Public Comment

BARNES & NOBLE 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

As a downtown Berkeley retailer, it was disheartening to see the Planet’s headline above the masthead applauding the local booksellers cheering the departure of Barnes & Noble from their Shattuck Avenue location. When we opened Ristorante Raphael in the summer of 2003, we were excited to be part of the Downtown Berkeley Renaissance. Major retailers had moved in, and it looked as if retail business was on an upswing. 

Alas, that vision has not come true. We feel the loss of every business that closes its doors, from Paper Plus, to See’s Candies, to Power Bar, and especially our next-door neighbor, the Act I & II movie theater. With the departure of Barnes & Noble, we now face another empty storefront, which will no doubt take years to rent, even with a parking lot. 

The only bright spot in this latest retail downturn is the comment of our Councilmember Dona Spring, as quoted in the Planet, “I don’t think it is good news…” I hope Ms. Spring and the other City Council members are finally realizing that the current business climate of Berkeley must be changed. If a large national retailer such as Barnes & Noble feels downtown Berkeley is not viable, then why would an individual retailer—the art gallery or unique boutique we desperately need—justify taking a chance in our local business environment? 

We have been carefully following the progress of DAPAC, hoping that the future of downtown business would be incorporated into the area plan. I have attended a few DAPAC meetings, and the business perspective is far down the list of priorities. Unless I am mistaken, there is no representation at all of the business community on DAPAC. Morale is sinking amongst retailers, and we do not feel anyone is listening to our perspective. 

Our restaurant is located on Center Street, and the future there indeed looks bright. We can envision the grand pedestrian mall, the hotel, the museum, and the crowds of people it will attract to downtown, and to our business. However, that vision is many years away, and it is the years between now and then that will determine the survival of retail in downtown Berkeley. 

Hope Alper 

• 

SAFETY 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

There is one thing that we can never get enough of: safety. This is especially true if the costs are hidden or delayed. Thus the Berkeley City Council was cajoled into spending $1 million to end rolling closures of fire stations under the threat of increased response time for fire and medical emergencies. Most people correctly think of Fire Department response time in terms of medical emergencies because there are about eight times more calls for medical help than for structural fires. Fortunately, medical service calls are relatively inexpensive. The Fire Department spends roughly 15 percent of its budget on emergency medical services compared to about 70 percent on fire operations. There is already a special parcel-based paramedic supplemental tax in Berkeley. Furthermore, Berkeley has one station for every 1.4 square miles; whereas, comparable cities have one fire station every two to eight square miles. The hefty $1 million dollar “insurance policy” purchased by the City Council is not buying the safety the public thinks it wants. It is, however, adding to the salaries of the firefighters, a substantial number of whom have salary and benefits of over $100,000 per year. 

Robert Gable 

• 

BP-UC DEAL 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Thanks to Anne Wagley for her letter exposing the deficits of the BP-UC Berkeley deal so praised by the mainstream media. It is horrifying to think that this colonization, as a student called it, of our potentially great public university by a giant oil company, should be done under cover of presumably beneficent “green” research. The proponents carefully neglect to note that this is GMO research and that besides the potential to corrupt non-genetically-modified plants, it will inevitably result in deforestation and displacement of food crops in Third World countries. It will bring non-academic researchers who answer to a for-profit company into our public university, and it will give BP legal cover, since the University is even harder to sue for malfeasance than is a private corporation. I hope the chancellor will reconsider and the Academic Senate will defend the interests of our university and oppose this terribly misguided plan. The University of California was built by California taxpayer dollars. Influence over its research should not be handed over to a global corporation to further profits in a technology that, given its damage to our planet, must be terminated. 

Charlene Woodcock 

• 

NIMBYISM 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Becky O’Malley’s Feb. 27 editorial “How About Some Density in the ‘Burbs?” misses the point. An argument for increased density in suburban areas is just that—it is not an argument against new housing in the urban core. Nor is attacking straw-men “who think that every flatlands back yard deserves a condo of its own.” No one is seriously advocating anything of the sort. 

