In 1873 the University of California moved from its one-block site in downtown Oakland to a farm at the mouth of Strawberry Canyon, in what is now Berkeley. Legend has it that the University then sold a portion of the land south of the creek for building lots in order to buy Strawberry Canyon and its springs to provide water for the new campus. Whether that legend is true or not, by the 1950s the campus was eyeing much of the area south of the campus for expansion. Its first move was to buy the commercial blocks on Telegraph Avenue just south of Sather Gate (actually the “gate” is a bridge over the creek).

That move precipitated the University’s first big fight over land use in l964. The students had used the sidewalks leading up to Sather Gate to set up tables for every sort of political and social cause. Once the land became part of the campus, the chancellor, Edward Strong, decreed that the tables would have to go. The students rebelled, and the Free Speech Movement was born.

I came to Berkeley four years later as a graduate student in the College of Environmental Design. A few years after that I joined the UC Office of the President, where I worked for thirty years. I read studies about the University’s plans to clear the land south of the campus for housing, and I listened to the University’s real estate officer give me his backstory on the acquisition of the land where People’s Park sits. Even later I worked closely with and got to know Roger Heyns, who had been the chancellor during the creation of People’s Park and resulting protests.

The intellectual and political underpinnings for the south campus clearance and redevelopment were articulated in a University report called, as I recall, “Students at Berkeley.” It was a classic example of 1950’s slum clearance or “urban renewal,” justifying wholesale destruction of old housing and its replacement with high-rise towers. Photos of the existing south campus brown shingles, taken with the maximum effort to show deterioration and decay, were juxtaposed with sketches of new dorms in the brutalist style of the French architect Le Corbusier.

Armed with this kind of intellectual underpinning the University moved to acquire entire blocks of south campus land. Then came a revolt by students to living in typical dorms—tiny rooms, one bathroom per floor, etc. (This revolt was not limited to UC; on a visit to the University of Maryland, I once toured a dorm complex that was being completely reconfigured into clusters of co-ed student apartments.) UC’s dorm building slowed down, but the properties were already acquired. UC was not good at maintaining rental properties in old brown shingles. As my real estate officer colleague told me, they were old and expensive to repair, and the tenants were smoking marijuana. “We had no choice but to tear them down.” The land remained vacant. 

In 1969 the memories and passions of the Free Speech Movement were still strong and simmering. Activists began planting trees at what became People’s Park. Roger Heyns, forgetting or ignoring the experience of his predecessor Edward Strong five years earlier, ordered a 10-foot fence to be built around it. The fence was an irresistible attraction for Dan Siegel, the student body president, who perhaps dreamed of becoming another Mario Savio, and who urged students to tear it down. Alameda County deputies were called in, and one of them killed a protestor. Governor Reagan sent in National Guard troops and put the city under curfew. Protests and the police reaction embroiled the campus and the town. While studying in my apartment north of Hearst I was left choking in teargas fumes which were released by helicopters flying overhead.  

I detail all this to emphasize that these memories are still with us. I am now on the Berkeley Landmarks Preservation Commission. Even though it was not an agenda item, People’s Park protestors appeared at a meeting of the Commission last year. All of them were loud and vigorous, and all had very gray hair. I also want to emphasize that Chancellor Heyns over-reacted. This was not the only time. When the Wheeler Hall auditorium burned in the same year, which I remember well because I had a class in Wheeler, he immediately posted a letter blaming the fire on arson. Later it was determined to have been caused by an electrical malfunction, though the “arson” remains in some histories. In my much later encounter with Heyns, which involved investigation of the malfeasance of the Santa Barbara chancellor, he acted with wisdom and patience that were sadly lacking in 1969. 

We live in a very different world now. The errors of urban renewal have been recognized. The California Environmental Quality Act requires public comment and technical review before projects can be approved. Sometimes, as I can personally attest from my experience planning the new campus at UC Merced, these processes can be frustrating and block things that should not be blocked. But we have these processes because of errors made in the past. Without reminding ourselves of these errors and learning from them we risk making new mistakes. That is precisely what the current chancellor is doing in forging ahead in this time of the coronavirus pandemic to get University projects approved.  

