Public Comment

ANIMAL SHELTER 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

For years, conditions at the City of Berkeley animal shelter have been appalling, causing needless suffering and disease. We have tried to find out why there is no new animal shelter. 

The bond measure allocating the money for a new animal shelter passed four years ago. That is, the money has been set aside and is available. 

Insofar as we can determine, no person or agency takes responsibility for there not being a new animal shelter four years after the voters approved the money to build one. It seems that everyone involved blames everyone else. 

As best we can tell, those involved have been embarrassingly incompetent or lacking in the political will to get the job done. 

For the animals, we ask the mayor, the city manager, the City Council and the Humane Commission to work together to carry our the will of the voters. 

Bruce Max Feldman, D.V.M. 

Annie Van Nes, Veterinary Nurse 

• 

SHELTER OVERDUE 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

The only development project Mayor Bates doesn’t like is the new city animal shelter Berkeley voters approved in November 2002. 

Four years ago Berkeley voters passed Measure I to provide bond funds to build a new city animal shelter. This was the only local ballot bond measure to pass in the 2002 election. 

Despite an official one year joint subcommittee of City Councilmembers Spring and Olds and Citizens Humane Commissioners Posener and McCormick, who met repeatedly with the City Manager, plus representatives of local animal rescue groups, and animal humane organizations, no progress has been made in replacing the old outdated city animal shelter. No site has been selected or purchased, no shelter plans have been drawn up, and no construction start date has been set. 

Backroom ideological, personality and political clashes have dead-locked this voter mandated project. 

Four years of stalling and squabbling is enough! Vote for Zelda Bronstein for mayor, and have her get the city started on building our overdue new animal shelter. 

V.Tamaradze 

• 

A SIMPLE QUESTION 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

As we reach the moment of decision regarding the future of Berkeley’s City Council and the District 7 representative in particular, I am convinced that the choice between George Beier and Kriss Worthington comes down to a simple question: 

Do we want more of the same with Worthington, or do we want to give Beier a chance to implement his vision for change? Becky O’Malley said on these very same pages last week, “Beier actually put his finger on the cause when he said during the debate that South of Campus’s real problem is the drug culture.” That’s what we need in Berkeley, leaders who look to the cause of the problems and propose solutions, not based on knee-jerk ideology, but on reasoned analysis. We need leaders who can work with each other, even when they respectfully disagree, to build broad consensus for building a better Berkeley. One of those leaders is George Beier and I hope voters in District 7 will join me in voting for him. 

Gregory S. Murphy 

• 

SCHOOLS 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

With Measure A on the ballot next Tuesday, I want to share some of my views as a parent and an alumna of the Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD). Berkeley supports its schools. Berkeley has done an incredible job of keeping alive the unique legacy that I experienced, and will never forget. So much so, that several years ago we moved back to Berkeley after four years on the East Coast because we wanted our son in the Berkeley public schools. He is in now in the fourth grade, and we have never regretted our decision. 

Is BUSD perfect? Of course not. How could it be, after a steady erosion in combined state and local funding since 1978? But because Berkeleyans have worked hard to support our schools over time, my child is having a wonderful experience, and getting a lot of the “whole child” education that I received. Words that come to mind are innovation, creativity, diversity, arts, and excellence. 

I have seen first-hand that Berkeley’s essential contribution to the schools, to be renewed in Measure A, is very carefully monitored and audited. Committees of parents sit on oversight committees (I am on the instrumental music program committee) and the precious funds are tracked by a system that is independent of the district. I am also satisfied with the way in which our superintendent, Michele Lawrence, has improved all aspects of fiscal responsibility since coming to the district in 2001. She is a strong leader and manager. I have seen first hand how the money from the Measure B supplement two years ago translated into the reversal of dire cuts that had been in place for one year at my son’s school. The instruments are back in the hands of the fourth graders, the libraries are open, and the class sizes are back to being “teachable.” 

It’s too bad the “rebuttal” in the voter information pamphlet is misguided—there is nothing wrong with Measure A. For those who missed it, one of the signers of the rebuttal Johnnie Porter, retracted his opposition in a letter printed in this paper. He explained that he had been mislead by the opposition, and supports Measure A. Measure A is good for the schools, and we all know that what is good for the schools is good for Berkeley. 

