Public Comment

‘UNIVERSAL’ MEANS SINGLE PAYER 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

All the smoke and mirrors about solving the crisis in health care is as real as the phony insurance company front groups that keep writing letters to the Chronicle on the subject. Our state Legislature spent three years studying alternatives and came to the conclusion that only a single payer insurance system works. Eliminating the insurers can save billions. And it can discipline uncontrolled profit centers—such as giant pharmaceuticals and other major system suppliers. That’s why the Legislature passed Single Payer last year. But it didn’t happen. Although many corporations want Single Payer because improved health care will improve their own workers’ efficiency, they aren’t prepared to start a war with Blue Cross, Blue Shield and the other major insurers. As a physician who works with/for the uninsured and underinsured, I’d bet anything that California will not now offer a system that guarantees equal and quality health care for all with free choice of doctors and hospitals. Only single payer will do that, but eliminating the insurance company middleman would also take hundreds of billions in profits out of Wall Street. Would Arnold go against Wall Street?  

Marc Sapir 

• 

IT AIN’T THE ONLY OAK GROVE 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Week after week I see this lie published about the scraggly oaks next to Memorial Stadium being the “only grove in Berkeley” or “in the flatlands.” It ain’t true For openers, just stroll directly west from the stadium down the long, wide walk to the large, nice grove of oaks just south of the old LSB building where one can sit on the old marble bench as I have done for some 50 years. Unlike the so-called stadium “grove,” one does not fall on your ass trying to walk around on a leaf-covered, down-slopping grade and fall on the sidewalk, with cars around and steel fences. The best thing that could happen up there would be to take all the oaks out and thereby allow full view of a truly magnificent architectural display. By the way, there are more than 250 varieties of trees alone on the Berkeley campus. Pick up a guided tour at the Forestry Department. 

Jack Chamberlain 

• 

TRADER JOE’S BUILDING 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Can it be that opponents of the “Trader Joe” apartments will have to live for the rest of their lives bemoaning their unwanted building on University Avenue, all because Councilmember Gordon Wozniak “fired” his appointee to the Zoning Adjustments Board just days before the vote, allowing his new appointee to cast the crucial fifth vote to approve the project? 

Those who read the informative recent articles in the Daily Planet by the dislodged ZABber Dean Metzger and by our ever-watchful Sharon Hudson might come to that conclusion, even though neither author discussed the consequences of the ZAB approval of that project. 

If Mr. Metzger had stayed on the board to prevent that fifth and deciding yes-vote, would the final results be any different? In my opinion, probably not. 

The plain fact is that all bitterly contested high-rise buildings are appealed to the City Council no matter whether they are approved or turned down by the ZAB. At which point the same people will wait many hours to repeat their same testimony (often word for word). It is the City Council which always has the final say, usually based on the same facts and opinions already heard months ago at the ZAB. 

In the Trader Joe case, Mr Wozniak will have his real vote, regardless of the way his appointee voted on the ZAB. The City Council has to look for its own fifth vote (either up or down) to decide the fate of this, and any, project. (Las Vegas betting odds seem to favor Council approval.) Thus does a prior ZAB decision, whatever it be, go for naught. 

Residential ZAB decision only rarely get overturned by the council, but apartment houses and commercial properties are somewhat more prone for overturn and therefore are worth an appeal. This suggests to me a way we can save our tax-payers and our concerned citizenry both money and testimony duplication, and save the ZAB members hours and weeks of preliminary shadowboxing. We just need to create a mechanism for agreeing that a contentious large project we all know is destined to be appealed be sent straight to the City Council in the first place. 

The vast majority of ZAB decisions are not appealed. The ZAB will still have plenty of traditional work to do. But we will all be spared enduring complex zoning argument in months-long duplicata. 

Victor Herbert 

• 

GRATEFUL FOR GRATITUDE 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Given the empty store fronts on Shattuck Avenue and the threatened loss of Black Oaks Books, it might appear that downtown Berkeley is rapidly going to hell in a hand basket. Hold on—not so fast. There’s a bright new star on the horizon; namely a new restaurant, Cafe Gratitude at 1730 Shattuck Ave. Granted, we need new stores much more than another restaurant in the Gourmet Ghetto. But Cafe Gratitude is a unique, funky-type place—several large rooms, brick walls, long wooden tables where diners are encouraged to sit together, plus a friendly, laid-back staff. It’s worth dropping in just to read the witty, imaginative Bill of Fare, where each item has a fanciful name.  

