Editorials

Lately opinion@berkeleydailyplanet.com has been getting complaints not only about outrages and abuses in the wider world, and about our own supposed transgressions in the pages of the Planet, but about letters to the editors and other responsible parties in other media which the proprietors of same didn’t print. For example, we ran a couple of letters lambasting the San Francisco Chronicle for a particularly lame editorial on Lt. Ehren Watada’s refusal to fight in what he terms an illegal war. The editorial writer claimed that “no soldier can be allowed to pick and choose assignments, a notion that undercuts the necessary hierarchy of military order.” He or she must have been out the day they studied the Nuremberg Trials in history class in high school. To be fair, the Chronicle did publish one snappy letter the next day making this very point, but two other good ones which the Chron didn’t see fit to print ended up in the Daily Planet instead. Which is fine. Happy to be of service.  

Last week we were copied on a bunch of complaints about the KitchenDemocracy.org website, which evidently doesn’t offer a complaints column. The site says it’s based on the premise that “Elected officials want to interact with their residents. Because they rarely have such easy access to the opinions of so many citizens, Kitchen Democracy is a valuable channel through which they connect with their residents.”  

How are residents supposed to connect with these electeds? By signing up with Kitchen Democracy (K-D to fans), of course, in order to record votes on their proprietary website. 

Several e-mail writers objected vigorously to K-D’s practice of requiring would-be voters to disclose personal information before being allowed to join, and others complained that they’d tried to enroll but their comments never appeared on the site as promised. These complaints weren’t intended for publication in the Planet, so we won’t reprint them here, but readers should sample the page in question and form their own opinions about the virtues and faults of the process. 

What did catch my eye among the forwarded emails was a copy of a letter from District 8 councilmember Gordon Wozniak, addressed to “Berkeley residents.” Here’s what he said: 

“Recently Kitchen Democracy has launched an issue that is important to the vitality of the Elmwood Business District. Should Wright’s Garage convert to various retail uses and a restaurant? On Feb. 8, the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) will probably decide whether or not to approve the application to convert the garage. Some are concerned that the conversion would exacerbate traffic and parking problems, while others believe it would benefit business throughout the Elmwood District. What do you think? Go to www.kitchendemocracy.org/22, read the article and your neighbor’s comments, then vote and tell ZAB what you think. Thanks for participating!” 

Well, I’m signed up as a member of K-D’s voting group myself, having long since abandoned any claims to privacy. I’m also personally concerned, since I live on Ashby Avenue, and any adverse effects from this project would impact my home. So I went to the site to see what was going on. I was amazed to discover that the “article” about the Wright Garage application was an effusive tribute to the virtues of the proposal signed by none other than Gordon Wozniak, complete with large color picture of his smiling face.  

What’s wrong with this? Well, for starters, after ZAB makes its decision on the project, no matter which way it goes, there’s sure to be an appeal. An appeal to whom? To the City Council, of course, on which the same Gordon Wozniak sits in a quasi-judiciary capacity to hear appeals of land use and zoning decisions by commissions. (What does “quasi-judiciary” mean? Acting as a judge.) 

When I was on another quasi-judiciary body, the Landmarks Preservation Commission, the city attorney successfully prohibited three LPC commissioners from hearing Temple Beth-El’s application for a variance to build on a landmarked site just because we were board members or employees of the Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association, even though we had not expressed or even formed any opinion on the particular project. And here’s Councilmember Wozniak touting this project on the Internet before it’s even gotten to ZAB! How could he possibly be allowed to vote on it when it reaches the council level?  

I posed the same question to a long-time ZAB member, and heard an explosion in which the words “propriety” and “ethics” figured prominently. He certainly didn’t think that ZAB members would ever be allowed to vote if they’d already expressed an opinion on a project before them. On the other hand, city councilmembers vote all the time on things that they’ve previously endorsed in campaigns and elsewhere, and no one complains.  

What does our city attorney have to say about this? Will Councilmember Wozniak be allowed to vote on a Wright’s Garage appeal if there is one? It will be interesting to see what happens.