Karen Jeffrey Pertschuk 

• 

MEASURE J AND  

HOMEOWNERS 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

If Measure J fails, homeowners will be among those who pay. Measure J is the Citizens’ Initiative that would update and continue our current Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (LPO). If it is defeated, the mayor’s Revised Landmarks Ordinance will be read into law, and that ordinance has a provision not contained in either our current LPO or Measure J. 

The mayor’s Revised Ordinance, which repeals our 32-year-old LPO, would require that all permits for exterior repairs of buildings older than 40 years be reviewed by the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC), as stated in Section 3.24.210. 

“An application for ordinary maintenance and repairs shall include plans and specifications showing the proposed appearance, color and texture of materials and the proposed architectural design of the structure. ... The planning director shall refer the application to the [LPC] where it shall be placed on the next regular agenda.” 

At a minimum, this means new fees for homeowners and delays in the repair process. Workers also may charge for the time to write and file permits, as well as for the delays. Homeowners lose. 

Homeowners’ losses are developers’ gains. Developers would rather demolish older homes and replace them with profitable new constructions. Demolition becomes easier under the Mayor’s Revised Ordinance. That’s why the Chamber of Commerce PAC opposes Measure J with such vehemence.  

One might ask why the Mayor’s Ordinance would contain a provision so detrimental to homeowners? While no one can know for sure what runs through the minds of the Councilmembers who voted for this abomination, the best guess is that overworking the LPC with new business will keep it from meeting the required deadlines to review requests for determination (RFD). An RFD opens a new and complicated process, which could potentially release a historic structure from landmarks review for over two years.  

Under the mayor’s ordinance, it would be possible for a developer to make an RFD without disclosing potential demolition and construction plans. The RFD would allow a property owner or agent of the owner to secure an exemption from landmarks review for two years or until a project under review may be completed. This exemption, called “Safe Harbor” by city staff, could allow a historic resource to be destroyed and redeveloped without further guidance from the LPC.  

Since the LPC would be forced to review every single permit for exterior repairs of all older buildings, this decreases the chances it might complete a thorough review of an RFD by its deadline. Once the property falls under the Safe Harbor exemption, it has no landmarks protection for at least two years, even if new information surfaces. This is what the PAC likes so much. 

So it’s no wonder that they’d produce an expensive mailer to mislead homeowners at the last minute. Among the collection of lies, the PAC’s mailer says that Measure J would “give total control” of property to “unelected officials” and “would slow even minor home owner upgrades for up to one year.” These are lies, blatant lies, from developers who have a lot to gain under the mayor’s revised ordinance. Only the mayor’s revised ordinance delays repairs and forces homeowners to go through new permitting processes. 

It may be unethical for the Chamber PAC to lie, but it is legal. Homeowners beware, because these lies hit you where you live. 

Judith Epstein 

• 

MEASURE J SMEAR 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I just received the latest Chamber of Commerce post card against Measure J. On its cover is a selected image of “Flint Ink: Abandoned and Toxic Site…another Landmark?” 

You bet. The former industrial site has an interesting and compelling history that began around 1900 when Flint Ink’s predecessor, Cal Ink, moved from San Francisco to Berkeley. Sensationalized smear pieces such as the one that arrived in my mail today ignore and distort Berkeley’s history as a major early 20th-century industrial city. And yes, indeed, all the industries in West Berkeley, as elsewhere, created toxic wastes and dumped them into the nearest water ways-in this case the bay.  

The landmark process helps us acknowledge our history by documenting our past and sometimes this leads to a landmark designation. That does not mean that this site will not change, but it does mean that there is a written history of the site and photos of how it looked in the past. Perhaps a plaque will be placed somewhere.  

Susan D. Cerny  

Author of Berkeley Landmarks (1994; revised 2000),  

Former chair of the LPC  

• 

LIBRARIES 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

As a library employee and Measure N campaign volunteer, I would like to respond to Ms. Zoia Horn’s letter regarding Measure N and Oakland Library’s use of “self-service options for faster check-out.” The simple use of the term “self-service options” is not code for RFID. The Oakland Public Library (OPL) has no plans to implement RFID.  

Many libraries here in the Bay area and nationwide, have implemented self check without RFID over the last two decades and it has been a successful system based on reading of barcodes, same as your grocery stores. Until recently, barcode checkout and checkin were the only options available for libraries; RFID was recently introduced and briefly, tested at one branch at Oakland Public Library. After an assessment of its implementation, its use at the branch was discontinued.  