For example, “I Am Bright-Eyed,” one of the breakfasts; “I Am Bountiful,” for an appetizer; “I Am Fulfilled” for a salad. An entree might be identified as “I Am Abundant” or “I Am Flourishing.” Milkshakes bear the intriguing description, “I Am Eternally Charismatic.” Organic teas boast “I Am Triumphant,” while fruit juices claim, “I Am Compassionate.” There’s even a prayer on the Bill of Fare: “Great Spirit, thank you for all the beings that contributed to this meal and for the vitality of this food. We relish our bounty and revere your creation.” I ask, at what other restaurant do you get a blessing? For Cafe Gratitude, let’s be grateful!  

Dorothy Snodgrass 

• 

NORTH SHATTUCK 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I see there is talk of a major renovation and change for North Shattuck Avenue (Daily Planet, Jan. 12). My question: Why? 

I moved here in 1965 and have seen creative and positive growth along North Shattuck. Here is a neighborhood that, by itself, has spawned such great places as the Cheeseboard, Peet’s, Chez Panisse, Earthly Goods, Black Oak Books, the Juice Bar, Poulet, Vintage Wines, and the Walk Shop, to name a few. 

Why does the City of Berkeley want to mess with that? Haven’t we all seen enough harm done by the city’s planning staff and politicians to Telegraph Avenue and Berkeley’s Downtown?The best thing the city could do to North Shattuck would be to leave the area alone, and not let greedy developers mess it up. 

Barry Wofsy 

For the Milvia/King Alliance 

• 

XXXXXXXXXX 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

The media has been recently been touting a physician-funded report that U.S. cancer deaths have fallen for the second year in a row. They paint a pretty picture of success on paper. Anyone with one eye can see a quite different reality. Although cancer deaths have dropped, the quality of life for those living with cancer continues to decline. Although western medicine and modern science have figured out how to extend life (up to five years) of those living with cancer, the symptoms associated with the treatment often make for a living hell. The focus is always on diagnosis and treatment, never on diet or lifestyle that causes cancer. The current mindset that blames genetics and environment while ignoring personal responsibility is part of the problem, not the solution. 

Michael Bauce 

• 

TREASURED ISLAND 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I have lived in Alameda all my life. I am extremely concerned about the future of our “Treasured Island.” Our peaceful piece of the planet is at high risk. 

We citizens of Alameda overwhelmingly passed a City Charter Measure (Measure A) in the mid ’70s that stated nothing larger than a duplex could be built in Alameda. The current and extremely crucial issue for Alameda and its residents is possible overturn/amendment to the cited City Charter Amendment. That possible overturn/amendment would solely be to accommodate future development projects. Those projects would not benefit Alameda as a whole. Business/real estate and corporate interests would surely benefit, but the quality of life for residents current and future who enjoy living here would suffer in perpetuity.  

Here is a brief history of what was going on during the 1970s. Land speculators were buying up our Victorians, demolishing them and using the land for multiple housing. As a result we now see a multitude of cement-square multiples of tasteless, cheaply constructed, architecturally incompatible apartment complexes sandwiched between Victorians and older homes of equal beauty and historic value. The result has been disastrous! Not a pretty sight. As this greedy land grab progressed in the 1970s the citizenry gathered forces and passed Measure A to put a halt to this destruction. For the past 30 plus years that Measure has served Alameda and its residents well. 

Now, the grabbers and their affiliates are again on the offensive. Due to the closure of the Naval Air Station in the 1990s (acreage now called Alameda Point) that prime property is up for grabs. Developers continue to descend in droves. In conjunction, other spuriously affiliated organizations are behind a push to either overturn/amend Measure A to accommodate multiple housing, possible big box retail and the like on that beautiful land. 

If this push is allowed it will effect every square inch on our city. Some of these factions are using the ill-described “affordable housing” as their hue and cry. I defy anyone to describe with any accuracy precisely what is “affordable housing.” It is subjective. Is my description of affordable housing the same as yours? No.  

The unalterable fact is that Alameda is but a 10.4-square-mile island with limited ingress and egress. We have two tubes and four bridges. Our city leaders are definitely not in tune with the residents. They continue to OK nearly every proposed development...or as they term, “improvement” of our city. The lure of property and retail tax dollars dictate their decisions. Our city is not poor. It is not suffering financial catastrophe...but I fear it may soon experience that result if our leaders do not face the future with any intelligently processed reality.  

Each new development requires city services to accommodate incoming population and business. Will the projected dollars ultimately result in absorbing those financial commitments? I have my doubts.  

Name wittheld 

• 

AC TRANSIT 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

This is in response to several recent letters about AC Transit. 

