Features

TEACHERS’ CONTRACT 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Like other parents with children in the Berkeley Unified School District, I am saddened to see the teachers engage in a work action in retaliation for the continued absence of a work contract. The teachers must be helped to understand what the parents and taxpayers observe daily, that the school system is engaged in an unprecedented behavior that keeps Berkeley taxes high, its schools troubled and its teachers under-compensated. Rather than guard access to Berkeley schools as all other districts do, a third to a half of each class is made up of free-riders drawn as far away as Hayward and Hercules but mostly from Oakland and Richmond. Berkeley engages in this costly behavior as its own protest against the injustice of the existence of impoverished districts. While Berkeley’s unique stand against enforcing residency is understandable as an expression of our city’s politics, it saddles all participants with an unfair burden. Albany, Piedmont and Orinda have better teaching and learning conditions because they are not using the schools to make a political stand. Teachers cannot thoughtfully protest the effects of Berkeley policies without considering the wisdom of those policies.  

David Baggins 

• 

SOCIAL SECURITY 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Some of my fellow Berkeley residents are Republicans. I know, so I try to be open minded. 

But recently, my tolerance was attenuated when I heard that outside Sen. Rick Santorum’s Social Security town hall meeting in Philadelphia, some Republicans were doing a Berkeley-style protest, chanting:  

“Hey, hey. Ho, ho. Social Security has got to go.” 

Evidently some Republicans want to go beyond the foolishness of “privatizing” Social Security (i.e. selling it to Wall Street, home of the Enron scam). They actually want to eliminate the program. 

I heard about that protest after recently attending a slide show on campus about all the New Deal construction projects. (Local examples: the former Farm Credit Building and our Rose Garden.) 

Eliminate Social Security? Sure, how about getting rid of Medicare too? Privatize all the schools. Get rid of the buses, along with AMTRAK. 

What on earth is the matter with these Republicans? Do they live in the same country, let alone on the same planet? Perhaps not; they don’t see global warming as a problem. 

It sure is hard to be “liberal” about Bush’s Republicans. I wish they’d just stick to being anti-choice, anti-gay, pro-oil and pro-war.  

Steve Geller 

• 

PRESERVING WHAT? 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Mr. Alan Tobey wrote that Gale Garcia’s defense of preservation did not “help the preservationist cause most of us espouse” (Daily Planet, Feb. 25-28). Though Mr. Tobey has opined on subjects as diverse as 30-year-old wines, West Berkeley Bowl expansion, and his African safari, he remains silent on preservation. While he suggests we must compromise with “creative destruction,” he gives no clue as to what he means when he calls himself a preservationist, and therefore what he would preserve. It’s easy to criticize, but far more difficult to actually take a stand and adopt a position on a development. His use of qualifying adjectives is not reassuring—if we only preserve what is “truly distinctive,” don’t we lose the underlying historical and cultural context that our national, state and local preservation laws were especially drafted to protect? 

Jerry Sulliger 

• 

BRENNAN’S, CELIA’S 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I was perplexed by Alan Tobey’s response to an earlier letter of mine—there was no hint that he’d actually read it. I did not “passionately denounce” any particular type of developer (although that might be a fine idea). Since Mr. Tobey introduced the topic of developer types, I’ll say a word about the corporation behind the proposal to demolish Brennan’s and Celia’s. 

The Urban Housing Group is a recently formed development arm of Marcus & Millichap, the largest real estate investment brokerage company in the nation. A survey of their investors was conducted in 2004, and published in a report called 2005 Real Estate Investor Outlook, offering insight into the values of the company. The report details how many billions of dollars of property transactions the company closed in years 2003 and 2004, and concludes with a tion entitled, “A Vote of Confidence for Bush.” 

The report repeatedly refers to disturbing vacancy rates in commercial and residential real estate. “’What is surprising is the level of optimism among respondents, particularly at a point when pricing is at an all-time high and property fundamentals have not improved all that much,’ says Hessam Nadji, managing director of research services at Marcus & Millichap. ‘One explanation is that a dearth of alternative investments is driving capital to real estate at a feverish pace’, Nadji says.” 

