Page One

Wednesday March 07, 2001

Pacifica should sell KPFA/WBAI licenses

Editor:

I strongly urge members of the board to move forward with bylaw changes that would allow Pacifica to sell the licenses to KPFA and WBAI.

Since the mission of the network is to provide a forum for alternative views it would seem wise to consider the sales of these assets and the purchase of less expensive transmitters to serve the immediate area. The money raised could also be used for the expansion of audio and video streaming on the internet.

Land based broadcasting is still the most accessible form of audio communication, but this will not be the case for the indefinite future. The sale of these two transmitters to commercial corporations would allow Pacifica to create a permanent and stable fund to continue its mission.

As a broadcast professional, public and commercial, I support Pacifica management's efforts to take the network into the 21st century by diversifying its distribution outlets and creating programming that will reach a continually growing audience.

I fear that the network will be drowned out by mediocrity because of the “Save Pacifica” movement. Despite the public hugh and cry I think you should do the right thing and create a financial platform stable enough to serve future generations.

Many of the people who work as volunteers and employees act as if their music, talk or news time slot is there “given right” for all time, no matter the quality of the programming or its ability to attract new listeners (and hence reach more people with a progressive message.)

Rather than “protecting free speech” I believe their main motivation is often to “protect their job or air-time,” not to carry forward Pacifica's decades long mission.

It is not in Pacifica's interest to use these major assets to soothe the egos of individuals who are broadcasting “college level” and “amateur” programming.

Mel Baker

Former NPR Producer/NBC Editor

San Francisco

City should repeal utility users tax

Editor:

There has been a lot of huffing and puffing lately by Berkeley city officials about how the high cost of gas and electricity affects low income families.

What they never say, however, is that the city levies an additional seven and a half percent Utility User Tax on all Berkeley residents that is collected by PG&E. Thus if a family is stuck with a bill of a hundred dollars per month or more, an additional $7.50 - $8 in city tax is added on. If the bill is $200 or more, the city tax is between $15 - $20 per month. People with higher energy bills will see taxes of about $25 per month. This is clearly detrimental to working families, seniors and people with limited incomes.

This tax was put in place sometime in the 1960’s, but it was repealed in the 1970’s by a citizen initiative, only to see the City Council quietly impose it again in the 1980’s. In times of high energy costs, this tax is especially onerous and regressive.

The fact is that the City of Berkeley does not need the money. In the late 1970’s, the total city budget was around $75 million. Today, it is over $225 million. The tremendous increase in property values over the past twenty years has greatly increased the amount of money Berkeley receives in taxes.

Homes that once sold for $100,000 now sell for $400,000- $500,000. The taxes are calculated on the sale price of the homes. As a member of the city’s Citizen’s Budget Review Commission from 1993 - 96, I know the city is awash in money.

One of the best things Berkeley could do to help people through the energy crisis is to repeal the Utility User Tax. All it would take is a vote by the Council. If that doesn’t happen soon, perhaps another citizen initiative will be launched.

Art Goldberg

Berkeley

Don’t give up on UC Berkeley

Editor:

Regarding the question of UC Berkeley building on the northeast quadrant, Councilwoman Olds ought not to give up so easily. There are people at UC who will listen, particularly if one offers reasonable alternatives.

Perhaps UC should give hiring preference to applicants willing to use public transit or bicycles, or walk to work.

Mr. Sharp seems not to know that federal research grants have, for some time, provided for technology transfer including the sale or licensing of patents. The practice provides societal benefits, rewards to researchers, and revenue for universities.

John W. Bush

Berkeley

Stop toxic attack on Wozniak

Editor,

I hope the Committee on Toxic Waste stops publicly harassing Community Environmental Advisory Commissioner Gordon Wozniak, who has the misfortune to work for their foes, Lawrence Lab. It's hard to imagine how they could contrive to do more damage to their cause than with this ongoing toxic attack on someone whose long-standing contributions to public discourse in Berkeley should evoke thanks, not angst.

If there were a Commission on Good Sense, they would have to be disqualified for conflict of interest.

Dave Blake

Berkeley

Solve transit woes by making BART accessible

Editor:

After living in Berkeley for almost three years, I have become aware of the transportation problems here. I believe that the most pertinent problem in Berkeley is the lack of accessibility to BART for the students and the working population.

Street sweeping, parking permits, and the lack of parking areas in Berkeley is not controlling the congestion and pollution caused by automobiles in the Bay Area. People are continuing to purchase cars regardless of the limitations imposed by the City of Berkeley. In his book “Contemporary Urban Planning,” John M. Levy states that this “increased automobile ownership (eliminates) millions of potential transit customers.”

