Public Comment

NEBA DEFECTIONS 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Effective this week we are former members of the board of directors of the North East Berkeley Association (NEBA). We were deeply disturbed by the inaccuracies in the recent Daily Planet commentary by Eleanor Pepples on behalf of our association. We believe that the vote by the NEBA board to oppose Measure A was based on faulty information, and that the arguments put forward by its president in the NEBA Newsletter and the Daily Planet do not reflect our views or those of the our North East Berkeley Neighborhood. When the NEBA board refused to reconsider its vote this past week or to reconsider faultily presented information, we decided to resign. 

We are writing to express our complete support for Measure A. We agree with its purposes and recognize it as a proper replacement for existing BSEP and Measure B funds. Its allocation of funding is clear. Mechanisms for auditing, oversight, and accountability are built not only into the measure, but are mandated by state Assembly Bill 1200 as administered by the Alameda County Office of Education.  

Berkeley public schools are an important institution in the life and fabric of the City of Berkeley. Over the last five years they have improved dramatically, due to the efforts of a new Superintendent, a less politicized Board, better teacher support and the devoted work of many volunteers. BSEP and Measure B funds have been vitally important to this steady progress and stability. Our schools have depended on the financial support that BSEP and Measure B have provided and that Measure A will continue. 

We still believe that neighborhood associations can provide crucial information on the issues and provide a forum for many points of view.  

Please vote yes on Measure A. Our schools need everyone’s support. 

Ann Plant 

Robert Remiker 

Kathryn Snowden• 

GEORGE BEIER 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

OK, so I am not impartial. George Beier is my life partner of almost 18 years. Nevertheless I thought I could add to the dialog by telling you some things about George that you might not know: 

George is kind. He is always the first one to reach out to family and friends in time of need. He also has compassion for those in need in our community. Just ask the folks at Options Recovery Service, where he regularly volunteers, and they will tell you what I mean. 

George loves people. When he comes home from a long trip, he usually tells me the life stories of the people who sat next to him on the plane. And often to my frustration, George is stopping and savoring discussions with strangers, as well as acquaintances, that we happened to encounter in our day-to-day lives. 

George is smart. Whether he is doing the New York Times crossword puzzle, solving a programming bug, or working on a neighborhood plan, he does it all! And I can tell you if you are going to engage him in an argument, make sure you have your ducks in a row. 

Finally, George is passionate about life. I think anybody who has met him can attest to his intense love of life, people, work, family, friends, neighborhood, community, and Berkeley. As my sister Phoebe told me when she first met George, “Life with George will never be boring.” Boy was she right! 

John Caner 

• 

AN OUTRAGED ALUMNUS 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Several hundred UC Berkeley custodians protested last week the callous and highly immoral treatment they are receiving from the administration. Would you believe it!—though the custodians won money from the state to increase their poverty level earnings, the university has refused to release the funds. Why? Because the administrators, undoubtedly with a nod from the Board of Trustees, are withholding the money as a bargaining chip to compel the Union, AFSCME Local 3299, to make concessions on the pension plan that would further erode their take home wages.  

So Berkeley Councilmember Max Anderson’s remarks at the rally, that giving these workers a living wage “is a matter of will, not finances” is right on. Reflecting a typical situation, one custodian complained that her wage increased in the last six years from her starting wage of $11.22 an hour to $11.83 cents. Although custodians now begin with $11.34, the starting hourly rate at Chabot Community College is $18.89. Both the starting and top hourly rate for custodians are substantially higher at other state funded colleges. 

As an alumnus of the university, I am appalled at the message they are communicating to the understaffed and overworked custodians. It is a serious affront to their dignity as human beings. And what kind of education are they giving to its students by implying that those who clean their rooms deserve to be treated in a shoddy and contemptuous manner. Max Anderson gave some very good advice to the university administrators—the custodians clean the rooms, now “the university should come clean.” 

Harry Brill 

• 

HEMPHILL FOR SCHOOL BOARD 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

More than a century ago, the American educator and philosopher John Dewey wrote: “What the best and wisest parent wants for his own child, that must be what the community wants for all of its children. Any other ideal for our schools is narrow and unlovely; acted upon, it destroys our democracy.” Although the Berkeley Unified School District has a long way to go to realize the ideal of providing the best possible education for all of our children, there are many wise and compassionate individuals in our schools working to achieve this goal. One of these individuals is School Board candidate Karen Hemphill. From working with her and observing her leadership at Washington Elementary and at Berkeley High School (Karen and I were co-presidents of the BHS PTSA in 2005-2006) I know that she is passionately committed to fostering schools where all students are challenged and supported. In addition, her education and practical experience in public administration have given her the skills necessary to find new resources for our schools and to manage our resources wisely. Most important, Karen has demonstrated her ability to bring together people from differing backgrounds (and sometimes with opposing viewpoints) to work productively for common goals. We need Karen Hemphill’s leadership on the Berkeley School Board. 

