Opinion

Heralded as a clean break with an inglorious past, a new board took the reins Tuesday of the “troubled” Berkeley Housing Authority (BHA) and began immediately to plan to govern the 1,800 federally-funded Section 8 apartments and 75 units of public housing. -more-

There’s plenty of blame to go around in the Berkeley Housing Authority situation. A friend of a friend took a job there briefly a few years ago, after a successful career at similar agencies elsewhere, and left quickly after describing the organization to my friend as “sneaky, underhanded and dysfunctional.” An elderly tenant whose rent is supplemented with a Section 8 certificate says that her landlord successfully claimed that she hadn’t paid her rent when she actually had, and therefore he collected double rent for at least several months. Others complain that even though they had Section 8 certificates they were never able to get into Berkeley apartments because vacancies always went to friends of staff. -more-

ROUGH LANGUAGE -more-

When I was invited to join the Downtown Area Plan Advisory Committee (DAPAC) last January, I thought, “What a cool name.” I thought it was pronounced dah pak, sort of hip hop sounding. And then I imagined 21 guys and gals with tattoos, bare midrifts, low slung pants, nose rings and rap songs in the background. Well, no such luck. This group of 21 takes its charge from the City Council dead seriously, and that charge is to create a new downtown plan by November of this year. They have been working for 18 months and now, having less than five months to complete their work, they are in crunch time. -more-

Peter Allen’s assertion in these pages that “The bus rapid transit proposal is an expensive compromise...” is inaccurate. -more-

In his attack on bus rapid transit (Daily Planet, June 8), Peter Allen says that AC Transit should reduce fares and run more buses instead of implementing BRT. -more-

Bus rapid transit (BRT) in Berkeley has become a clash of ideologies. Prophecies of doom from global warming contend with the passionate assertions of a citizen’s right to drive, and to have a parking space. The BRT was proposed originally to be an attractive alternative to driving. Finally, a large number of people who work at UC and in downtown Berkeley will be able to commute faster and more conveniently in a bus than they have been while driving their car. But to hear some people talk, BRT will just take away parking and cause more congestion. These folks can’t see themselves riding a bus, and think that none of their fellow car drivers will use the bus either. Their view is framed by the belief that traffic after BRT will be just the same as it is now, with the added annoyance of big buses taking up bus-only lanes. Other ideologues include some Telegraph merchants, who see any reduction in parking causing a decline in business. Their view is framed by the belief that all their customers will come by car. -more-

HOUSING DIRECTOR -more-

The UC infatuation with the BP con game grant goes on despite many comments, letters and op-ed articles in papers and magazines pointing out that fermentation of biofuel crops releases much carbon dioxide needlessly before getting the fuel and leaves much unused biomass in cellulose and lignin. This money would be much better used to find how to get solar energy combined with a catalyst to split water getting hydrogen, the clean fuel. Also the money could be doing much more in maximizing a pyrolysis process to make charcoal from our already harvested biofuel crops, our organic wastes. Their disposal costs many billions a year, while allowing, especially in composting, the recycling of trapped carbon back to the environment as carbon dioxide. Now in Naples, Italy, a major problem of no more disposal space for wastes is making a major ugly mess, which other cities may soon be snarled in, if we do not recognize those wastes can be utilized to get energy and some carbon removal. -more-

I am writing to comment on some of the issues raised by the so-called Public Commons for Everyone Initiative on the City Council agenda for Tuesday evening. Without my belaboring the ironic and Orwellian implications of using the term “commons,” what concerns me most is the disproportionate emphasis on coming up with new laws rather than bringing community and city resources to bear directly on the issue of problematic street behavior. Has anyone analyzed how many taxpayer dollars would go to pay for the staff time of members of the city attorney and city manager’s offices to come up with new laws? We could be spending those funds on pragmatic solutions, such as instituting true community policing, funding peer counselors to work on the streets, and increasing services to address the real mental health and substance abuse issues that cause most of the problems. -more-

Thank you, Daily Planet, for publishing Madeline Smith Moore’s June 8 testimonial, “Why I’m a Racist.” I appreciate her honesty and accuracy. The article also deserved to be published in a paper that all too often (whether intentionally or subconsciously) reinforces the sensibilities of many of its privileged white liberal readers. Perhaps ironically, as one of those readers, I not only agree with the vast majority of Moore’s sentiments, but also hope to prevent the story’s content from being distorted, diluted, or forgotten. I am, unfortunately, socialized to be white (that makes me a racist). Yet I support the message that racism is real, all-pervasive, and experiences of it need to be heard, respected and acted on. I also apologize for, and in the future should avoid, needing a person of color to start and participate in this antiracist conversation. -more-