Let me explain just one small part of the process that will not go on as it should. Because of the shelter-in-place order the Landmarks Preservation Commission’s meetings have been suspended; the Commission cannot meet in May and will only meet in June subject to pending approval of Berkeley’s Director of Emergency Services. The Commission has no jurisdiction over the University, but it does have some say over 16 designated landmarks which are in the vicinity of the People’s Park site. The First Church of Christ Scientist is a National Historic Landmark, one of only 2,500 buildings so designated in the entire United States. There is no way that the Commission or the Berkeley citizens whom it serves can learn about the University’s plans or discuss their impact on the adjacent landmarks under the current shelter-in-place rules. Every sort of University activity is stopped or slowed down by the current rules, so why must it charge forward with the LRDP and housing project EIR? In my 30 years working for the University in ordinary times I do not recall any project that was ever seriously damaged by a delay caused by compliance with CEQA. And these are not ordinary times.  

In a small way the University’s intransigence is analogous to the recent decision by the US Supreme Court to not allow a delay in Wisconsin state elections. Despite a situation of crisis caused by the pandemic the court ruled that the elections had to go ahead on schedule, many presume because the court majority thought it would be to the advantage of one political party. Here the University has decided it must go forward in the face of the same crisis, one presumes because the University thinks doing so will suppress opposition to its plans. This reminds me too much of Roger Heyns. It is hubris and impatience combined. It will not ultimately benefit the University. It may likely harm it. And it undoubtedly will increase the mistrust and animosity of Berkeley citizens.  

Make no mistake. I am not happy with the current People’s Park. I served on a sub-committee of the Landmarks Preservation Commission to consider how to build a fence around the First Church of Christ Scientist in order to reduce vandalism from People’s Park occupants and to prevent its use as a night-time toilet because the University won’t maintain one on the Park. As it exists the Park is a blight. Under the right conditions I would support the University’s use of the site for housing or other purposes. The right conditions would include: 

• A design that respects the low-rise character of the adjacent historic landmarks and recalls the historic memory of the low-rise neighborhood which was destroyed. The University’s sorry history of acquisition under threat of eminent domain and its destruction of existing housing do not justify construction of the high-rise tower currently proposed.
• An appropriate monument and plaques recording the history of People’s Park.
• A permanent program to support homeless people for whom the Park has become a refuge.
• Delaying further action on the EIR until public meetings are again permitted.

I hope everyone will write letters to the Congress and Postmaster General in defense of our postal service. Seems to me the time has come to put to beneficial use the enforced savings fund for future postal workers’ health benefits, which I hear now holds $50 billion. This would make much more sense than burdening the USPS with a loan with destructive strings attached. The address for Postmaster General Megan J. Brennan and the USPS Governing Board is 475 L'Enfant Berkeley ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Senator Ron Johnson, Chair Senator Gary Peters, Ranking Member Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee 340 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC, 20510 

Re: U.S. Postal Service 

Dear Senators Johnson and Peters, 

I write to object in the strongest possible terms to the efforts of the President to terminate the USPS. This effort has been ongoing for years and we taxpayers are sick of it. The Congress is willing to flow billions of our tax dollars to the military-industrial complex every year but some think we should do without our Postal Service, which is important to all of us, but especially important to rural communities. It provides our country’s only universal delivery and communications network and connects 160 million homes and businesses all over the country. The Coronavirus crisis has seriously stressed the Postal Service with sharp reduction in revenue and increased costs. 

The U.S. Postal Service, which employs a high percentage of veterans, has stepped up to help keep our country working during the COVID-19 crisis and to ensure that voters can vote by mail if not in person. It urgently needs Federal government support, but so far has received little. The 2006 Congress's attempt to bankrupt the USPS by requiring $5.5 billion per year to be saved for future employee health benefits has resulted in a fund with $50 billion saved toward that end. The USPS should be given access to this fund to make up for the COVID-19 losses. A loan with destructive strings attached is not a solution. 

Our national Postal Service, like the Park Service, the FDA, the State Department, was created to serve the needs of the U.S. public. It was a misguided Congress that passed the 1971 Postal Reorganization Act that cut off taxpayer support and required the Postal Service to make a profit. And it does so every year, except for the artificial debt incurred by the 2006 requirement to pre-pay $5.5 billion a year for employee benefits 75 years into the future, an unprecedented and irrational demand. 

