Features

Letters to the Editor

Tuesday October 26, 2004

PROP 62 

Editors, Daily Planet:  

Louisiana is the only other state in the nation that has dared to implement a Prop 62-style “run-off primary” system. What effect has this system had on Louisiana politics? 

Louisiana’s voter turnout is now the worst in the nation, with only 33 percent of registered voters bothering to participate. Fraud and abuse of the electoral system has increased. Radical candidates like Ku Klux Klanner David Duke have been able to seriously compete the governorship. 

In California, Prop 62 means that most voters in today’s gerrymandered districts will get to chose only between Democrat A and Democrat B, or Republican A and Republican B, for their representative to the state legislature. Political philosophies, principles, and policies will no longer be at issue because only candidates with the biggest bankrolls will have a chance to be heard. 

Yes, our current legislature is a mess, but Prop 62 will only make it worse. The answer to good governance in California is public financing of elections to get the corporate money out of politics, and electoral reforms like proportional representation and instant run-off voting to allow a broad spectrum of political opinion into our governing process. It is definitely not a system that severely reduces voter choice to a corporate-approved tweedledum and tweedledee. 

Prop 62, financed by large corporations, will take an already moribund system and set it in concrete.  

Don’t let them do it. Vote No on 62. 

John Morton 

Oakland 

 

• 

MENARD SUPPORTER 

Editors, Daily Planet:  

I am so glad recent letters to the Planet give me an open door to point out why councilmember candidate Laura Menard is endorsed extensively by neighborhood leaders of South Berkeley. She not only listens but she gets things done. An example: for six years volunteered, taking phone calls from troubled parents as a parent advocate in Berkeley Schools. This is just a part of her extensive volunteer work in Berkeley schools which led to her being named Outstanding Woman of the Year in 2003 by the City of Berkeley. 

I was at the candidates’ forum, and what was left out of Marcy Greenhut’s letter is more interesting than the exaggerations described. I was also with Laura during the precinct walk when we stopped at Sally Hindman’s house and don’t agree with her assessment of what Laura “implied.”  

After the topic of the Arts District was discussed by Laura as holding promise for our Commercial District, Max followed. He talked about meeting with the members of the Ashby Arts District, and spoke disparagingly that they were all “white people who had better not try to shut out the Black Repertory Theater.” He asked how an Arts District was going to help “our community.” Either he didn’t know or declined to discuss the fact that various members of the Arts District have made repeated communications with the Black Repertory Theater, inviting them to meetings and even including their events on a calendar postcard. 

When I brought up the Drop-In Center, I recounted testimony from neighboring businesses and residents: drug and alcohol use, drug dealing, fights, public urination etc. Conditions so bad and constant that one neighbor put her house up for sale, several businesses are thinking of leaving, including one in our neighborhood for 22 years. This was behavior was confirmed by two African American women who nodded their head and verbally agreed, who live on Fairview Street.  

It’s clear that if we really want the best for the troubled drop-in clients that the peer counseling and community living room approach is not helping enough. The clients deserve to be cared for by an organization that will maintain individual case files! The city manager’s report prepared by the Housing Dept. (5/25/04) states this clearly. The Drop-In Center has been under performing for a long time. In fact, they are not yet following the conditions mandated in their use permit 10 years ago. 

Marcy didn’t mention that that after my disclosure of drop-in problems, Max clearly lost his temper.  

Worse yet, was the behavior of two of his supporters at the end of the forum when Laura and I left the meeting room but were still in the building. Loud shouting came from the meeting room. I later found out from Frank Davis Jr. president of the Black Property Owner’s Association, and a 65 yr. resident of South Berkeley, what it was about. He was yelled at: “Why are you letting those white people push you around?” (as if he would have to be bullied into supporting a white woman council candidate.) Frank replied, “No one is pushing me around.” Hearing this left me very troubled and hurt. One of the people who yelled had greeted me and given me a warm hug on my way out of the room. I still count him as someone I like and respect, but the need for him to denigrate the white woman candidate was more important I guess. 

