Features

CITY-UC AGREEMENT 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I appreciated Zelda Bronstein’s clear analysis (Daily Planet, September 13-16) of Councilmember Linda Maio’s puffpiece (Daily Cal, Sept. 6) about Berkeley’s City/University LRDP Litigation Settlement Agreement, known colloquially as the “Bates/Birgeneau Deal.” 

Bronstein incorporated several choice quotes from the settlement, which was approved by a majority of the Berkeley City Council through a process steeped in duplicity and subterfuge. One of the quotes bears repeating.  

The new joint plan between the university and the “city” completely excludes people who merely inhabit and pay for the city, rather than rule over it. Regarding development within the “downtown area”, which they define to include many residential parts of Haste Street, Berkeley Way, Fulton Street and others, the agreement states: “Whereas, the City and University agree this vision and plan shall be comprehensive, and shall encompass the entire scope of future downtown development, including all private and public sector landowners and developers”(Section I.L). 

This stunning agreement, a gift to the 800-pound gorilla in our midst (which is hardly in need of a larger piece of the town), was approved by Councilmembers Linda Maio, Max Anderson, Laurie Capitelli, Darryl Moore, Gordon Wozniak and our fearless leader, Tom “Building Boom” Bates. I thought they were elected to look after our welfare. 

Gale Garcia 

• 

PEOPLE’S PARK RANT 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Your editor once wondered why people assume the Daily Planet has a target audience that scared away a potential advertiser. 

Well, Ms. Denney is one reason why that assumption exists. She typifies the anti-business, whining and bitching supposedly peacenik type. And yet, she isn’t for peace at all and is very willing to resort to violence to impose her views on others. 

I cannot believe you published her letter to the chancellor with not one but two threats against the man. “It’s a good way to avoid riots” is just another way of threatening to create a riot if Denney and her other whining friends don’t get their ways. 

You know, they say the trade embargo against Cuba will finally end when the old anti-Castro crowd dies off in South Florida because the young Cuban-Americans are obsessed with getting rid of Fidel. Well, I hope Carol and her bunch realize that once she finally dies (and frees us of her rants) that People’s Park will not live on but will be a parking lot or a dorm or something more useful than a place where drugs are sold and bums hang out and students are afraid to go. Sooner or later, Carol, People’s Park will be gone and no riots will occur. And you will just be some wacko terrorist that people laugh about when your name is mentioned. 

But in the meantime, Daily Planet—maybe you could refrain from printing blatant threats of violence. Hate and violence should be part of your target population. 

John Stillman 

• 

“PULLING STRINGS” 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I am writing today because I am so deeply offended by the words of one of the writers of a letter to the editor in your last edition titled “Pulling Strings” that I just cannot sit still. Ms. Leuren Moret, whom I have not had the privilege of meeting, has written one of the most vitriolic, hateful and racist diatribes, the likes of which I hoped to never see in this, the most “progressive” of towns.  

Like all who participate in a democratic society, I appreciate and respect everyone’s right to their opinions. I further understand that elected officials place themselves willingly in a position from which criticism of their actions will come from every conceivable angle. But come on, people! Whatever happened to the concept of civil discourse? I thought that Karl Rove had cornered the market on Willie Horton-style, attack, defame, and demean tactics? 

However much one might agree or disagree with the decisions of our local politicians, what gives anyone the right to viciously attack them on a personal level, let alone a racist one? Yes, I said racist! 

Ms. Moret characterizes Linda Maio as a “poodle”—which in itself is offensive. But she steps way over the line by painting Councilmember Darryl Moore as a “monkey.” There are a few other words in the history of African-American people that can evoke more outrage, pain, and outright disgust than that one, but not many! 

As one of Darryl’s constituents (and one, I might add, that has had occasion to both agree and disagree with his decisions), there is simply no other way to characterize this man than as a gentleman of the highest order. He carries himself with respect, and treats all those he encounters with the same respect. I have witnessed him in too many settings, public and private, to believe otherwise. Regardless, I hope that Ms. Moret takes time to take stock of herself, understand the full implications of what it means to call a black man a “monkey,” and hopefully realize that there has only been one animal-like behavior in this entire process.  

Disagree, yes. Hold accountable, by all means! But please….everyone….can we keep our disagreements on a humane and respectful level? Please? 

David W. Manson, Jr. 

• 

LEGALIZE BRIBERY? 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

“UC looks to donors to help pay executives.” Is the corruption blatant enough?  

“UC officials want to tap private donors to boost the salaries of their highest paid executives who already make more than $350,000 a year.” Excuse me?! (Quotes from the Sept. 20 San Francisco Chronicle.) 

