Features

BROWER CENTER 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

James Doherty is right on target when he notes the terrible irony of building the Brower Center over a huge parking garage (Daily Planet, March 11-14). It makes a mockery of the effort to achieve a LEED Platinum designation for the structure, dishonors the life and work of a great environmentalist, and serves the citizens of Berkeley badly. Most of us understand that burning fossil fuel is bringing on rapid, deleterious climate change, and the efforts to get the last pockets of oil and gas from Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, and other western states will destroy the little remaining habitat for wildlife. How then can we allow the planning of the Brower Center to go forward designed for housing cars instead of insisting that it be based on 21st-century needs. Mr. Doherty’s forward-looking proposal that the high cost of an underground garage be redirected towards a light rail connecting downtown to the Berkeley Marina deserves serious consideration. Make Berkeley a model for other cities by recognizing the necessity of new approaches to transportation in our city center. 

Charlene M. Woodcock 

• 

GOLDEN GATE FIELDS 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I am writing to respond to numerous inaccuracies contained in a recent story regarding Golden Gate Fields. 

I have been the General Manager of Golden Gate Fields for 25 years. This track has a proud history of generating revenue for the City of Albany and in contributing to numerous charitable causes over its 68 years. We have opened our beautiful property to our Albany neighbors to walk their dogs, ride their bikes and teach their kids to drive in our parking lot. It is with this same sense of community and partnership that we enter into discussions with Albany residents about how to improve and expand public access to the land and shoreline, create new open space, while generating much needed revenue for the city. 

Here’s the truth about the track and possible development: 

Golden Gates is not closing. In fact, we have been investing to improve our facilities. We have spent more that $1 million in the last several years to upgrade and renovate the grandstands, not to mention building a brand new state-of-the-art medical facility for the horses on our grounds. 

The statement that a “600,000-800,000 square-foot” development is planned is completely false. In fact, there is no plan yet. That’s why we’re out in the community meeting with organizations and individuals to ask what people would want in a new project on our property. We are ready and willing to meet with Albany residents to hear their ideas and concerns. 

The story states that the development plans have “provoked strong opposition” from the Albany City Council and the Albany Chamber of Commerce. The truth is that the Albany Chamber passed a resolution recently, stating in part, “The Albany Chamber of Commerce supports thoughtful community-minded development at Golden Gate Fields” and we have heard a broad range of opinions from others with whom we have met. 

Those of us at Golden Gate Fields share the view that our property is a great resource, and that any plans should be carefully considered, well done, and be a benefit to the people of Albany by creating a wide range of opportunities to enjoy the waterfront. We are all in this together. Striking the right balance between development and open space is our only goal. Our actions are guided no by what is good for business, but equally by what is good for Albany—its residents, businesses, and schools. 

Peter Tunney  

Manager, Golden Gate Fields 

• 

UNDERCURRENTS 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

With regards to Jesse Allen-Taylor and most of his columns including the last two weeks, he seems to be long on opinion and short on fact. After all why let a few facts get in the way of an opinion piece? It’s a Grand Old Tradition of right wingers such as Ann Coulter and William Safire not to bother with facts. Few, it appears have the guts to take him to task. After all it’s Berkeley and it would be so un-PC to criticize a black writer. Racism or something, no doubt. Or is it that most Daily Planet readers just aren’t familiar enough with what goes on in Oakland? However when the ball is in the other court, it doesn’t seem to stop criticism. Several months ago there were several scathing letters aimed at Susan Parker telling her they didn’t care for her narratives on her daily life in her “gentrified” (it’s far from that) neighborhood and to get out. But she after all is easy to take pot shots at, since she is just a white woman.  

J. Sierra  

North Oakland 

• 

ECON 101 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I don’t know who this Bob Burnett fellow is and I am sure he is a fine fellow but he ought to at least take freshman Economics 101 or at least engage his brain before putting fingertips to the keyboard. I recall folks of Mr. Burnett’s ilk crying that the sky is falling because of high deficits during the Reagan years, shortly after I graduated from business school. The scare then was that deficit spending was going to cause inflation which of course was and is nonsense which anybody who bothered to study the matter knew. The economy needed priming then and lo and behold it grew out of the deficit hardly a decade later. And it is especially disingenuous to read Mr. Burnett’s disdain of Keynesian spending under the current administration when his liberal lot cursed the conservative spending under Hoover but loved the deficit spending programs of the New Deal under FDR. Face it Mr. Burnett the deficits we are running as a percentage of GNP are about what they have been for much of the last century and guess what there is no need for alarm they are not even near the worst we have seen. Your real beef is you do not like the policies of the Bush Administration; you are looking for validation from Chairman Greenspan when it is inappropriate for him to suggest how we lower deficits just that we do lower them eventually which just as before we will. Mr. Burnett, the other party won the elections. Get over it and even better if you wish to make suggestions, please do but in the context of the current political reality, not your what you might like to see in you Utopian World which ain’t going to happen now. 