The U.S. Postal Service is a highly valued public service that is essential to big cities, small cities, and rural communities for its economic, social, and cultural benefits. Our post offices not only provide mailing services and decent jobs, but they serve as informal but essential community meeting places in towns across the country. They provide Americans—businesses and individuals—with convenient, efficient, affordable mailing services in downtowns everywhere in the country. Many of them, like mine, are enhanced by historic murals, bas-reliefs, beautiful design, and handsome materials. Our government once honored its citizen taxpayers by building beautiful public buildings for our use. 

The effort by the President and some in Congress to privatize public services such as our highly valued postal service, enshrined in our Constitution, is absolutely unacceptable. I strongly support the proposal to allow the Postal Service to expand its services and products. A return of the Postal Banking system would serve the needs of the many individuals the big banks no longer serve. The USPS governing board should commit to these constructive plans. 

We want the Congress and the Postmaster General to defend our Postal Service, not oversee its destruction.  

l CC: USPS Board of Governors, c/o Secretary Michael J. Elston Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General and Chief Executive Officer House Speaker Pelosi Senators Feinstein, Harris Representative Barbara Lee

In this Covid-19 time, the tide is turning against bloated US military budgets that have drained public money from health and other programs that should sustain our daily lives. 

From The Hill: 

“America isn’t ready for this pandemic because our government has been spending money on the wrong things. Instead of putting money towards fighting disease or alleviating suffering, the U.S. spent enormous sums over the past couple of decades on war and war preparation.” 

From The Atlantic  

“[T]he American response to the virus has been crippled by the fact that its spending priorities are all out of whack…[I]n 2019 the U.S. government allocated about $750 billion for national defense and about $8 billion for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.” 

The Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal 2021 is now before Congress. Barbara Lee, representative of the 13^th District of California, is a member of the House Committee on Appropriations. Her constituents can let her know they support reining in military spending.  

Our Senators need to hear from us, too—and so does Joe Biden’s presidential campaign.  

For more on the movement to rein in military spending, go to Win Without War and the MIT Center for International Studies’ Starr April 23 Forum “Rethinking National Security in the Age of Pandemics” 

The Ashby BART station in Berkeley has resumed normal service Tuesday morning after closing because of a report of a suspicious package, according to the transit agency. 

BART issued an advisory at 7:14 a.m. about the police activity, which BART spokesman Chris Filippi said was related to the suspicious package report. Trains were going through the Ashby station without stopping, and Alameda-Contra Costa Transit buses were taking riders along the train route between the Downtown Berkeley and MacArthur BART stations during the closure, Filippi said. 

As of shortly after 7:40 a.m., the station had reopened and normal service was resuming along the line, according to BART. 

#

A group of researchers at University of California at Berkeley and UC San Francisco on Monday announced a joint study of more than 120 available antibody test kits to examine potential immunity, temporary or otherwise, to the COVID-19 coronavirus. 

The researchers have already found that some tested for coronavirus antibodies have developed antibodies, particularly around two weeks after the initial infection. However, several of the test kits the research team has examined have significant false positive rates, meaning those testing positive for antibodies may have never contracted the virus in the first place. 

While nasopharyngeal tests for the virus can determine whether a patient is currently infected, blood tests for antibodies can compliment the standard swab test and determine whether a patient is in the early or late stages of the infection. 

The researchers cautioned, however, that the antibody tests are not yet able to determine the chances of future infection and how long immunity to the virus lasts. 

"These tests are widely available, and many people are buying and deploying them, but I realized that they had not been systematically validated, and we needed to figure out which ones would really work," said Patrick Hsu, an assistant bioengineering professor at UC Berkeley and an investigator at the school's Innovative Genomics Institute. "This is a huge, unmet need for public health." 

The research team has, to date, studied 10 point-of-care tests similar to home pregnancy or HIV tests and a pair of laboratory detection tests. Many of the samples the researchers have targeted have not yet received emergency use authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 

The dozen antibody tests were analyzed next to about 300 blood samples, many of which were from coronavirus patients at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital or the UCSF Medical Center. About one-third of the tests were taken before July 2018 and theoretically should not include any coronavirus patients. 

But the team is not limited just by the number of tests at their disposal, according to UCSF associate professor of microbiology and immunology Alex Marson. 

"One of the cornerstones of lab medicine is that a new test is compared to a definitive reference or gold standard," Marson said. "We do not have a gold standard yet for COVID-19 serology testing, so we are amassing data on a standardized set of blood samples and really looking at how each of these tests performs in relationship to all the others." 

