Public Comment

Letters to the Editor

Tuesday November 07, 2006


Editors, Daily Planet: 

I haven’t written to the Daily Planet before, but I was moved to do so when a friend showed me a campaign hit piece she received in the mail. This Chamber of Commerce PAC mailer is really over the top! It accuses Kriss Worthington and Dona Spring of being responsible for the closing of Radston’s and a few stores on Telegraph Avenue. It’s so ludicrous that one tends to believe it will affect voters in a way opposite to that intended. 

For starters, I don’t think either of these councilmembers were responsible for the growth of stores like Office Max or Office Depot. Nor did they encourage property owners to charge the high rents that make it difficult for small businesses to survive. In addition, I don’t believe Spring or Worthington own stock in Emeryville shopping centers. 

I live in District 1 and often walk to Fourth Street, a nice half-hour stroll. There are several empty storefronts there, victims to some economic exigency or other. Yet, the chamber is not blaming that councilmember for those closings, nor would I want them to. (I happen to be a repeat voter for Linda Maio, my councilmember.) In addition, the chamber has not blamed the mayor for the various stores that close (and then open under new owners), throughout the city. And, I wouldn’t want them to assign blame there, either, because clearly it would be misplaced. 

Those of us who live in Berkeley like to think that our forward thinking city is fueled by the energy of intelligent, thoughtful individuals. The Chamber of Commerce is trying to tell us otherwise. Hopefully, voters won’t be fooled by this pathetic attempt to tarnish two hardworking, responsive and responsible Councilmembers. 

Sharon Maldonado 




Editors, Daily Planet: 

When it comes to politics, it’s essential to understand how money works. I agreed to serve as Kriss Worthington’s volunteer treasurer because as a community activist I appreciate his phenomenal work for our neighborhood and the progressive issues I care about. My position as treasurer has given me a window into what it costs to wage a campaign that communicates a candidate’s record and vision to voters. Since powerful interests have targeted Kriss in past campaigns, I knew that we’d have to spend substantial money on our efforts, and indeed we have spent around $27,000 as of Oct. 21 (the last reporting period). 

But our expenditures, normal for a hard-fought campaign, have been dwarfed by the money Kriss’s multimillionaire opponent has thrown into the race. George Beier has now won the dubious distinction of spending more than anyone has before on a Berkeley City Council race. As of the 10/26 campaign filing statement (which covers expenditures through Oct. 21 and which can be found at, Beier has already spent over $72,000 (more than the mayor in a citywide race), including $27,000 of his own money, and he will be the first City Council candidate in Berkeley history to surpass $100,000. Beier’s also benefiting from the Chamber of Commerce PAC, which has spent over $15,000 already against Kriss, as well as a soft-money mailing from the conservative Berkeley Democratic Club (which deliberately tried to mislead voters by picturing Beier with Barbara Lee, even though she is an early and enthusiastic supporter of Kriss’s), meaning that all told Kriss is being outspent by around three to one. 

It’s worth asking what all this money is buying; if this is what we want politics in Berkeley to be about; and whether, in the end, we can truly afford it. 

Nancy Carleton 




Editors, Daily Planet: 

I have been asked to explain how it is that I can both oppose waste in the school district in the form of mass false registration and sponsor Measure A. The question is reasonable in that the history of generosity toward the schools is a basic reason why so many people outside the tax base try to crash our district. Yet I see no contradiction in my position. Both Measure A and fixing the broken registration system are means of supporting the schools. I am in favor of good schools. Raising funds and preventing fraud are two of the basic ways a school board can work to that end. 

David Baggins 

Candidate for School Board 




Editors, Daily Planet: 

School Board Directors Shirley Issel and Nancy Riddle are up for re-election on next week’s ballot. My letter is to remind Berkeley voters that these women have broken faith with the community in their positions as School Directors; and so, do not deserve to be returned to office. Do not vote for Shirley Issel or Nancy Riddle. 

In March of 2003, three teachers at Jefferson Elementary School presented a letter to their school community at a PTA meeting. The letter suggested that the community reconsider the name of the school site in consideration of the idea that having a school named for a slave holder is disrespectful to those whose ancestors were enslaved as well as to all people who recognize our country’s history of slavery as shameful. I was one of those three teachers. A group of parents quickly joined us to spread a successful petition to initiate the written School Board Policy for changing a school site’s name. 

This group carefully followed every aspect of the School Board’s written policy and procedures. By May of 2005, the staff, students, and families of our school community had been through a thorough, well publicized, educational, democratic process to choose a school name. The vote showed a majority for the new name, Sequoia. This process and it’s result were submitted to the School Board for approval. 

In a completely unprecedented action, three of the School Board directors voted to refuse to recognize the results of it’s own written policy and process. These individuals, Shirley Issel, Nancy Riddle, and Joaquin Rivera, chose to vote their own opinions rather than act as elected representatives overseeing a proscribed policy. As leaders of this city’s educational community they taught the very young citizens at our school site one of their first lessons about the democratic process. These students learned that their votes, their parents’ votes, and their teachers’ votes don’t matter. 

The students were confused to return to school in September 2005 to find that their school’s name had not been changed despite the election results. A process that had been a fine lesson in democracy for our school’s students was completely undone. School Board Directors had made promises that they would come and explain to students why they overturned the results of their election. 

To date, not one has done so. What are our students left to believe about the democratic process and the importance of their votes? What are they to understand about justice and the ideal of unbiased application of our community’s written laws and policies? That these School Board Directors lack the understanding to see how inappropriate the name Jefferson is for a school supported and attended by African American citizens, is reason enough to find them unfit representatives for this diverse community. That, further, they would refuse to recognize the results of an official School Board Policy is overwhelming evidence that they are inappropriate for their positions. 

Marguerite Talley  

Kindergarten Teacher 

Sequoia (Jefferson) Elementary School 




Editors, Daily Planet: 

Golden Gate Fields is misinforming voters about the economic (and environmental) impacts of the racetrack on Albany. Here are some facts: 

1. $1,565,000 is what Golden Gate Fields pays in yearly taxes to Albany and its school district. 

2. $1,600,000 is what a modest hotel complex on the site would produce in yearly taxes for Albany and our school district. 

3. $2,000,000 is what a medium hotel complex would produce in yearly city/school taxes. (East Bay hotel builders are very eager to build in Albany—including a modest amount of retail, e.g. 25 percent of the Caruso retail plan, on 25-30 acres.) 