First, If we want UC run in the interest of the students, faculty, staff, host communities and people of California, we do not want them paid by “private salary donations”!  

Second, I am sure we can find capable administrators with the public’s good in mind for much less than $350,000-$400,000-plus a year. Third, when UC President Robert Dynes says, “there are some donors who come to me and say that it is absolutely vital that we find a chancellor who is truly a leader,” one should be immediately suspicious of the way those donors want UC led and their willingness to pay for that control. 

If these donors and corporations were fairly taxed, the university would have plenty and democracy. 

That the current administration could consider this amoral, debatably illegal method to increase the wealth of top officials at a time when the university system has real financial needs, is a sign of deep corruption.  

Maybe we should consider a good cleansing of the administration. Start by democratizing the Regents and finding public university administrators willing to work for reasonable pay and for the public good. 

Cyndi Johnson 

• 

PARKER ON ATTENDANTS 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Publication of Susan Parker’s column on Sept. 20 (“High Finance on Dover Street”) does a huge disservice to the hundreds of hard-working personal care attendants in our area. The article gives the impression that all attendants, as a group, spend their money on cigarettes, lottery tickets, hair products and beer. I found her condescension outrageous. 

More than ever, personal care attendants are essential to many of us who are aging and/or have disabilities. Ironically, for such an important position, attendant wages are frequently not enough to live on, and our governor only recently backed off from further decreases. Nonetheless, I and many others in Berkeley have been assisted for many years by a tremendous group of people who work in this capacity. I’m embarrassed to think that any of my personal care attendants might have read Parker’s damning and arrogant article. 

It seems that Ms. Parker and her husband have had considerable difficulty in relationships with attendants over the years. I highly recommend the workshop, “How to Succeed in Attendant Management”, at Herrick Hospital in October. It will be co-directed by Hannah Karpilow, a local treasure of expertise with many years experience in this field. 

Susan O’Hara 

• 

PRESIDENTIAL CRISIS 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Those of us in our forties or older may remember two presidents who appeared on live TV to make dramatic announcements. The first was Lyndon B. Johnson who on March 31, 1968 stated, “...I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President.” The second was Richard M. Nixon, who on Aug. 8, 1974 announced his resignation.  

Neither man went willingly. Nixon stated that leaving office was “abhorrent to every instinct in my body.” But he faced certain impeachment if he did not resign. Johnson presided over a divided nation with tens of millions opposed to the war in Vietnam. Both of them faced a crisis of legitimacy and were no longer able to successfully govern a divided nation. 

Today the U.S. faces a similar crisis. We have a president and a regime that is also having its legitimacy questioned. While many questioned the Bush presidency since the 2000 selection by the Supreme Court, many more question its ability to govern today. The Bush regime has gone from one crisis to another. The two biggest are clearly the war against Iraq and the handling of the manmade disaster of Katrina.  

Today we have a national government that has deliberately eroded civil liberties and openly tortures people. We have an attorney general who has written memos justifying this torture. We will soon have a Supreme Court chief justice who has no problem with incarcerating people indefinitely, with limited access, if any, to the courts. 

We have a president who thinks that god wants him to be president as we move our government closer to a theocracy everyday. This government suppresses science that does not fit its religious, political and economic agenda forcing present and future generations to pay a terrible price. 

This government is moving to deny women here and all over the world the right to birth control and the freedom to control their own bodies by choosing abortion. 

In Iraq and Afghanistan our government has killed so many that it does not even bother to keep track of the numbers. While here at home, in the areas hit by hurricane Katrina, the body count mounts daily. The Bush regime’s actions and inactions have made a natural disaster a much larger manmade disaster and brought untold suffering to millions. 

The world can not wait until the Bush regime is out of office on January 20, 2009. More than three years from now will be too late. We need to create the conditions to remove this regime now. We must drive the Bush regime from power. It can be done. Two presidents were driven from power in the last 40 years. It is time to add a third to the list. 

The future is unwritten. Which one we get is up to us. 

Kenneth J. Theisen 

Oakland 

• 

KATRINA AND ANIMALS 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

It has been three whole weeks since the levees broke, but many animals are still awaiting rescue in the hurricane-riddled areas of New Orleans. Much has been shown written about the human tragedies surrounding hurricane Katrina. But little has been written about the forgotten animal victims of the hurricane. Animal rescue organizations like the Humane Society and the ASPCA have already saved thousands of animals, but there still many awaiting rescue, and untold thousands for whom it is too late. 