Steve Pardee 

• 

DERBY STREET FIELD 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

First of all, let me say that, like virtually all neighbors of the East Campus, I was very pleased with the School Board’s decision not to consider closing Derby Street, and hence not to consider the possible installation of a hardball field in the East Campus, at this time. The School Board deserves the highest praise for sticking to the East Campus process it had decided upon, and not allowing itself to be derailed by the machinations of hardball field proponents.  

Second of all, and even more important, let me try to make clear why this controversy is not really about a proposed hardball field, but is rather about a  

fundamental question that concerns all citizens of Berkeley, namely, does any public agency have the right to force a non-essential project on a neighborhood which not only is strongly against it, but which already is the site of three public facilities (the East Campus, a UC maintenance warehouse, and the Farmers’ Market)? 

In order to understand why I feel the answer to this question must be no, consider the following: 

In recent years, the theory has been publicized that listening to (and if possible playing!) Mozart, raises the intelligence of children and young people. Let us assume that further research reveals that listening to, and if possible playing, any classical music raises the intelligence of children and young people—even 20th century classical, like that of Stravinsky, Bartok, Prokofiev, Hindemith, Schoenberg, Webern, music that most people consider to be “just noise.”  

Let us assume that the School Board, which is always up on the latest educational research, decides that, for the good of the students, a section of a park in North Berkeley is to be set aside for classical music performances. A stage is to be built, with loudspeakers and lights, and students are to be allowed to perform, as soloists or in groups, 8 a.m. to 11 p.m., seven days a week, 365 days a year (same as for the proposed hardball field). 

Let us assume—reasonably, I think—that when word gets out about this project, the neighbors of the park are almost unanimously opposed to it, arguing that the School Board has no right to destroy their peace and quiet, and has no right to force upon them a project that will almost certainly lower their property values, which represent a major portion of their life savings in many cases.  

Proponents of the stage scorn these protests, accusing the neighbors of being “against youth” and of being “selfish” for thinking of property values when the intellectual development of Berkeley’s youth is at stake. 

I hope that every reader can see that this is not an argument about whether classical music is good for Berkeley’s youth or not. It is an argument about the rights of neighbors relative to a non-essential public project that the vast majority of the neighbors are against. 

Most of the neighbors would, I am sure, not say that Berkeley’s youth should be deprived of classical music, but instead would simply ask the School Board to find other locations for its stage.  

The parallels to the hardball field are obvious.  

Let me conclude by repeating what I said in a previous letter to the editor: If the hardball field goes through, no neighborhood in Berkeley will be safe, because every public agency will take it as a green light to do whatever it wants anywhere in the city, regardless of the feelings of the neighbors. 

Peter Schorer 

• 

MORE ON DERBY FIELD 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I am writing in response to the travesty of a decision that the Berkeley Public School Board reached last Wednesday, March 9. 

My name is Eli Flushman. I am proud to say that I am a complete product of the Berkeley public school system, from kindergarten (Cragmont School) through college (UC Berkeley). I am currently the junior varsity baseball coach at Berkeley High. I am 23, and don’t think I have or ever will be as disgusted with the School 

Board and its members as I am now (With exception to Duran and Rivera, thank you for your attempts). 

The Berkeley High School Athletic department, one of the largest athletic departments in the country (something our board should be embracing not discouraging), has lacked space for over 40 years. East Campus, the site of which this discussion is based, is property of the BUSD and also the logical choice to improve the athletics space dilemma. 

The Berkeley High baseball team and its students are in dire need of a baseball field after sharing one at San Pablo park with other baseball and softball leagues, as well as soccer, rugby, lacrosse, and other people who otherwise would want to use a public park (i.e. not property of the BUSD). East Campus, could alleviate this burden of lack of space so prevalent our many students endure every day. 

If this land truly is BUSD property, why then are all the compromises coming at the expense of the students that by fault own the land? If it is property of the BUSD, then the board should make decisions that benefit the students that the land is intended to be used by, not the neighbors that live near it, or the Farmers’ Market that barrows its space. 

The resolution that was voted down, was there to find more information, nothing more. Not one shovel was going to be used because of a “yes” vote. Information was to be gathered as to what project could be done, and what would it cost. That is it. 

The three board members who decided against the needs of a large number of students did so while hiding behind excuses of a lack of timing, and that going 

back on their word lacked integrity, and was unethical. 

In my 23 years in this city I find that timing is never going to be good to make any decisions in this city because there will always be tough decisions to be made. Citing timing as a reason is a cop-out on making a decision and those who use that as the basis of their decision should be stripped of their role as a public servant as they are not fulfilling it. Further, there is always going to be opposition in this city, and someone will always be on the “short end of the stick,” so citing “angst” is even worse of a barrier to hide behind. 