4. If the track closes, Magna still pays $1,065,0000 in property/parcel taxes unless it donates the land to the state park. In that case we get a free shoreline park. Or, more likely, we could get a development agreement to put a hotel complex on 30 acres and get $1.6 to $2 million in city and school taxes, while leaving over 70 acres for continuous shoreline park. 

5. Magna Corp. leads the nationwide effort to bring casino gambling to horse tracks. Magna’s chair stated he wants Las Vegas style entertainment (gambling and malls) at all horse tracks. (Time Magazine) But casino gambling and malls are illegal on the Albany waterfront and Albany does not have to change its waterfront zoning to satisfy Magna. 

6. Golden Gate Fields will choose to close or not for its own business reasons, e. g. to stop continuous economic losses or because Magna is planning a Dixon racetrack large enough to replace racing activity at GGF and Bay Meadows combined. Albany will not control whether the track closes but it can control whether it plans for the long term of the shoreline. 

7. The vision of the environmentalists for the shoreline is extremely practical, meeting the fiscal needs of Albany and protecting the environment in the process. Assertions by GGF that CESP, Sierra Club, CAS and Audubon want to build a hotel in a creek or a marsh are just 

plain silly. 

In the meantime, we should all participate in the Albany city waterfront planning process. Come and discuss our future shoreline. Everyone is needed. 

Robert Cheasty 

President, Citizens for the East Shore Park 





Editors, Daily Planet: 

I think it’s important to ensure an more inclusive Berkeley, and because as a student I feel that we sometimes don’t get included in decisions that impact us all, I thought it makes sense to direct this piece to both students and all Berkeley residents. There is a crucial election coming up on Tuesday and the people we elect make policy that impacts our quality of life. That’s why it’s important to vote. 

As someone who has been involved with City of Berkeley politics for the past two-and-a-half years, as the current Chairman of the Commission on Labor and a member of the Housing Advisory Commission, I thought it’d be important to clue all residents in on the most important races and my personal recommendations for voting on Nov. 7. Among others, I’m supporting: 

• Kriss Worthington for re-election to District 7, City Council. 

• Jason Overman for election to District 8, City Council. 

• Mayor Tom Bates for re-election. 

• No on Measure I. 

From the student perspective, as I am one, Berkeley students make up approximately 25-30 percent of the city population and don’t get their fair share of resources or their collective voices heard in the process. 

Voting for Kriss Worthington will ensure that all of our voices are heard when it comes, for example, to funding affordable housing projects and reducing the city’s crime rate. 

Did you know that Kriss helped students secure more than 1,000 new beds for student housing in the last eight years at a time when students were once forced to sleep in BART stations in the late 1990s? I kid you not. This housing crisis impacted us all as a community. How about that Kriss lobbied to keep businesses around campus open later, and voting to fund social services for Telegraph? Or that Kriss has appointed some 75-plus students and a diverse array residents to city commissions, the bodies that allow us to have a direct voice in policy making? Kriss has also pushed for a living wage and minimum wage for employees and makes sure our tax dollars are spent well. I say, promise made, promise kept. 

Voting for Jason Overman will usher in a new era of politics. Jason is both a Cal student and Rent Board commissioner who’s dedicated to increasing affordable housing, increasing funding for safety services such as police, reducing traffic that hurts our environment, and making it easier for students to get involved. Simply put, voting for Jason ensures that there is another ally for progressives on the City Council, for he’s a well-qualified progressive student himself. When he ran for the Rent Board, he promised that he’d fight for affordable rents and he has. Again, promise made, promise kept. 

Voting for Mayor Tom Bates will ensure that your City Council isn’t stuck in stalemate, as it has been in previous years. 

I’m honored to have been appointed to the Housing Advisory Commission by the mayor, and as a student committed to equality and fairness, I’ll continue to work with the Mayor and other parties in ensuring that students get their fair share. The mayor is working on revitalizing Telegraph, ensuring that we have access to a safe and vibrant shopping market near campus and throughout Berkely’s shopping areas. He’s also working to ensure that housing is created for those who need it most, including the homeless population. Under his leadership, Berkeley was named one of the greenest U.S. cities. That is how it should be. 

Finally, Measure I is a dangerous proposal, speaking of housing! It claims that it will create home ownership opportunities by pushing the conversion of rental units, where students generally live, into condominiums. Many students and residents can’t cough up the $500,000 price tag required to buy the units that they currently rent. Converting these units to condos means that those who can’t afford the buy would face eviction. This proposal is too risky. Regardless of whom you vote for or against, know that your involvement is important. Be sure to make your voice heard on Nov. 7. 

Nicholas Smith 

Chairman, Commission on Labor,  

Member, Housing Advisory Commission 




Editors, Daily Planet: 

Berkeley homeowners should be cognizant of the current real estate market when voting on Nov. 7. 

The strong real estate market is over, and home prices are dropping. Yet massive apartment and condominium projects keep getting approved and built. Now that the real estate market is weakening, land use decisions will effect property values more and more. A glut of apartments and condo units will lower property values through the economic law of supply and demand. Berkeley is already the third most densely populated city in northern California, after San Francisco and Daly City. As Berkeley continues to rapidly develop, traffic will keep getting worse, historic buildings and views will be lost, and our city will become more dense, noisier, and more polluted. All of this will make Berkeley a less desirable place in which to buy a home, and in which to make a long-term commitment to live. 

Mayor Tom Bates, and City Council Members Linda Maio (District 1) and Gordon Wozniak (District 8) have voted for nearly every development project that has come to the Berkeley City Council in the last several years. They have consistently refused to hold public hearings on the appeal of large-scale development projects approved by the Zoning Adjustments Board, and they have consistently refused to require environmental impact reports (EIRs) for these large-scale projects. 

Bates, Maio and Wozniak also voted last year to approve the secret deal with UC to double the size of downtown Berkeley and to hand development decisions for our downtown over to the university. If the secret deal with UC is not overturned, neighborhoods to the north and south of downtown Berkeley could soon be overrun with high-rise apartments, condos, and office buildings. 

Berkeley home owners should realize that a vote for Mayor Bates, for Councilmember Maio, or for Councilmember Wozniak is a vote to worsen the quality of life in Berkeley, and a vote to lower the value of your home. 