Carol S. Lashof 

• 

BEIER BRINGS NEW IDEAS 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

George Beier offers new ideas and planning objectives for revitalizing Telegraph Avenue, and this is one reason I support his candidacy for City Council in District 7. Another reason is George’s remarkable ability to get people involved at the neighborhood level in quality-of-life activism. Through the Willard Neighborhood Association he has organized trash cleanup days, volunteer gardening on neglected city-owned spaces, informal neighborhood watch activities, and very successful street fairs which have brought students and long-term residents together in ways we haven’t seen before. His commitment to public dialogue takes tangible shape in ways we can all see and which allow for participation at whatever level people are comfortable . 

To paraphrase JFK, George encourages people to ask, “What can I do for my city, to make it better for all of us?” and then organizes ways for that sense of commitment to find useful expression. I think he will be an excellent representative for District 7. 

Rebecca Tracy 

• 

“LEADERSHIP” 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Under what passes for the “leadership” of Berkeley City Councilmembers Kriss Worthington, Dona Spring and Linda Maio, their respective districts have seen commercial enterprises go bankrupt or move elsewhere and crime escalate. They provide no stimulus to Berkeley’s economic well-being. On the contrary, their actions in this realm have been utterly counterproductive, their obstructionist politics doing the city grave harm.  

Of course, where this otherwise torpid trio have been most active is the arena of international politics, wasting Berkeley citizenry’s time and money on issues where the city has absolutely zero influence. By so doing, they perpetuate Berkeley as just plain laughable in the eyes of the rest of the country. 

In sum, it’s time for a change. In the upcoming election, those who wish to see Berkeley’s betterment in an improved economic climate and reduction of crime should vote these inert ideologues out of office. 

Dan Spitzer 

Kensington 

• 

MEASURE A 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Regarding your Oct. 17 editorial, the Measure A campaign has endorsed no candidate nor ballot measure other than Measure A itself. 

Measure A is endorsed by every elected official (representing Berkeley) and every serious candidate for public office. This includes among others: 

• Zelda Bronstein and Tom Bates, and all other candidates for mayor, as well as the previous Mayor Shirley Dean. 

• Councilmembers Linda Maio, Darryl Moore, Max Anderson, Donna Spring, Laurie Capitelli, Betty Olds, Kriss Worthington, and Gordon Wozniak and Council candidates Raudel Wilson, George Beier and Jason Oberman. 

• School Board Directors Nancy Riddle, Shirley Issel, Joaquin Rivera, Terry Doran, and John Selawsky, and candidates Karen Hemphill, and David Baggins. 

• Congresswoman Barbara Lee, Senator Don Perata, Assemblywoman Loni Hancock, and Superivsor Keith Carson. 

• Measure A is also supported by the Chamber of Commerce, the League of Women Voters, the Berkeley Association of Realtors, the Berkeley Democratic Club (BDC), Berkeley Citizens Action (BCA), the Green Party, the Central Labor Council, the Berkeley Federation of Teachers, the Berkeley PTA Council, the National Women’s Political Caucus, Sierra Club, Berkeley NAACP, and many more organizations and individuals. 

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify Measure A’s position of not endorsing any candidate or other measure. 

Dan Lindheim 

Co-Chair, Yes on Measure A 

• 

NORTH SHATTUCK 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Really, Mr. Goldberg, someone must have put something unpleasant in your breakfast cereal to cause such a negative and just plain grouchy invective against proposed improvements for the north end of Shattuck supported by many of the local business owners and North Berkeley residents alike (Commentary, “Myopia, Not Vision, in North Shattuck Plan,” Oct. 20). I recommend that you look again at the conceptual sketch provided at www.northshattuckplaza.org, and you will see that your mistaken vision has nothing to do with the proposed design. At least, I do not see a major high rise condo project there, as you have imagined.  

This portion of Shattuck Avenue, a tangle of arterials, cross streets and a block-long secondary traffic and parking aisle, has been crying out for a sensible re-design and configuration that would put pedestrian safety and comfort first, and the automobile second, since the railroad tracks were removed a half-century ago. As someone who had a little bit to do with the nearby Sonoma/Hopkins/Josephine Triangle project recently, I strongly endorse private initiatives to replace areas of unnecessary asphalt roadway with attractively landscaped public spaces such as the North Shattuck Plaza proposal. Just think of the potential good that might be done, rather than all of the negative scenarios you have dreamed up. And then, have a bowl of Quaker Oats for good measure.  

