Public Comment

Consultant Mark Rhoades knew from the start that Berkeley citizens, who have a sentimental attachment to intelligent films, would object to his destroying the Landmark Shattuck Cinemas so he could build an 18 story high-rise there. To pre-empt our unreasonable outrage about this project, he asserted early on that the theaters aren’t doing well and that Landmark thinks they are “outmoded”; in fact, he assured everyone, Landmark wants to leave when their lease expires in 2018, so they’re just fine with demolishing their cinema complex. Right?

Wrong. Landmark’s President of Real Estate Michael Fant has twice told Don Goldmacher, from the Committee to Save the Landmark Shattuck Cinemas, that their Berkeley operation is quite successful and that they are happy here – so successful and happy that a few years ago they negotiated an extension of their lease, from 2018 to 2023.

In addition, Landmark’s CEO himself, Ted Mundorff, wrote in a February 4th email to me, “We have no plans to leave the City of Berkeley in 2018 or earlier”. And, understandably insulted, he added: “You are the first to tell me that the city believes that independent theatres are passé. Who in the city told you this?”

Well, some of the ZAB commissioners, actually. Last November, having heard our strong opposition to taking down the Landmark, Rhoades said okay, okay, he’d put a few movie theaters into the hi-rise (as though that promise made it okay to destroy an ongoing business). But then a few ZAB officials began saying that maybe what Berkeley really needs is yet another multi-use venue, could Rhoades look into that possibility instead? Because movie theaters are struggling, people don’t go to movies anymore, they’re over.

This is simply not true. The problem here is that mainstream and independent film are being lumped together. While the former is, indeed, losing customers, independent film is growing. Landmark specializes in independent films, attracting cinephiles in big numbers. You’ve probably seen the long lines that trail from their ticket booth on Friday and Saturday nights, and we all know that long lines usually signify a thriving business.

The discrepancy between what Rhoades says and what we see prompted several questions: Why would an apparently thriving business want to leave? Or if Rhoades is correct and they’re not thriving, where is the proof of that? Can ZAB please invite Landmark to one of their meetings, where the public can hear for itself what the company wants? Not that we would doubt the word of a man like Rhoades just because he stands to make a ton of money on this project, but still.

Now, having obtained answers directly from the source, we find ourselves at an interesting juncture. And when we add to this information another important finding – that the Landmark also contributes significantly to the success of many other downtown businesses, as has been previously reported in the Planet – the question becomes, what will Rhoades and City officials do with these facts? Will they continue to advocate for Landmark’s demise? If so, how will they justify that?

I think they all have some explaining to do.