By eliminating the demand for transit in a congested city such as Berkeley the outcome is the exact opposite of the desired effect for such a condensed city, congestion.

According to Anthony Downes in his essay “The Causes of Recent Increase in Traffic Congestion,” “traffic congestion is almost certain to continue worsening in fast-growing metropolitan areas unless effective remedies can be found and implemented.”

I think that one of the remedies to traffic congestion in Berkeley is to make BART more accessible to University students as well as the working population in Berkeley. Although BART is near the campus, not very many students live within walking distance of it.

If there was a shuttle that was specifically designed for BART that picked students up within a one or two mile radius of the campus, I think that more students would utilize BART. In order to make BART more accessible to the working population in Berkeley, the city should build free parking structures near the BART stations to make it easier to use BART. These parking structures should be modeled after the Rockridge BART parking lot, with a machine into which you enter your parking space number and insert your BART ticket.

In recent years, John M. Levy found that “the public in large cities and metropolitan areas has generally been more favorably disposed to transit improvements than to the building of new highways.” By improving the accessibility to BART, the congestion and pollution due to the traffic in Berkeley would greatly decrease. I feel very strongly about this and I hope that you take my opinions into consideration.

Heather Petersen

Berkeley

Nightmare: Parking Under Draft General Plan

Editor:

I think it important the citizens be aware that the Draft General Plan, essentially the constitution for land use, now under consideration for the City of Berkeley, baldly declares that no new parking or expansion of existing parking will be considered or permitted downtown or southside over the next five years while awaiting to see the results of a series of alternative policies, none of which even include augmentation or improvement of public transit (Transportation Element Policy T-36).

More dumfounding is the intention to remove unilaterally any substantial consideration of parking from the state-mandated CEQA process, by defining any parking impact of a project to be necessarily less than significant (Transportation Element Policy T-39). Aside from the dubious legality of such a suggestion, such a policy is based on brutal reasoning: “Demand for parking is elastic and cannot be accurately measured. As parking supply increases or parking costs decrease, automobile use becomes a more attractive transportation alternative and demand for parking increases. On the other hand, as supply decreases and its price increases, demand decreases.” Particularly because it fails to link a restriction on parking to improvement of public transit, this policy will bless all residents and visitors with tighter parking and increased frustration.

Worryingly, one result could simply be the growing disinclination to go downtown to shop, something merchants may find to be an uncomfortable corollary to the policy's assumptions. There may be a place for the stick of restricted parking, but wisdom suggests more active planting of the carrots of encouragement to change old transportation habits that developed for a host of legitimate reasons.

If citizens don't take a peek at the Draft General Plan soon, we may find ourselves with a document reflecting the narrow and intolerant views of a few that increases the miseries of the many while in pursuit of dreams rendered unrealizable by the failure to accommodate practical reality and the real wishes of most. You can find the Plan at:http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/planning/advance/generalplan/generalplan.htm

Howie Muir

Berkeley

Berkeley, CA 94704

opinion@berkeleydailyplanet.com

Dear Editor:

As an undergraduate student at UC Berkeley, I have now been living in the city of Berkeley for three years. In this time, I have become increasingly exposed to problems that the density of our city creates. These problems are evident in the high demand for housing in the area, the traffic and parking problems, and the slow disappearance of nature within the city. Due to the inevitable influx of students every year and the popularity of the bay area, this will prove to be a continuous problem. In his book, Contemporary Urban Planning, John M. Levy suggests that a solution to this problem is growth management, which is “defined as the regulation of the amount, timing, location, and character of development” (Levy, p. 215). He states that the reasons for implementing growth management include “ensuring that community facilities such as schools, roads, utilities, and recreation will be adequate for future needs” (Levy, p. 215), and it is becoming increasingly apparent that Berkeley is in need of such certainty.

In theory, growth management must take place in one of two ways: controlling residential growth, or limiting commercial development. Many cities have chosen the option of limiting residential development because it “produces tight labor markets and high housing prices” (Levy, p. 221). However, this type of housing market is already established in Berkeley, yet the density continues to grow. The solution, therefore, lies in the management of large commercial growth within our city and concentrating on accommodating our current population. Many cities, including Boulder, CO and Davis, CA, are examples of successful growth management.

Known for its environmentally conscious population, Berkeley will benefit from growth management because “fewer tress will be cut down, less ground will be covered with impervious cover, and fewer sources of air and water pollution will be present in the area” (Levy, p. 217). A professor of Landscape Architecture, Anne Whiston Spirn, states that “all cities, by virtue of density and people and buildings . . . alter the character of their original environment” (Sprin, Stein ed., p.482). As members of the city of Berkeley, I hope that we can minimize this alteration by eventually slowing the rapid commercialization of our city.