Clifford Fred 

Berkeley Planning Commissioner, from 1988-1996 




Editors, Daily Planet: 

As a voter, in the final days of this fiercely contested election, I sometimes feel as though there is nothing that the parties agree on. But somehow, in the heat of it all, both the Republican and Democratic parties came together to promote the ONE Campaign’s new—ONE Vote—spot. The fact that they rose above their differences on this not only surprised me, but it reminded me what is at stake on Nov. 7. 

On election day, like every other day, there will be over 1 billion people around the world living on less than $1 a day. But unlike every other day, my vote can set in motion something that will change that. As one of the 2.4 million members of ONE, I have been working to make the fight against global AIDS and extreme poverty a part of the election conversation. For the first time in history we have the resources and know-how we need to end extreme poverty. All we need now is the political will to make it happen and that means we have to vote and hold our leaders accountable for the decisions they make. 

I encourage my fellow voters to contact candidates and ask them what actions they’ll take to help fight global AIDS and extreme poverty. Beyond the attack ads and partisan sparring filling the airways are the life and death decisions that our newly elected leaders will make on our behalf. Fighting global AIDS and extreme poverty is something we can reach across party lines to do together, and it can make a better, safer world for us all. 

Lola Olson 






Editors, Daily Planet: 

Make no mistake: this letter is an attempt to convince you how to vote on Tuesday. 

I produce the majority of Kriss Worthington’s literature. This election season I’ve also written for Dona Spring, against Measure I, and for Measure J. Over the years I’ve produced literature for numerous candidates and for Berkeley funding bonds, among them disability bonds, library bonds, and parks bonds. I am schooled in the art of convincing. 

There was one overriding message I took away from the ‘60s, from the struggle against the Vietnam War, from the Civil Rights struggle, and from the women’s movement, and that was that the end doesn’t justify the means, but is, rather, simply determined by the means. Any movement which succeeds by imposing the will of an elite instead of realizing the will of the people it claims to act on behalf of is corrupt. 

The opposing sides in a contest look superficially alike because they have in common the determination to convince those who will decide the outcome to act on their argument instead of their opponent’s. But it’s possible, even surprisingly simple, to sift your way productively through the literature of a bitterly fought electoral contest. Just apply the following test: 

Reread the literature with an eye to the structure of its argument rather than its content. There are only two ways to make an argument: you can be guided by your end or you can be guided by your means. If the former, you will use all material at your disposal, no matter how relevant, to convince: if the latter, you will only be satisfied if you inform, and in informing, convince. If as a reader you come away from an election piece with new understanding, that’s the direct result of the author’s attempt to inform you. If you come away with doubt and fear, it’s the direct result of the author’s attempt to manipulate you. 

Here’s two productive examples from this election season. 

The Chamber of Commerce’s anti-Measure J piece warns that if you vote for Measure J you will be allowing as few as 25 people to designate a new Historical District. In fact, a Council majority has already stated it will put into effect a substitute law if J should fail, a law that also will allow 25 people to designate a new Historical District. Both proposals use that number because it’s the one recommended by the State Office of Historical Resources. The Chamber wasn’t lying: it was just attempting to convince by misinforming. 

Two letters from Beier supporters in Tuesday’s Planet: In “Real Progress vs. a Progressive Label” Charles Banks-Altekruse writes that “George seems capable of working respectfully and maturely with other City Council members to advance an agenda of constructive change and real progress.” David Cottle writes for “Beier Progressives in the Bateman, Halcyon, LeConte and Willard neighborhoods” that “Beier has, in addition to genuine progressive credentials, the intelligence, creativity and temperament we need in Berkeley’s elected leadership.” They’re either two people who happened simultaneously to realize that the most important thing to hammer into a letter to the editor this week is that George is every bit as progressive as Kriss, or they are part of an orchestrated Beier letter-writing effort echoing on-message talking points. If you have the time, go back and read these polished and perfectly meshing letters.  

If you feel you’ve learned something from this letter, I hope you’ll vote for Measure J and for Kriss Worthington. 

Dave Blake 




Editors, Daily Planet: 

The San Francisco Chronicle’s lame editorial endorsing Schwarzenegger bugs me. My reaction comes deep into my psychic; I cringe hearing Arnold’s name. His guttural voice reminds me of German guards and interrogators experienced as a downed Eighth Air Force flyer and a prisoner of war from May 9, 1944 through April 29, 1945. I am not biased against the Germanic people per se. I grew up in a German-speaking family. 

But, Arnold’s ingrained aggressive and dominating roles as an actor, a swaggering macho body builder, a womanizer, hummer owner, and maker of sexist and racist remarks have deep roots: they are his heritage. This is not suitable for being governor; he should try Minnesota or Montana. I do not trust his recent “soft” side, while he takes corporate donations. The Luftwaffe interrogating officers tried the soft guise on us newly downed American flyers. 

Arnold is pathetically and deviously obvious, as he plays footsie with the Bushie Republicans and the Democratic Legislature—what an act. The truth will out should he become governor: a lame-duck governor we should fear. In that guise we can expect his historic characteristics to relentlessly prevail. My historic recollections still stand. 

Ken Norwood 




Editors, Daily Planet: 

The District 7 City Council race is about haves and have nots. Kriss Worthington the incumbent survives on considerable less than the national average on a City Council salary of about $24,000 a year so he can spend more time directly helping his constituents. George Beier his opponent is a multi-millionaire ... and he wants Kriss’s job. Nothing is ever enough for some people. 

There is a line in the play Look Back in Anger by John Osborne: “It is always the wrong people who go hungry.” Kriss has the compassion to respond to a call from a constituent like myself in distress by getting on his bike and meeting with me in 15 minutes. He helped my neighbor a fragile professor who had been locked out of his apartment by his landlord who trashed this tenant’s place, putting his stuff in the garbage after not paying an illegal rent. In my own Section 8 case and the professor’s case Kriss advocated for us with this landlord and with the city’s Housing Authority. 

I am an award winning photographer who has been suffering from illness. I have helped host crime watch meetings when I was living at Russell St. I object to the Chamber of Commerce’s hit piece about Kriss not helping with crime. Kriss helped us become more safe from drug dealers who were assaulting, robbing and threatening the lives of Section 8 tenants in my complex.  

Kriss is a proven supporter of affordable housing. I have been quite sickened by the lies and slander George Beier has posted in front of his campaign headquarters basically calling Kriss worthless. Kriss confronted the “politically incorrect” problem of drug dealing in my neighborhood and building when no one in the local city government did. Kriss is deservedly respected for his devotion to La Causa, the cause of progressive politics. I feel George Beier is trying to buy this election with his money. It has been hard for me to write this but it is my hope it can get in the paper for election day.  