There are many sad stories; dogs that have been found drowned, still chained up, and animals that are emaciated, combing the streets for food. In the LSU Tulane laboratories, all 8,000 animals experienced the grizzly death of drowning in their own cages or starving. Yet in the media, they only gleaned a brief mention as researchers lamented the years of “lost data.” 

So often in these last few weeks the people refusing to evacuate have been taken to task for not heeding the hurricane warnings, but many of these people were caring pet owners. It is estimated that 65 percent of the American population owns a pet. There are many stories of residents refusing to leave their animals, or even shooting their companion dogs, rather than leaving them at home to die. Pet owners and lab administrators who fled knew the kind of death that might befall their animals—the very kind that they were fleeing. Some were just irresponsible. But many felt they had to make a kind of Sophie’s Choice, choosing to stay with their animals and perish, or leave some or all behind.  

Perhaps the bulk of the blame should lie on the federal and local government policies which prohibit pet owners from bringing pets with them to evacuation centers, and do not allow for animal and human rescue organizations to work in tandem with one another in a disaster. We have to question how we can live in one of the richest nations on earth, and yet not have an efficient plan for evacuating pets before and after disasters. Animal rescue groups were frustrated in their attempts to gain access to New Orleans by FEMA until a full six days after the disaster. For most animals, six days were too many. 

Most people don’t realize that none of the money donated to the large relief groups like the Red Cross and the Salvation Army goes toward animal supplies or animal rescue efforts. The Red Cross “is dedicated to meeting the needs of humans affected by the disaster only,” said Red Cross spokesperson Joyce Perry. They are not authorized to run animal shelters or care for animals. Admittedly, the human needs in the aftermath of this tragedy far exceed the resources of the Red Cross. But a separate donation should be made to large animal rescue organizations to address animal needs as well.  

Perhaps in the future, these two types of organizations should be linked under one relief effort, so there would just be one phone number to call at the bottom of our television screens. Having separate groups which work on separate parts of the equation is not a viable solution. 

Laura Wiley 

Castro Valley 

• 

NATIONAL GUARD 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

In response to the letter of Suzanne Joi in your Sept. 20 issue, I would like to venture an answer to her challenge, from my own point of view. I, for one, am getting a bit sick of our “show democracy,” or “democracy for show.”  

Last things in her letter first, the Berkeley City Council is not in the “vanguard” of the movement to “Bring the Troops Home.” Under the leadership of Mayor Bates, they have acted on this only after it became politically advantageous to do so, i.e., after it was already the majority opinion around the country. It had always been the majority opinion here in Berkeley, so they cannot claim that they were merely representing their constituency.  

Moreover, showboating on matters over which they have no control reeks of hypocrisy when they renege again and again on matters over which they do have complete control. Mayor Bates sends out a questionnaire in his newsletter to determine the will of the people, but where was that questionnaire concerning the recent settlement of the LRDP lawsuit? That autocratic settlement will largely determine the future development of Berkeley for the next fifteen years, unless my petition now before the California Supreme Court is granted or another parallel lawsuit is successful. 

It would seem that on relatively small matters that have no major political or economic impact on the ruling class, which seems to be his real constituency, or on very large matters over which he has no control, Mayor Bates is all too ready to make a dramatic show of pro-people democracy-in-action. But on matters over which he has complete control that impact directly the ordinary people in his constituency, he again and again sells out the rights and lives of the people to the well-heeled developers and other exploiters of society. 

Mayor Bates seems to advocate development at all costs. He is the founder of that policy here in Berkeley, who has once and for all established it as public policy. But with unregulated development comes the need for more maintenance and renovation, until the toxic burden from hazardous particulate matter reaches dangerous proportions for every citizen of Berkeley. I have heard that studies in West Berkeley showed that as much as 10 percent of children there now have asthma and that the airborne particulate matter is indeed in the danger zone. I doubt that this is just a coincidence. 

My health took a dramatic turn for the worse about seven years ago, when I was exposed to two successive six-month renovations in my apartment building on Telegraph Avenue. The city failed to protect us from the deliberate inflictions of a landlord intent on a constructive eviction of his tenants under rent control.  

As a direct result of the impairment of my immune system from the toxic burden imposed on me at that time, I developed WPW syndrome, a life-threatening form of tachycardia. Just recently another long-brewing problem has come to the fore—I have been diagnosed with a usually fatal form of cancer. I will soon die on the cross for the sins of those who pretend to care about people, but really do not. I have no doubt that had I not been made sick seven years ago, these genetic proclivities for disease would never have germinated into life-threatening illnesses.  

