Features

Residents of the East Campus neighborhood in South Berkeley were recently given an opportunity to experience yet again the city’s (in this case, the School Board’s) devious tactic for pushing through a project that residents in a neighborhood don’t want. In this case it is a hardball field with overhead lights and loudspeakers that the neighborhood has been fighting for years. The first step of the tactic took place at the “East Campus Design Charrette” held at the Alternative High School Multi-Purpose Room, MLK Jr. Way and Derby, on Monday, Jan. 24. 

The tactic—which all Berkeley citizens would do well to learn to recognize, since it will almost certainly be used when the city decides to invade their neighborhood—is well-known to residents of the East Campus area. It works like this: (1) The city agency (in this case, the School Board) decides what it wants to do (e.g., install a hardball field). (2) The agency then hires a consulting firm to “make a plan,” and instructs the firm to hold several meetings gathering “input” from the affected neighborhood. These meetings involve lots of visual displays, oversize maps, handouts, and the breaking up of attendees into smaller groups so that they can arrive at “recommendations” to be then carefully considered by the consultant company. There is a great display of recording attendees’ wishes, of inviting attendees to “participate” in the planning process. (3) The city does exactly what it intended to do originally. 

Few residents of the East Campus area have had any objection to the removal of the decaying temporary school buildings in the East Campus and their replacement by soccer and softball fields, children’s playgrounds, and tasteful landscaping. But residents have a major and overriding objection to the School Board’s plan to close Derby Street and install a full-size regulation hardball field with overhead lights and loudspeakers that would be available for use by Berkeley High School teams and, far worse, would be rented out to various sports groups throughout the year. In fact, some proponents on the School Board have been very clear about what they have in mind, namely, making the field available “seven days a week, 8 a.m. to 11 p.m., 365 days a year.” The main justification is that the School Board needs the income from the rental of the field.  

The damage to the neighborhood is obvious to residents, and to other Berkeley citizens who have heard about the plan: noise day and night that will destroy the peace and quiet the neighborhood now enjoys, increased vandalism and traffic, plus the loss of the Farmer’s Market.  

At a previous planning meeting, I pointed out to a member of the School Board that there was a much better way to increase the board’s income. The total cost of the hardball field installation is estimated to be $2-3 million. (This in a time when the city is facing major budget deficits.) Assume $2.5 million. If this money were invested in conservative tax-free municipal bonds paying, say, 5 percent, then each year the School Board would have an income of $125,000, plus they would get their principal back whenever they wanted! Knowledgeable persons I have talked to have said that $125,000 is far more than the board could hope to make by renting out the field. In addition, there would be no need for support staff to manage the field rentals, no need to pay ongoing maintenance costs, no need for additional police to control vandalism. I told the School Board member that it seemed to me that this proposal completely eliminated the School Board’s “we need the income” justification for the field. 

In reply, he shrugged, said he didn’t believe it was legal. He made not the slightest indication that he would investigate whether it was or not.  

Proponents of the field—including parents in the hills who see the field as a way to save 15 minutes’ driving time in getting their kids to baseball practice—and their cronies on the School Board and the City Council, have used every sort of devious and shameful argument against the neighbors.  

They have accused the neighbors of being NIMBYs, to which neighbors have offered a succinct and cogent reply: “Fine: then why don’t you put the field in your back yard?” The truth is, there are several perfectly good alternative locations, and the School Board and the City Council and mayor have known about them for years. But overcoming the resistance of the East Campus neighbors has become a self-esteem issue, a personal crusade, for some of the most vehement proponents of the field: “No one says no to us!” 

Proponents have called the neighbors “against youth,” when the fact is that the fenced and locked field would be used by only about 40 male high school students, plus the various adult teams (“beer-ballers”) the field would be rented to, whereas the unfenced softball and soccer fields that the neighbors are perfectly willing to accept, could be used by many more students, including girls. 

When neighbors have pointed out that the field would undoubtedly lower property values in the area, proponents have accused the neighbors of being “selfish” (translation: how could they think of their property values when 15 minutes’ driving time by the city’s elite parents was at stake?) 

Lying and betrayal has been the rule rather than the exception in this fight. The above-mentioned member of the School Board said early in our conversation that we neighbors had it all wrong: at most 10 games a year, by high school teams, would be played at night, and thus would require speakers and overhead lights. How could we refuse to accept such a small disturbance to the neighborhood’s peace and quiet, if it were for the good of the youth (all 40 of them) of the city? I had to remind him that the projected usage goal of seven days a week, 8 a.m. to 11 p.m., 365 days a year had been stated publicly, on more than one occasion, by a member of the board. 

Mayor Bates, during his campaign, said he would take no part in promoting the field if he were elected. As a result, our precinct gave him the highest percentage of votes he received from any precinct in Berkeley. Within months after he was elected, he had changed his mind and was actively arm-twisting councilmembers to get them to vote for the closing of Derby Street. 

Over the years, meetings on the East Campus Plan have been held with no notice to residents of the area. “Someone forgot to send them out,” we were told  

more than once. 

Many of us consider the fight over the hardball field to be one of the most shameful episodes in Berkeley’s history, and a lesson (if anyone needed it) that even in the most liberal city in the country, what counts in the last analysis is not “the people” but the wishes of the wealthy and influential.  

While I was distributing flyers announcing the above-mentioned meeting (“charette”), several neighbors told me what lengths they were prepared to go to in  

order to stop the field. “We’ll make it an ongoing policy to disrupt the games,” one said. I pointed out to him that that was probably against the law. He replied, “But it’s not against the law to disrupt the games and go to jail for it, and to have reporters on hand during the arrests, and for their papers to then run articles with titles like, ‘Elderly Neighbors Arrested for Trying to Defend Their Neighborhood.’” 

I then pointed out that interest in participating in such demonstrations would probably fade pretty quickly. Several neighbors disagreed, arguing that every day of the year they would have an incentive, namely, the racket of the games, and the traffic, and the vandalism. 

Others said they would contribute all the time and money they could spare to defeat, in the next election, any City Councilmember (not to mention the mayor), and any School Board member, who voted for the closing of Derby Street. 

Two said that they were going to start an ongoing nuisance campaign outside the homes of all those on the City Council and the School Board who supported  

the field, if it becomes reality.  

I have no idea if these are merely empty threats, or if they will be carried out, but I do know that they are a measure of East Campus area neighbors’ determination to protect their homes and neighborhood against an unconscionable invasion by the city. 

Peter Schorer 

?