Diane Villanueva Arsanis 




Editors, Daily Planet: 

The endorsement of Tom Bates by the San Francisco Chronicle is less political than financial. Given the paper’s declining circulation they simply can’t afford to have Tom stealing bundles of the Chronicle. 

Frank Greenspan 




Editors, Daily Planet: 

Do Americans want a theocracy? Twenty-six years ago Ronald Reagan won big and thus began the ascendance of the religious right, church-state politics. Reagan was the man who believed that trees caused pollution and dumped the mentally ill on to the streets. 

Now we are up against another hard-line Republican administration. This one even more radical than Reagan’s. Republican conservatism has given way to religious extremism. 

The Bush-Republican answer to solving disputes is war and more war to line the pockets of corporate sponsors. 

Nov. 7 is a vote about the misuse of power and trying to be the world’s policeman. Send the GOP packing or vote for more of the same. 

Ron Lowe 

Grass Valley 




Editors, Daily Planet: 

As a veteran of the “turn-of-the-century” struggle to prevent the Pacifica National Board from destroying what was left of Lew Hill’s independent Pacifica Radio Network, I’m sick to the heart at the dysfunctional listener-board election process taking place at KPFA right now. Having won the court battle and established the right of listeners to elect their own station boards, we’re now witnessing a most un-democratic election process that is an embarrassment to progressives and a cause of near-despair in those of us who struggled so long. 

The saving grace in this complete mishugana, now that I’m at some remove here in Spokane, is seeing people like Sasha Futran running for that station board. Disclosure: I’ve known Futran for a long time, having done much grassroots organizing with her, including a short time when she was a part of Take Back KPFA. But what tells me she would be an excellent choice for the KPFA listener-board is her work on the KQED Board—not only did she bring a journalist’s passion for accuracy and larger-than-most share of personal ethics, she had an eagle eye and a pit bull’s tenacity when she saw things that didn’t add up. Having been in radio herself for a number of years, she also understands radio: listeners, programmers and program quality, funders, and regulations in addition to having a solid grounding in progressive politics. 

Having been in Spokane for the last six years, I haven’t paid my Pacifica dues for several years (busy supporting micro-radio up here), and I regret that now. I would eagerly vote Futran onto that board—KPFA needs her badly! Would that there were 10 more of her! 

Marianne Torres 

Spokane Valley, WA 




Editors, Daily Planet: 

After I heard Tom Bates speak at Berkeley City College on Wednesday night I wondered about how the man had changed so much from the mid-’70s when I knew him as a member of the Legislature who helped us in the state Health Department in Sacramento battle for the needs of all citizens. In contrast Wednesday he announced to us that there are plans to build a 900-unit, nine story condominium on Center Street, across the street from Berkeley City College as well as a 200-unit hotel on Center and Shattuck where the Bank of America is. When one of the students asked what is this going to do for the downtown parking for students he answered, “It will be a little bit of inconvenience.” As it is many people avoid shopping in downtown Berkeley because parking is so hard. We have a wonderful community college smack in the middle of the downtown where will students park? What will a nine story condo do to the character of the downtown? Bates obviously has more than the interests of Berkeley’s citizens in mind, specifically the developers. 

Pauline Bondonno Cross 




Editors, Daily Planet: 

Last night I received a postcard from anti-Measure A folk whining about the state of Berkeley Unified School District’s pools and other recreational facilities. I’d like to remind them that the primary mandate of BUSD is to educate children, not provide recreation to adults. Starving the district of resources by defeating Measure A will make this already-challenging mandate nearly impossible. And if you think the facilities are poorly maintained now, sending the district into bankruptcy would only make the current situation much, much worse. 

I hope 10 years from now when this measure is up for renewal, we try to make it permanent so this kind of nonsense no longer arrives in my mailbox. 

Brenda Buxton 




Editors, Daily Planet: 

Re Mayor Bates’s Nov. 3 commentary, “Let’s Talk About Development,” if he’s as green as he makes out in his campaign literature, why did he fail to discuss the fundamental ecological issue of limits to growth? The East Bay’s existing population is already making such demands on the water supply that EBMUD is seriously considering building desalinization plants. Do we really want to build ourselves into a perpetual drought? 

As for Bates’ argument that we need to line the major traffic corridors with five-story apartment buildings in order to provide housing for Berkeley workers, the ones built in recent years always seem to have vacancies. Why aren’t Berkeley workers snapping them up? My guess is they’d rather commute as far as necessary to give their kids the benefit of growing up in a single-family house with a yard—just like Bates’s kids did. 

Robert Lauriston 

South Berkeley, District 3 




Editors, Daily Planet: 

Funny how your paper failed to cover the illegal use of city e-mail addresses by certain city council candidates (See the Daily Cal). 

It’s nice to protect your friends—even it does make you a hypocrite. 

Joseph Brooks 




Editors, Daily Planet: 

From the recent revelations about Ted Haggard, Mark Foley, and James McGreevey, back to the uncloseting of Michael Huffington and before him, J. Edgar Hoover, we see some of the loudest anti-gay bullies are themselves homosexual. Next time one hears homophobic hate-mongering, one should ask, “where is this person coming from?” 

Bruce Joffe 





Editors, Daily Planet: 

The tactics of the GOP which we abhor in Berkeley appear to have infiltrated our city. 

What a very sad few weeks it has been as Berkeley voters have been deluged with what amounts to hate-mail, filled with lies and distortions, from the Berkeley Chamber of Commerce PAC. 

And none of the people running for re-election who names are on these hit pieces—Bates, Wozniak and Maio— have denounced them. 

If they win, GOP tactics and ethics will have found a safe harbor in Berkeley. 

Anne Wagley 




Editors, Daily Planet: 

By the time you read this letter voters will have largely decided the fate of Proposition 89 for public funding of elections. This “Clean Money” proposal has not been doing well in the polls because, while voters agree our elective system has been taken over by big money and no longer represents the public interest, giving tax money to politicians to run their campaigns is too bitter a pill to swallow (although, in the case of Proposition 89, corporations pay). Yet, with record amounts of special interest money being spent on elections on all levels and not much of it coming from constituents, our disenfranchisement can only get worse. A just published study by found an average of 78% of State legislators’ campaign funding comes from outside their districts, with some getting as much as 99% from outside sources. If Proposition 89 fails, it will show how difficult it is to overcome the cynicism that our present system has created. If we ever wish to reclaim our democracy, however, the public needs to realize that it’s much better to have public money finance campaigns than allow our fate and the fate of our community, state, country and world be determined by those who put their special interests above ours. This is one solution all of us, whether “red” or “blue", should be able to agree upon.  