The researchers posted the first results of the study at covidtestingproject.org prior to peer review and submission to a medical journal. As such, the researchers cautioned that while the preliminary results can help inform state and federal officials seeking to buy antibody tests, they should not be taken as established, medically accurate data. 

"This is a huge, huge community effort," Hsu said. "A lot of people really came together. One of the things I think is cool about this study is how many people repurposed themselves from what we normally do to respond to this pandemic."

Pasted below is the letter sent by me today to Mayor Arreguin, the City Manager, the Deputy City Manager, members of the Berkeley City Council, and other staff. I hope that it will lead to change in the oppressively dysfunctional Berkeley Parks Department. Last Sunday it felt as I was a lone victim, but in recent days numerous neighbors and others have expressed their dismay about the action of the Parks Department, and I have learned that serious problems have been rife for years. The current Parks Department needs to be plowed-under. Healthy new growth is needed for the citizens of this community.  

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Dear All, 

Since the plants across from my home were destroyed by order of the Berkeley Parks department exactly a week ago (Sunday, April 18, 2020), I’ve had serendipitous conversations with people who walk in the neighborhood as well as others in Berkeley. On the occasions where I have needed to be out continuing to work during the lockdown because of the requirement to refill my green bin every week in order to slowly get rid of the huge pile of debris left from the destruction of the plants, people previously unknown to me have stopped to ask “why did you do this?” and I have told them that the City required it and insisted that the work be finished within 14 days of notice from the Parks department, on threat of fines of $2,500 per day and a lien against my home. Those passersby have expressed shock, dismay, and commiseration.  

In discussing this extremely distressing matter, it has come to my attention that my experience is only a tiny corner of the bizarre values in evidence in operation of the City of Berkeley Parks department. My fear is that calling this to the attention of others in the City government and bureaucracy may not result in quick improvements, as bureaucratic incompetence is notoriously difficult to uproot. The people who perpetrate these kinds of behaviors and values have established protected and well-paid positions within organizations and have powerful people who enforce their incompetence and bad behavior. Nonetheless, I am contacting you and asking that you explore and intervene to move toward a Parks department that might serve the needs of Berkeley’s citizens and might enhance rather than degrade our quality of life. 

The instance that was done against me was the aforementioned demand that I cut back to the level that would destroy all the green shrubs (rosemary, lavender, manzanita, and a Mexican yellow flower) that were planted in the City property next to my home decades ago by a previous next-door neighbor, at her own expense—she was interested in landscaping and committed to neighborhood beautification. She succeeded in beautifying the neighborhood, and the plants thrived for decades. Suddenly in the middle of the COVID-19 lockdown came the order from the Berkeley Parks department to cut all shrubs back to no higher than 2 feet, thus requiring that all green parts be destroyed. The fact that this draconian order came at such a time underscores the poor judgment dominating the Parks department.  

Destruction of the plants does not enhance the neighborhood and does not increase safety. The crosswalks were open (as shown by the City’s own photographs). I have lived here for decades. There has never in that time been an accident involving a pedestrian, although people use the crosswalks (and many jay-walk). I have driven around that corner pretty much daily for decades and have never experienced difficulty seeing where I was going or who or what was in front of me. What might make sense would be to enforce the two stop signs at the corner. But that would be done by another part of the City government and has nothing to do with green plants. 

I’m told by others that the Parks department has made a major project throughout the City of demanding that Berkeley citizens destroy plants growing in some of the traffic circles constructed in intersections. The Parks department apparently claims that the existence of these plants constitutes a hazard of some sort. They do not. The structures were constructed by the City in order to make it impossible to speed through the intersections. Cars slow down (some even stop at stop signs) and proceed around the structures more slowly. Having beautiful green plants and flowers does not create a hazard.  

In talking with others, it has become clear that there is department-wide profound dysfunction throughout the Berkeley City Parks department. The swimming program has involved lax management and incompetence. (I can give more detail from people who have, upon hearing about my problem, volunteered information about bureaucratic dysfunction that is long-standing. As is common in these kinds of situations, people tend to do what they find increases their job security and access to well-paid pensions rather than go against the grain of the people at the top).  

