Public Comment

PROP. 1A 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Paul Hogarth’s April 30 Public Eye column got it right suggesting why Proposition 1A on the May 19 special election ballot should be rejected by the voters. 

California’s budget process and finance system are broken, and every time voters go to the polls they are asked to approve changes that make matters worse. Proposition 1A is a prime example of that. 

We are being told that told that it is necessary because it will help the state solve its looming budget crisis, but there is not one dollar of additional money in Proposition 1A for the coming budget year. The Legislature has passed a budget for 2009-10 that contains temporary tax increases for the next two years, and Proposition 1A does not change that. It would extend those taxes for an additional one or two years, but those years would be better spent looking for better long-term solutions to California’s chronic budget problems. 

What Proposition 1A does do is impose a spending cap on future budgets so that state spending would be limited by a formula that would keep spending tied to current reduced levels of spending. Many vital public services, including education, health care and social services have been decimated at a time when the need for them is growing. Proposition 1A would make it difficult to revitalize those services, even when times improve. 

This measure also would give governors, without consulting the Legislature, increased power to make mid-year cuts to the budget and to cut cost of living adjustments (COLA) in state programs whenever the director of finance, an appointee of the governor, estimates that revenues will not reach predicted levels. 

Proposition 1A came out of meetings behind closed doors by the Governor and a handful of legislative leaders with no public discussion or review before it was rushed through the Legislature. It is no surprise that process produced a deeply flawed result. 

The League of Women Voters of Berkeley, Albany, Emeryville urges you to join us in voting no on Proposition 1A on May 19. 

Jean Safir 

League of Women Voters of Berkeley, Albany, Emeryville 

• 

AC TRANSIT BUSES 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

What is it with these behemoth AC Transit buses, sometimes double-behemothic buses, which absurdly roar around in the twilight, afternoon and evening with no one in them? Years ago I wrote a letter to my AC Transit representative and said that in Europe they have mini-buses during the off hours (and peak hours) which save money by the tons. He said he agreed but couldn’t do anything about it. OK, during rush hours, fire up these frightening monsters since we bought them; but when ridership falls off, send in minibuses which are cheaper, quicker, faster, and prettier. Also, some investigative journalist might look into the questionable matter of why, when, how, and who profited from this travesty. 

Robert Blau 

• 

MOVEON 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

MoveOn is a generally admirable activist organization. However, their ongoing campaign to mobilize support for a particular version of health insurance reform by contending that it could reduce premiums by 30 percent is deceptive. 

It is true that some private medical insurance companies have overhead costs (profits and paperwork) equal to 30 percent of the premiums they charge. But it is extremely unlikely that healthcare consumers would be able to pay that much less than they do currently for coverage under any of the health insurance plans which would become available under the reform proposal MoveOn favors. 

The proposal’s centerpiece—inclusion of a “public option” on a menu of insurance choices available to American healthcare consumers—would still entail substantial unnecessary paperwork costs because of the variety of different plans that healthcare providers would have to deal with. Also, the public option could easily become the dumping ground for the sickest consumers, raising its per capita cost and largely erasing the premium savings it could offer as a result of forgoing the profits that private insurers would insist upon. And continuing to finance healthcare through individual premiums would virtually guarantee that middle income Americans would not be able to afford decent coverage; subsidies would not be ample enough to help this group. 

What MoveOn has endorsed represents a premature capitulation to the corrupt political might of insurance companies. Single-payer proponents are right. Only by eliminating insurance companies from the financing and provision of health care and paying for healthcare with progressive taxes instead of insurance premiums can we control costs and provide to every American the comprehensive, high-quality health care they should have as a basic right. 

Randy Silverman 

• 

BERKELEY MEADOW  

MEMORIES 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Since Pete Najarian asked, I am happy to oblige with these memories of the waterfront meadow before it was fenced off “locking the public out.” 

The meadow, the north basin strip, and the brickyard, across the access road to the Marina, 174 acres of landfill, were once owned by Santa Fe (Catellus) Corporation but are now public property administered by the East Bay Regional Park District. 