Tom Miller 




Editors, Daily Planet: 

Fern Leaf claims in her Nov. 3 Daily Planet commentary that “Berkeley has thousands of market rate rental vacancies.” If true, there are three obvious conclusions: the market rate is too high; these landlords prefer to take depreciation over income; and these landlords form a large cohort who’d love to see Measure I pass because no tenants means no 2 percent pay out.  

I’d have a lot more respect for the Measure I backers if they’d just say “I’d like to sell my rental properties but the current terms for condo conversions are unfair.” 

If anyone actually cared about “affordable housing,” they’d sell their property at a discount to market rate. 

John Vinopal 




Editors, Daily Planet: 

I just read Judith Scherr’s Nov. 3 article “KPFA Listeners Race for Station Board Spots.” The Espanol-language program “Rock and Rebellion” is actually titled: “Rock en Rebelión.” 

Michael Manoochehri 




Editors, Daily Planet: 

This letter will probably come too late for many of you to consider when casting your votes, but it’s been in the back of my mind to write for a week or so even though I didn’t quite feel right about doing so. 

I am a smoker—of some 45 years now—not proudly, but rather acknowledging the strength of my addiction in that I have yet to be able to give up cigarettes. I am also a low-income earner. In that, I am like most cigarette smokers. So those of us who are caught in the vice are also the least able to absorb further taxes on it. And who is Prop. 86 going to benefit? Surely not me and my fellow smokers! Rather, it seems it’s just a politically correct way of raking in taxes from those of who are least able to afford to pay them to fund all sorts of other “health-related” activities, including fighting obesity. 

As a smoker, Kaiser told me I couldn’t get health insurance unless I were to register as someone with “a pre-existing condition.” I’m actually blessed with great health, so I don’t know what they had in mind except pure prejudice. In the meantime, obesity rates in this country are through the roof—with the resultant implications for diabetes, etc., and the next time you’re in a Kaiser facility, take a look at the physical condition of it’s employees! I wonder if they’re charged through the roof for their health care (I can’t afford it). 

We’re all in this together, smokers, fat people, average joes. Please think about that when you vote on whether or not to hurt me with higher taxes from which I, as a smoker who intends to quit when she can, to pay for all of our sins. 

Nicola Bourne 




Editors, Daily Planet: 

On Nov. 7, young people will be heading to the polls across the state to cast their ballots. The value of the youth vote has never been more important. This year while we vote on local measures and candidates, it’s also said that we’re issuing a referendum on the federal government. While the urgency is not lost on young people, the main barrier to getting us registered and voting has been the sentiment that our votes don’t count. And this year, our peers may be proven right. New e-voting machines are being used across the country, regardless of their well-documented problems, including easy hacking and ballot deletion. In addition, many young people never got as far as Nov. 7, thanks to registration difficulties which made joining the ranks of voters all the more difficult. Voting should be one of the easiest things to do as a citizen of this country, yet it seems to become increasingly difficult year after year. 

If this country is serious about civic participation, we must take steps to make sure every vote counts. If not, we risk losing our democracy. 

Natasha Marsh 

California State Director 

League of Young Voters Education Fund, Oakland 




Editors, Daily Planet: 

It’s gratifying to see the letters expressing concern about the failure of the City of Berkeley to move forward with the voter mandated new animal shelter. It is one of the few municipal building projects that could be providing much needed construction jobs and could also be a key component in the regeneration of the Gilman corridor. An animal shelter is not a “pound” any longer—it is a community resource providing ample opportunities for volunteering, education and inspiration. A real vision for Gilman would not center on car dealerships or outlet stores, but on an artisan district, which respects the industrial heritage of the area and encourages some of the more “industrial” arts. The animal shelter would have been a fantastic focal point for community pride and renewal. 

Instead the site at Sixth and Gilman sits bare, the Macauley Foundry remains on the market and neither the BUSD nor the animal shelter have a place—in spite of funding being in place for both. Time for new leadership in Berkeley. 

Jill Posener 

Chair, Animal Shelter Bond Campaign 2002 

Chair, Animal Shelter Sub Committee 





Editors, Daily Planet: 

As current members of the Peralta Board of Trustees, which governs Laney, Merritt, Alameda and Berkeley City colleges, we enthusiastically urge voters to support Abel Guillen, who is running for the Area 7 seat (Temescal, Chinatown, Lake Merritt, and West Oakland).  

Abel has distinguished himself as a civic leader, community organizer, and school finance advisor who has helped raised billions in bonds for California schools and community colleges. He brings with this set of professional skills a commitment to diversity and a strong history of community involvement, especially on behalf of under-represented and under-served students. 

As the first member of his family to attend college, he knows the value of education and the importance of making sure that young people have access to our colleges and a program for success. He has met with countless numbers of students and staff members on the Peralta campuses to learn first hand what’s working and what’s not. In the many debates held so far, he has demonstrated a command of the issues and articulated a student-centered vision far superior to his opponent. It is this vision that has earned Abel the strong endorsements of Peralta’s faculty and staff unions and that of Peralta’s two Student Trustees Marlene Hurd and Reginald James. 

Mr. Guillen’s strong history of public service, financial expertise and first-hand experience with community colleges more than qualify him for the Peralta Colleges Board—a board charged with providing quality programs for nearly 30,000 students and overseeing an annual budget of $100 million along with $390 million in new bond money the voters recently approved.  

In 2004 we were overwhelmingly elected to the Peralta Board with the solid backing of a community dissatisfied with a dysfunctional Peralta Board that had for years engaged in poorly considered and badly executed decisions. Weak planning, poor oversight, lack of transparency and accountability, even outright arrogance, led to the wasted spending of millions of dollars and years of low morale and negative press.  

For the past two years, we are happy to report, the District has greatly improved. But, there is much more that needs to be done. The same groups that supported us two years ago, among them The Peralta Federation of Teachers and SEIU 790, recognize the work ahead and the need for a progressive, responsible, and diverse board majority to accomplish our goals. They have overwhelmingly endorsed Abel Guillen, as have Oakland City Council member Nancy Nadel, most East Bay Democratic Clubs, the Alameda County Central Labor Council, the Green Party, the Oakland Chamber of Commerce PAC, the Oakland Tribune, the Bay Guardian, and our fellow Peralta Trustee, Bill Withrow. We are pleased to join in these endorsements and urge you to vote for Abel Guillen for the Peralta Colleges Board. As trustees, we need Abel’s vote to complete the reforms we have begun. 