The introduction of self-serve options is merely taking a staff-oriented practice that OPL has used since the 1980’s and moving it forward to allow the patron the option of checking out his/her own materials instead of standing in line, again, similar to the self check at groceries and other retail outlets. In libraries, this actually promotes patron privacy because the only person who sees what is being checked out is the patron. 

Gerry Garzon 

Deputy Director, Oakland Public Library 

• 

NO CREDIBILITY 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Barbara Gilbert has no credibility as an “advocate for Berkeley homeowners, taxpayers and neighborhoods...” (“A Disenchanted Berkeley Homeowner’s Voting Guide”, Oct. 31) when she claims that “she has not yet decided how I will vote” on Measure A, for public school funding.  

During the three paragraphs detailing her uncertainty about Measure A she never acknowledges the role that she is currently playing in the anti-Measure A campaign. Yet, as a director of the Northeast Berkeley Association (NEBA), her group has been one of the main naysayers on this measure. This is dishonest. 

C. A. Gilbert 

• 

ALBANY COUNCIL RACE 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

It is dismaying to see the obscene amount of money being spent on the race for City Council in our little Albany. Who would have thought? Both Joanne Wile and myself were wary of Rick Caruso and the kind of money that he was throwing around Albany while trying to get his project approved. We thought that there would be opposition with money attached if we ran. Well, according to the financial reports of Golden Gate Fields and their affiliates, over $30,000 has been spent to try to defeat Joanne and I. And that’s just the reported amounts. There are flyers coming almost every day from the racetrack owners against us with ridiculous, really laughable, claims about what Joanne and I could do to the City of Albany or the Racetrack if we get elected. Wow! What power we have to make a huge, rich, multinational firm afraid of two older women who have spent their careers dedicated to public service, teaching and helping others. 

It is obvious that Magna is still involved in wanting to get its way and that they still hope to have influence to do that. Joanne and I are standing in the way of their efforts to turn Albany into one more mall town, destroy the small-town character we all love and drain the life out of our local businesses. In my heart I know that Albany voters are much too smart to allow that to happen. 

Marge Atkinson 

Albany 

• 

PROP. 1A 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

The ballot argument for Proposition 1A states that “Drivers spend $20.7 billion in extra fuel each year and 500,000 hours stuck in traffic every day because of our overcrowded roads.” If you do the arithmetic, this works out to $113 per hour for extra fuel costs while stuck in traffic ($20.7 billion/year/(500,000 hours/day x 365 days/year). Pardon me for being skeptical. 

Propositions 1A through 1E are touted as being part of the “Rebuild California” plan. The bond measures all claim that they will require no new taxes. Something for nothing? No, not quite. If you look at the five measures you realize that they are not really “rebuild” measures, they are new build measures to handle growth. If we get more people then we raise more tax revenue without adding an actual new tax. Of course, more people means we need yet more infrastructure, with less space for it, so we probably will be even farther behind than before. 

Pardon me for skeptical again, but shouldn’t we be trying to build a sustainable society? At some point, that means no more population growth, and that means maintaining what we have, and not spending money to accommodate even more people. 

Robert Clear 

• 

ALBANY SCHOOL BOARDA 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

My thanks to Nadine Ghammache for her letter to the editor urging Albany voters to elect me to the Albany School Board.  

I would like to clarify that I am not part of any slate seeking election to the board. In fact I decided to run for the Albany School Board was when I realized there was an effort underway to stack the School Board with three candidates with a special agenda.  

We currently have some great individuals on the School Board, and I feel it would be a mistake to turn the School Board into a rubberstamp for a few individuals. I believe that the interests of our community are better served with a diverse School Board.  

With this goal of diversity in mind, I urge voters to consider voting for Dave Glasser for the Albany School Board. His professional financial background in banking will help him deal with School Board fiscal issues, and will bring a much needed in-depth knowledge of public finance to the School Board. 

Thank you to those of you that are considering to vote for me. I can be reached at kindlealbany@aol.com 

John Kindle 

Albany School Board candidate 

• 

KRISS WORTHINGTON 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I am urging residents of Berkeley District 7 to support Kriss Worthington’s campaign for City Council for two straightforward reasons: I think he is the best councilperson in Berkeley, and I do not like what I see in his opponent. Kriss is, to me, the ultimate public servant. He is unassuming and seeks no personal glory for the impressive work he puts into his job as our representative. He is always available for input from his constituents, and takes a common sense approach to solving our problems. He actively supports both a genuinely safe community and authentic progressive causes, and is endorsed by every progressive organization in the area who has endorsed someone. 