In the early 1980s Santa Fe announced plans to build four million square feet of office, retail, and hotel development on the Berkeley waterfront, to which the city responded with a planning process to zone the area. Santa Fe did not participate but threatened to sue the city in federal court. The city hired renowned land use attorney E. Clement “Clem” Shute as a special advisor. 

A group of us Sierra Club members, in cooperation with Citizens for Eastshore Parks (CESP), advanced a plan that maximized open space, a campaign that culminated in November 1986 with the passing of measure Q zoning the waterfront. Santa Fe filed a federal case, but the U.S. Supreme Court rejected their suit. 

The baton was then passed to Tom Bates, who at the state level led a successful effort to fund the purchase of the land, which eventually came under the jurisdiction of the Park District. 

That’s the history in a nutshell. Now where were you Pete, during those years we were working to save a precious asset as public open space? Just consider the fate of your beloved meadow if Santa Fe had succeeded in their development scheme. You have a perfect right to criticize the policies of the Park District, but your attacks on CESP are unwarranted. CESP does not have authority in the administration of these lands. 

The citizens you denounce are heroes. For years they have been fighting inappropriate development and expanding public access to the East Bay shoreline. CESP deserves our gratitude and our tax deductible donations. 

Toni Mester 

• 

BERKELEY MEADOW  

AD NAUSEUM 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Pete Najarian’s meanders through the Berkeley Meadow before its wildlife protections managed to miss about 50 off-leash dogs a day, mutilated carcasses of rabbits, snakes and birds left to rot by the dogs that chased them down, and the people who would bring tennis rackets to send balls high into the supposedly impenetrable brush for their pets to chase through nesting areas. 

Dogs are wondrous, loving companions, and doing what comes naturally takes a toll, as the local off-leash dog parks’ barren, dusty, and sometimes dangerous areas prove. I don’t speak for anyone but myself, but I wrote letters and photographed the destruction and mutilation over the years so that someday migratory wildlife and endangered species such as the burrowing owl could survive. 

Hey Pete, call me. See the photos, if that’s what it takes, and then join those of us who continue to try to encourage dog guardians who “forget” to bring a leash to play fair with the rest of us, including those who require wetlands to survive long migratory flights. 

Carol Denney 

• 

JUST DON’T GET IT 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I am not anti-Palestinian, just pro-Jewish. I am a fan of your newspaper, which I buy at the stand. I do wish for more equanimity in your coverage of Jews, and of Israel ... or have we already forgotten why it is there as a modern nation? 

Marion R. Steinkellner 

• 

NO ON PROP. 1A 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Many of you have probably received mail from the California Teachers Association, festooned with pictures of cute children surrounded by cartoon life preservers. These mailers talk about how the public schools can’t afford any more cuts, which is true. They then urge a solution that makes the problem even worse: Voting for Prop.1A. 

What these mailers don’t tell you is that the schools, both K-12 and college can’t function effectively now, and that 1A makes it essentially impossible to ever improve this situation. Even in tough budget years, it would force additional cuts of more than $1 billion—an amount equal to about one-third of the University of California system’s budget. Proposition 1A would squeeze spending on crucial investments in colleges and healthcare, and it would prevent the state from restoring needed programs as the economy rebounds. It also would lock confusing, complicated, autopilot budget language into the state Constitution—making it harder, not easier, to adopt common-sense budgets. With complex formulas and linear regression models cemented into law, the already daunting task of budgeting would be that much harder. 

Prop.1A would also give the governor extraordinary new power over the budget, including more mid-year cuts, without checks and balances from the Legislature. The possibility of such cuts was temporarily included in this year’s budget. When the Governor made those cuts, it had disastrous results, forcing administrators and teachers to scramble and rewrite their schedules in midterm. If Prop. 1A were passed, this power would be given permanently to the governor, and could only be taken away by another referendum. When the governor tried to get this power as stand-alone proposition, it was decisively voted down. Now he is trying to smuggle that power in as a “poison pill” addition to 1A, while using the CTA’s endorsement as camouflage. 