David J. Snippen 

• 

LANDMARKS ORDINANCE 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

In the debate around whether to vote Yes to keep the city’s 30-plus-year Landmarks Preservation Ordinance or to vote no so that the mayor can have his way to weaken that ordinance, I can’t help but thinking the neighborhoods that will bear the brunt of this decision are in the flatlands. 

No one is going to demolish a genuine Maybeck or Morgan in the hills. What about the Maybeck that sits on the corner of Berryman and Martin Luther King? What about mowing down that stately row of turn of the century homes across from the South Berkeley BART Station in the mayor and City Council’s zeal to build a transit village? What about the wonderful old home on Virginia that’s just across from the North Berkeley BART station, an area in the sights of developers for increased density? What will come down around Sacramento and Dwight Way to build more of the four stories that went up on the corner of Blake and Sacramento? Everything on San Pablo Avenue is at risk—even the nice single-story commercial buildings that currently house the Sierra Club. Come on guys you, support five stories up and down the avenue. How about replacing the quaint old buildings on the north side of Vine at Shattuck in the new plan to redevelop the Gourmet Ghetto? 

Who will miss these places? I will and everyone who loves Berkeley will. Everyone should vote yes on Measure J and send our mayor and council a message to stop listening to their developer contributors and start hearing the people who live here. 

Katie Morgan 

• 

DISTRICT 7 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Alan Selsor wrote a letter last week arguing that Telegraph Avenue is “not fun or funky”—it’s depressing. I wholeheartedly agree. What’s worse is that the demise of Telegraph is infiltrating the surrounding neighborhood.  

Robbery, home-invasion, auto theft, and drug-related crimes are up, according to the Berkeley police community liaison for my south campus neighborhood, which encompasses Telegraph Avenue and People’s Park. In fact, these types of crimes are more concentrated in District 7 than in any other district in Berkeley.  

Kriss Worthington has represented the district for 10 years. In that time, business on Telegraph has declined by a whopping 30 percent, according to a San Francisco Chronicle article published Oct. 16. Worthington says he’s been working hard on the problem—but after 10 years, we should expect to see some results. Instead, 20 storefronts remain empty on what could and should be one of Berkeley’s most vibrant economic and community centers. 

District 7 needs new leadership. It needs economic revitalization. And it needs a committed focus on crime reduction and public safety. That’s why I support George Beier. He is not an ideologue, but rather a committed and progressive community activist who will work with all his constituents and stakeholders to revitalize our flagging neighborhood. 

Kristine Dixon 

• 

PECAUT’S SLUR 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Mayoral candidate Christian Pecaut begins his statement as follows, 

Landlords: remorseless, lying, blood-sucking parasites. More property, more vicious. Give back every dollar stolen from the tenants immediately, in cash. Rent is theft.  

Recently, the Daily Planet and its editor were criticized for publishing a rant that many in Berkeley saw as anti-Semitic. I’m not writing to criticize Becky O’Malley for printing Pecaut’s statement—actually, she did us all a service by letting him parade his views. What I want to point out is that his opening remark is exactly like the anti-Semitic slurs that were so reprehensible to this community a few months ago.  

Indeed, what is striking about his remark is how its language parrots that of tyrants from decades past, like Mao and Stalin. It’s the language their followers used as a prelude to seizing property from its owners and imprisoning or murdering them in the name of “the people.” German and Austrian Jews of course suffered a similar fate from Hitler and his cohorts—following attacks and slurs put forward with identical phrasing.  

As a property owner, I will be interested to see who else chimes in with me to condemn the language and implications of Pecaut’s remark. He has the right to say it, and Becky O’Malley to publish it, but it is indefensible, especially in light of all we know about its past use. Actually, it’s mind-boggling to me that Pecaut could still believe it, but I guess that proves the point that those who don’t understand history are doomed to repeat it.  

John Parman 

• 

MILO FOUNDATION 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I was shocked and distressed to read the article on the Milo Rescue Store on Solano Avenue in the Daily Planet. There was not one word of acknowledgment for the incredible work the Milo Foundation has done over the years. Nor was there acknowledgment for the many people in the community who donate their time to working with Milo and the animals. Nor were there suggestions on how to help remedy the sanitation problems the shop is facing. 

Thousands of homeless animals have been rescued by Milo. Milo ranks with the best of non-kill shelters in the country. The writer seemed unaware of all of this and referred to the owner and her four dogs. Incredibly discouraging piece of writing. I felt like I was reading something by the Bush administration. 

