Public Comment

Councilmember Wozniak recently removed his appointee, Dean Metzger, from the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB). Since Mr. Wozniak has not publicly thanked Mr. Metzger for his ZAB service, I would like to do so—on behalf of many. In addition, Mr. Metzger has served his community on the Transportation Commission and through his neighborhood association (CENA), Berkeley Alliance of Neighborhood Associations (BANA), and Berkeleyans for a Livable University Environment (BLUE), among others. All these organizations and the city have profited greatly from his intelligence, integrity, and hard work.  

Mr. Metzger would be the first to acknowledge that three years on the ZAB was barely enough time to become comfortable in the bizarro world of Berkeley’s zoning ordinance and its ever-more-fantastic manifestations. Peeling away the layers of deception, manipulation, and “creativity” on the part of the planning staff and developers is a permanent full-time job, as neighborhood leaders know.  

Mr. Metzger also spent 18 months on the density bonus subcommittee. His attempt to quantify the application of the bonus, to create predictability for both developers and the public, was opposed by planning staff, which views the law as a kind of interpretive dance in which buildings can leap at will to intoxicating heights and densities. Does it benefit the public to lose Mr. Metzger’s expertise on that very complex matter, after eighteen months of intensive education? 

Long-term commissioners are effective commissioners. Yet the council is poised at its January 16 meeting to ensure that commissioners can serve on a commission no more than eight years in 10, and to prevent simultaneous service on more than one commission. This proposal might seem reasonable if, in fact, Berkeley had lots of capable individuals clamoring to serve on commissions. But we do not. Very few Berkeleyans are willing and able to devote as much time and energy to the service of their fellow citizens as Mr. Metzger. This is why there are now 50 commission vacancies.  

The January 16 council item is intended to remove “trouble-makers” from powerful commissions, those who have served long enough to think independently and question staff. The targets are old-time progressives who champion public input and neighborhood livability, unlike today’s pseudo-progressives who prefer government of, by, and for developers and planners. It is an unseemly attempt by some council members to prevent other council members from re-appointing commissioners who effectively stand up for the public. Others support it because they are “tired” of certain long-term commissioners. I was tired of President Bush about fifteen minutes after he was elected, but I don’t advocate limiting presidential terms to fifteen minutes. The public is best served by experienced policy makers. 

So a better idea would be to eliminate commission term limits entirely until Berkeley comes up with at least 50 more people to fill commission vacancies, and several more to replace the effective commissioners we would lose to term limits. And if you want effective commissioners working on your behalf—challenging the status quo, the local bureaucracy, and moneyed interests—I recommend that you contact the council to oppose the January 16 council item.  

Commissioners serve at the pleasure of their council appointers, who deserve both credit and blame for their appointments, actions, and removals. Council members usually try to appoint competent people who share their philosophies, and then let them make independent decisions. However, commission members make critical decisions that impact the lives of thousands, and our elected officials are ultimately responsible for them. 

Council members who know their commissioners will be in the minority usually try to maximize the impact of their appointees by leaving them in place long enough to acquire experience and knowledge, and thereby influence with their colleagues. In land use issues, it is equally important to have the self-confidence to question staff. 

So why did council member Wozniak appoint Mr. Metzger to the ZAB, permit him to serve without interference for three years, and then summarily dismiss him as his influence increased? For the answer, let’s look at Mr. Wozniak’s history on land use issues.  

Mr. Wozniak’s first significant action, when elected to the council in 2002, was to effectively oppose the proposed neighborhood-busting development by the American Baptist Seminary of the West on Benvenue Avenue. I and the Benvenue neighbors will always appreciate Mr. Wozniak’s assistance on that project—the only large damaging project to have been defeated in Berkeley in recent memory.  

However, I am very sorry to say that since then, although Mr. Wozniak has done useful work on some other issues, like the budget and public safety, on land use issues his record is dismal. When faced with a choice between neighborhood livability and developer interests, he votes for the latter. Most significantly for his own district, when faced with a choice between assisting the university or protecting the neighborhoods of his constituents, he always represents university interests—vigorously. These pro-development, pro-university leanings have made it easier for Mr. Wozniak to fall in line with the Bates agenda, although sometimes against his better judgment, as with the Brower Center, Downtown’s sacrifice to political correctness. 

Appointing Mr. Metzger to the ZAB was one of Mr. Wozniak’s few neighborhood-friendly actions, for which he deserves full credit. However, Mr. Metzger probably never reflected Mr. Wozniak’s land use philosophy, especially as Mr. Wozniak has moved steadily to the “right.” Given his experience in neighborhood organizations, Mr. Metzger entered the ZAB as a development skeptic. And as a principled person, the more Mr. Metzger learned while on the ZAB, the more he had to oppose Berkeley’s current damaging developments. 

Nonetheless, Mr. Metzger’s appointment was good politics for Mr. Wozniak. For years the pro-neighborhood members of the ZAB had been in a 3-6 minority. As long as Mr. Metzger’s vote did not threaten to create a pro-neighborhood majority, Mr. Wozniak could get “credit” for his neighborhood-friendly appointee without risk to the development agenda, or of alienating colleagues like Bates and Capitelli. But as more ZAB members began to express occasional concern about bad planning, raising the possible threat of an enlightened pro-neighborhood majority, Mr. Wozniak had to remove Mr. Metzger. Now with the ZAB back to 6-3, the council can again feel entitled to refuse to reconsider ZAB decisions. 

The imminent cause of Mr. Metzger’s dismissal was his opposition to the Kragen project (1885 University), for the reasons he stated in his Planet commentary (“Trader Joe’s—For Whom?” Jan. 5). That project needed another vote to pass, so a few days before the vote, Mr. Wozniak replaced Mr. Metzger with a newcomer who voted for the project. This is similar to the recent last-minute shuffles on the Landmarks Preservation Commission, designed to make it appear that the LPC overwhelmingly endorsed the Bates revision of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance. 

Experienced commissioners are a valuable commodity that add efficiency to government. Finding and educating new commissioners takes the time and resources of staff, council members, citizens, and other commissioners. Ideally, council members should draw on the specialized knowledge of their commissioners instead of throwing it away. Although council members have every right to disagree with their commissioners and overturn their decisions, it is not good for public policy or for taxpayers when council members use commissioners cynically and wastefully. 

Most commissioners from comfortable neighborhoods like CENA (and even some from poorer ones) are all too eager to vote in lockstep with staff and the pro-development agenda. Kudos to those few who, like Dean Metzger, care enough about others to try to help those bearing the burdens of density and bad development. They are precious few, and we cannot afford to lose them, to either term limits or political games.  

Sharon Hudson is active in Berkeley land use issues and is a member of Berkeleyans for a Livable University Environment (BLUE), www.berkeleyblue.org.