If Proposition 1A is passed it seems impossible that the CSU system could function at all. Last term my employer, Sonoma State University, had so little money to pay for classes, that they actually had to tell many students who had paid tuition and were living in dorms that they couldn’t give them any classes. They managed to temporarily borrow some money to cover classes for the current term, and have no clear plans for how to replace it. Over the past few years, over a half billion dollars have already been cut from the CSU system, and tuition has more than doubled. It is scheduled to go up yet again this year. Thousands of qualified students will be turned away, forcing employers to go elsewhere for skilled workers, and thus seriously weakening the California economy. The money we have is simply not adequate for the CSU’s vital needs. “Business is usual” could mean putting the CSU out of business altogether. Further cuts would be even more disastrous. 

Teed Rockwell 

Philosophy Dept.,  

Sonoma State University 

• 

UTILTIES RATE INCREASES 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I hope everyone will take a moment to write a note to the East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD) and complain about the proposed utility increases. These are appalling rate increases and EBMUD is making it extremely difficult to protest this hike. EBMUD is doing everything to block a response—no e-mails accepted, only letters—and they need 51 percent of the households to write in and object or this change will pass. How likely is that? Not very! This will increase utility bills dramatically.  

You need to write and vehemently protest the EBMUD overall non-drought rate increase of 7.5 percent in fiscal year 2010 and the proposed overall non-drought rate increase of 7.5 percent in fiscal year 2011, compared with the rate of 2010. You can write to EBMUD at ms 218, P.O. Box 24055, Oakland, 94623-1055. 

This means that this increase will be unfairly imposed on residential customers who will absorb an 8.7 percent increase compared to the 5 percent increase being proposed for commercial and industrial customers. 

The rate of inflation does not justify this proposed increase nor does the current bad economy! 

In addition we should all be outraged by the supplemental supply surcharge 14 percent that can be imposed virtually at any time. Why is it that EBMUD cannot estimate how many times per year they are likely to need water out of the Sacramento River? Instead EBMUD is asking carte blanche to impose this 14 percent surcharge at any time that they choose to do so. Again it just isn’t right. There should be no surcharge. Period. 

I realize it is unrealistic to expect a 51 percent writing campaign to stop this, but this is so infuriating. I cannot let it pass without an effort to block it from happening. Please if you agree write your letter. 

Barbara Hird 

• 

SPECIAL ELECTION 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Once again Arnold has pushed a costly special election as a “solution” to the ongoing California budget crisis, instead of demanding that Republican obstructionists honor their oath of office to serve the majority of their constituents instead of their no-new-taxes pledge to Grover Norquist. 

In fact, we probably don’t need any new taxes. We just need to reinstate those taxes whose reduction or elimination has served the wealthy and corporations and damaged education, social services, and environmental and labor protections in California in recent decades. The state has never recovered from the consequences to local government inflicted by Prop. 13 and its terribly unjust redistribution of the property tax burden from the wealthy to new homebuyers. On top of the Prop. 13 cuts, we’ve suffered the consequences of termination of the top income tax rate and Arnold’s self-serving termination of the vehicle license tax, which further harmed city and county governments and residents up and down California. 

Prop.1A would have us work against our own best interests by capping the budget after the huge tax cuts that have destroyed California’s once-impressive educational system and basic social services and infrastructure. We need to demand that our legislature do better than this. 

Charlene M. Woodcock 

• 

‘ADOPT A BOOK’ 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I can’t help wondering how a sensitive child might react to the alarm Ms. Handwerker sounds over the Berkeley Public Library’s fundraising motto. After all, the word “adopt” has many meanings and uses. It comes from the Latin for “to choose”—as wonderful and generous a root as anyone could hope for. I just used the word today in reference to transplanting a shrub that a friend wanted out of her garden. Can I no longer use “adopt” in this way? Do we need to rewrite our dictionaries? Language, like music and nature and human beings, is endlessly complex. Promoting engagement, broad knowledge, and tolerance in adopted children seems a wiser and kinder course of action than attempting to control their environment by edict. My own son was “learning disabled”—the official term—but understood that he was not disabled at all, that he had many talents, and that in any case, he had a life to live. A public outcry to censor “adopt” from the library’s motto—however well-intentioned—may well do more damage than it heals. 

B. J. Thorsnes 

El Cerrito 

• 

FREE SPEECH IN PEOPLE’S PARK 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

On Saturday morning, May 9, without prior notice to the volunteer activists who had painted the stage a month previously, a UC employee painted over some political slogans on the Free Speech Stage in People’s Park. Aside from completely disrespecting the notion of free speech, the worker was compelled to use Cal blue in order to deface the Free Speech Stage. 