Please do a real piece on Milo—research the foundation and see how we can find ways to help them. 

Arlen Stahlberg 

• 

BEER OR HOUSING? 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

George Beier’s offer to buy $1,000 worth of beer for students in dorms shows just how out of touch he is with the real needs of the student community. Sure, everybody likes free beer, but soon these students will need off-campus housing. Kriss Worthington works hard everyday to keep housing affordable to students, to appoint them to commissions, and to act on their concerns. 

Worthington is not flashy. He wouldn’t offer beer for votes, even if he could afford it, because that would be crossing an ethical line that Beier doesn’t even see. Worthington knows the issues, responds to his e-mail, and works very hard, so hard that we’ve come to take him for granted. He almost makes it look easy, and that could cost him the election. Beier’s fortune may give voters the impression that he can solve their problems as easily as he can buy them drinks, but it won’t make him a better public servant than Worthington. 

Lenny Chen 

• 

KRIS WORTHINGTON 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

When I got a copy of the Berkeley Democrat, the Berkeley Democratic Club’s election guide, I was disappointed to see that they are supporting the challengers to the progressive members of the City Council. For years Kriss Worthington has been a great help to the community peace and justice work while working to make Berkeley a better place. Phone calls to his office are always returned promptly and responded to, whether it is to find out how to get a permit for an event or about stop signs at tricky intersections. Dona Spring is an important voice on the City Council. 

The Planet reports that Beier is outspending Kriss two to one. Can it be a coincidence that the club is taking no position on Proposition 89, the Clean Money Proposition which would limit contributions and expenditures in political campaigns? I was frankly shocked to read that George Beier’s campaign attempted to buy students’ votes with a beer party. 

Carolyn Scarr 

• 

BBEMA FOR MEASURE A 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

There has been a considerable amount of dialogue, conversation and debate surrounding the renewal of Measure A. And rightly so. No matter what side of the issue one stands, the future of our children is at stake. Here we all stand at an impasse, staring the most significant issue of our city squarely in the face. It is clear to us that African-American children in our district are performing well below average. It is also very clear that there is much work to be done to find new strategies and implementation processes to address these gaps of achievement in our community.  

However, as pastors representing every major black church in this city, and many of the families and urban communities affected most by this achievement gap and other debilitating and paralyzing social ills, we are convinced that the best way to reach this goal is not by eliminating $20 million of resources the district has come to rely upon. The Berkeley Black Ecumenical Ministerial Alliance (BBEMA) has been in ongoing dialogue with the superintendent to constructively address these issues. As we make progress in our strategic plans and implementation, we will need the resources of Measure A to bring to bear upon factors contributing to the achievement gap. 

As we support Measure A, it is our expectation that BUSD will work to increase the Math and English scores of African-American students. It is our expectation that BUSD will recruit, hire and retain more African-American administrators and teachers. It is our expectation that BUSD will create alternative programs to deal with the high number of suspension/expulsions and special education problems indicative across multiple grade levels. We believe that if we commit ourselves to our children’s future, by passing Measure A and continuing our collaboration, BUSD can provide African-American students the access necessary for attaining the hope, tools and possibilities every child is entitled to and deserves. BBEMA urges everyone to vote yes on Measure A! 

Pastor Michael McBride for BBEMA 

BBEMA is comprised of African-American congregations including: Church By the Side of the Road, Covenant Worship Center, Ebenezer Missionary Baptist Church, Church of the Good Shepherd, Liberty Hill Missionary Baptist Church, McGee Avenue Baptist Church, Phillips CME Church, Progressive Missionary Baptist Church, Rock of Truth Baptist Church, St. Paul AME Church and The Way Christian Center. 

• 

A NEW SLOGAN 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Thanks ever so much for continuing to entertain the masses with the mirthful musings of jocular journalist Richard Brenneman. Until encountering his cutesy crime chronicles in your pages, I failed to focus on the fun in felonies or the alliterative amusement of misdemeanors. Some may carp and cavil about Mr. Brenneman’s jokey jottings and criticize them as prosey preciousness or doltish drivel. Ignore their nay-saying and nattering. Scrawl on uncensored, say I. Next time I come face to face with a “beefy bandit,” a “dangerous duo,” or any of the other colorful criminals who people Brenneman’s Berkeley, I’ll chuckle as I turn over my wallet, imagining how he might describe the scene. 