I will be happy to talk further with anyone in Berkeley’s elected government or professional civil service who would be willing to look into this severe problem and make changes. Given how entrenched the current Parks department personnel appear to be, I suspect this will not be an easy job. I doubt the people who come up with perversities such as systematic Parks programs for destroying any efforts by Berkeley residents to improve and beautify their city will be responsive to efforts to modify their current practices and values. 

In summary: It is truly perverted that the PARKS department focuses on forcing citizens of Berkeley to spend our own money destroying beautiful green plants. It is beyond nutty. A friend mentioned, as noted, that the Parks department has also been demanding that people destroy plants in some of the round structures at intersections. We need to plow-under the current Parks department, and we need a new effort to address real problems in our neighborhood. Safety at the intersection at Ward & Acton is not improved by destruction of beautiful shrubs. Safety would be improved, though, by enforcement of the stop signs, which are regularly violated.  

Sincerely yours, 

As the days run together, I'll be posting more later... Humor from Rachel Swan in the Comical: "Riders who loved the bustle and conviviality of transit are now grappling with a rush hour that resembles the 1970s, when people tended to isolate themselves in cars"... Really? Both of them? Cool! ...Not so funny, this in the NYT: We Know Crowding Affects the Spread. It May Affect the Death Rate.... 

I guess our local world-class research university has learned nothing from the pandemic. Remarkably, UC is proposing to build 16- and 11-story dorms over People's Park. Because – as NYC's catastrophic infection and death rates show – close quarters and elevator-only access must be how to promote public health.

You can comment at UC's online "survey" through Monday, April 27:
https://capitalstrategies.berkeley.edu/peoples-park-housing-open-house-3

Many of the questions include a tiny free-text response field labeled "Other." These fields will actually accept any length of text. So draft offline, and paste in.

My own responses emphasized that just one block north, UC's recent "Anna Head Lot" dorm project respected Southside's fabric and history as a residential neighborhood. They're peaked-roof, brown-shingle, 4-story buildings that fit in with their neighbors instead of shadowing them. Even to reach the top floor, most young residents don't need to congregate in elevators. Why not replicate this success, instead of building a monstrosity that won't be safe to occupy?

Vote your conscience.

Not only is UC Berkeley doing an "Online Open House" this coming Monday, April 27, but on the same day an "Online Scoping Session" for the Long Range Development Plan, which also includes housing on People's Park. It has received lots of push back from many quarters about doing this during the COVID-19 crisis; this is not a model for truly getting public input.  

Among other issues, the public health implications of building on People's Park are frightening. Berkeley is one of most densely populated cities in California and Southside the most densely populated part of Berkeley. The only open space in Southside is People's Park. The Big One is coming so just imagine the need for open space for all the high rise occupants once the earthquake happens. 

With the COVID-19 crisis has also come a critique of our current push to make cities denser. It is obvious from the quick spread of a disease like coronavirus in highly populated urban areas that density is perhaps not the answer to all our urban woes and that methods and designs for maintaining physical distance should be seriously considered. 

You can make comments before Monday at 5 p.m. for the Long Range Development Plan Update and Housing Projects #1 and #2 at https://capitalstrategies.berkeley.edu/resources-notices/public-notice and the online “public” session will happen between 6:30 and 8:30. The People’s Park Housing: Open House #3 comments are being taken until Monday, April 27. 

Among those groups fighting building on People's Park is the People's Park Historic District Advocacy Group. We are not just opposing the university's proposal, but offering an alternative vision and plan. You can contact us by email at peoplesparkhxdist@gmail.com. 

People’s Park is Berkeley’s most famous landmark and provides irreplaceable open space

Berkeley is one of the most densely populated cities in California and open space is needed, particularly in the extremely crowded south campus area. 

Historians, preservationists, students, neighbors and concerned citizens have come together to form the People’s Park Historic District Advocacy Group to document and preserve the open space of People’s Park and the historic resources encircling it. 

Although there is no denying that truly affordable housing is needed, People’s Park is Berkeley’s most famous landmark and is valuable, irreplaceable public open space for the densely populated south campus area. We oppose construction on People’s Park. Our group, which formed in the summer of 2019, is moved to action by the following issues: 

· People’s Park, a designated City of Berkeley Landmark, is the centerpiece of 11 surrounding landmarked properties, each recognized for local, state, and/or national significance. 

· These landmarks, collectively, reflect the historic beginnings and development of both the University of California and the City of Berkeley. 