I met Kriss’s opponent, George Beier, at the 10th anniversary celebration of Halcyon Commons Park. While George sported a giant commercial for himself throughout the proceedings, Kriss spoke softly in support of the community’s work in creating and maintaining the park. While George campaigned aggressively for himself at this event, Kriss did not mention his own campaign. It simply would have felt inappropriate to him. 

George Beier’s campaign has barraged us with fliers on an almost daily basis. These fliers are dishonest because they contain false implications about Kriss: that he is soft on crime, that he doesn’t support local businesses, and that there is no substantive difference between the two candidates on the issues. Both are true progressives, the fliers proclaim. 

In reality, George’s campaign is heavily backed by two very deep pockets: his own vast earnings, and the Chamber of Commerce. George has spent more money on this campaign than anyone has ever spent before on a city council race in Berkeley. The Chamber of Commerce feels that they see an opening here; they are excited by their best chance in a very long time to defeat Berkeley’s most effective progressive and turn the city council around in their favor. 

Polls indicate that this election will be close. I am frankly appalled at George Beier’s self-aggrandizing and dishonesty. I do not want him and his values representing my neighborhood on the City Council. As my family and I prepare to move to New Zealand, we very much want to leave this community in supportive, caring hands. I hope you will join us in supporting Kriss for another term as our representative on the City Council. 

Joel Hildebrandt  

• 

ALAMEDA AT CROSSROADS 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Alameda is at a crossroads. The question is not whether we will grow, but how we will grow. Will we have uncontrolled growth that clogs the tubes and other estuary crossings and channels traffic through our neighborhoods, impacting children, pedestrians and bicyclists? Or, will we carefully consider the proposed projects and make sure that the growth fits within the Island’s infrastructure constraints? 

If we are to make the right decisions, we need solid traffic expertise on City Council. I am a civil and traffic engineer with 30 years’ design experience throughout northern California. I bring to the council energy, a proactive approach, and proven expertise in resolving transportation challenges that would fit our island’s infrastructure, without sacrificing breathtaking panoramas, historic architecture, convenient city access, safety and sense of community.  

The City Council’s approved projects, and the vacant and other development proposals would add up to 150,000 cars a day to Alameda’s streets, yet no one has studied the impacts of these projects on our neighborhoods. With my Island Traffic Plan, the citizens would set maximum daily traffic volumes for residential streets and maximum trip times for entering and leaving the Island and Harbor Bay. Every new project would be measured against those thresholds. My plan puts the people in charge of Alameda Island’s growth, not big developers.  

We’ve seen what uncontrolled growth has done to other cities. Alameda can do better. We can have growth that preserves the unique quality of life that we all treasure and doesn’t overwhelm our neighborhoods. If elected, I will work hard to merit your confidence and achieve those goals. Vote for Pat Bail for council and Doug deHaan for mayor, together we will work towards growth that fits. 

Eugenie P. Thomson, P.E. PTOE 

Candidate for Alameda City Council 

• 

GOLDEN GATE FIELDS 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Over 10 years ago we chose to move to Albany and pay a high price for a small house because we liked the small town atmosphere, the good schools, and the safe neighborhood. I am very disappointed that our good neighbor, Golden Gate Fields, has chosen to spend money on glossy mailers attacking my neighbors and public servants.  

In contrast to these negative mailers, I was pleased to meet Marge Atkinson last Saturday at my door steps. I had never met Marge Atkinson before and I appreciated how she feels about her neighbors, our schools, and our city. In Albany, we need leaders from the community who care about preserving the small town atmosphere. Marge Atkinson and Joanne Wile have no plans of closing Golden Gate Fields but have a plan for serving the community including Golden Gate Fields. 

Ahmed Elbaggari 

Albany 

• 

MEASURE J 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

As of today, most Berkeley households will have received two anti-Measure J hit pieces mailed on behalf of the Berkeley Chamber of Commerce (a third is said to be on its way). In each one, the headline “Another landmark?” underscores an old structure photographed to look as ugly as possible. It’s no secret to anyone that the land under Celia’s Restaurant and Cal Ink represents “opportunity sites” for development, so the buildings have to be portrayed as objects of derision unworthy of preservation. 

