Public Comment

Letters to the Editor

Tuesday June 28, 2011 - 02:09:00 PM

Re the library editorial: 

I have to admit I have not followed every twist and turn in the recent library debate. Everytime I ventured into that thicket, I got a nasty headache, as well as the sneaking suspicion that there are better things to do with one's time than to join a fight that's already been fought, which brings me to my first point. 

It seems pretty obvious that the powers that be knew full well that any mention of "demolition" in the ballot measure could sink it, so they simply didn't mention it, knowing, again full well, that the demolition of at least one branch would happen. Gee, power politics in Berkeley, just as dishonest and cynical as anywhere else? Citizens being played for fools while those with a plan and too much time on their hands weave their tangled webs? You can go around spraying all the Eau de Process you want, but bullshit is still bullshit. Surely we haven't become so neutered by our sophistication that we can't recognize that. I thought people here were of sturdier stock, their skepticism forged and tempered by the battles of yore. 

Secondly, the idea of renaming the branch libraries to honor a person or perhaps some worthy ideal is fine, in theory. But the current geographical names also have meaning to people, rich meaning, in fact. And in any case, renaming of things takes time and energy and often involves more fussing than it's worth. Why not keep the names and use our energies on more immediate and serious matters. 

Jamie Day 

* * * 

Not Good in History  

President Obama [announced] a withdrawal of up to 10,000 U.S. troops by the end of the year. Under the plan, the United States would still have some 67,000 troops, plus thousands of contractors, in Afghanistan at the start of 2013—the same total as before last year’s surge. 

The U.S. leaders often are just not good on history. But the British started trying to pacify the Pashtun tribes of what are now northern Pakistan and southern Afghanistan, and were worried about the fanaticism of the akhond of Swat, and they sent tens of thousands of troops up there. They fought the Third Anglo-Afghan War. They fought engagements against the Mahsud tribe way back in the Teens and ’20s. And by 1947, as the British rule was ending in that region, it was more in turmoil and less under control than it ever had been before. 

So the full might of the British Empire was unable to bring order to those regions. And the idea that a relatively temporary American and relatively small expeditionary force can go into some of these provinces and shape them up for the long term, that was just very unlikely. 


Ted Rudow III, MA  

 

* * *  

Jersey Apology 

In order for me to feel appreciative for Mr. Jersey's apology, there are two elements missing. First, I wish for him to explain how he had failed "to understand the amount of community investment" that supports the rebuilding of the South and West Branches. For instance, he could have explained that when he joined CLU's efforts to thwart the rebuilding efforts, he failed to acknowledge the many community planning meetings that led to the decision to rebuild. His was a failure to learn and participate with neighborhood library users who desired better buildings, with library staff who desired safe buildings, with engineering and building experts who documented the deficiencies, and with hundreds of citizens who struggled to pass the Branch Library Bond so that these facilities can be rebuilt intelligently and cost effectively as has been envisioned. 

Secondly, we know that it was his work which gave substance to CLU and their lawsuit. Wouldn't it be nice if he acknowledged that his design and ideas could not demonstrate how South and West Branches could be "preserved." And that "the amount of community investment done by other firms.." amply demonstrated that they could not be remodeled to become better libraries and needed to be rebuilt. If he was to publicly state this, rather than a vague apology about his involvement, he would further undue the harm his involvement caused.. 

Another improvement on his apology would be to convince the CLU members of how harmful their continued lawsuit is to the community's library users. I am glad to see that he does not support suing any municipality. The plaintiff's basic premise is that there was a conspiracy to deceive voters and that the real issue is the "veracity" of ballot measures. This first ignores the Bond's underlying goal of improving the libraries, and second, ignores the evidence gained from studies and amply presented at public meetings demonstrating the need to rebuild two of the Branches. We must acknowledge that a vote for the Bond was a vote to improve the libraries, not to improve the preservation of existing buildings. What is at stake is the ability of community leaders to evolve intelligent decisions after examining all the evidence and for us to trust that they are acting in the public's best interests. 

What Mr. Jersey missed, and what the lawsuit plaintiff continues to miss, is that no building is as important as what goes on inside. When we rebuild our libraries, it is not the outside envelope that is significant. What is truly important are the books, videos, computers, tools and services that are offered freely to the public so that we can all nurture our life long pursuit of education and improvement. This ultimately will prevail as our Branch Libraries are rebuilt. 

Jim Novosel