Thank you,

Kari Williams

Editor,

Gene Bernardi wishes to exclude LBNL from the city workshop on the IFEU report regarding tritium (Daily Planet 2/20/2001). Given CMTW’s oft quoted stand on the tritium issue this would be the political equivalent of a kangaroo court. CMTW appears to want LBNL to have safety problems, and they don’t want LBNL to fix them, because they want LBNL to shut down.

The IFEU statement that has received the most press is that LBNL’s claim that a fire would not cause significant localized consequences due to tritium exposure “may be false”. The report does not provide a detailed analysis to support this charge, and in fact notes that the large volume of work and its finite resources did not “allow addressing every question in appropriate depth”.

At issue is whether a complete abrupt release, conversion of the entire inventory of tritium into HTO (or T2O), and venting of the HTO could occur without a major fire. IFEU posited this as a possibility, and then noted that in a worst case scenario this could cause a significant dose to member of the public.

To be dangerous the tritium has to be released as HTO. One possibility is mechanical disruption of the tritium apparatus and a fire which heats the apparatus to 660° F or above to drive off the tritium and then

oxidizes it. A second possibility is a fire that heats the apparatus above 1100° F, as this would make the apparatus leak. To get the tritium outside the building the LBNL safety analysis document assumed

that the fire burns a hole in the roof (the facility has no windows, and the walls are masonry), but this large a fire dilutes the exposure to an insignificant level. The IFEU report does not describe how a fire can

be both big enough to release HTO, and small enough not to dilute it.

For a further dose of unreality, all this supposedly happens despite the presence of an automatic sprinkler system with its own backup water supply, plus manual fire extinguishers.

Robert Clear

Berkeley

Editor,

I am writing you in regards to the City of Berkeley’s misguided attitude towards an ever-worsening traffic situation. The current system, a series of high-traffic collector streets, coupled with traffic “calming” devises to reduce traffic on all other streets is flawed and outdated. This system erroneously assumes that by concentrating traffic onto a few select corridors, we will benefit by freeing up all other streets as residential havens of calmness. This is an unfair and highly biased strategy. As a result of the current system, residents of collector streets are suffering the disproportionate burden of excess traffic flow on their streets, while the rest of us bask in a utopia of “calmness”. The negative effects on those residents of collector streets are manifold. Physical detriments caused by excess noise and air pollution are very real, not to mention economic loss endure by collector street residents, as a result of diminishing property values due to heavy traffic volume. I recently attended a public hearing held by the planning commission, and was dismayed to hear that while public sentiment was firmly against the current system, (three separate speakers raised the issue), the city’s new General Plan only proposes only more of the same. We need to make a change.

I propose that by eliminating traffic calming devices we can disperse traffic more evenly throughout the city. Admittedly, this approach may not solve the problem of heavy traffic flow on collector streets, but it would certainly lessen the impact and provide a sense of fairness for collector street residents. At very least collector street residents should be offered some sort of retribution from the city in return for the suffering they endure in the name of overall city betterment.

As residents of Berkeley, we have inherited a legacy of fair-minded, democratic values. The current system of traffic flow outlined above is out of step with this heritage, and must be addressed. We have too many historical precedents of the “few” suffering at the expense of the “many”, to repeat this mistake. As we are all members of a society that benefits from the freedom of movement afforded by the automobile, we must as a group, accept the responsibility of bearing the burden of it’s negative side effects, we must all accept this responsibility.

Thank you,

Mark Hoffman (non-collector street resident)

Editor: Gordon Wozniak, argues that decisions regarding the enviornment and health should be exclusively “science-based”. Unfortunately science cannot explain what life is, only what it is made up of. The human organism is much

more than a collection of cells and molecules; we have minds and imaginations. May I humbly remind Mr. Wozniak that what is considered scientific fact today often becomes tomorrow's science fiction.

Michael Bauce

1922 Ward Street

Berkeley, CA 94703

(510) 841-5420

I am outraged that a pharmaceutical executive would tout the glories of intellectual property as millions in Africa die from AIDS (see BDP Forum Mar 2nd) . Didn't millions of Americans die in a civil war to prove that

just because something is called a property doesn't mean that it is? Echoing the sentiments of plantation masters who claimed that they were kind to their negros, and had no incentive to grow cotton or tobacco without slave properties; he went on to say how kind they were to Africans, while at the same time faithfully declaring that without

intellectual property there is no incentive to innovate. Well I digress, hasn't America already had this discussion. If pharmaceutical execs truly believe in these kind of property rights, then we should be asking how many people are they willing to kill to “defend” these rights?

