Public Comment

ALTERNATIVE TO BRT 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Not long after the environmental laws were passed a court concluded that “a search for alternatives need not be exhaustive.” Seems that is the way the Bus Rapid Transit study is going, even with all the ideas expressed in letters to the Daily Planet. It’s another take-it-or-leave-it study with the preferred alternative a variation of a central theme. 

Robert C, Chioino 

• 

NAME CALLING 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Choosing Clinton over Obama does not make me a racist. Choosing Obama over Clinton does not make me a misogynist. Choosing McCain over either does not make me a fascist. 

It is a shame that some of us resort to argumentum ad hominem to discourage those with opposing viewpoints from participating in the political process, as if one person’s opinion matters more than the next. 

Matthew Mitschang 

• 

THE MONEY BEHIND BRT 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Charles Siegel asks in his April 22 letter about Bus Rapid Transit, “[W]hy is BRT with exclusive bus lanes being used or proposed in 25 cities cross the United States?” The answer is very simple. Bus Rapid Transit is being pushed by the Bush administration, and funding is therefore available for it. 

An Oakland Tribune article of June 4, 2007 quoted AC Transit Board member Chris Peeples, “There’s been (Bush) administration support for these things, and we managed to get into the latest authorization of the latest transportation bill.” This enabled AC Transit to tap into a Department of Transportation program called New Starts, usually reserved for rail projects, for $75 million for BRT. 

Information about BRT myths and about federal policies can be found at www.lightrailnow.org. BRT is all about money from Washington, and not about good transportation service. 

Casey Silva 

• 

CAPITELLI’S VISION 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

If Councilmember Laurie Capitelli seeks a dialogue with the community about improvements in the North Shattuck shopping district, why does he continue to push his own personal vision for the area in the face of the overwhelming opposition of residents and merchants? 

He has tried several times to push his views upon the community, but they have been rejected each time. His latest attempt is to sneak his North Shattuck Plaza idea into the Berkeley Pedestrian Master Plan. Doesn’t he know that 1,136 people have signed a petition against the plaza, and 32 merchants in the Shattuck-Vine-Rose area have signed a petition against it as well? 

Is this a Councilmember who is listening to his constituent’s? 

Art Goldberg 

• 

CHILD SAFETY 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Please thank Amanda Duisman for her April 22 letter of concern about the orange-tented innocents who are being transported via bicycles on city streets behind their presumably oblivious parents. I have never understood what appears to be a pretty cavalier attitude that runs rampant among a demographic that exudes political correctness and environmental sensitivity, not to mention promoting a more liberal, child-friendly society. 

Back in the day—as it were—we strapped our children into seats that rested on the bike’s back bumper and with equal nonchalance rode in town. I am now a grandmother and even I realize in retrospect that this introduction to the “streets” was equally as insane. However, at least automobile exhaust fumes, large tire treads and the limited vision of heavily trafficked street intersections wasn’t at the face level of babies! 

Perhaps adults should be required to climb into something equally fragile and potentially dangerous while being driven along Shattuck Avenue? Are we so out of touch with reality that putting our children at risk has become a sort of political finger to people who drive cars? And, are people who are old enough to be grandparents, so hopelessly intimidated by a younger generation of parents that we are afraid to publicly comment on something that appears so lacking in common sense? 

I would very much like to hear from parents on this subject, particularly those that opt for whatever these transports are called. Please help me understand! 

Julie Weeks 

• 

ANOTHER SECRET DEAL 

WITH UC? 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

There is a rumor going around town that Mayor Bates has reached a secret agreement with UC Berkeley to drop the city’s lawsuit challenging the massive university construction projects planned for the Memorial Stadium area—the so-called Southeast Campus Integrated Projects. Why do so many believe this rumor? For starters, that is exactly what Mayor Bates did in 2005 regarding the city’s lawsuit over serious flaws in UC Berkeley’s Long Range Development Plan (LRDP). At that time, Mayor Bates entered into secret talks with Chancellor Birgeneau and caved in to UC’s misguided expansion plans—without getting a single mitigation to help neighborhoods deal with the many problems caused by UC’s continued growth. And that secret agreement was being negotiated at the same time that Bates was telling the public he would make no deal without full disclosure to the public ahead of time, and full citizen participation in discussing the merits of any such proposal. Berkeley residents were betrayed. 

The fact that the city had to sue the university again almost immediately after that secret deal shows how bad the agreement was, and how poorly Bates represented the city’s interests. In short, we got taken. And we are still paying the price today. The current lawsuits against the university—including the city’s lawsuit—stem directly from shortcomings in the LRDP that Bates left unchallenged.  

It is my hope that the members of the City Council have learned their lesson, and they will not turn their backs on the public and approve another secret deal with the university. This situation also points out how valuable public participation is in a democracy. To be blunt: If citizens had been allowed at the table, we would not have approved such a bad deal.  

