Opinion

The King in The King and I says “It’s a puzzlement!” when confronted with something he doesn’t understand. That line occurred to me last week when the publisher and I took in the Berkeley Repertory Theater’s 40th anniversary opening night performance of Shaw’s Heartbreak House, characterized by our reviewer as “sumptuous,” courtesy of comps provided by the theater’s PR department. -more-

A number of citizens, including some who live in District 5, have forwarded to us Councilmember Laurie Capitelli’s thoughtful explanation of why he voted to reject UC’s proposed settlement of the city’s lawsuit on the EIR for the gym/office building proposed adjacent to Memorial Stadium. He makes several good points, obvious ones that can’t be reiterated too often. -more-

HEALTHCARE BILL -more-

This summer UC has been using a campaign of misinformation and erroneous statements to convince the City of Berkeley to withdraw from the lawsuit to stop UC development on the Hayward Fault. The most important deception in this campaign is UC’s efforts to make it appear that the university is only asking for the approval to build the workout/office facility (the SAHPC). This is a red herring. The lawsuit is not only about the SAHPC but also includes the proposed new stadium and other buildings to be situated at the fault. If the suit is stopped for the purpose of allowing the SAHPC to go forward, the rest of the projects including the new, expanded stadium also would be automatically approved. The SAHPC and the new stadium are legally inseparable. This sleight of hand is why UC is so eager to restrict the focus of the debate to the gym. If people knew the truth that UC is planning to transform Memorial Stadium from football-only to one of the Bay Area’s largest entertainment venues, approval of these projects would come under more intense scrutiny. A quick, insider deal with the city would be more difficult and UC would be left with fighting an uphill battle in court. -more-

Imagine Berkeley’s City Council inadvertently pouring fuel on a burning controversy by granting almost $400,000 to an advocate for one side. Worse, imagine the money going to the dispute’s less popular side, in a “sole-source,” no-bid contract (the kind the Pentagon signs with Halliburton). And, worst of all, paying them to pester Berkeley residents with telemarketing calls and uninvited house visits. -more-

A WONDERFUL EXPERIENCE -more-

On Tuesday, Sept. 4, I attended the public comment before the City Council on the university’s proposed Memorial Stadium athletic center and other interrelated projects. Opponents of the university project outnumbered supporters by two or three to one. But the repeated misuse of the word “cooperation” by supporters of the UC project during that event compels me to comment. -more-

For over two years, SuperBOLD and the First Amendment Project have been working towards a more democratic public comment procedure in Berkeley. In April 2006 the First Amendment Project threatened a lawsuit if the city did not discontinue the use of a lottery for choosing speakers at public meetings. The lottery denied some persons willing to speak the right to do so. It also resulted in some agenda items not being addressed by the public. -more-