Quite ironically, it is a suburban flavor of the very same NIMBYism epitomized by this piece that has prevented the suburban density O’Malley supports. How can we expect someone else to allow change in their community when we refuse the any growth in our own? 

As far as our Berkeley expatriates are concerned, why is it surprising that people who prefer Lafayette to Berkeley move there? Shall we tear down some high-density housing to get them back? It is preposterous to suggest that higher density will drive out Berkeley residents—most of us live here because we enjoy the density. We wouldn’t be paying through the nose to live here if we didn’t. 

Not once is it shown exactly how recent new housing is detracting from Berkeley’s livability—because it isn’t! It is true Berkeley has at times suffered because of certain developments, but we mustn’t hold all future growth hostage to an amorphous fear from the past. Most Berkeleyans love the city for its walkability, intensity, and vibrancy; additional housing will not only contribute to those things so many enjoy, but allow more people to enjoy them. 

Eric Panzer 

• 

NORTH SHATTUCK PLAZA 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Helen Villett’s commentary about the proposed North Shattuck Plaza requires some amplification. First, the “group” she refers to in her commentary is a corporation, and she is vice chair of its board. More information is available at www.northshattuckplaza.org. Second, Ms. Villet says there is a “goal of maintaining the same number of parking spaces.” According to this website, there are 84 existing spaces; of these 17 would remain; 53 new spaces would be created with eight more “possible.” Of the “possible” spaces six could be created right now. My arithmetic: a net loss is 12 spaces. Finally, Ms. Villett says “Most successful shopping areas do not have parking right in front....” I invite her to tour Fourth Street in Berkeley, Rockridge in Oakland, and, if she wants a trip to the suburbs, downtown Walnut Creek.  

Christopher Adams 

• 

TRANSIT 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Reading about AC Transit and the Van Hool buses has led me to think about my own experiences with buses. As a car-less, partially disabled (bad leg) getting-older person who has used public transportation in both San Francisco and the East Bay for many years, I really like taking buses in San Francisco but I hate AC Transit. In fact, while I will happily travel around The City hopping from bus to bus, I go out of my way (walk, take cabs from the closest BART station, beg rides from my friends, stay home) to avoid taking a bus in the East Bay. 

Why? It’s certainly not because they’re more crowded (San Francisco buses are often packed) or dirtier. And while the Van Hool buses haven’t made it easier, my attitude predates their arrival on the scene. Partly its because San Francisco bus routes seem more logical and intuitive. Easier to understand which helps a lot when I’m going somewhere I have never been before. 

Mainly, though, it’s because I find riding the bus in the East Bay an ordeal. The usual attitude of AC Transit drivers falls somewhere between indifferent and hostile while drivers in The City I find to be at least polite and often friendly and even humorous. Here buses seem to lurch more and, when traffic’s light, will race down the street. If I am going someplace unfamiliar, I have to memorize the streets before the stop in advance and make sure I can see the street signs from the window as there is no interior signage (like in San Francisco) or announcement of the stops, and if I ask the driver to announce my stop when I get on, there is a good chance he will forget. And if I don’t get up and get that button pushed or cord pulled and make my way to the door before the bus stops so I can jump right off, I either get curt comments from the driver, have to wait until the next stop, or both. On the other hand, last time I was in the City I was told (nicely) by the driver to sit back down and wait until the bus came to a full stop. 

Now I don’t think this is because drivers in The City are nicer people than those in the East Bay. I suspect it is more a reflection of the management and where they place their emphasis. Maybe keeping on schedule is seen as of utmost importance. Good customer relations certainly aren’t high on the list of things to do. Which is sad, really, because I would like to take the bus on this side of the Bay. 

Joanne Kowalski 

• 

OXFORD REFERENDUM 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

We failed to achieve the daunting task of gathering 4,073 signatures within the 30-day period allotted for a referendum of the land giveaway for the “Brower Center” project. Thanks to all those who took the trouble to understand the complicated issues, and brave the cold, rainy weather to sign our petition. 

We initiated the referendum for several reasons. We were concerned about the lack of an environmental impact report, the lack of public process, the loss of parking and its impact upon our downtown, the concealment of the true cost of the project, and the massive impacts that this project would have on the city and on the citizens who will be deprived of funds diverted into it. 