Sincerely

David Christy

San Diego

Editor:

In your recent article, “Transportation Panel Seeks Input,” the never-ending issue of transit spending on public transit or roadways arises. I would like to point out that while current public tendency leans toward single occupant commuting or at least transportation by way of automobile, by increased public transit spending can we improve the quality of our urban enviroment.

John Levy (Contemporary Urban Planning) writes that “improving transit tends to decongest the streets by reducing automobile travel.” I’m sure many of the people stuck for hours on the freeways around the Bay Area between 4 and 7 would love to see decongestion of the automobile traffic based on good alternatives to cars. Futhermore, Levy writes that transit “leads to a much more compact land-use pattern that is much friendlier to pedestrians than is a city designed for automobile transportation.” Although your article mentioned concerns by those who worry about infill in the Bay Area, with the every rising number of jobs and number of people, there are very few alternatives to higher density. As Jane Jacobs would point out, high density dwellings lead to greater city diversity in any case.

I would also like to cite Andres Duany that currently, highway engineers “want cars to be happy.” As a result, suburban residential areas feed on this car culture in their design. The environmentalists of Berkeley should recognize that a society where people need to drive from one end of a strip mall to the other can only increase pollution and reduce the quality of life.

I urge the Transportation Planning Board to concentrate their spending on public transit for the reasons mentioned above. Thank you for your time.

Sunaree Marshall

Undergraduate Architecture Major

UC Berkeley

(510) 664-2567

sunaree@uclink.berkeley.edu

>John Bush wrote:

> > Madam:

> >

> > Councilwoman Olds ought not to give up so easily. There are people at

>UC

> > who will listen, particularly if one offers reasonable alternatives.

> >

> > Perhaps UC should give hiring preference to applicants willing to use

>public

> > transit or bicycles, or walk to work.

> >

> > Mr. Sharp seems not to know that federal research grants have, for some

> > time, provided for technology transfer including the sale or licensing

>of

> > patents. The practice provides societal benefits, rewards to

>researchers,

> > and revenue for universities.

> > _________________________________________________________________

> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

Editor:

I am writing to object to recent attempts by the city attorney's office to widen the definition of “conflict of interest” to the point where few citizens will meet the test of near-complete noninvolvement in the community to qualify to serve on a Berkeley commission.

The pattern of opinions should give cause for concern to all who care about full democratic participation in our civic discourse. According to the city attorney's recent interpretations, those who serve on the boards of nonprofits, even on a purely volunteer basis, should be disqualified from many votes (recent cases include a Parks and Recreation commissioner as well as the Landmarks commissioners who have been prominent in the news). Those who work for the “wrong” employer should be excluded altogether.

While I disagree with Commissioner Gordon Wozniak on the issue of tritium, in good conscience I must fully support his right to serve on the Community Environmental Advisory Committee (CEAC). I have worked closely with Gordon on the Parks and Recreation Commission (where he served as an effective watchdog on budgetary matters) and on two campaigns securing funding for our parks, and I know him to be an independent-minded person with genuine concern for the well-being of the people of Berkeley. Nevertheless, his unquestionable integrity and his good works in the community are not the point here. Nor is my disagreement with him on the environmental impact of tritium. At issue is the right of citizens to serve on our commissions without exclusion based on their participation in the wider community (whether through employment, nonprofit volunteerism, or advocacy on neighborhood issues).

It is unfortunate that a community group whose position I otherwise support has chosen to use the City Attorney's flawed opinion to serve a political goal of excluding Gordon from participation on the CEAC. There are eight other commissioners on the CEAC. Those who disagree with Gordon's opinions about tritium should stick with the merits of their case and stop the unworthy campaign to silence him through public pressure and heckling (evidenced to a discouraging degree at the aborted CEAC meeting of February 22).

Surely a city as steeped in the tradition of free speech as Berkeley can tolerate a diversity of opinions on our commissions. Surely we can understand that broadening the definition of “conflict of interest” beyond obvious financial gain will come at the expense of fewer opinions being heard and less participation in the democratic process. When free speech and full citizen participation are hindered, ultimately we all pay the price.

Nancy Carleton

Former Chair, Zoning Adjustments Board

Former Vice Chair, Parks and Recreation Commission

From:

Nancy Carleton

3044-B Halcyon Court

Berkeley, CA 94705

510-644-0172

Dear Editor:

I urge the Transportation Planning Board to concentrate their spending on public transit for the reasons mentioned above. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Sunaree Marshall

Undergraduate Architecture Major

UC Berkeley

(510) 664-2567

sunaree@uclink.berkeley.edu

Editor:

During dry years, hydro-electric power from Washington and Oregon is only sparingly available to California, and the transmission grid at Lob Banos up from the south is stated to be inadequate. Consequently, increased power generation in North and Central California is highly desirable.