Dan Brekke 

• 

SUPPORT PUBLIC SCHOOLS 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

As a parent I am so appreciative of the forward-thinking people who went before me and built a school system in Berkeley to be proud of. My question to you if you are against Measure A is: Why would you want to hurt the children? I’m hearing that there’s no oversight. That is just not true. There is a ton of oversight for this money with regular, independent audits. Measure A is a great investment. Good Schools = Good Neighborhoods = Good Property Values. Even if you don’t have kids or even if they go to private schools, it still benefits you to have excellent schools in the community.  

Come on, people of Berkeley! Continue to care! It’s not a new tax. It just continues what we have. Vote yes on Measure A for the children and for our community, and help get out the vote! 

Cathryn Bruno 

• 

ALBANY CITY COUNCIL 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

The campaign for the Albany City Council election is turning ugly. Specifically the “Concerned Albany Neighbors” (CAN) have issued flyers personally attacking Marge Atkinson and Joanne Wile. Though the contributors to CAN are certainly entitled to their opinions, under the city’s election law they are not legally allowed to donate more than $99 per candidate. They have spent far more than that producing their hit pieces and pushing their pro-mall candidates, Francesco Papalia and Caryl O’Keefe, and are likely to spend more still. The city attorney has refused to investigate these illegal contributions. 

Citizens should know that CAN’s assistant treasurer, Alan Riffer, is O’Keefe’s husband, and that they hosted the representatives of the mall developer Rick Caruso for a neighborhood “coffee” in their home to promote the proposed mega-development at the shoreline. 

CAN has demonstrated its contempt for both the spirit and the letter of the Albany campaign law. Watch for more last minute hit pieces, rumors, and innuendo. And ask yourself where the money is coming from. The choice to Albany voters is clear—Atkinson and Wile will protect the shoreline—Papalia and O’Keefe will sell it to the highest bidder. 

John Dyckman 

Albany 

• 

CARYL O’KEEFE 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Contrary to her claim that she abides by Albany’s campaign finance limitations, City Council candidate Caryl O’Keefe has accepted illegal contributions from a front group, “Concerned Albany Neighbors” (CAN). 

CAN has distributed numerous flyers personally attacking O’Keefe’s opponents, Marge Atkinson and Joanne Wile, and endorsing O’Keefe and candidate Francesco Papalia. These flyers do not disclose that O’Keefe’s husband, Alan Riffer, is CAN’s assistant treasurer, and O’Keefe does not declare CAN’s flyers as campaign donations. 

Having CAN attack her opponents allows O’Keefe to create an appearance of being ethical and even-handed while using swift-boat tactics against her opponents. 

The city has declined to investigate these illegal contributions. What is the point of Albany’s campaign finance law if it is not enforced? 

Meanwhile, how many more “hit pieces” on Atkinson and Wile are in the pipeline designed to sway votes to the pro-mall candidates at the last minute? How many attacks will be funded by Golden Gate Fields, racetrack owner Magna, or L.A. developer Caruso, who would all like nothing better than to see pro-mall candidates O’Keefe and Papalia elected? 

Caruso spent large sums to elect candidates favorable to his developments in other cities. Will we allow Albany’s democracy to be hijacked in the same way? 

Diana Sloat 

• 

LAST-MINUTE SMEARS COST $$$ 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I’ve noticed more flyers than usual arriving at my doorstep as the election approaches, each attacking the Save Our Shoreline Team, Joanne Wile and Marge Atkinson. In one case, Golden Gate Fields sided with the Caruso/Magna developers, stating that there were no plans to develop a casino because gambling is against California law. What wasn’t mentioned was that when gambling is legalized, and there is a movement on to pass such a law, then these developers can easily install the new video slot machines, which these developers have already installed elsewhere. What are their future plans in this case? Will they sign a contract that no gambling of any kind will ever exist at the waterfront, even if it is legalized? 

From what I understand, there is evidence that Caryl O’Keefe’s campaign finances are being overly funded by Concerned Albany Neighbors (CAN) where her husband is assistant treasurer. Why are the city attorney and city council not investigating the evidence and making this issue public, one way or the other? This is a question, not an attack.  

One way to sway the public vote is to bombard the public with false information right before an election. Don’t be taken in by the last minute smearing tactics. Remember, Joanne Wile and Marge Atkinson are local residents who have and are dedicated to serving their community. They represent the Albany residents who want a reasonable development on the waterfront to bring in revenue for Albany, while preserving as much open space as possible. 

Wynette Weaver 

Albany 

• 

ILLICIT STUDENT ENROLLMENT 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I want to commend Professor David Baggins for raising the issue that falsely registered students constitute a serious problem in terms of utilization of resources and safety. 

I reside and work across from Berkeley High, and regularly take various public transportation in the mid-afternoon from Berkeley to different points in the East Bay. I frequently witness a large number of Berkeley High student’s exodus to homes in other cities. I offer this fly-on-the-wall generalization: some of these students behave well, some are less-well mannered, and a small number behave horrendously. 