Whether Celia’s was worthy of a Structure of Merit designation has no bearing on Measure J, since the City Council voted not to certify the designation. 

The Cal Ink industrial site has been a landmark since 1986. At the time of its designation, it was the oldest factory in Berkeley operating at its original location. Twenty years after the designation, Flint Ink is out of Berkeley, having left behind a neglected and toxic site. So who’s responsible? Naturally not Flint, but the Landmarks Preservation Commission. At least that’s what the Berkeley Chamber of Commerce would have you believe, with the mayor’s tacit approval. 

Think of all the condos that could be built on the Cal Ink site! The only thing standing in the way is that pesky Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, an inconvenient law that only the little people in the neighborhoods want, and they don’t count.  

So how do we get rid of the LPO? Easy. Just pin all of Berkeley’s ills on it. And if it doesn’t sound entirely credible, let’s throw in a handful of lies. Nobody will know the difference anyway. Let’s tell those saps that the existing LPO (and thus Measure J) “violates state law.” It sounds convincing, even if it’s a bare-faced lie. Let’s tell the fools that it will “give total control over their properties to unelected officials.” They won’t know that not only is this patently false, but that the mayor’s proposed LPO is no different in this respect. 

Let’s plant in their feeble minds that Measure J “allows designating anything built before 1966 as a landmark.” They won’t bother to investigate the truth and won’t discover that Measure J includes fairly stringent criteria for designating historic resources. 

Let’s have them believe that only Measure J will reduce the number of signatures on a landmark petition to 25. Surely they won’t check the mayor’s proposed LPO and won’t discover that it stipulates exactly the same number, because the State Office of Historic Preservation recommended it. 

While we’re at it, we’ll also tell the innocent ninnies that Measure J “removes the state historic standard of integrity from our landmarking process.” That’s a particularly good one. Everybody will fall for it. So what if it’s a shameless fib? Who’s to know that Measure J incorporates the state standard of integrity into the LPO? 

And finally, let’s hit them where it really counts—in the pocketbook. We’ll tell them that Measure J will waste tax payers’ money and slow down their home upgrades. Yes, it’s only an urban legend, but you know how many people fall for those. 

That should take care of it. Then we’ll plant some of our own on the Landmarks Preservation Commission—people smart enough to appreciate an opportunity site when they see one. 

In 10 years, no one will remember what Berkeley used to look like. 

Daniella Thompson 

• 

PRESERVATION IS  

GOOD BUSINESS 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Imagine if Berkeley still had some of the historical mills, vaudeville theaters, early industry, and working small farms it once had. Imagine if it had museums of Berkeley’s early years next to those sites where the history, music, and literature of its early times was celebrated, instead of sneered at and reviled by developers eager to build profitable condominiums.  

Developers try to give voters the impression that landmark preservation inhibits profits. They are wrong. Berkeley’s square footage is finite, so landmarks do literally stand in the way of remaking the entire town from scratch. But landmarks do not stand in the way of healthy profits. Quite the opposite; landmarks can be the key to lively commercial centers, tourism, and new development. 

Politicians who don’t realize this need to travel, and see the way preservation has dovetailed with commercial goals in other cities and towns. I just returned from the mountains of West Virginia, where people travel thousands of miles to hear the distinctive music of the region and pore over the historical buildings and battlefields that represent America’s past. 

The Chamber of Commerce’s efforts to discourage people from supporting Measure J, which preserves the current landmark ordinance, is short-sighted from even a business perspective. Our past, far from burdening our future, supports and strengthens Berkeley’s efforts to build a healthy downtown. 

Carol Denney 

• 

BEIER AND MEASURE J 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

It is difficult to see how George Beier could be in the pocket of developers or the chamber when he was an early supporter and contributor of Measure J, the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance. It is interesting to note that George’s opponent, Kriss Worthington, has failed to take a position on this controversial measure. George has replaced me on the Zoning Adjustments Board when I am away and with one exception, voted for the neighborhoods and against development that disregards the detriments out of scale projects impose on them. George voted for the flying cottage project because staff told him he had no choice. Since that time, George realizes he is an independent thinker and votes accordingly—not as staff directs. Maybe instead of being “pro-development,” George is actually “pro-neighborhood.” George is focused on reviving Telegraph Avenue but not at the expense of our historic landmarks. As President of the Willard Neighborhood Association, member of the Peoples Park Commission, and Chancellors Neighborhood Task Force, George has fought against oversized development that is inappropriate for our neighborhoods. He supports a planning process that includes all constituents. 