I think bus service in Berkeley is OK. I regularly ride the 51, and also use the 7, 9, 19, 40, 43, 52 and 72. Before I retired, I regularly bought a 31-day pass for $70, which I thought was a great deal. Now I carry a senior pass, and I think $20 is dirt cheap for unlimited bus rides during a month. I think AC Transit should stop issuing transfers, and tell all regular riders to buy a pass. People who ride buses only occasionally might want to buy a 10-ride ticket, to avoid digging for change, but a pass is the only way to go for regular riders. I ride a bus for nearly all my trips in and around Berkeley. I never have to dig for change or get a transfer, because I pay my (fixed) fare once a month. 

I don’t think we need a “shuttle” downtown. I know how to use the bus lines mentioned above to get to each and every shopping district, school, medical facility and restaurant in Berkeley and the neighboring parts of Albany, El Cerrito and Oakland. Free shuttles are already available to Kaiser and Children’s Hospital, from MacArthur BART. People can also ride the UC campus buses. 

There are a few residential areas in Berkeley which I can’t get to on a bus. For some of them, I can walk, for the rest I take a taxi, catch a ride with somebody, or use my City CarShare membership to borrow a Prius for a while. These are rare situations. Besides buses, there are other alternatives to driving alone—car-pooling, jitney service (limited routes and times) and park-and-ride. 

I realize there are downsides to bus riding. Buses can be late, crowded and some riders can be noisy, smelly and abusive. Some riders drop garbage on the buses and talk loudly on cell phones. But in my experience these are only occasional problems, which I can put up with for a short time. I prefer such problems to dealing with traffic jams, road rage and hunting for a parking space. I really enjoy the freedom when I get off my bus downtown and proceed directly to my destination, instead of roaming the streets searching for a place to park. 

Steve Geller 

• 

JIMMY CARTER 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I began my graduate studies at UC Berkeley and will never forget a history professor there saying that President James Polk was so dishonest that he lied in his own diary. Well, Jimmy Carter goes Polk one better, lying about events in which he himself was a major participant. Dr. Kenneth Stein, once one of Jimmy Carter’s closest confidants and the first director of the ex-president’s Carter Center (1983-85) castigated Carter’s new book for, among other things, this reason. Although Carter has insisted in several interviews that his book contains no factual errors, Stein said the president misrepresents the wording of key security council resolutions and negotiated documents, including the Camp David Accords, which Carter himself negotiated! 

"History gives no refunds, no do overs,” Stein said in his class at Emory University on the Arab-Israeli conflict, where he expanded upon his critique Carter’s book. “You have to take what is and build on it. You can’t bend the [facts] to suit a need.” 

In sum, imagine misrepresenting to the public resolutions which you yourself negotiated! That’s our exalted Jimmy Carter. 

Following Dr. Stein’s condemnation of Carter, fourteen members of the Carter Center in Atlanta resigned in the past week to protest the former president’s book blaming Israel for the failure of Middle East peace efforts. The group wrote Carter that he had abdicated his role as peace broker in favor of “malicious partisan advocacy,” portraying the conflict as a “purely one-sided affair” which Israel bears full responsibility for resolving. 

“This is not the Carter Center or the Jimmy Carter we came to respect and support,” the letter said. “Therefore it is with sadness and regret that we hereby tender our resignation from the Board of Councilors of the Carter Center effective immediately.” 

In yet another critique of the Carter book, the following commentary appeared recently in the New York Times written by President Clinton’s chief administrative envoy to the Middle East, Dennis Ross: “To my mind, Mr. Carter’s presentation badly misrepresents the Middle East proposals advanced by President Bill Clinton in 2000, and in so doing undermines, in a small but important way, efforts to bring peace to the region.” 

Finally, two letter writers whose drivel supporting Carter appeared in the Jan. 12 edition of the Daily Planet should have revealed their affiliations so that readers could trace the genesis of their manifest biases. Jim Harris is a longterm member of the ISM, a group which not only justifies Palestinian acts of terrorism but which has actually hidden homicide bombers prior to their crimes. And Paula Abrams-Hourani, who hails from Vienna, is a member of the Austrian wing of the pro-Palestinian propaganda group, Women in Black. Little wonder these ideologues find solace in the excrement penned by Carter. 

Dan Spitzer 

Kensington 

• 

THE LESS FORTUNATE 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

How should we live so that those who are less fortunate than us are included in our actions? We come from many nations in the world but all of us have the same basic wants. We need food and shelter, of course, but all of us, rich and poor alike, want respect from others. The general attitude in our society is that the poor are guilty of some sin: they are lazy or distracted or unwilling to learn English. We feel that they do not deserve the respect we give to full human beings. I think it is high time that we take care of others’ needs and share our comforts with those who are less fortunate. Let us treat them with the utmost respect. We might save our money and time fixing societal breakdown later if we can improvise small local ways to help our less fortunate neighbors now. 

Romila Khanna