Laura Menard has a diverse group of supporters who don’t care what color she is, they care most about the quality of her actions.  

Robin Wright 

 

• 

BASTA ON MEASURE M 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Measure M would increase the paramedic services tax by 59 percent, i.e. from .02626 cents per square foot to .041634 cents per square foot. The tax in 2005 for a 1900 square foot home would be $79.10. Taken alone this is not a whole lot. Except that with the other things on the ballot the result would be total property taxes of more than $10,500 per year for the average Berkeley home (assessed at current values), plus a utility tax of more than $300. 

Proponents say Measure M will cover a $78,000 deficit in the city’s paramedic fund. But if enacted the measure will raise $1,200,000, with no guarantee that the excess will be used for medical services. What is really happening here? 

BASTA!, BudgetWatch, and other neighborhood associations and citizens groups argue that like other City of Berkeley tax measures on the ballot, Measure M is a figleaf. It is offered to us by “leaders” who refuse to face the real reasons for the budget deficit, and only want to cover them up. These problems include (1) expensive, non-essential programs which the mayor and his friends refuse to re-examine, and (2) union contracts which give city workers far better salaries and benefits that the rest of us can ever hope for in the private sector.  

Facing these problems takes political courage, which the mayor and council majority do not have. So they present us with false choices. For them we must either vote for the taxes or sacrifice essential public services. The classic example is the council’s vote last week to shut down one of two fire truck companies unless Measure M is approved on Nov. 2. They know full well the terror that comes from such a threat: fires in multistory structures, or on steep slopes can only be fought from a truck equipped with ladders. With only one of these in Berkeley, response time will double. Indeed there will be no response in the event of two simultaneous alarms.  

The mayor and council played their card. The Vice Mayor (Linda Maio) suggested gently that if the firefighters (who had declined to support Measure M) would only be “team players,” the truck would be restored. In case there was any doubt about what being a “team player” means, it was resolved when the clerk’s office announced that other city unions had already donated $19,000 to support the mayor’s tax increase proposals. 

The firefighters have now fallen into line. But the city will be worse for it. The annual cost of the truck company (about $300,000) is only a bit more than the free YMCA memberships that the council gives the employees every year. Indeed, the $498,000 proposed by the council in Measure H to finance their own election campaigns would be enough to fund the truck company and the deficit in the paramedic fund.. Alternatively could not the city do without one or two of its 51 commissions, each with its own funding needs?  

Why didn’t the mayor, and the council majority consider these alternatives before it put higher taxes on the ballot? Why do they take our generosity for granted? Why do they feel that if a measure can be described as for youth, or paramedical services, or literacy programs, surely the Berkeley electorate will go along? 

Where in short are the leaders? Today’s Berkeley establishment was born in the idealism of the ‘60s, but has evolved into a classic inner city political machine. The primary beneficiaries of the status quo are the city’s labor unions and the developers. The unions want to keep their annual raises, their pensions and their health care, all guaranteed by the city. The developers need their permits, variances and financial breaks. It is no surprise that union and developer contributions are the driving force in the current campaign.  

Berkeley does not have a budget problem. It has a leadership problem.  

Dean Metzger, President, The Claremont Elmwood Neighborhood Association and 

David Wilson, Steering Committee of BASTA!  

 

• 

DROP-IN CENTER 

Editors, Daily Planet:  

I was truly disappointed to read the article in the Berkeley Daily Planet about the efforts of some of my neighbors to shut down the Mental Health Drop-In Center on Adeline Street (Daily Planet, Oct. 15-18).  

I have lived in District 3 (South Berkeley) for 16 years, and lived down the street from the Drop-In Center from 1988 until 2000. Now I own a home in the same area. I am proud to have the Drop-In Center in my neighborhood, and proud of South Berkeley for providing this service to some of our neediest residents. Berkeley has the reputation of being inclusive, socio-economically and ethnically diverse, and supportive of all its residents. That is the Berkeley I want to live in. 