It also points out how much we need an effective Sunshine Ordinance in Berkeley, which would prevent all such secret backroom deals in the first place. For now, all we can do is let the Mayor and the Council members know that we are watching them very closely regarding this issue, and there will be serious repercussions if they betray us again. “Recall” is the word I have heard passing from some lips. But I have to admit, at this point that is simply a rumor. 

Doug Buckwald  

• 

TREE SIT 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

With the revelation of irregularities in the re-hiring of Victoria Harrison, the arrests at the Oak Grove Tree Sit become even more suspect than they already were. Victoria Harrison and Nathan Bromstrom’s claim lays heavily on the false premise that the situation at the grove is so out of control, so dangerous, that they didn’t have time to look for someone else, Vicky was re-hired in an emergency situation. 

That type of fake scenario is hard to paint when working with peaceful protesters, so the best option the cops have is to just arrest people for wishy-washy reasons, then trump up the accusations. There have been a series of unprovoked arrests at the Tree Sit. In some cases people have been arrested for merely speaking to the trees. One of the bigger lies the cops concocted was a tale of chemical warfare; cops allegedly at death’s door from an unknown chemical agent spread by a violent domestic terrorist. In less than two weeks the bogus story fell apart, and the cops had to redact it quietly. For Vicky and Bromstrom to get way with their little scandal, they need to make the tree sit look spooky by any means necessary. Certainly now the public and the media is going to question further any press releases and any tales of woe by Vicky and the cops. 

Nate Pitts 

Friend of the Tree Sit 

• 

CAMPAIGN THEATER 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Three serious contenders are left in the wasteful marathon to determine who will be our next president. In order to win the Oval Office each must act as if he or she is already there and do so with such skill that the electorate perceives the pretense as a preview. In this regard, candidates bear a burden more daunting than the toughest roles for stage or screen; their performance is in fact so demanding that they require the assistance of a multitude of advisors, “stage hands” ever ready on five minutes notice, day or night, to prompt the candidate with special bits of information. 

Let’s face it. This country is too big for one person to run, whether it be McCain, Clinton or Obama; there’re too many problems and there’s too much complexity—crisis in mortgages, recession, medical care, environmental care, torture of detainees, foreign policy, chaos in Iraq, resurging Taliban in Afghanistan, and dozens more including at least one as yet unknown. The immensity of problems and issues requires the candidate to retain dozens of knowledgeable advisors, including a team to deal with distractions and detractions.  

How well or poorly the next occupant of the Oval Office will handle the nation’s many problems is any one’s guess. It is, unfortunately, more than likely that little will change. Why? Because all three aspirants choose their entourage of advisors from the same pool: scholars, former advisors, retired elected, appointed and military officers, pundits, and academic specialists of all stripes.  

Let’s be serious. No matter who becomes the 44th president he or she will be little more than a stand-in for an ensemble of several dozen close advisors. Perhaps we should revise our national motto and change its subject: e pluribus unus (una). 

Marvin Chachere 

San Pablo 

• 

ENOUGH ALREADY! 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I believe I can claim in all honesty that I hold the world’s record for acquiring more address labels than anyone else on this planet! They arrive with alarming frequency. When going down for my mail each day, I utter a silent prayer to the Almighty, “Please, please—let there be no more address labels!” 

My prayer goes unheeded. There’s always a new batch. 

Mind you, I must admit these labels represent very worthwhile charities and legitimate organizations. To name only a few: Aids Foundation, Alzheimer’s, American Diabetes Association, American Lung Association, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, Disabled American Veterans, Easter Seals, Human Rights Watch, March of Dimes, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, National Foundation for Cancer Research, Nature Conservancy, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Project Open Hand, Sierra Club, St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital and UNICEF. All deserving of contributions, but where, oh where, to draw the line? 

This may be a slight exaggeration, but at the moment I have enough address labels to paper my apartment, form a path the entire length of Telegraph Avenue from Berkeley to Oakland; decorate the Golden Gate Bridge, and scale the top of Mount Diablo. In desperation, I sort through the stack piled high on my dining room table, happily tossing out those labels that misspell my name or show an incorrect apartment number. 

I won’t pretend that I donate to all these charities and organizations, but I give considerable thought to which ones I’ll select. While I’m puzzled that Disabled American Veterans and Paralyzed Veterans of America both ask for contributions, how can I ignore appeals from either of these organizations benefiting soldiers who’ve served in both Vietnam and Iraq? Likewise, I can’t dismiss the Aids Foundation and Alzheimer Research seeking ways to wipe out the scourge of this century. So, after carefully selecting those organizations that serve such vital roles in our society, I get out my check book and send modest donations, fully aware that brand new labels will arrive in the mail, adding to strong guilt feelings if I don’t divvy up! 

Dorothy Snodgrass