What is unethical, what lacks integrity is the fact that the decision was made without knowing all the facts, that the decision was made without knowing the 

benefits it could bring our students. I voted for some of the board members who voted this resolution down, and I am hurt because I voted for them because I 

thought that they were running for the position to improve the Berkeley public schools, obviously I was wrong. Issel, Riddle, Selawsky, you all disappointed 

me greatly, as well as many others. 

To use an analogy, here is the decision they came too. Say you were a homeowner and you wanted to renovate your bathroom. Would you go over to your neighbors and ask them what they think you should do? Sure, why not? They may use your bathroom. But if they told you that you can’t do it unless it looks like they wanted it, you would tell them, “Too bad, it is my bathroom, and I am the one who uses it.” Unfortunately, three of our School Board members don’t want to make a decision that will benefit the people that would use it the most. 

Please, understand that the needs of the students of our community need to come first, contact the school board and tell them you believe so too. 

Eli Flushman 

• 

STUDENT’S PERSPECTIVE 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Some might say I have a biased view of the pros and cons of building a regulation size baseball field on the Derby Street site because I’m a member of the Berkeley High baseball program.  

It is true that I would welcome such a field, but that does not make me indifferent to the protests of the neighbors. What surprises me is how unwilling some are to seriously discuss the possibility of a real baseball field being included on the Derby Street site.  

I’ve heard the “skinned infield” proposal and rumors of batting cages, but what’s the use of having a limited facility that wouldn’t even support a full practice? Are the infielders to practice at Derby Street and the pitchers and outfielders at San Pablo? That would make for just the kind of team the school board seems to envision, a nice of enough idea as long the board can continue to get away with selling out the student athletes.  

Alex Day 

BHS junior 

• 

PARTS ONE AND TWO 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

It is very telling that nowhere in the recent letter from East Campus neighbors do the words “interim” or “temporary” appear. 

Part one of the Derby Street project was to include nothing that couldn’t be removed or used if the school district decided to build a full size ball field there. It was the drifting away from that requirement that worried so many supporters of a field and sparked Terry Doran’s awkward but necessary motion to explore the part two endorsed by most of the school board, a full-sized baseball field. 

The neighbors talk a lot about alternatives, but this just serves to avoid discussing Derby Street as one of the possible sites. Frankly, anyone who really explored what a team needs would see that East Campus is by far the best site. It would be silly to not discuss it. To envision bifurcated practices, with batting cages one place and full practices another is hardly realistic. 

The writers say the space would languish if the ball field were considered. Once again, there is a part one, with its busy uses, and then (I hope) a field, maybe sooner, maybe later, certainly not immediately.  

I do have to wonder, though, if this new space without a field isn’t going to be the biggest hang-out place in town, a People’s Park south. Maybe we could all get behind that. Believe it or not, a ball field is a good open space to be near. 

As someone who was deeply involved in the Adult School fight, I know how much trust counts and how carelessly the school board and superintendent sometimes treat that trust and how easily they can screw up a process.  

For all sorts of reasons, that was a different fight, no matter how much some board members strain mightily to turn an apple into an orange. For one thing, we never had a board member whose first and foremost job is to bring home the bacon to his neighbors and political base. There was never really any bait to be part of a bait-and-switch (except for the legal blackmailing of a couple of neighbors to drop a lawsuit). Almost all of us were ready to accept the adult school (as if we had any choice) if there were no other options, if the process was thorough and fair and if the planning was better. The neighbors and a local architect made sure it was. We did not become, we didn’t want to be, a fearful, exclusive neighborhood. 

Unfortunately for everyone, the Derby Street process was always too patched together and one-sided to work. There was never a good time to make corrections. The school board’s vote just means there’s more anguish to come. The leadership in this city tortures both sides to avoid making a decision. If Michele Lawrence or Shirley Issel or some council member says one more time that it’s the other’s responsibility to go first, we should sit them in a corner until they grow up. 

So, with respect, I have to ask the East Campus neighbors, are you keeping faith with the rest of the city by whistling past a possible part two, by pretending it hasn’t always been part of the process, just wishing that it isn’t something that has to be discussed for the benefit of our kids? 

James Day 

• 

STATE BUDGET 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

As a parent and as President of the Berkeley PTA Council, I am deeply concerned about the effects on children of the governor’s 2005-2006 state budget proposal. The proposal funds education below the Proposition 98 guaranteed minimum and further harms public schools that already suffer from inadequate resources. Legislators must consider the long term, negative effects of inadequate funding on California’s children as they deliberate the proposal. 