I built that stage and have maintained it for many years now. I was given no notification that the University was planning on doing anything to the stage. The University does absolutely no maintenance on the stage; it has always been built and maintained by volunteers. I am understandably upset about yet another incursion into our civil rights by paid agents of the University. I was held in handcuffs for almost an hour this Sunday afternoon, May 10, while University police conferred with Devin Woolridge and Irene Hegarty as to whether I ought to be charged with vandalism for painting “DEMOCRATIZE THE UC REGENTS” on the Free Speech stage. The stage that I had completely repainted at no expense to the University a month previously. The stage that I have built and maintained at no expense to the University for many more years than either Devin or Irene have worked on the Park. 

Having People’s Park without Free Speech is like trying to make lemonade without lemons. If the UC doesn’t know what Free Speech is yet, what have they been doing for the last 44 years? If the University of California cannot respect the work of the volunteer activists who have built and maintained the Park, why does this community continue to employ them as the guardians of the Park? It’s somewhat like leaving your child alone with a convicted child molester. 

Arthur Fonseca 

• 

HEALTH CARE 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

In last week’s Senate finance committee hearings on health care, insurance companies were represented, but no advocates for single-payer health care were invited. When people who supported single-payer health care spoke up from the audience, they were ejected by the police. 

Single-payer is a system for ensuring that everyone has health care. The downside of single-payer is that medical corporations can’t make as much money. The upside is that everyone gets health care. 

Providing health care for all of us who need it is not rocket science. Canada has figured it out. Sweden has figured it out. Germany, Belgium have figured it out. The United States has even figured it out. Our taxes pay for health care for our armed forces and for those very senators who were declaring that single-payer was not an option. 

Sen. Max Baucus has declared that single-payer health care as an option is “off the table.” He doesn’t have the right to shut out this option for health care that so many Americans want. 

If Obama’s promise of health care is to come true, we all need to let our representatives know, single payer works. It may not work to keep medical companies wealthy, but it works to provide health care for everyone. 

Heather MacLeod 

Oakland 

• 

RESCIND MEASURE G 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

In the May 7 article, “Amended Climate Action Plan Moves Forward; Final Vote June 2,” the Daily Planet quotes Councilmember Gordon Wozniak: “[H]is hope was that the discussions and actions eventually surrounding the implementation of the CAP would spur “innovative ideas” on greenhouse gas reduction in the city that could be passed on and adopted by other communities. . .” and that “. . . our greatest value in this process is developing ideas that can affect the larger Bay Area and the nation.” 

Whoa! Just a minute! 

It may come as a surprise to some but Berkeley homeowners are not—and should not be—in the business of paying the city to subsidize the development of ideas for the “larger Bay Area and nation.” (Nor, in fact, Berkeley itself.) That is the job of private companies and entrepreneurs who take personal responsibility for providing funding by and for themselves and/or finding private funds, venture capitalists and banks to do so. As such, developers and their supporters reap the rewards when they succeed; they live with the consequences when they fail. Importantly, they do not work with forced funding robbed from taxpayers. 

Those who want to support energy-saving measures devised by private companies can do so via the stock market. They can buy and sell to their hearts’ content. Hopefully people will do so. But buying stock/bonds in energy-conservation companies is now—and should continue to be—a personal choice, not a forced confiscation, pure and simple robbery, of property owners’ capital. 

Those who want to support energy-saving measures and have the financial wherewithal to do so are already doing so. They may not be changing out beautiful, historical, unique leaded glass windows but they are making other attempts to reduce energy use —eg, heavy-duty drapes during the winter to keep out the cold; wearing long underwear beneath their clothing, donning heavy sweaters and scarves. In the summer, they draw those drapes to keep out the sun and wear less clothing. They open windows at night to let cool air inside. They purchase energy-saving appliances when they need to replace the old ones. They lower the thermostat in the winter. (Raise the thermostat in the summer? Who needs air conditioning in Berkeley?) 