It is my understanding that there is frequently violence at Berkeley High and in the surrounding area after school. It is commonly believed that a high percentage of the trouble comes from out-of-district registrants, but there is no firm data available. Most recently, a police officer intervening in two student’s brawl on Shattuck was himself then assaulted and injured by approximately 10 students. Because it is not ‘officially’ known which students are illicitly registered, concerned citizens will again not be informed whether those taken into custody are or are not residents. Unless we begin asking repeatedly, starting right now. 

Illicitly enrolled out-of-district students are essentially Berkeley’s guests. And if out-of-district students are committing acts of violence, officials should have an obligation to returned those students to their home districts. Some self-styled progressives feel that the most violent students are examples of those who are most at-risk, and require more, not less, of our attention. But surely there are some actions we should be unwilling to tolerate from a non-resident student. This isn’t punitive: There is an obligation to provide a safe atmosphere, and one conducive to learning, for the rest of Berkeley High students, whether resident or illicitly enrolled. 

I assume the vast majority of illicit out-of-district enrollees are good kids, who also prefer less violence at school. And I understand that out-of-district parents are enrolling their children with the best intentions. Some Berkeley residents feel social justice requires that BUSD should act as a safety net for the problematic school systems in the region. Many also recognized the unintended consequences of illicit enrollment include disproportionate utilization of resources for remedial needs, and depriving funding from neighboring districts that desperately need it. 

Many feel that when it was a smaller number of students, it was acceptable. It has now been estimated that approximately 20 percent, or 600 Berkeley High students, may be wrongfully enrolled. There comes a point when our generosity can exceed our limited resources, and we begin sacrificing our obligation to Berkeley’s own residents. Education administration has recently acknowledged that resources are indeed dramatically and disproportionately utilized to service a large number of out-of-district student’s remedial needs at the expense of Berkeley’s own average and remedial students. 

It is good that this issue has entered the public discourse this election season. And, I ask, am I the only one who suspects that the district will soon return to ignoring the problems caused by illicit registration unless David Baggins wins a seat on the School Board? 

Michael Cohn 

• 

MEMORIAL STADIUM OAKS 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Sit in, on, around and under them oaks. Hello, might as well block the roadway while we’re at it. Think they’ll call the cops or the football team? Join us, ol’ Bear Bates? Which furhrer is behind this, the football coach, the athletic director. . . 

Arnie Passman 

• 

AGAINST MEASURE G 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Global warming can only be slowed down if there is a worldwide movement to greatly reduce greenhouse gasses. The reason the world has not moved swiftly to avoid an ecological catastrophe is that people fear the economic consequences: a great reduction of production and therefore massive unemployment. There is only one way to eliminate pollution without harming the economy: the “green tax shift.” Make polluters pay for the damage they cause, and simultaneously reduce taxes on wages and goods. 

Taxes on sales, wages, and business profits cause great economic damage. The reduction of these taxes would greatly increase enterprise and employment. That would offset the cost of pollution charges. A revenue-neutral green tax shift is win-win for the environment and the economy. 

But instead, the proponents of Measure G have said they would impose regulations and require sacrifices and lifestyle changes. Command-and-control regulations impose big costs for little benefit. They would not lead the world in a global movement to reduce greenhouse gasses. Dictating what kinds of cars we can own, when we may drive, how many cars a family may own, or mandating mileage standards for cars imposes hardships on folks who may pollute very little. 

Anyone who advocates “sacrifices” is really saying that we will impose hardships for little social benefit. The green tax shift does not require sacrifices. If we fine a person who litters, the fine is a penalty, not a sacrifice. Pollution taxes are compensation for committing damage. Those who pollute may then either pay the charge or else make adjustments such as using more public transit or car pooling or walking; it’s their choice. 

Measure G timidly sets the 80 percent reduction goal in 2050. By then it may be too late, as global warming could accelerate due to feedback effects. No, we and the world need to cut emissions to 80 percent in 10 years, by 2017. We can do this effectively with minimal economic damage with pollution levies that rise every year, while the city reduces taxes on utilities, improvements, and enterprise. 

Voting no on G is a vote for an effective and swift green tax shift and a rejection of authoritarian commands and controls. Voting yes on G means giving the city government a signal to issue restrictive regulations which will have large costs and little effect. A no vote is sophisticated, rejecting only an “anything goes” signal. A yes vote is simplistic, seeming to favor greenhouse gas reductions, but in reality giving a go-ahead to futile policies. 