California’s schools are among the lowest funded in the nation and have suffered $9.8 billion in cuts in the last several years. Our average class size is the largest in the nation. We are last in the nation in the funding of school nurses, librarians, and counselors. Yet we have the most rigorous academic standards and one of the most stringent accountability systems in the nation. These high standards point the way to academic success for our students and future workers, but schools require adequate funding in order to fulfill that promise. 

The governor and legislators must meet their responsibility to California’s children, on whose success the future of California rests. They need to consider all necessary actions, including state budget structural reform, to ensure a budget serves the needs of children, schools and families. Our children, in Berkeley and throughout California, deserve the best educational opportunity we can give them. 

Roia Ferrazares 

President, Berkeley PTA Council 

• 

MESSAGE TO BHS TEACHERS 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Berkeley High can feel like a huge, impersonal place to many youngsters. If a student is not part of some special program or special group, it can be hard to feel like part of anything. For my son who will be graduating this June a few of you have made a difference. Your personal interest has helped him feel a sense of belonging even in this giant institution. Though he sometimes looked as if he just stepped out of a rap video you have looked past stereotypes and into the heart of a fine young person. Though his size and growing beard make him look like an adult, you have realized that he is not. He has needed you to reach out with an occasional reminder, a little encouragement and a bit of understanding. And you have provided these.  

His good verbal skills may even have lead you to believe that he is more sophisticated than he is. You could have been annoyed and believed that he wasn’t really trying. But you didn’t. You realized that he was sometimes clueless, a work in progress and you gave him the benefit of the doubt. Not all teachers are willing or able to see distinct individuals in the mass of teenage bodies that is Berkeley High, but a few of you have done so. You have tutored him at lunchtime, trusted his explanations, or encouraged him to rewrite papers for a better grade. And sometimes you have just talked to him and listened to him. 

There is no book or curriculum that is as powerful in teaching youngsters as a teacher is. And what some of you teach the students that is more important than any content is that they are worthwhile people and capable of success. 

My son has had his share of challenges dealing with teachers of differing levels of competence and commitment. Fortunately he has also had the opportunity to grow from the skill and kindness of others like you. 

It may be years before you see the positive outcomes that you have brought about and in many cases you won’t see them at all. But I want you to know that the time you have spent on my son and other kids like him has not been wasted. He already appreciates it and so do we his parents. 

Susan DeMersseman 

• 

BUDGET PRIORITIES 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I strongly oppose the proposal to spend $2.4 million for a Public Safety Computer Dispatch System for the following reasons:  

• It is not a good investment and will require further staff-time and City money before it becomes fully operational; and  

• The reasons that a new dispatch system is needed are not transparent.  

I recognize the Herculean task that is required of City Council to make hard decisions on the city budget. In considering the many worthy competing priorities for continued service to our diverse population, I believe that spending this large sum for a dispatch system is not appropriate. Having some experience in developing information systems for public health purposes, I have learned that several criteria must be met before an information system can be successfully developed and/or used effectively. The system was advertised as “off-the-shelf” and will presumably be usable immediately after purchase. My experience is that no such item in information systems exists. There are always reasons why specific new functionalities need to be programmed; and/or bugs need to be “fixed.” I read recently in the Berkeley Daily Planet that a $1 million computer dispatch system was bought a few years ago and had to be abandoned because it did not serve the department’s needs. Was this also advertised as an “off-the-shelf” system?  

It is important for the public to understand the reasons for the need of a new computerized dispatch system that will be used by the police department. In the climate of information-sharing with fewer human rights protections, I believe the citizens of Berkeley deserve a detailed description of the rationale for this new police tool, what it will accomplish, potential limitations of the system, and potential adverse impacts on privacy and human rights.  

I strongly urge City Council to spend $2.4 million of our money on continued services rather than on this dispatch system.  

Lisa Pascopella 

• 

PROTECTING RETIREMENT SECURITY 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

The governor’s proposal to overhaul the pensions that millions of California’s public employees depend on for a secure retirement is bad news for working people and tax payers throughout the state. Under the current CALPERS system, public employees get a guaranteed pension and the choice to contribute to a 401(k) plan. The governor proposes to make it illegal to provide traditional pensions to new employees, leaving them with only risky 401(k) type plans. Given that 401(k) plans lost 40 percent in the recent stock market crash, its clear that investing all of one’s retirement savings in a 401(k) is a risk that working people should not be forced to take. And when investments go sour and workers’ retirement savings go belly up, its taxpayers who will be forced to foot the bill. So who wins if working families and taxpayers lose? The big winners will be the Wall Street brokers who will reap billions in fees and commissions.  

CALPERS currently provides what all working people have a right to expect: a secure retirement. Instead of working to destroy retirement security for millions of working people in California, the governor should strive to ensure that every working person in California has the retirement security that the current CALPERS system guarantees. 

Michael Marchant 

Albany