The Drop-In Center is a productive and valuable resource. They provide necessary services to some of the most vulnerable people in Berkeley. According to the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services: 95 percent of the center’s clients are homeless or at risk of becoming so, 98 percent are very low income, the majority are African American men, and 30 percent are veterans. These people are part of our community.  

Laura Menard, a candidate for District 3 of the City Council, would like to shut them out of our community. She is running on a platform to close down the Drop-In Center. Menard argues that this action will improve the neighborhood. Improve it for whom? 

Menard and her supporters blame the Drop-In Center for the drug dealing and drug use in the neighborhood. This is disingenuous and unfair. These problems existed long before the center moved into the neighborhood and cannot be blamed on the center and its clients. Some neighbors of the center voice concern about its effects on their property values. Anyone who is selling a house in Berkeley these days is making such an immense profit that to complain about this supposed devaluation is not only petty and ridiculous, but is also unfair. They are valuing the profits from their investment over the quality of life for everyone in the community. Property values are important, but so are other values—such as compassion and support for those most marginalized in our community, and living in an inclusive and diverse neighborhood. 

Concerns about safety and criminal activity in the neighborhood are valid. I would like to see the neighbors and the city work together to address these issues. However, providing services to people who need them is part of the solution, not the problem. Taking away these services will not improve the quality of life for anyone in Berkeley—not for the people who will be denied mental health services and the support they need, and not for those of us who are fortunate and privileged enough to own a home in Berkeley.  

Annemarie Heineman 

 

• 

MEASURE BB 

Editors, Daily Planet:  

AC Transit is demanding another parcel tax with Measure BB, and again they’re threatening to cut service for seniors, students and the disabled. Didn’t they use this blackmail in 2002? 

Back then voters approved the bailout, but AC Transit raised fares, eliminated discounts and cut service anyway. Clearly the AC Transit board cares about seniors, students and the disabled only around election time. 

It’s the responsibility of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to distribute state and federal transit dollars. MTC should divert funds from frivolous AC Transit capital programs (like buying Van Hool buses they can’t afford to run) until the books are balanced or the economy improves. 

Vote NO on BB: We bailed out AC Transit once and got burned. Now let MTC clean up the mess. 

Robert D. Bildeau  

 

• 

SELAWSKY ABSENT 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Where have you been John Selawsky and Joaquin Rivera? 

How can you know what’s going on in the Berkeley schools if you never check in? John Selawsky is the School Board liaison for Washington Elementary. Yet we haven’t we seen him for almost two years. Even then he was reluctant to meet with us. We asked both John and Joaquin to assist us in figuring out ways to support schools like Washington, with disproportionately large numbers of low income and kids of color—kids that the district has historically not served well. Did they want to engage in this conversation...no! Did they even take to heart some of our proposal...no! Instead what they did when they returned to the board was...nothing! Washington brought over 100 of our community members three times to the board and they never responded to our issues. And since then they have not come back. After the layoffs were rescinded, we were overjoyed and would have welcomed visits from either John or Joaquin. They’ve had their chance to address real issues at our schools. It’s time for both of them to move on. Congressperson Barbara Lee endorses Karen Hemphill, Washington parent, and Kalima Rose and so do we. They know and care about what’s going on and are willing to work with our schools in good times and in bad. 