The referendum campaign brought some sunshine into the corrupt process by which this bloated project was approved and funded. Some details of the diversion of city money into this project have been revealed, and more will follow.  

Berkeley citizens need to continue asking questions and demanding answers. We need to get our elected representatives to do a better job of caring for our money and our welfare. If they fail to act in the interests of the people, perhaps it is time to reexamine our City Charter, which gives all the power to the City Council, except for the power of the citizens to take action through an Initiative or a Referendum. 

Gale Garcia 

Barry Wofsy 

• 

IRAN 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Becky O’Malley’s editorial “It Looks Like They Plan to Bomb Iran” highlights a serious problem, but most people remain totally ignorant of or are in denial about the coming war. Another U.S.-launched war would seem ludicrous. But to a president who claims to get directions from God, nothing is extreme. I congratulate the Daily Planet for focusing attention on this issue. 

Will the Democrats stop a war against Iran? Dream on! Hillary Clinton has stated that Iran cannot be allowed to possess nukes and “no option can be taken off the table.” John Edwards echoed her: “At the top of these threats is Iran.…To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep all options on the table. Let me reiterate: all options.” And rising star Barack Obama told the Chicago Tribune in September 2004, “Launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in…On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran.” 

Overthrowing the Islamic regime has been a key component of the Bush global strategy of radically reshaping the world, beginning in the Middle East-Central Asian region, in order to solidify the United States as the world’s sole imperialist superpower. Bush’s 2006 National Security Strategy refers to Iran 16 times and states: “We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran.” The Bush regime has created a State Department Office of Iranian Affairs and an Iranian Directorate inside the Pentagon as it created special “intelligence” groups to invent pretexts for war on Iraq. 

Do not be fooled by recent diplomacy. The Bush regime in the buildup to the attack on Iraq also pretended to be exploring all possible diplomatic solutions while it had actually already made the decision to go to war and was preparing for war. 

How do we stop this coming war which will spread death and destruction throughout the Middle East and possibly ignite a world-wide conflagration? It will not be halted by Congress or the courts. Only concerted mass action in the streets will stop it. Only by driving the Bush regime from power can the war be averted. To see how you can help do so, please go to worldcantwait.org. 

Kenneth J. Theisen 

Oakland 

• 

MOTHER NATURE FOR  

PRESIDENT 

Once again the dust has settled in a post mid-term election atmosphere only to be kicked up again by many presidential hopefuls calling for healthcare reform, a plan to stay or exit Iraq, or simply calling each other names. However, one area that has not adequately been addressed is our addiction to oil and the ensuing contribution to climate change. The United States is about 5 percent of the global population but consumes about 25 percent of the world’s oil and contributes 25 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Any future American president must aggressively attack this problem if there is to be the change necessary to avert dangerous shifts in global climate. According to the most comprehensive study to date, written by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, there will be a 2.5 degrees to 11.5 degrees surface temperature increase by 2100. There are two proposals, one in the House and one in the Senate that would reduce emissions by 80 percent below the 1990 levels by 2050. Henry Waxman and Bernie Sanders now need the support of their colleagues if the United States is to tackle climate change at a national level. The only way that either our newly elected officials or presidential hopefuls will address these problems is if we step up pressure from the grassroots. 

Joshua Sbicca 

Canvass Director, 

Environmental Action 

• 

CALL CONGRESS NOW 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

President Bush’s request for nearly $100 billion in supplemental war funding comes up for a vote on Wednesday March 7 in the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee. A vote of the full House will occur the following week. A Congressional vote for this supplemental appropriation will enable Bush to expand and continue the war. 

1. Call the Congressional Switchboard Toll-free (800) 614-2803 or (800) 828-0498. 

2. Ask for your Congressional Representative and ask him/her to cut off all funding except that which is needed to bring the troops home. 

3. Call a second time and ask for Democratic leaders from California, Nancy Pelosi or Tom Lantos. 

Marge Lasky 

Grandmothers Against the War