Even now, I can possibly heal, through the miraculous power of the body and of God, if the City of Berkeley does not kill me by subjecting me to two successive renovations, totaling 18 months, in the building next door. That appeal of the ZAB decision comes before the Council on Oct. 18. That landlord is also trying to cause a constructive eviction of her one remaining tenant under rent control. A mere coincidence? 

So, as I said at the beginning of this letter, I, for one, am getting a bit sick of our “show democracy,” or “democracy for show.” Is this “show democracy” the real fruit of the genuine struggle here in Berkeley? I, for one, think Berkeley can do better. “Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted?” (Matthew 5:13, KJV.) A consistent radicalism through and through is the real heart of Berkeley. I call forth that Spirit of God in each and every one of you. 

Peter J. Mutnick 

• 

POINTLESS PRIMARY 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

The recently released report of the Carter-Baker Commission on federal election reform devoted 550 words to the problem of the presidential primary schedule, about the length of this editorial. It wastes most of that verbiage expounding on the obvious: things need to change. The commission’s recommendation actually contains only 75 words, so perhaps they just didn’t give this part of the report much thought: they endorsed a system of four regional primaries, the order of which rotates from one cycle to the next. 

Why this particular recommendation? This remains unexplained. You’re supposed to just accept this on faith. Will a rotating regional presidential primary system “allow a wider and more deliberate national debate?” Wider than what? 

When Bill Bradley and John McCain threw in their towels in early March 2000, just under half of the delegates to the Democratic and Republican national conventions had been selected. When the Howard Dean campaign collapsed in late February 2004, less than a quarter of the delegates had been chosen. The other way of looking at it is that more than three-quarters of the nation’s Democrats had absolutely no say in the nomination of John Kerry. That’s democratic? 

The rotating regional plan would permanently disenfranchise three-quarters of the electorate in both parties. Because the winner of the first regional primary would look like The Winner and the others would come off looking like also-rans, every candidate would spend all of his or her time, energy, and money in those first states in a do or die effort. The rest of the country would be completely ignored. Since no resources would remain for any real campaigning after this electoral Armageddon, the states in the remaining three regional primaries would get on the bandwagon with the winner of the first primary. Win one, get three free. Any politician can do that math. 

The lucky first 25 percent would rotate from one four-year cycle to the next. Your particular region would get to cast a meaningful vote once every four cycles, or once every 16 years. You would be privileged to choose your party’s nominee three or four times during your life. That’s enough voting privileges for one lifetime, right? 

The rotating regional presidential primary idea dates back to the early 1970s, when womanizing wonder Bob Packwood (R-OR) introduced a bill for such a plan in the U.S. Senate. The bill had only two cosponsors and it died in committee. Thirty-two similar bills have been floated in Congress over the past 30 years, and they have met the same fate.. Quite simply, this is a plan that can’t survive outside the committee room. 

It’s an idea that goes nowhere... again and again. Think about it. This plan was designed around the same time as the space shuttle. Its saving grace has been that, unlike the shuttle, thank God, it has never been launched. Now they’re seriously talking about reanimating this creaky old idea and launching it... duck and cover! 

According to H. L. Mencken, “For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” This is one of them. There are much better alternatives out there, but politicians are ignoring them so they can continue riding their tired old hobby horses. That’s much easier than studying new solutions based on solid political science. 

Thomas Gangale 

Petaluma 

• 

LOOK AT PROP 73 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Let’s get past the publicly palatable statements made by the advocates of prop. 73 and take a look at what’s really going on. On the surface it looks simple, parents have a right to know if their teen daughters are having an abortion. That simple position will garner many votes. One must mine the proposition for its deeper meanings. 

Even a shallow dig uncovers wording that can and will certainly be used in further attacks on abortion rights. “Death of an unborn child,” is an inflammatory term, one that will eventually be used as an argument against all abortions. That should be a red flag to look even deeper. 

Picture yourself a 14-year-old girl. You’ve given in to temptation and seduction and have had sex with your boyfriend. Statistically, he is somewhat older and more sophisticated. Now you find yourself pregnant, and the loving boyfriend has, like a ghost, faded away. Adolescence, without complications, is difficult enough to get through, given all the biological changes and mixed messages. But, now you are pregnant and face the hurtle of telling your parents. As a typical teen, your relationship with your parents has gone from warm to confrontational, and they seem totally intolerant of your new needs for independence.  

Now picture yourself a person who has invested time and energy into promoting prop. 73.  

You are religious, not in the “God is love” mode, but rather the “wrathful God mode.” Your religion dictates that the truth has been given and is immutable, and those who deviate must be made to see the error of their ways. There is no OK, alternate way to take this world. 