Cy Gulassa, Peralta Trustee Area 6  

Nicky González Yuen, Peralta Trustee Area 4 




Editors, Daily Planet:  

As usual, J. Douglas Allen-Taylor gives a rather simplistic and one-dimensional view of the challenges in a city like Oakland and the results produced by Mayor Jerry Brown. 

I have watched the Mayor walk outside of his apartment while calling 911 in the midst of a nearby shootout. He was the first person on the scene of the gang violence, telling police what happened and, yes, even showing them where the shell casings were and where the shooters stood. 

Mr. Allen-Taylor suggests this is posturing even though he, like most people, would probably hide indoors. Despite his celebrity, the Mayor does not surround himself with guards, handlers and chauffeurs. He refuses to isolate himself from citizens on the street. 

He recently called his staff at 10 p.m. on a Saturday night to report that a dozen bulbs needed to be changed on Lake Merritt’s “Necklace of Lights.” Such interventions on the Mayor’s part are not unusual. 

According to Mr. Allen-Taylor, it’s all a show, but maybe show business is Mr. Allen-Taylor’s job. 

Even the Mayor’s most ardent critics have acknowledged that there were over 50 acres of vacant unused land in downtown Oakland eight years ago. They lay blighted for decades. Now they are all filling up—bustling with people, businesses, restaurants, art galleries and cafes. If Mr. Allen-Taylor prefers empty lots and holes in the ground, I’ve got an extra shovel for him. 

Dave Grenell 

Aide to Mayor Jerry Brown 




Editors, Daily Planet: 

What does it say that, throughout Berkeley, so many “Yes on A” supporters proudly display their signs in living room windows, front gardens, private cars and even on their clothing, while the “No on A” folks placed their few placards high above the ground on anonymous telephone poles? 

Is the “No on A” crew ashamed of itself? Perhaps it should be… Surely there must be a more productive way to advocate for what you want in our schools than to cut essential funding. 

Support the measure that Berkeley voters are proud to stand by.  

Vote yes on Measure A. 

Mary Patterson 

BUSD Teacher 


“The business of America,” said Calvin Coolidge, “is business.” Backers of District Four challenger Raudel Wilson reflect “Silent Cal’s” wisdom to a tee. 

Wilson hails himself as a “consensus builder.” Now we heard this six years ago from the Texan in the White House so we know that just saying something doesn’t make it so. But that isn’t the point. Wilson faults incumbent Donna Spring for being in a minority - on the losing side of votes. To quote from his interview in the Berkeley Planet of October 17 - 19: “...if you’re always voting ‘no’ when others are voting ‘yes’ it seems like you’re on the wrong side...” Never mind what you or I may think of that comment , what would a psychiatrist make of it? If you lose, you’re wrong -like Al Gore or John Kerry. If you win... 

There’s something to be said for a candidate who equates losing with being wrong - and therefore winning with being right. After all, might makes right. 

And in Wilson’s view other things make right to. For example, telling the electorate in the voter’s handbook that he has “lived and worked in the fourth district for nine years.” In fact, Wilson admits that he moved to Berkeley—not just District 4—only two years ago. Misleading? No, sir. The statement was written that way to conserve words since there was limited space in the statement. 

Let’s look at that closer. He has “worked and lived.” This is a conjunctive use. It means that he did both for nine years. It does not lend itself to any other construction. If Wilson had written that he had “worked” in District Four for nine years it would have been accurate. But then it would have led to the question where did he work and as what? 

As the manager of a downtown bank. 

Which would lead to the question of why did he move to Berkeley - District Four in particular, what is his purpose in running and in whose interest does he run? The reality is that every work day, forty hours a week, before he goes home to sleep it off, Wilson is a banker, concerned with what concerns...banks. You can study sociology at UC for four years and pick up a remarkable vocabulary of over-refined definitions of human behavior and what influences it. But when you sift through it, it all comes down to this crude historical materialist fact: “You are what you eat.” 

It is a truth universally acknowledged that “You don’t bite the hand that feeds you.” 

Who are the investors in this banker’s campaign? Check the periodic “Campaign Disclosure Statements” on file with the City of Berkeley—accessible via the net. Bankers, realtors, financial planners and consultants. 

They didn’t make a campaign contribution to Raudel Wilson, they made an investment. 

Raudel Wilson—nice guy, affable manager, good family man. That’s what the glossy photographs portray. Expensive productions for a campaign seemingly so humble. Look beneath the wrapping. You may get what you vote for. 

Wayne Collins 





Editors, Daily Planet: 

Why should Berkeley residents care about a race for an Oakland seat on the board of the Peralta Community College District? 

Because the board in its entirety controls Berkeley City College (formerly Vista College). 

Because Berkeley citizens are eligible to take courses at Laney, Merritt, and the College of Alameda. 

Because Berkeley and Oakland are very closely linked. The fate of Oakland youth could hardly be more important to us. No institution offers more hope for them than the community colleges. 

Because the district has just passed a $390 million-dollar bond issue, and we need to make sure the money is spent to best effect. 

Because there is a first-class candidate running for the seat. 

His name is Abel Guillen. Abel is young, and the first in his own family to go to college. He works hard. He cares deeply, He knows a lot about how to run college districts. He wants to make sure that every high school student in the district learns well in advance of graduation about opportunities through Peralta. He knows how to listen to the faculty, students and staff rather than outside contractors when it comes to making key decisions. 

To find out how to support Abel go to  

Michael H. Goldhaber 




Editors, Daily Planet: 

I read with Mayor Bates’ article titled “Let’s Talk About Development” with amazement. It is impressive that he can make such claims in public while doing the exact opposite in practice. 

For example that “any major new development must be in the downtown or along a major transit corridor” yet 2901 Otis was not on a corridor. Bates apparently defines “transit corridor” as anything within a 15 minute walk to the nearest bus stop i.e, 90 percent of the city. 

He also says “we expect and demand that all new buildings be well designed and attractive” yet no such standard was applied at MLK and University, Harrison and San Pablo, University and Sacramento, or any of the other new developments. 