· Berkeley is one of the most densely populated cities in California and has a need for open space, particularly in the extremely crowded south campus area. The lack of park acreage in Berkeley has been noted for well over a 100 years. 

· People’s Park, created by the free speech and community activism of the 1960’s, today opens up a clear vista upon the 11 iconic properties, ranging from the pioneer John Woolley House (1876) to one of the great monuments of American architecture, the First Church of Christ, Scientist. 

· The open urban space and the surrounding historic properties have all, together, suffered from disruption, turmoil and instability but share together the potential for transformation as an irreplaceable asset and community resource.  

· Now is the time to call upon the university and the city, together, to acknowledge and to enter into dialogue to preserve and improve People's Park as the heart and soul of a historic district that will provide much needed open space in the Southside, as well as celebrate a shared place of local, state and national distinction.  

We call on the chancellor to join us in celebrating the significant historic and cultural landmarks woven into this unique neighborhood and invite everyone to work together with us to support the People’s Park Historic District as a creative, grassroots, community-based, user-developed initiative. Other sites are available for housing; we oppose construction on the open space of People’s Park. 

To add your support or ask questions, contact us at peoplesparkhxdist@gmail.com. 

Endorsers 

Miguel A. Altieri, Professor Emeritus, UC Berkeley 

David Axelrod, attorney 

Reverend Allan Bell, The Silence Project, London 

Howard Besser, professor, New York University 

Paul Kealoha Blake, co-founder East Bay Media Center 

Jim Chanin, civil rights attorney 

Tom Dalzell, author, union lawyer 

Michael Delacour, People’s Park co-founder 

Carol Denney, writer, musician 

Lesley Emmington, Berkeley resident 

Clifford Fred, former Berkeley Planning Commissioner 

Paula Friedman, author 

Rafael Jesus Gonzalez, the City of Berkeley's first poet laureate 

Jack Hirschman, former Poet Laureate of San Francisco 

Bonnie Hughes, former Berkeley Arts Commissioner 

Sheila Jordan, Alameda County Superintendent of Schools Emerita 

Meghan Kanady, UC Berkeley Landscape Architecture graduate student 

Jack Kurzweil, community activist 

Joe Liesner, activist 

Seth Lunine, educator, researcher 

Tom Miller, attorney and President, Green Cities Fund 

Doug Minkler, printmaker 

Osha Neumann, lawyer 

Carrie Olson, former member of the Berkeley Landmarks Preservation Commission 

Revolutionary Poets Brigade 

Marty Schiffenbauer, former Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board Commissioner 

Bob Schildgen, writer 

Dan Siegel, civil rights attorney, ASUC president (1969-70) 

Harvey Smith, public historian, educator 

Margot Smith, retired social scientist, activist 

Elizabeth Starr, environmental advocate 

Zach Stewart, landscape architect for Berkeley Shorebird Park and Willard Park 

Lisa Teague, People’s Park Committee member 

Daniella Thompson, architectural historian 

Mel Vapour, co-founder East Bay Media Center 

Max Ventura, singer, activist 

Steve Wasserman, publisher and executive director, Heyday  

Anne Weills, civil rights attorney 

Charles Wollenberg, California historian, writer 

Lope Yap, Jr., filmmaker 

I don't speak CEQA. The California Environmental Quality Act is a dazzling piece of legislation with a lot of moving parts, and I rely on others to help navigate its waters. But the "scoping" opportunity on April 27, this Monday, and the letters we can send up until May 15, 2020 (5:00 pm), have a purpose; to require the university to explain itself. 

The university's plan is to ignore the many alternative locations it has to build its usual ugly, for-profit, expensive housing. It is inconvenient land just now because it makes the destruction of parks and landmarks look even more gratuitous. The surfeit of now-university land acquired by eminent domain, real estate deals, and the donation of large original land tracts from decades ago underscores the false dichotomy favored by the university: that we can have housing or parks and historic landmarks, but not both, including the magical building at 1952 Oxford build in 1930 by famed architect Walter H. Ratcliffe Jr., which will be 100 years old in ten years and is a useable building even today. 

The "scoping" opportunity open until May 16 (letters can be mailed or emailed to the address below) is likely to have historians and preservationists point out the losses to California and national architectural history, the collapse of any sensible balance between density and open space, and the oddity, if not the danger, of rolling ahead with a public comment period during a pandemic crisis. 

