Public Comment

Letters to the Editor

Friday February 03, 2006

BLACK & WHITE

Editors, Daily Planet:

I would like to offer my congratulations to the Zoning Adjustments Board for finding a balanced and reasonable path to take in handling the issues over Black & White Liquor.

I would also like to commend Mr. Banger for being earnestly engaged and responsive to the concerns raised. Relinquishing the grandfathering of the site under zoning regulations is a graceful, meaningful, helpful, and (in my opinion) quite welcome development.

South Berkeley can just keep getting better and better, one step at a time, as the fantastic and inclusive community it really is at heart.

To my friends who fought well and hard for a nuisance finding—I think we did very well here without doing too much harm; we can declare victory. (And, even better, nobody has to admit defeat.)

Thomas Lord

•

GO SOLAR

Editors, Daily Planet:

By unanimous vote, Wednesday night, the Willits City Council took the first step toward the development of solar electric installations to power major city operations.

If Willits can do it, the City of Berkeley should all be able to do it.

Harvey Sherback

•

ALBANY MALL

Editors, Daily Planet:

Regarding your article, “Residents, Environmentalists Debate Albany Mall,” as an Albany resident and member of the Sierra Club, I obviously support and enjoy parks and open space. However, after a careful reading of the newly unveiled CESP/CAS initiative (the “Citizens’ Planning Initiative to Protect Albany’s Shoreline”), there seems to be a major problem for Albany schools.

The Albany Unified School District receives approximately $500,000 annually in parcel-tax assessments from Golden Gate Fields race track. In the new CESP/CAS initiative, (quote) “Planning shall assume that a large portion of the Albany Waterfront District will be dedicated or acquired for public park, open space, and environmental restoration purposes.” The remaining portion available for development will be (quote) “located as close to the Interstate 80 freeway as possible” and not within 600 feet of the shoreline. Looking at a map, I estimate this remainder at about 50 percent of the existing property.

The developer of this small remainder—located right next to a roaring, polluted freeway—will then be obliged to build a “green, sustainable” development that somehow will generate $1,200,000 in revenue annually for the City, to replace that lost from the race track. That’s unlikely, to say the least. But there’s worse to come: the developer will only pay parcel tax to the school district based on the square footage they own. That means the schools will lose about 50 percent of the current $500,000. That is, Albany schools will lose $250,000 per year, every year, if this initiative passes.

Albany residents need to study this initiative very carefully. Our city and our schools are depending on it.

Trevor Grayling

Albany

•

‘FALSTAFF’ FANTASTIC!

Editors, Daily Planet:

Olivia Stapp’s review of Berkeley Opera’s current production of Falstaff in the Jan. 31 Daily Planet did not describe the opera I saw that night. In fact, the review had much more to say about Ms. Stapp’s in-depth personal knowledge about Verdi’s final opera than it does about what I believe to be one of the most highly entertaining productions ever staged by Berkeley Opera.

I was impressed by the quality of the performance and its direction, as were the members of the audience with whom I spoke. People simply loved it and lauded Jo Vincent Parks (as Falstaff) both for his stunningly beautiful voice and great comedic acting. Then there was Ann Moss (as Nanetta) whose pure voice touched our hearts, Jillian Khuner (as Alice), Katherine Growden (as Meg), Mark Hernandez (as Bardolfo) and Isaiah Musik-Ayala (as Pistola) for their perfect singing and great acting, Igor Vieira (as Ford), Donna Olson (as Mistress Quickly), Norman DeVol (as Dr. Caius), David Briggs (as Robin), and Tony Ambrose (as the innkeeper). Well ... we really couldn’t decide whom we liked the best!

The audience was also delighted at the exquisite ballet in the final act and the thunderous applause and cheers at the end of the performance perfectly expressed the audience’s appreciation of this production.

I know several people who are going to see it again. I would encourage everyone, not just opera lovers, to catch the production this weekend. There are performances at 8 p.m. Friday, Feb. 3, and at 2 p.m. Sunday, Feb. 5.

Jane Kelly

•

ASHBY BART

Editors, Daily Planet:

We are very concerned about the grant for development at Ashby BART. The democratic process has been ignored by Max Anderson. He and the SBNDC do not possess community support that they claim. This grant was applied for in an underhanded (hiding it from the community) and unorthodox manner.

There is evidence from the Jan. 17 community meeting from SBNDC members, that they have known of this grant for some time, which refutes the fact that the grant was submitted without council approval because of time constraints. Max Anderson has had numerous opportunities to inform the public about these actions, but has failed to promote a transparent process and environment.

Is this the kind of Berkeley we want? Berkeley should set an example for the rest of the country, as we have in the past, and be the model for a truly open and transparent democracy.

We do not see how this grant process can move forward on this type of foundation. We ask the City Council to please withdraw the proposal, reject Max Anderson’s resolution, and instead discuss how we can all create a community-driven process to determine the future of the Ashby BART site.