This is at least consistent with Bates’ other so-called accomplishments. For example Project Build for Kids, which netted some lucky bookseller thousands of dollars, but no kid I know has heard of the program, received any books, or knows anyone who has. Don’t forget the environmental progress Bates claims, reducing city-generated landfill for example, while ignoring the cancellation of trash pickup day and the subsequent shift of that cost to residents. 

Fact is nearly everything Mayor Bates says is tailored to sell his election and hide the fact that he has been responsive only to big real estate and big developers. These special interests are, in turn, more than happy to fund the Chamber PAC and otherwise leverage their return from corporate welfare. I will say that Bates’ years in Sacramento have taught him how to sell himself, despite the voting record. It should come has no surprise that his college major was rhetoric, which he has developed into a PhD in influence peddling. 

Mickey Hayes 




Editors, Daily Planet: 

One argument for Measure J, which contains the most obvious fallacy, is that designation of a Landmark is like zoning—that every property owner is subject to zoning restrictions on use, height, setbacks, size of building, lot coverage, etc. Of course, but all of those restrictions are known in advance. If I plan to buy a property, I know how it’s zoned, what the setbacks are, what the height limit is, etc., so I can make clear and definite plans for the use of that property. 

But if there is a structure on the property, it may be a booby-trap that at any time can wreck those plans and render the property useless. That’s why the Request for Determination, contained in the Council’s alternate measure, is essential. I must be able to say to the LPC, I’m planning to buy this property that includes a structure, and I need to know now, before I invest in it, if I will have the option to remove or replace that structure. In my opinion, if the LPC can not, within two and a half months, find clear and obvious reasons to designate that property, then those reasons are too obscure and trivial to matter to any reasonable person, and I should have two years (or ten years) to use it as I please. 

Jerry Landis 




Editors, Daily Planet: 

While I certainly agree with Dr. Feldman and Ms. Van Nes (Nov. 3) that the city should use the allotted funds, and more, to improve its animal services, let’s give credit where credit is due. The Berkeley Animal Shelter on Second Street does a heroic job with its limited resources. 

Unlike private shelters that can choose which animals to accept, it takes all comers, keeps them indefinitely, works with adoption services, and only resorts to euthanasia when it is indeed “mercy killing.” Although they strive for sanitary conditions, some disease is inevitable–look at the statistics for the best human hospitals. 

Much of the work is perforce done by volunteers; managing them can be as hard as herding cats, and yes, BAS does that too; rounding up feral cats is one of its several proactive programs. These include providing special training for pit bulls, whose overpopulation and aggressive tendencies have become a societal problem. Sad indeed that BAS has to hold garage sales to provide funds for its services. 

The current facility leaves much to be desired, yet when I (as a volunteer) take dogs out for much-needed exercise, at the end of the walk they are willing, even joyful, to return “home.” They and their dedicated carers deserve a better deal from the city. 

Jeanne Pimentel 




Editors, Daily Planet: 

Governments lie for the same reason that people do, to protect secrets. If governments and people continue lying once the secret is out they are guilty of pathological self-deception. Furthermore, where grave matters are involved the person or the body politic responsible for concealment will suffer critical self-inflected wounds from which recovery will be long and painful.  

Some of us remember how government deceit about Vietnam drove LBJ from office and how persistent lying about Watergate caused Nixon to resign. George W has done these two hapless predecessors one better. Last month W’s administration asked U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton to keep secret something that all the world knows because, it claimed, if “alternative interrogation methods” are made public the nation’s security is at risk. 

Given that the drip-drip of information emanating from Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere have accumulated to form a bottomless lake named “Abu Graib,” the position taken by W’s administration is self-deceptive in the extreme. More importantly, those of us who remember must dread the effort it will take to mend our damaged Constitution and cringe at the prospect of yet another long and painful recovery.  

Marvin Chachere 

San Pablo  




Editors, Daily Planet: 

The Oct. 31 article on Measure I by J. Douglas Allen-Taylor is accurate in some ways but off the mark in others. For example: 

1. The article implies that a building with “serious safety, health or building code violations” could be approved for conversion under Measure I. Not true. Section 21.28.110 specifically states that any defect that “adversely affects the habitability of the property” must be corrected prior to conversion. 

2. The article says that less money would be transferred to the affordable housing trust fund. Again this is not true. The current law sets an unreasonably high fee for a pitifully small number of conversions. The fee is not payable until and unless the converted unit is sold on the open market. The key fact is that after eighteen months, no condos have been converted under the current law and no one has paid anything to the trust fund. Measure I sets a lower fee (payable up-front) for a higher number of units. This is real, immediate cash to the fund. Over and above this are increased transfer taxes and property taxes, which city analyists measure at more than $200 million over the next two decades. 

3. It is said that the 5 percent cash payment to purchasing tenants is “in effect ...a five percent discount on the purchase price. It’s a lot more than that, since actual cash can be used for a down payment. A simple discount could not. 

4. It is said that Measure I gives tenants “only thirty days from the date they are notified of the proposed conversion to make up their minds.” Again, not true. Section 21.28.060 requires a detailed written notice to tenants when the owner first files an application to convert. This notice (for which there is no current equivalent) describes all of the tenant’s potential options, including the right of first refusal. When the application is granted, a second notice must be sent. Finally a third notice is required when and if the owner wants to sell to a third party. It is only after the third notice (which at the current pace of city action could be as much as two years following the first notice) that the tenant’s thirty day decision period begins. 

It would also have helped if your reporter had spoken to the major problem in Berkeley. There is a surplus of rental housing, but no home ownership opportunities left for the middle class in Berkeley. The city has bankrupted itself subsidizing developments (nearly all rental units) which please no one, but has spent nothing on affordable homes for first-time buyers. Result? Three quarters of the City’s work force commutes into town, and spends its money elsewhere. UC graduates, many of whom would like to stay, and raise their families here, have no way to do it. Property taxes go ever upward, with fewer and fewer homeowners to pay them. 

Measure I offers real hope on all these fronts, and real cash assistance that comes from the private market, not the city treasury. It is a good idea whose time has come. 

Kathy Snowden 




Editors, Daily Planet: 

During the summer, George Beier knocked on my door and told me he’d be running a clean campaign based on the issues. 

