Features

PUBLIC LIBRARY 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

In regard to your article of Jan. 14, on proposed budget reductions in the Berkeley Public Library, there are two important points for readers to keep in mind as proposals and counter-proposals are put before the Board of Library Trustees. First, the director proposes to balance the library’s budget by laying off many of the lowest paid employees (though not reducing the need for them) while simultaneously expanding middle management. The union proposes to spread the budget cuts across all employees and to reduce the overall cost of middle management. 

Second, almost everyone you see working in the library now, from the person who helps you find a book and checks it out for you, or puts it back on the shelf when you return it, to the one who decided to buy that book in the first place, or cataloged it, or even read it to your child at story time, is not a manager. Library managers are now encouraged to spend as little time as possible out on the floor with you, but rather to work entirely without public contact, while producing plans, reports, and proposals. 

Erich Keefe 

• 

UC LONG-RANGE PLAN 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

In your article on “UC Regents Approve LRDP, City Seeks Payments” (Daily Planet, Jan. 21-24) it states that the university criticized the estimate that the university costs the city $11 million per year, because the estimate “did not factor in university contributions to the city’s economy.” 

No property tax payer, who pays both an ad valorum property tax and fees and assessments for city services, has their tax bill reduced because of their contributions to the city’s economy. 

Many property tax payers also do their buying in Berkeley, adding to the city’s sales tax revenue, may hire local residents in their local business, and may even volunteer their time in the schools, on commissions, or with local non-profits. 

I have yet to hear a local property tax payer complain that their bills should be reduced because of their contributions to the city’s economy. 

If the university can win on this point, can you imagine what would happen to the city’s finances if we all tried this? 

Anne Wagley 

• 

ARTS DISTRICT  

GRAFFITI 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I am Sherry Smith, a subject of Carol Denney’s Jan. 21 Daily Planet commentary headlined “Celebrating Poetry in the ‘Arts District.” 

I did indeed remove and toss into a recycling bin as many as I could of the notes that Carol Denney masking-taped alongside Addison Street bronze poetry insets. 

And why not? 

Ms. Denney’s notes accused the 130 poets honored by the plaques of “pimp[ing] poetry for rich people’s property values”. 

She arrives at this accusation by construing that efforts to enhance the new Downtown Arts District, centered on Addison Street, are a crass use of public money to enhance private property values. By Ms. Denney’s logic, a municipality may not use its considerable zoning power, its political pressure, and especially public funds, to improve any municipal ambiance because any such improvement is by its nature bound to increase the value of downtown property.  

So I ask you to find that, on the face of it, Ms. Denney is pursuing a logical non-sequitur. I ask you to find that cities should be striving to improve themselves...at the risk of benefiting everyone. I ask you to find that Ms. Denney did an un-civil thing by calling the poets (who were paid nothing and did not seek the honor of inclusion)... “pimps.” 

At least half of the poets are still alive, and 43 were personally present and being honored in a civic arts celebration the afternoon that Ms. Denney chose to lay her charge before them that they are pimps. 

Yes, I am guilty. I removed as much of Ms. Denney’s graffiti as I could. Ms. Denney wishes to cast my act as a denial of her right to free speech. 

I believe and hope that you would have done the same in my place. 

Sherry Smith 

Member, Civic Arts Commission 

• 

MORE ON PUBLIC LIBRARY 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I have lived in Berkeley since 1961—I have seen a lot of things come and go through Berkeley in that time, and sadly, I must say, not always for the better. While many of the services available in Berkeley serve a minority of our citizens amicably—the Berkeley Public Library (BPL) serves all of us each and every day. The library is a ‘pulse’ between the City and its Citizens, measuring the ebb and flow of how people are doing in this diverse town. 

The recent budget crisis to BPL is a low point for Berkeley, and without sufficient funds, the board of directors for BPL will have to make some draconian decisions that will effect the entire City of Berkeley in many ways on many levels. I hope they make their decisions carefully, weighing all points of contention with others! In my humble opinion, as one who used to work for BPL and enjoy my years of service there for the most part (1989-1994), I am somewhat familiar with this institution and how it functions. The community needs teen-librarians at the branches, less so at the Main Library; they need their library assistants and library aides to shelve the books and for circulation purposes; has anyone ever considered that if the hatchet must fall, it should fall on administration, where although these people do much behind the scenes, they are behind the scenes and do not have direct day-to-day contact with the public as a branch or reference librarian would have? Has anyone considered reducing the hours of the administration hours’ per week? Perhaps their perks and other financially related funds could be cut in these bad times; perhaps the video dept. should be reduced or eliminated to save, as there are many resources for videos in Berkeley. I urge the BPL board of directors to consider cutting where it least effects the people of Berkeley, behind the scenes with administration—reduce hours to being closed on Sunday and perhaps close libraries at 4 p.m. on Saturdays? Perhaps cut the hours to 6 p.m., rather than 9 p.m. one or two days a week.  

Please be very thoughtful to the wonderful people who work for BPL when considering these budget cuts—why is it always the workers on the totem pole that get the ax? Why not begin at the top, where after all the budgetary crisis always begins and rarely if ever ends up there. For us the public who love this institution, one of the last vestiges of a department that ALL of us can enjoy and use on a day-to-day basis, and is not one of political correctness I urge the board of BPL directors to consider these and other comments made from the employees of BPL, and not just from management. 

Mark Bayless 

• 

WEST BERKELEY BOWL 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

The period for formal public comment on the initial environmental study for the proposed West Berkeley Bowl closed last Wednesday, Jan. 12. I suggest that it be re-opened and extended for two weeks, for the following reasons:  

1. The study was published on Dec. 15, the same day that the formal comment period opened. It’s unlikely that members of the public attended to land use matters during the holidays.  

2. The project is big and controversial.  

3. The city is legally required to respond only to public comment taken during the formal comment period.  

4. The public was not consulted once in the two years that city staff worked with the Berkeley Bowl’s developer.  

5. City offices were closed the week between Christmas and New Year’s weekends.  

When I raised these points in an informal conversation with Planning Director Dan Marks on Dec. 24, he told me that he expected the formal comment period to be extended. Shortly thereafter, he left for a three-week vacation out of the country. Now that he’s returned, I hope he will act on his expectations in this matter.  

Zelda Bronstein  

• 

BROWER CENTER 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Has downtown Berkeley no shame? Must we insult the memory of Dave Brower by building a parking structure with his name on it? 

The environmentalists who will occupy the Brower Center should show Berkeley and the Bay Area that they can get along without cars, without parking. The Brower Center, located within a few steps of plenty of public transit, should consist of only car-free housing and car-free office space. 

If we really must have all that parking, then please put some anti-environmental person’s name on the project. How about calling it the George W. Bush Center, and give some free space to advocates for drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? 

Steve Geller 

• 

WILLARD SCHOOL 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

What’s BUSD doing to the front of Willard? Palm trees in the middle of lawns next to mountain lilacs? It’s worse than mixed metaphors, its plant illiteracy. Add that to sprinkler heads sticking up and wired to rebar.  

Ugly in addition. 

C.N. Fang?