Dan B. Bristol

Anona A. Bristol

•

TRANSIT VILLAGE

Editors, Daily Planet:

I like near Ashby BART and am thinking about the proposal to develop the West Parking lot for housing/commercial use and was wondering if anyone could help me understand why we need development at the Ashby BART parking lot in specific and more large developments in Berkeley in general. I know there is a lot of knowledge and reasoning ability out there amongst the readers of this paper.

It has been said that Berkeley already has one of the highest population densities of any city in the area. That may be good, bad or indifferent depending on what side of the social policy/engineering discussion one lands on. If one were to promote denser urban areas in order to save some green space out on the edges of the cities/suburbs, one could say Berkeley was currently leading the way with our already high population density. I do not think Berkeley should operate in a vacuum. Is there a regional planning entity that can decide what type of development is appropriate and beneficial to a specific locale, as well as the region, and then enforce any development allotments?

Others may say that we need to build whatever infill housing we can to provide for the demand for new units in Berkeley (be they market-rate, low-income, senior, accessible etc.). Will this demand ever be able to be filled? If the city wants to sponsor the housing of city workers in town, they may have to get into the landlord business on a bigger scale. I do not think the market will take care of that.

How much does the current and future well being of the existing residents factors into the development plans for an area of the city or the city as a whole? From my personal viewpoint of living in and around Berkeley for 25 years, there may already be enough people in this city. In the Lorin District of South Berkeley where I live, we are able to observe much of what is good and bad of Berkeley’s high population density. We have a rich diversity of cultures and social values that makes for interesting conversations and learning opportunities when one takes the time to get out and meet the neighbors. One the other hand, our area suffers from some of the problems associated with this same density: street crime and trash, as well as poverty that may or may not result from increased density.

Will living in our neighborhood be more or less enjoyable with an extra 100-600 (or how many) new residents? I wonder if it is possible for the city to sponsor the improvement of the lot of the existing residents and businesses before we rush ahead with increasing the number of people in the same space.

Sorry if I have offended anyone. I really need to get educated in order to decide what is best for the city and my family.

Andy DeGiovanni

•

MORE ON CLEAN MONEY

Editors, Daily Planet:

J. Douglas Allen-Taylor’s gloomy article about the vulnerability of the California Clean Money bill, AB 583, seems strangely out of step in the wake of the passage of the bill by the full Assembly on Jan. 30. The bill passed 47-31 on a party-line vote, with two Republicans abstaining and one Democrat voting against. The bill will now go to the Senate.

Yes, Clean Money is an uphill battle and yes it will be difficult to get it passed into law. But there is a major grass-roots action behind Clean Money involving thousands of Californians who wrote letters and made phone calls to their assemblymembers in support of AB 583. Several of the assemblymembers who spoke on the floor Monday in support of the bill remarked about the strength of this grassroots support as well as about the recent PPIC poll that revealed how 78 percent California voters feel that the government is in the hands of big corporate interests. It is clear to California’s elected officials that real reform, as opposed to a little tweaking of lobbying laws, is required to win citizens’ confidence in government.

Although in the past some have criticized earlier versions of the bill for being too favorable to major parties and incumbents, the bill has been amended to be more friendly to third parties. Thus, in December the Green Party of California formally endorsed AB 583 with its amended performance-based system that allows candidates regardless of party an opportunity to get full funding in the general election if they can show substantial community support.

Less cynical hand wringing about the obstacles and more energy and creativity put into overcoming them will bring publicly financed election campaigns to California. It has happened in Maine and Arizona, it can happen here.

AB 583 enjoys huge popular support and a growing number of activists are getting involved in helping with its passage. In addition, there are a number of decent, well-meaning legislators who are working hard to create a well-crafted law that will really work to restore democracy to our state. So be part of the solution to our myriad political woes, and join the Clean Money campaign!

Lynn Davidson

•

OAK ORDINANCE

Editors, Daily Planet:

As a follow-up to my Jan. 31 letter published under the headline “Oak Ordinance Violations Ignored by City Staff,” I would like to add the following information.

Apparently as a result of my warnings to a local homeowner, he stopped short of removing a Coast Live Oak from his property. City Forestry Unit staff, to whom I forwarded my letter, visited the site on Monday, Jan. 30, and found “a large Coast Live Oak that had been excessively pruned.”

Staff informed me that this type of excessive pruning (I prefer to call it mutilation) is not addressed in the present Oak Removal Moratorium, but it will be in the future. At last week’s City Council meeting, the council passed the first reading of an ordinance change that would prohibit excessive pruning (over 25 percent in a 24-month period) of Coast Live Oak trees. This change is expected to go into effect in about two months, and all local tree-service companies will be notified.

This won’t address the problem of property owners hiring off-the-street laborers to do the work, but let’s hope that while strengthening the Coast Live Oak Ordinance, the City Council will also impose fines stiff enough to deter scofflaws.

Daniella Thompson

›