What a relief—no danger of insensitive profiteer developers here! 

Gale Garcia 

• 

SMART GROWTH 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I have been following with interest the ongoing debate about preservation and “Smart Growth” but need some clarification on the terminology. I know what preservation means, but am a little fuzzy on “Smart Growth.” Sounds like a buzz-phrase to me, reminiscent of “Clean Air Act,” “Healthy Forests Initiative” and “No Child Left Behind.” (Perhaps Emeryville could advise us.) 

Christopher Osborn 

• 

BIG BUILDING PLANS 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

There is a mania going on right now. Big plans for big building and we need to take a hard look at why that is a dumb idea. 

  Casinos on the Wetlands, Wal-Marts, downtown Oakland and Jack London Square, UC Berkeley’s expansion plan including Gill Tract and downtown Berkeley, and the Bay Bridge. 

  Take the Bay Bridge debacle for example. The plan was bad to begin with. Retrofitting the old bridge made more sense. The new bridge had no good plan, has been loud, expensive and completely devastating to the bay and it probably won’t save any lives. It should never have been started!  

  All of the above plans are short sighted and destructive. They will use incredible resources, ultimately draining the public with little in return, unless you are the building industry. They are detrimental to the environmental, economic and historical characters of our communities. Most people have little information on exactly what is being planned! These projects are trying to attract a customer base that is harmed by their very construction. Bad planning. There are hundreds of “for rent” and” for lease” signs out there now. We don’t need more construction! Certainly not to be locked into these mega plans. 

We should be using our resources on positive improvements to the actual lives of the people in the Bay Area; caring for people, education, sustainable agriculture, real green science and upkeep and use of our existing buildings. The planners do us a dis-service with these mega building plans. 

Tierra Dulce 

Oakland 

• 

NOTE TO PETER HILLIER 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

At the Thousand Oaks Neighborhood Association meeting of Feb. 24, Transportation Manager Peter Hilllier was invited to hear and respond to issues of traffic and parking. The moderator posed rather pointed questions about past difficulties in getting timely information from the Transportation Department. Rather than respond, Mr. Hillier left the meeting in a snit, reinforcing the perception that communication with the department is problematic. I would like to say to Mr. Hillier: We, the residents of Berkeley, pay your salary; you work for us and answer to us. If your brittle ego can’t stand the pressures of public office, please retire and make way for someone with more open communication skills. Council member Laurie Capitelli was also a guest at the meeting, and in marked contrast, he was open, receptive, and helpful in other discussion. Our thanks to him. 

Jerry Landis 

• 

AGAIN WITH THE  

POLICE BLOTTER 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I’m convinced that when or if Richard Brenneman or a member of his family becomes the victim of a violent crime, his very next Police Blotter will not contain as much “entertaining reading.” Your editorial response to letter writer Dan Brekke (Feb. 15-17) is exactly the same as when other concerned people have written to criticize Brenneman’s crudity: you mirror it with a letter from somebody who thinks it’s funny. There will always be somebody like that. By responding in this fashion, you’re like a pendulum. Is that what mindful judgment is really all about—a mechanical display of tit for tat? Personal crime is not the same as a parking issue or a building dispute. You must look at it for what it is—a very personal loss—and you need to show respect to victims. That isn’t done by making a funny story out of it. This is what Dan Brekke was trying to tell you, and he did it well. To Dan and the others who’ve written the Daily Planet with the same criticism and been treated this way: Unfortunately, most journalists simply cannot be wrong; they might admit errors of fact (begrudgingly), but not of judgment. For them, presenting differing opinions is enough. Sadly, we just have to live with it. This particular situation may not change until the writer or perhaps his publisher friend suffers a personal loss of some sort and very quickly sees the light. Or maybe until somebody of better judgment they respect convinces them to “tone it down,” as they seemed to do for an issue or two awhile back. 

Sandy Rothman