Will Berkeley voters be sophisticated enough to vote no on G? Or will they take the lazy way out and vote yes just because the politicians endorse it? We can boldly lead the planet towards a swift, effective reduction of emissions by 2017, or strangle ourselves with futile regulations that, even if they reduce greenhouse gasses by 80 percent in 2050, will be way to late to do the world much good. 

Fred Foldvary 

A RESPONSE 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Laurel Leichter’s Oct. 13 letter (“Action, Not Invective”) characterizing me as an “attack-chihuahua” was not only impolite but also revealed what I would have to describe as misdirected frustration. 

I can only presume that Ms. Leichter assailed me because I stated (in an Oct. 3 letter) that District 7 City Council candidate George Beier—whom Ms. Leichter supports—was the featured speaker at the Berkeley Property Owners Association’s (BPOA) special dinner event on May 18. This is the very same day that Mr. Beier announced his City Council candidacy. 

The BPOA is the city’s largest and most powerful real estate industry/rental property owner organization. 

In my Oct. 3 letter, I listed the BPOA’s well known political agenda: consistently hostile to rent control and opposed to most of the Rent Stabilization Board’s affordable housing policies and decisions. 

BPOA members are also responsible for initiating, collecting signatures, and currently campaigning for Berkeley Measure I—the condominium conversion initiative—on the Nov. 7 ballot. 

If passed, Measure I would enable rental property owners—over the next several years—to convert literally thousands of affordable rental units across Berkeley into expensive condominiums, evict hundreds of renter and family households, and subsequently sell the converted units for a windfall profit. The current market price for a Berkeley condominium is roughly $500,000. 

Incumbent District 7 City Councilmember Kriss Worthington is perhaps the Council’s strongest supporter of rent control and affordable housing, and is opposed to the BPOA’s historical political agenda. 

Chris Kavanagh 

• 

BATES’ SLOGAN 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I was walking home from the library yesterday afternoon when I saw a yard sign in support of Tom Bates for mayor of Berkeley. The sign read, “Mayor Tom Bates — Berkeley at its Best.” As I continued walking, I decided that I should help Mr. Bates along and suggest a contest for his campaign! People could send suggestions to Tom on how to make his slogan even better than that one.  

Here are some of my entries into the contest. How about “UC Berkeley at Its Best”? Or “Walnut Creek at Its Best”? Or my personal favorite, “High-Rent Housing at Its Best.” 

“Berkeley at Its Best” is something that happened 40 years ago. Let’s help bring Tom bring his campaign slogan more up to date! 

Jane Stillwater 

• 

MEASURE J 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

After reading Sharon Hudson’s commentary, “What the Matter with Berkeley?” in which she advocated for Measure J, I sat down with my voter pamphlet, spent an hour digesting the ordinance and the arguments pro and con, and decided to vote against it. Knowing and respecting signers on both sides, I had to rely on my own experience as a West Berkeley resident for the past 27 years. 

Measure J does not maintain the existing Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (LPO) but revises it, making it easier to landmark buildings, other structures, and sites. Evidently the authors are reacting against a council revision in the opposite direction. 

Landmarks preservation is an admirable and necessary tool for saving the historical character of a municipality. I saw the importance of such an ordinance last year when I returned to my hometown, Port Jervis, N.Y., which has no such provision and has suffered major damage to its Victorian red brick roots, whereas nearby Milford, PA has dedicated itself to preserving its Colonial charm and has prospered doing so. 

But Berkeley is no small town, and the brown shingle homes in the hills or the stucco craftsman cottages in the flatlands are not the buildings in current contention; it’s the commercial development of West Berkeley and the downtown that’s at stake. We have a choice. We can approve the construction of new well designed buildings, which may entail the demolition of others and the cleaning up of contaminated lots, or we can erect barriers to such development. 

We who live in West Berkeley face a different landscape than those who inhabit purely residential neighborhoods. It’s not so charming down here. We live among rubble and litter, ugly multiplexes, poisoned ground, decaying industrial buildings, crime, and traffic. But we also have the waterfront, diversity, all kinds of creative business ventures, and a vibrant spirit of enterprise. I can’t envision how Measure J would enhance the positive and decrease the negative elements in this environment. 

Much of the damage to West Berkeley’s architectural heritage was done before the passage of the original LPO. But now that these ticky-tacky apartments, decrepit factories and warehouses, and cheap boxy stores are over forty years old, should they be eligible for preservation? They are, after all, representative of the historic post-war era. Under Measure J just 25 people with an ax to grind could stop the demolition of structures that deserve to be replaced. 