But my prayer is that others will write about the decades of having to suffer living with the poor planning of the university. Our state's natural disasters have a perfect parallel in the obligation the university thinks Berkeley should have to shoulder to accommodate the thousands of students it over-enrolls and the predictable court cases and street battles which have cost lives and made planning for a family, a business, or even a simple life all but impossible. 

The university has not apologized - yet - for the role it played in the death of James Rector, the blinding of Alan Blanchard, the factor it was in calling out the National Guard, the CS gas that affected even a childcare center, the hemorrhaging of public money into SLAPP-suits against activists, the years-long publicly-funded court cases required for the City of Berkeley and nearby neighborhoods to stand up for local and state laws which healthy town/gown relationships would obviate. 

There are those among us who know how to mourn the poem that wasn't written, the painting that never made its way to canvas, the play that never got traction in the community's collective imagination because of the university's war on culture, open space, landmarks, visible poverty, community laws and values, and what the state legally considers historic and educational resources. 

Those of you who can manage a stamp during the pandemic, or have access to email, here is where to write: 

To: Raphael Breines, Senior Planner Physical & Environmental Planning, University of California, Berkeley, 300 A&E Building, Berkeley, CA 94720-1382 

Email: planning@berkeley.edu 

Subject: LRDP Update and Housing Projects #1 and #2 EIR) 

Bay Area Community Services (BACS) was named directly the “Public Comment” posted in the Daily Planet on April 19, (“ BACS Group Housing Not Complying with COVID-19 Rules “), so I want to address its inaccuracies.

Most importantly to address, BACS does not own or operate the house referenced in the Daily Planet’s Public Comment post. Our agency has no jurisdiction over that house, and no ability to dictate how private landlords operate. Our only recourse is to do whatever possible to help each individual we work with. 

Beyond that, BACS is a non-profit that started in the Bay Area in 1953, and we have provided behavioral health, housing and homelessness, and criminal justice programs. We are extremely dedicated to the community. It’s important to understand who BACS is, how we work, and our track record.  

We welcome input and suggestions from our residents and the public on matters of ethics, policy and privacy, and we fully disclose our finances. You can learn more here. We hope to educate community members on how the housing system of care works, because misunderstandings only serve to deepen confusion and mistrust, and prevent ongoing solutions. 

What can be learned from the coronavirus pandemic? 

Preparing for epidemics before they happen saves lives. 

Responding to epidemics at the first signs of outbreak saves lives and reduces damage. 

Denying there is a problem enables the catastrophe to accelerate. 

Delaying response causes preventable deaths and costs uncountable fortune. 

The cost of early preparation, prevention and response is substantial. 

The cost of early preparation, prevention and response is very low, compared to the cost of doing nothing.  

Can we apply these lessons to the global climate crisis? 

We are suffering early signs: hurricanes are more powerful and damaging; droughts are more severe and flammable. Some people, regrettably in political leadership, deny there's a problem.  

Delaying response enables the crisis to accelerate; climate change feeds itself and may soon become unstoppable. The cost of changing from our oil-based energy economy is large, but the cost of not changing will become catastrophic.  

With commerce largely shut down by coronavirus, and the price of oil sinking into negative numbers, we now have a special, one-time-only opportunity to switch to non-polluting, renewable energy sources to avert the climate change catastrophe.

We're in the middle of a slow-motion catastrophe. The consequence of disease, depression, and Donald. Here are a few thoughts about what we can do about this dire situation.

The Pandemic: The best summation of our current situation was written on April 18 by New York Times science and health reporter Donald G. McNeil Jr, "The Coronavirus in America: The Year Ahead." (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/18/health/coronavirus-america-future.html) "In truth, it is not clear to anyone where this crisis is leading us... Exactly how the pandemic will end depends in part on medical advances still to come. It will also depend on how individual Americans behave in the interim. If we scrupulously protect ourselves and our loved ones, more of us will live. If we underestimate the virus it will find us."

"Resolve to Save Lives, a public health advocacy group run by Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, the former director of the C.D.C., has published detailed and strict criteria for when the economy can reopen... Reopening requires declining cases for 14 days, the tracing of 90 percent of contacts, an end to health care worker infections, recuperation places for mild cases and many other hard-to-reach goals." Donald Trump is not willing to apply these criteria and is pushing states to reopen early. Some Republican governors are obliging.