He hasn’t kept his word. His campaign literature has repeatedly distorted Councilmember Kriss Worthington’s record on Telegraph Avenue, crime, and small businesses. As a neighborhood activist, I’ve seen firsthand how hard Kriss has worked to support our Neighborhood Watch, get more funding for increased levels of police and social workers, and rally the community to work together to win more resources for Telegraph. Kriss has been an incredibly responsive councilmember when it comes to basic constituent services, in addition to his widely recognized leadership on progressive issues (George pretends to be a progressive, but his record and list of endorsers suggest the opposite). 

And now day after day my mailbox is full of expensive direct mailpieces from George that are short on his own proposals but long on negative insinuations about Kriss’s record, some of them featuring quotes taken completely out of context along with simpleminded graphics. Blaming Kriss for the closure of Cody’s was particularly egregious. If Kriss were to blame for Cody’s Telegraph closing, why would my neighbor Pat Cody (co-founder of Cody’s) be working so hard to re-elect him? 

The fact that George has already spent more than any Council candidate in Berkeley history is bad enough. (Do we really want City Council seats to come with $100,000 price tags?) But even worse is his willingness to let others provide misleading information on his behalf. Examples include the Berkeley Democratic Club’s picture of George with Barbara Lee (when Lee has not endorsed him) and the Chamber of Commerce’s unattributed and illegal mailing implying that Mayor Bates has endorsed George (he hasn’t), to say nothing of the vicious hit pieces sent by the Chamber full of blatant lies about Kriss’s votes on City Council. 

Sorry, George, that’s not a clean campaign. 

Susan Hunter 





Editors, Daily Planet: 

It is bad enough that this fake mailer disguised itself as coming from the Democratic Party, but it also misrepresented several of the official positions of the Democratic Party. The Alameda County Democratic Party strongly supports Measure O (instant runoff voting in Oakland) (see for proof). And the California Democratic Party supports instant runoff voting (see site/c.jrLZK2PyHmF/b.1193757/k.A452/Political_Reform.htm for proof). Yet this fake slate card told Oakland voters to vote “no” on this measure. That kind of sleazy, underhanded tactic is what really turns off voters to politics. And ironically, it’s that kind of mudslinging that Measure O /instant runoff voting is trying to stop.  

As San Francisco’s experience with instant runoff voting has shown, IRV decreases negative campaigning because candidates may need the second or third ranking from the supporters of other candidates to win. So you have to be more careful what you say about those candidates in order to attract their voters’ support. 

Setting the record straight: the Democratic Party, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, and over 20 Democratic elected officials from Oakland and Alameda County all strongly support Measure O. 

Suzi Goldmacher 

Chair, 16th Assembly District 

Member, California Democratic Party State Central Committee 


Steve Chessin 

Member, California Democratic Party State Central Committee and 

Member, California Democratic Party Executive Board 


Rob Dickinson 

Member, California Democratic Party State Central Committee 

Alternate Member, California Democratic Party Executive Board 

Founding Member, San Mateo County Democracy for America 


Donald Goldmacher 

Member, California Democratic Party State Central Committee 


Sherry Reson 

Member, California Democratic Party State Central Committee 

Founding Member, Wellstone Democratic Renewal Club 




Editors, Daily Planet: 

The Planet’s two Oct. 31 articles will hopefully help make a good start for the new Cerrito Theater. It will be interesting to see if it helps bring some much needed “life” to our town, or turns into a white elephant. The theater owners have an interesting concept, they are mucho sympatico, and even our town’s sceptics should wish the moviehouse well. Still, in the interest of balanced reporting, missing from the commemorative plaque which thanks the City Council, staff and contributors, is the following: 

“The theater was mainly financed by 10,000 El Cerrito households, who without being consulted were required to pay over $700 each, for a “theater rent return” of $1 per household per month. The city/Redevelopment Agency should acknowledge that site acquisition, feasibility studies, design and construction costs add up to over six milllion dollars. And include interest payments on loans the agency did not repay, in order to have “the cash at hand.” So a $7 million total cost is a fair estimate, even if we forget the fact the theater is the only redevelopment project in years. From an agency that costs $500,000 a year in staff costs and another $500,000 a year for consultants. Residents can be thankful the money went into a “benign” project; the main potential damage is to worsen the area’s parking shortage, and possibly drive the AlbanyI/II theaters out of business. And of course, the promised new library is now unlikely to happen, unless residents vote to increase taxes.” 

Keep reporting, the Cerrito theater is a good experiment and learning experience, successful or not. And meanwhile enjoy the movies, they cost us plenty. 

Peter and Rosemary Loubal 

El Cerrito 





Editors, Daily Planet: 

For pity sakes, stop being so squeamish! Lying, cheating and stealing are just the way it’s done these days. Berkeley just took a bit longer to get with my program, that’s all. Thank heavens for the Berkeley Chamber of Commerce and their PAC, Business for Better Government—they’ve made my work so much easier! Join these unimpeachable (heh, heh) community leaders and give your vote to all candidates and initiative supporters who spend huge sums of money on their campaigns; benefit from large contributions from undisclosed sources; use last-minute campaign mailers that are packed with lies; and place the needs of big developers above the needs of neighborhood residents who chronically whine about their “quality of life.” Oh please, some people just find it so difficult to cope with positive change that results in the complete destruction of their neighborhoods. Miscreants! After we brush this riff raff away, I hope I can count on you to work with me and my colleagues to build the new Berkeley—or, as I like to call it, “Berkeley at its Beastliest!” 

Yours truly, 

The Devil* 


* The Devil sometimes goes by the name of Doug Buckwald. 




Editors, Daily Planet: 

Thank you very much for covering the protest against Professor Yoo of Boalt school of Law. I am both horrified and disgusted by our governement’s continued support for the torure of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere. I was deeply saddened by congress’s decision to perpetuate this unconstitutional activity through the passing of the Military Commisions Act. I have never been so ashamed of my governement. Your Article gave me the opportunity to learn about Professor Robert Cole’s role in the protest at UC. Thanks for reporting on this matter of such importance. Thank you also for such a plethora of coverage of local candidates.  

Nancy Braham 




Editors, Daily Planet: 

The Alameda County Grand Jury, in its Final Report for 2005-2006, page 48, says that “there are no quotas for ticket writing in Berkeley.: 

Quotas are prohibited by Section 41600 et seq of the California Vehicle Code.  

The Berkeley police chief, with the agreement of the city manager, city attorney, and city clerk, requires parking enforcement personnel to issue 1,200 citations a month, which they have determined to be a reasonable “goal.” 

A copy of the vehicle code is on file in the reference section, second floor of Berkeley Main Library. 

Charles Smith