Last I heard, Berkeley’s Office of Energy and Sustainability is staffed with six employees including a climate-control czar. Our taxes are now paying for super-generous salaries, super benefits, and super retirement. Why? Berkeley residents, property owners and residents are concerned about the environment and savvy enough to figure out climate/environmental saving measures for themselves. Those who can afford to do so have already made great strides. They do not need a money-draining fiefdom to rob them of their savings. 

Is it the intent of this City of Berkeley Office to sell said innovative ideas and turn enough of a profit to reimburse Berkeley taxpayers? I think not. Rescinding Measure G would go a long way to closing this department and provide Berkeley homeowners with significant tax savings. 

Enough! 

Barbara Witte 

• 

TOXICS DEFENDERS 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

City Council item number 46 (April 21), regarding applying for Obama administration stimulus funds for toxic clean-up of UC’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), which is located in beautiful Strawberry Canyon, was a citizen-inspired effort that Councilmember Jesse Arreguin agreed to place on the agenda. 

But Councilmember Linda Maio, once an employee at LBNL, wanted to amend or hold up this timely item. And so, with the agreement of Mayor Bates, five critical words—“to the highest standards available”—were eliminated after the word clean-up. 

This means that clean-up as usual will occur at the LBNL labs, i.e. which means minimal and limited. The labs will now likely get millions of stimulus dollars, and they can use the money for demolition and site preparation for more new buildings, instead of for environmental clean-up to the highest standards. 

The labs have plans to build 15 gigantic research laboratories within Strawberry Canyon, to be used for synthetic biology in manufacture of biofuels such as controversial cellulosic ethanol. See “GMO Research Dominates BP-UC Partnership,” by Richard Brenneman, in the March 6, 2007 edition of the Daily Planet. Also important to read: “Lab Workers Suffer Fallout,” by Betsy Mason in the July 1, 2007 edition of the West County Times, regarding lax safety conditions at LBNL and other California Laboratories under contract by the Department of Energy, where workers suffer high levels of cancer. 

Merrilie Mitchell 

• 

BACK TO BAR CODES 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Libraries are a kind of sacred sanctuary—quiet, full of books and ideas to explore—their librarians the most helpful and pleasant of public institution staffs.  

So after reading the May 7 commentary on the Berkeley Public Library’s flawed checkout system I am reminded once again of the Orwellian nature of the current moment—in this case the enormous waste of resources that produce more problems than they solve.  

Yes, it’s true that the technology of security and “do it yourself” book checkout in the public libraries is very faulty. Sometimes the checkout apparatus works, often it doesn’t. I have given up on it and go directly to the line for manual checkout. In addition I sometimes get to chat with a human—about a music CD I am borrowing, or a book the librarian has read. A very pleasant and rewarding encounter. 

How did the BPL ever go so wrong with the installation of the mechanized checkout system that cost $643,000 plus interest plus maintenance plus weekly/monthly RFID tags (77 cents each) for the dozens and dozens of magazines and periodicals that must be tagged as they arrive? There was nothing wrong with the bar code stickers. Is this a sane system to save money on employees? 

Is this what we want to spend our library tax money on? How about buying books instead? What are our common sense priorities? Can we jump past our culture’s obsession with the newest gadgetry and get back to (cheaper) basics—please? 

Joan Levinson 

• 

LIVING NEAR BROWER CENTER  

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I live in Oxford Plaza. My apartment overlooks the Oxford Plaza courtyard which, of course, is adjacent to the fairly small patio on the grounds of the David Brower Center. 

The David Brower Center has lots of event space and I am sure they hope to rent it for many larger events. They need to factor in their residential neighbors when they place music outdoors. 

The courtyard in my building works like an echo chamber. Sound is greatly amplified. If they are going to have loud music on that patio regularly, they are creating unacceptable environmental pollution. Noise is pollution. The Brower Center needs to get clear, right now, that they have hundreds of residential neighbors adjacent to their very small patio. They have to be considerate, good neighbors all the time. 

The Brower Center is being a bad neighbor, period. But the Brower Center might not have been thoughtful, might not have realized that blasting music out into the small patio would disturb many hundreds of neighbors. 

There are children in these homes. Babies trying to sleep and adults relaxing. 