Donald McNeil noted: "[Recently, a science writer] analyzed Medicare and census data on age and obesity in states that recently resisted shutdowns and counties that voted Republican in 2016. He calculated that those voters could be 30 percent more likely to die of the virus." 

McNeil does not believe that we will see a COVID-19 vaccine soon: "Dr. Fauci has repeatedly said that any effort to make a vaccine will take at least a year to 18 months.... All the experts familiar with vaccine production agreed that even that timeline was optimistic. Dr. Paul Offit, a vaccinologist at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, noted that the record is four years, for the mumps vaccine." 

This is the new normal. Until we have a vaccine -- or the equivalent -- we have to keep doing what we are doing despite what Donald Trump, and his lackeys, say. We have to continue to follow the advice of health professionals and scientists: shelter-in-place, minimize social contacts, and support polices that will lead to a rapid increase in testing and, hopefully, the discovery of a vaccine. 

The Economy: Because of the COVID-19 pandemic the global economy has collapsed. There's debate about whether we are in a recession -- negative GDP growth for two quarters -- or a depression -- a more severe recession. For those who are out of work, or whose savings have been destroyed, these distinctions do not matter. What's important is recognition that we are in a financial emergency unlike anything we have experienced. 

For the unemployed who are sheltering in place, there's a natural tendency to want to go back to work. Donald Trump has said, "We cannot let the cure be worse than the problem itself." Many of his followers believe him and nurture a belief that if they go back to work they will not contract COVID-19. (This has led to the premature opening of states such as Georgia.) 

The problem with this position is that it flies in the face of grim reality: COVID-19 is a highly infectious disease with a grim mortality rate (6.9 percent worldwide). Not everyone who contracts COVID-19 gets sick but those that do often are very sick -- ask Chris Cuomo about his symptoms. (Those who get sick suffer from Hypoxia -- loss of oxygen in the body.) 

Not only is COVID-19 very dangerous and contagious, but also many who get it do not develop symptoms -- perhaps 14 percent or more (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2009316 ). That means that until we get widespread testing, we will not be able to identify the silent COVID-19 carriers in our community. (It's not sufficient to merely take someone's temperature to see if they are "sick" or not.) 

Therefore, if folks go back to work early and do not maintain social distancing -- that is difficult to do in jobs like hair stylist or massage therapist or fitness instructor -- then they run the risk of spreading COVID-19 and making the situation worse. 

There are no simple choices here. As long as Trump is President, we are likely to pursue unwise economic policies. Nobel-prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/apr/22/top-economist-us-coronavirus-response-like-third-world-country-joseph-stiglitz-donald-trump?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other ) recently observed, "“If you leave it to Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell [the Republican Senate majority leader] we will have a Great Depression. If we had the right policy structure in place we could avoid it easily.” Stiglitz noted, "14% of the [U.S.] population [is] dependent on food stamps... the social infrastructure [can] not cope with an unemployment rate that could hit 30% in the coming months." 

What this means is that we have to both hunker down -- suffer through the impact of the depression -- and do everything we can to get Trump out of office (and elect a progressive Senate and House of Representatives). Trump is making a bad situation worse. 

Donald Trump: We're way past the point where we hoped that Trump would grow into the job. What we see is what we're stuck with for the next nine months. Trump is incapable of the leadership this catastrophe requires. 

It would be better if Trump retired from the scene and left the day-to-day decision making to Vice President Pence and congressional leaders. But, of course, Trump won't do this. He will continue to blunder around the oval office like the proverbial bull in the china shop. 

Trump is dangerous. First we saw him deny that COVID-19 was a problem. Then we saw him claim that his Administration had everything under control. Next he claimed that "Anybody that wants a test [for the coronavirus] can get a test." Then we saw him push hydroxychloroquine as a miracle cure... 

Now we're seeing Trump try to open up the economy before it is safe to do this: "We cannot let the cure be worse than the problem itself." He's actively supporting armed protestors that are trying to "liberate" states like Michigan. He's at the edge of fomenting civil war. 

There are 270 days before Trump is out of office. During the next 9 months he's liable to say and do a lot of crazy things. And no Republican will stand up to him. 

What we have to do is stay cool. And we must work as hard as we can to remove Trump, and his Republican lackeys, from office.