Landmarks preservation should be used not to contradict or inhibit the zoning and planning process or to frustrate investment but to enhance the urban environment and support our economy and tax base. I’m voting against Measure J because it will be an impediment to the improvement of West Berkeley.  

Toni Mester 

• 

BATES’ POSTERS 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

This past weekend, I couldn’t help noticing all the Bates posters stuck up high on the telephone poles around my friend’s place on Roosevelt Street. My friend said she had been disturbed by a loud mechanical noise and looked out to see a guy in a cherry picker quickly putting up the signs while hunkering down as if he didn’t want to be identified. 

My first thoughts were to question the propriety as well the legality of putting signs on telephone poles. Both of us wanted to take the signs down simply because they’re neighborhood eyesores. However, signs put up via a cherry picker are too high to be easily removed. This (expensive) mechanism of self-promotion strikes me as another strategy aimed at winning by any means—e.g., spiriting away newspapers that promote your opponent—in this case, by being able to outspend the competition. 

Such high-rise papering obviously isn’t about informing the public of Bates’ worthiness for re-election. Those of us who are paying attention already know enough about how Mr. Bates acts in the office of mayor to have formed an opinion. In my West Berkeley neighborhood at least, we are daily exposed to the many cheap-looking in-your-face high-rise shanties that have sprung up since his term of office began. I’m also very, very displeased by both the number of business that have recently left town (yes, I am one who is forced to shop in Emeryville, El Cerrito, and San Francisco because there’s nothing to buy in Berkeley) as well as how architecturally ugly Berkeley is becoming. As I see it, the destructive trends we’ve been experiencing lately should not be allowed to continue. I hope everyone will vote in favor of the November ballot measures that could stop them and save what’s left of our once-vital and beautiful town. 

Nicola Bourne 

• 

SHATTUCK COMMONS 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I can’t believe the city would spend a dime or even a minute on the new Shattuck Commons idea. There are so many other neighborhoods in Berkeley that need attention. The Shattuck/Rose neighborhood has a farmers market on Thursdays while the Curtis/Hearst neighborhood has the Needle Exchange on Thursdays. Shattuck/Rose has nice restaurants, a bookstore, and clean sidewalks. University/San Pablo has filthy sticky sidewalks and empty littered lots and empty storefronts. Shattuck/Rose is fine as it is. “Berkeley at it’s Best” should be about raising the quality of all of Berkeley, not just the fancy parts. 

Teal Major 

• 

MEASURE A IS ESSENTIAL 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

It’s interesting that Yolanda Huang included the table “Dropouts by Ethnicity” in her recent commentary piece opposing Measure A. It’s the data on which she based her earlier letter to the Planet expressing great alarm about the “whopping 33 percent dropout rate” of Pacific Islanders at Berkeley High School—and the data in this table show she’s talking about a total of one student dropout. Why didn’t she report the 0 percent dropout rate among Berkeley’s Native American students and Filipino students? Are those numbers somehow less significant than the data she does quote, or do they just not fit her agenda of casting our Berkeley schools in the worst possible light? The use of this data is typical of the campaign to defeat Measure A by misinforming the public. You don’t have to study the data or even to read the actual measure’s precise specifications for the use and oversight of its funds (although you should) to realize that this opposition group has an enormous credibility deficit. If our schools are as bad as they would like us to think, why do so many students from other districts want to attend them? If out-of-district students are a problem, defeating Measure A would certainly remove their incentive to come here, but would it be rational to ruin the schools for our own children, just to get rid of someone else’s? 

Do opponents of Measure A really think their Voter Information Pamphlet claim that “average BUSD teacher compensation” is “$87,000” will fool anybody? Average teacher salary is obviously much less than that, in fact, it’s about $57,000 a year. The $87,000 figure is even more than the district’s cost per teacher, including health and retirement benefits, workers compensation, and payroll taxes, which is about $80,000/year. Isn’t it equally absurd for them to claim (also in the Voter Information Pamphlet) that we could replace the 20 percent of our district’s budget that would be lost if Measure A fails to pass by the savings from things like “enforcing attendance” and “stopping cafeteria food overproduction?” 

Could any reasonable person buy their argument that devastating cuts to school funding would actually result in improved student achievement? Increasing class sizes and eliminating school libraries, parent outreach, and elementary and middle school music programs would remedy the achievement gap? After all this, do they have any credibility at all when they say they “support children” and “support public school education?” Please vote yes on Measure A to renew existing school funding. Don’t be fooled into a no vote, which would drastically cut funding for our Berkeley public schools. Remember, Measure A must pass by a two thirds majority, so opponents only need to win more than 33.3 percent of the vote to defeat this well-written, essential measure for the continued support of our public schools. 

Julie Holcomb