Your religion closely ties sex and sin, and premarital sex is one of the biggest sins of all. You feel besieged on all sides by heathens and humanists, and you are sure that Satan has launched an all out campaign against God’s people. Teen sex is a sign of the degenerate times, and you are compelled to put an end to it. It doesn’t occur to you that teen motherhood can spell the end of education and perhaps a life of poverty and even crime. 

Now picture yourself a casual observer. The media promotes sex continually. Media stars are exalted for their sexual charm. In most families both parents work, and kids must fend for themselves for much of the day. The stigma of teen sex circa 1950 is a thing of the past. Kids tend to, by way of being immature, make really foolish decisions. Pregnant teens seldom complete their educational goals, so they are limited in their ability to provide for themselves and their children. Even the government promotes abstinence, without educating kids about condoms.  

Now picture yourself a voter, which you likely are. If you don’t look deeply into any issue, you run the risk of voting on the basis of a sound bite or a slogan on a bumper sticker. There are issues of basic human freedom and personal autonomy riding on this issue. You must forget the notion that the law has said you are not an adult until you are 18. If you are old enough to get pregnant, you are old enough for that event to shape the rest of your life. 

Meade Fischer 

Watsonville 

• 

LIQUOR STORES 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

For the second time in as many months the Berkeley Daily Planet has gotten a story wrong, your article on Sept. 20, “Liquor Store’s Demise Spurs Neighborhood Hopes,” never seems to get the whole picture just like another article in august about South Berkeley liquor stores. I recommend that your reporters get more then one source for there story. My name is Hazim Elbgal and my father owned the business at grove liquors from 1993 tell August 2005 and in that time we have built a reputation as a good family operated liquor store. Your article mentions that there was drug dealing in front of our establishment which is incorrect. I have spoken to many Berkeley police officers who will tell you that Grove Liquors was a model for all Berkeley liquors stores, we have never had any major issues with the city, our neighbors and customers loved us and continue to do so. Although the damage has already been done by this story all we ask is for Mr. Mathew Artz to please have the common decency to at least try to get our side of the story before publishing a story like this. In closing we wanted to say thank you to all our customers for 12 wonderful years at Grove Liquors we wish you all the luck in the world and god bless you. 

Hazim Elbgal 

• 

LAND USE DEMOCRACY 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I notice that any and all proposed courses of action in regard to land use or neighborhood development are uniformly controversial in our city, except one. Everybody justifies everything on grounds of making an environment “vibrant.” How has vibrancy escaped the meatgrinder of Berkeley’s participatory democracy? Where are the enemies of vibrancy, and why don’t we hear from them? Is the Planet fronting a vibrancist conspiracy? Are we as a community headed for a dull conformity of universal vibrancy? As a bona-fide senior citizen, AARP member and crotchety old man, I look upon vibrancy with a jaundiced eye - I’m not sure that too much of it is quite the thing. 

David Coolidge 

• 

TRAFFIC CIRCLES 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

It’s hardly of major importance in the hierarchy of things to be concerned about these days, but I want to weigh in with the increasing number of Berkeley residents (most recently Nicola M. Bourne) asking, Why Traffic Circles? 

I’m a minority-viewpoint resident in the LeConte neighborhood (which is so enamored of these devices that the runic ‘this way around the circle’ sign has become a logo on our neighborhood association’s letterhead). Over the past seven years or so, traffic calming circles have proliferated in this already lightly-trafficked area, often at intersections which already had four-way stop signs. 

In fairness, I will admit that I have gotten used to the circles. I no longer flinch when I’m crossing the street on foot and a car seems to be veering into my path. I only rarely see drivers, who either don’t understand the signs or choose to ignore them, going around the wrong way. And I cannot fault the dedication of my neighbors to the upkeep of the circles—each one is beautifully planted and maintained; they do not attract trash and are mostly quite pretty. Although, the ones with shrubbery (like the Mexican sage at Carleton and Ellsworth) or bushy conifers make it extremely difficult to see, say, a child, a bicycle or even a low-slung car on the far side. 

The thing that raises my blood-pressure—still, after seven years—every time I negotiate a traffic calming circle, is the sheer redundancy and waste of our tax dollars. As far as I can see, stop signs do the job every bit as well. (And, as far as visibility is concerned, often better.) But, apparently, stop signs are boring; traffic circles are sexy. Can they be stopped? I doubt it. 

P.S.: I’ve wanted to write for some time to say what a gem you have in Joe Eaton! Your back-page nature pieces are always of interest, but Eaton brings such a breadth of knowledge and sparkle of wit to the study of our fellow creatures. Thank you! 

Alice Jurow