or her own identity or personality. And like a pebble tossed in a still pool of water, an individual can cause a ripple effect that branches out endlessly. The key here, unlike a pebble, is being conscious of your individual effect on the whole picture. If each one pulls one and each one teaches one, the influence becomes quite powerful. 

But if an individual does not have a sense or an understanding of the whole community picture then the pulling and teaching is not unified. The community becomes a collection of pieces that don’t fit together to makeup the whole puzzle. 

This is our challenge. This is our goal: coming to grips with our individuality and how our individuality contributes to the broader picture. A grain of sand is merely a part of the whole beach. And understanding this is the beginning of having a real sense of community. 

Jonathan Wafer 

 

• 

NUMBER CRUNCHING 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

After reading Matthew Artz’s story about the pension costs for our City Employees, I felt like shouting “Rape, pillage, plunder!” How did the unions concoct this sweetheart deal and who among our City Council was asleep at the switch when this Trojan horse slipped by? Referring to Mr. Artz’s story, an officer who retired at age 50 after 25 years on the force would receive 75 percent of his or her highest salary annually for LIFE.  

Now let’s crunch the numbers for a minute. I turned 70 this year and the U. S. government gave me my revised life expectancy which was 97! Do I realistically expect Medicare and Social Security to keep kicking in that long? My pension plan was a paltry IRA which I contributed 15 percent of my salary. Now factor in those excessive, obscenely generous, city pension plans which our city employees are not required to pay a single, solitary cent! And that also applies to their medical care. Wouldn’t the grocery clerks, our teachers, our struggling self-employed workers love such subsidies? 

Eventually these unfunded pension liabilities will break the financial backs of us property owners in Berkeley. I commend the journalists at the Daily Planet for showing us the writing on the wall. It’s wake-up time to go back to the drawing board. Intergenerational fairness is also at stake. 

Reverend Dennis Kuby,  

Unitarian Universalist 

 

• 

A CRITIQUE 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Your discussion of comments this newspaper from readers at the Berkeley Daily Planet was very good—except that it was filled with reasons not to read your newspaper. The original Planet folded because it could not cope in a city that did not need a daily newspaper. Berkeley does need a newspaper; the Berkeley Voice is an awful paper filled with cronyism, cheeky writing when seriousness is all that is needed, and career local journalists who devalue the newspaper by remaining in attendance year in and out. This sounds familiar, no? 

It’s funny that while the Planet is sitting in a town that trains so many wonderful journalists that we don’t see more exciting features and photowork in your pages. Perhaps a partnership with UCB’s journalism school is in order. Realistically though, the serious problem this newspaper faces is how it will stop itself from becoming a part of city politics instead of being simply an observer of it. More to the point there is a constant sense that writers are returning to the same subjects and people to interview, as though the only resource available to writers is a phone and a contact book. Journalists should be extroverts...not happy to bide their time in a newsroom waiting for the news to come to them. 

John Parman 

BBC Asian Network 

Birmingham, England and Berkeley  

 

• 

HOMELESS PROBLEM 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I am not sure where or how to vent, but the homeless situation here is just out of control. I anticipate that my opinion is not popular given that this local population is socially aware and supportive, but can anyone advise what this City’s tact is when it comes to the homeless here? Maybe someone can tell me how to better handle the situation as a local resident. I have lived in two other major, east coast U.S. cities before and have never had to deal with this problem on an ongoing basis. 

Over the last few months, I have been aggressively approached when taking money out at the ATM (downtown and in North Berkeley), had homeless people put their faces two feet from my 2-year-old child in his stroller, experienced people practically taking food from my plate while sitting at outdoor cafes and been told by one young homeless person that I was a “MFer” since I did not give him money. In fact, a week after that interaction, that same person threw a stone at me when I was walking my child on the street. It seems like I can literally count the number of times each trip out of the house in which I have to deal with such situations. 

Other locals tell me this is “just the local flavor and diversity of Berkeley”. I would like to agree, but having to almost defend yourself is not adding to any type of flavor, but inhibiting the true potential to enjoy this great City. 

Doug Pestrak 

 

• 

DARK DAYS 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Thank you very much to Ann Fagan Ginger and the Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute, as well as the Daily Planet, for publishing the articles on our rights as human beings as defined by our U.S. Constitution and various international doctrines. 

In another era pre-9/11, the idea of being reminded that we have a right not to be killed and a right not to be tortured would appear to be absurd. But such are the surrealist Ashcrafty times and the neoCONNED circumstances of our country that one finds comfort in the stating of what is definitely no longer taken for granted. 

Personally I am very pessimistic about the future of out constitutional government. However, I fervently hope that Meiklejohn’s Institute’s work of monitoring and cataloging the terrible human rights abuses of this administration and Ann Ginger’s faith in codified law of the higher principles of humankind will help all of us to weather these dark days. 

Peter Teichner