When I went to an information session, just before I moved into Oxford Plaza, someone made a pretty speech about the ED of the David Brower Center, how she wanted to be a good neighbor. 

I went over to the Brower Center party to complain. I couldn’t hear the music on the inside, which suggests to me that the music was not really central to the party. People weren’t dancing or listening. The music was background noise on the patio. 

Every single time the Center has a party on the small patio, the Center will be having a party in my backyard and the backyard of hundreds of neighbors. I expect more thoughtfulness to how the Center’s behavior impacts the environment. This courtyard is my environment. This is my home. I have nowhere to go when my home is polluted with someone else’s unnecessary noise. 

What message is the Brower Center sending when they launched their grand opening weekend with abusive noise pollution? 

I am going to register a complaint about this environmental pollution everywhere I can think of. I have already sent a complaint to Berkeley’s Environmental department. They actually have a form for noise pollution. 

I would have expected a new envrionmental center to be a good neighbor. I never imagined that the people running that building could be so selfish and inconsiderate. I have noticed that in the Brower Center’s PR stuff related to the grand opening, they like to refer to the cool new apartment building next door so they have no excuse for ignoring their neighbors: they know people live here. 

I think the Brower Center should use the small outdoor patio space very carefully. I suggest they treat it as a quiet outdoor space, where people attending events in the indoor space might step outside and enjoy fresh air and a little quiet. I suggest that people who work in the building be able to use the small patio as quiet outdoor space. 

For the Center’s residential neighbors, this is our home. Please treat it more respectfully. 

It’s 9:45 p.m. This noise has been going for hours. How many hours of noise pollution do you think is reasonable? 

Imagine yourselves in your own homes, imaging an inconsiderate neighbor blasting their stereo for many hours with the hum of many, many conversations. Imagine how a few hours of that would feel like to you in your home. 

Tree Fitzpatrick 

• 

ISRAEL-PALESTINE 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

On May 5, Vice President Joseph Biden went before the annual meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and urged that Israel move toward a “two-state solution” in Israel-Palestine. Since, in the United States, collective amnesia is basic to our culture, this created some news. No one remembers any prior U.S. president or vice president ever having supported such a radical idea as an independent Palestinian state.  

When the British withdrew from colonial Palestine in 1947 they were under fire by the Jewish paramilitaries (the Irgun, the Stern Gang, the Palmach) and of course they had no knowledge that the Jews would massacre civilians and declare an independent Jewish State in Palestine, for Lord Balfour’s Declaration of 1918 promising Palestine to the European Jews never happened. The Brits slid behind the curtain so that the United Nations might propose Europe’s plan for the partition of Palestine into two absurdly unworkable geographic entities to cover the deal. Of course—although dominated by the victorious Western Allied Powers—the UN wasn’t implying support for the paramilitaries’ ethnic cleansing terror effort (the Naqba) when they accepted Israel on its terms, were they? They were just playing map and board games; certainly they didn’t approve of the forced removal of 750,000 people. It just happened. 

Unfortunately, there are underlying reasons that 61 years after Israel’s self-declaration of a Jewish state in Palestine, the Palestinians remain homeless, stateless, non-citizens in their own lands. Those reasons have to do with geopolitical power and evolve from the superpower needs of the U.S. and Europe as well. Mr. Biden, representing Mr. Obama, was posturing as every U.S. government has postured since 1948—this bad joke to continue an absurd mythology that the U.S. and Israel are not the same player.  

There can be no successful Palestinian state that is not a puppet state, for a host of reasons. But the proof is that if anyone in power in the U.S. cared about that outcome when they bespoke it, the fact would have been imposed upon Israel long ago. The U.S. role is a total fraud and will remain that until the public realizes that the war against the Palestinians is an American war every bit as cruel and indecent as the Vietnam War and the Iraq occupation were/are American wars of aggression. Until then this nation’s superpower status will be used to support all efforts to try to subdue the natural human instinct of survival in the Palestinian people and to block a just solution, while imploring the Israelis to be reasonable. The greatest irony of all is that Obama, a black man, could end this travail by simply insisting on the world stage that Israel give all the Palestinians citizenship rights, the right to vote and the right to be treated equally, or face sanctions. But he won’t.  

Marc Sapir