Linda Currie and Greg McCrea  

 

• 

MEASURE Q, FOR 

Editors, Daily Planet:  

The irrational anger and outcry against measure Q illustrates well how prostitution exposes people’s unease about the incendiary combination of sex, women’s rights, money, and morality. Opponents of Q have distorted the content of the measure and then attacked its proponents for the distortions that the opponents themselves created. They attack something completely different from what those of us who support decriminalization want to accomplish, which is a safer and just society for women and children. Some examples of misinformation about Q: 

· Decriminalization (or legalization) of prostitution in Berkeley is accomplished by passage of measure Q. Measure Q changes no laws. It calls upon the state of California to repeal prostitution laws pertaining to adult, private, consensual sex. Until that happens, the BPD is asked to maintain their policy of “low priority” for prostitution arrests and to keep track of its law enforcement activities so that the city can generate relevant data about the sex industry in Berkeley. 

· Decriminalization will cause an increase of prostitution, pimping and the exploitation of women and children by “looking the other way.” In fact, prosecuting adults for non-violent, consensual sex uses tax money to enforce victimless crimes rather than using law enforcement to prosecute crimes that matter: the sexual abuse of children and violence against women. Moving toward decriminalization will focus tax money and police time on crimes of violence with real victims. Sex worker’s rights groups put this initiative on the ballot in order to begin a dialogue about what does and does not help them, in order to find an alternative model that can effectively reduce violence and other harm to prostitutes and to address more directly neighborhood quality of life concerns. The countries with the most restrictive prostitution laws have the most prostitution, the highest incidences of child prostitution, and acts of violence against prostitutes. 

· “Decriminalization promotes prostitution in all its forms” an unsubstantiated assertion made by anti-prostitution researcher, Melissa Farley and others. Measure Q does not seek to normalize, glamorize or celebrate prostitution but instead asks that more humane social policy be initiated with the collaboration of those most affected and harmed by prostitution: the prostitutes themselves. The best way to reduce prostitution is to empower sex workers and make it easier to leave such work without a criminal record. I have spoken all over the world to sex worker groups, World Health Organization doctors, government officials, and organizations trying to stop child prostitution and the exploitation of sex workers. Virtually all of them called for decriminalization as the most important first step in humanizing the lives of women and children and empowering those most victimized by prostitution.  

Dr. Rita Nakashima Brock, Starr King School for the Ministry (SKSM), Berkeley  

 

• 

MEASURE Q, AGAINST 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Measure Q, on Berkeley’s November ballot will, if passed, instruct our police to make enforcement of prostitution laws their lowest priority. This would be a terrible mistake, both for the streetwalkers themselves and for our community.  

Our social service providers report that children as young as 12 are recruited into prostitution by pimps. Pimps introduce them to drugs, generally heroin. In most cases these youngsters have had a history of sexual abuse. Enforcement gets them into Child Protective Services and away from the violence, sexually transmitted disease, and addiction associated with pimps and street prostitution. Without enforcement, these abused and hopeless children are left to the mercy of the pimps and the streets. 

Our diversion courts in Alameda County offer adult multiple offenders a choice: enter a recovery program or go to jail. Most, of course, choose the program. Options Recovery Services, located in and supported in part by the City of Berkeley, report a 65 percent success rate in recovery, largely because the court order keeps people in the program. “Options” saves lives. Enforcement is required to get to the court order. Without enforcement adults are never offered the choice. “Options” may not be the answer for every person, but it is an effective alternative for many. 

Research into prostitution reveals that 90 percent of the women in this profession do not want to be. Most girls, women, and boys are forced into prostituting themselves either by pimps, to support their drug habit, or out of financial desperation.  

In Berkeley we have street prostitution. Children traveling to and from school in some of our South and West Berkeley neighborhoods regularly encounter open sex acts in cars and on porches; they find used condoms and hypodermic needles strewn through their neighborhoods. This is an unacceptable affront to these children and their families.  

Prostitution is a complicated and serious matter. There are no easy answers. Reducing enforcement of our prostitution laws would be tantamount to saying that as the tragedy of exploitation and violence unfolds in our neighborhoods we will look the other way. Measure Q is poorly thought out, poorly drafted, and can do a lot of harm to the very people it ostensibly seeks to help. I urge Berkeley voters to reject Measure Q 

Linda Maio