Dean Metzger 

• 

MEASURE A, SCHOOL LIBRARIES AND NEBA 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I received the NEBA News too late to attend their Oct. 5 meeting, but feel compelled to respond publicly to the misinformation the newsletter contained. I am sorry NEBA has chosen to oppose Measure A on the Berkeley ballot. I am especially alarmed that some of the reasons cited for taking this position are stated as fact without any supporting documentation. 

On page 1, they write that the “impossibly long horizon” (10 years) of Measure A “prevents meaningful oversight and accountability.” The many Berkeley citizens and BUSD employees who have served during the past 20 years as volunteers on site BSEP (Measure A) committees as well as the district Planning and Oversight Committee, who examine and scrutinize all BSEP proposals and expenditures, deserve our thanks for their devotion to making sure the money is well spent, not NEBA’s cavalier dismissal of their service. To say this money has “no impact on the deplorable student achievement gap” shows NEBA’s lack of knowledge of school libraries and the effect library personnel and collections have on students. Studies in 16 states have proven the positive influence of all facets of school libraries on improving student achievement. In BUSD schools, all library employees are paid with this funding. In addition, we are able to build strong collections K-12 with our materials budget at a time when most districts in California and nationally are struggling to provide their libraries with a bare minimum. While California school libraries rank 51st (behind all other states and the District of Columbia) in every quantifiable category that is counted, Berkeley stands as a shining example of what can be accomplished by committed and generous citizens. NEBA’s statement that BSEP “doesn’t provide improved...programs for students...unable to achieve…in reading” further exposes their lack of knowledge and awareness. At Berkeley High, where I work as Library Media Teacher, I collaborate closely with teachers to build our library collection with titles that not only support the curriculum, but also meet the students’ need for recreational reading. For example, during the 2005-06 school year I saw the positive impact for students who entered 9th grade reading below grade level, by having appropriate titles in sufficient quantity to meet their demands. Without BSEP/Measure A funding we could not have this success with our students. 

I also question the statement on page two that the “average salary plus compensation for teachers is $80,000.” Even with a BA, masters degree in library science and dozens of credits beyond that, in addition to 25 years experience, and allowing for benefits, my salary doesn’t even approach this figure. My husband, however, wants to know where I’m hiding the extra dollars. I would appreciate NEBA’s informing me as to what steps I can take to attain this “average salary.” 

Ellie Goldstein-Erickson 

• 

ALBANY BOARD  

OF EDUCATION 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

It was not surprising to see Nadine Gammache’s endorsement for Miriam Walden and Jaime Calloway in editorials last week. Miriam Walden orchestrated Nadine Gammache’s Board campaign in 2004, serving as her treasurer. This election, Miriam Walden is running a joint campaign with Jaime Calloway, arguing that she needs a team that she can rely on in the Albany Board of Education. I believe that the community, parents and students of Albany are best served by five independent voices on the board—voices that reflect the varied views of our fine community. My concern with maintaining independent voices on the board is why I have chosen to run this year. As a board member I will strive to maintain the kind of responsive, collegial and open minded Board that Albany has always relied on. I would appreciate your vote. 

David Glasser 

• 

ALBANY CITY COUNCIL 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

The mailings and literature drops concerning the Albany City Council race tell a very revealing story about the candidates. On one side we have two candidates, Marge Atkinson and Joanne Wile, stressing the currently hot topic of development on our waterfront and supported by a large environmental organization, the Sierra Club. On the other side are two candidates, Francesco Papalia and Caryl O’Keefe, who profess that there are many other issues on which to focus and who claim support only from old-line Albany insiders and vaguely named groups like Concerned Albany Neighbors (CAN). 

The largest business in the city has mailed out hit pieces fatuously claiming that Atkinson and Wile want to close the racetrack (as if the City Council could do such a thing—the racetrack’s PR firm thinks we’re stupid) while CAN, purportedly independent from the Papalia and O’Keefe campaigns but run by O’Keefe’s husband,