Would it not be possible for the federal government to enable windfarms to be speedily installed (by the state?) on the federally-owned headlands of San Francisco Bay in Marin County and the western Presidio and possibly Fort Funston? The Presidio National Park Trust appears to be ready to rent land for commercial building to the Lucasfilm outfit.

The emplacement of slender propeller-like blades up on poles could surely make the prevailing winds from the Pacific as reliably remunerative as may be the nearly permanent blockbuster encampment of the digital progeny of Mickey Mouse - and at an earlier date, and to satisfy a much greater immediate need.

Possibly, San Francisco’s Park and Recreation Department might allow installation of a small windfarm atop the escarpment of Sutro Heights. Its revenue could bridge the financial gap to complete restoration of the historic and beautiful glass conservatory of flowers in Golden Gate Park, etc.

Judith Segard Hunt

Berkeley

845-1927

Editor:

I found the Daily Planet’s Feb. 27 front page news article on the controversy surrounding Community Environmental Advisory Commission member Dr. Gordon Wozniack ( “Chairman Won’t Quit” ) very interesting.

As a District Eight constituent, I am puzzled as the why Dr. Wozniack apparently does not consider his employment status as a potential commission conflict of interest issue.

According to the Feb. 27 article, Dr. Wozniack is employed by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. He is also acting chair of the Environmental Commission and represents District Eight residents (part of the LBNL facility is located within District Eight’s boundaries).

The Environmental Commission periodically discusses and takes action upon agenda items directly connected to LBNL. It seems to me, given this situation, that it is reasonable to expect Dr. Wozniack to rescue himself from voting on LBNL agenda items.

Another LBNL employee, Berkeley City Councilmember Linda Maio, has rescued herself on a half dozen occasions - to avoid potential conflict of interest - from voting on Council LBNL agenda items over the last several years. I don’t understand why Dr. Wozniack feels compelled to ignore this particular parliamentary rule policy and tradition.

George Azar

Berkeley

415-531-8337

Editor:

As Black property owners, we have often made policy with our hearts. We are major providers of housing for blacks and other diverse tenants in Berkeley.

The tenant and landlord role is not static, one or both roles can be parents, students, seniors, underemployed, or simply a person who needs a break. Often, the black property owners and others of good will are on the front lines of providing housing in a tight market to marginal and low-income tenants. Our rent prices were set by what people could afford. Therefore, many small black property owners did not take yearly increases simply because of hardships on tenants.

Likewise, many elderly small property owners only had their units to cushion a lifetime of small retirement - no stocks or mutual funds. Accordingly, with yearly changes in rent control regulations, small property owners, many of them black, have a legacy of “historically low rents.” We have put our community first.

The Black Property Owners Association has existed since 1987 and our record documents the pervasive reality of historically low rents in South and West Berkeley. Even today, our rents are not on par with other parts of the city. This fact remains so despite comparable units via size, amenities, and meeting and exceedingly implied warranties of habitability and fitness.

The Black Property Owners Association fought to support Inez Watts as she was elected to the Rent Board in the 1980s. The Rent Board refused to let her vote as one landlord out of nine members. The BPOA and other Berkeley citizens finally overturned this gross injustice. However, this injustice spotlights the perpetual unfairness of rent control practice in Berkeley. The rental registration fees have increased from inception to present over one thousand percent.

It is the above context that we bring to the Berkeley General Plan and more precisely the Housing Element Review.

Since Berkeley has experienced the most severe form of rent control in California, both Berkeley tenants and landlords have suffered. We simply know too many landlords, often black, pushed out of Berkeley to bankruptcy and concurrently observed black and other tenants made homeless by failed rent control in Berkeley.

Therefore, we formally and officially reject the inclusion of rent control as an affordable housing policy/program in the housing element of Berkeley and its General Plan.

The Black Property Owners Association rejects the idea/programs of the City to repeal any part, any scintilla, of the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act. The BPOA stands against lobbying or use of city and citizens tax money to undermine the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act.

The return to policies that clearly do not work will cause new rental construction, which we badly need, to be slowed while we, as a city, claim concern for low-income black, seniors, families, disabled, and diverse others.

The Black Property Owners Association opposes any and all references that are pro-rent control in the General Plan and Housing Element. Furthermore, we strongly know that the population of black citizens and landlords or tenants is decreasing in Berkeley and that since rent control in Berkeley in the 1970s we have witnessed the compelling evidence of a steady decline. We know pro-rent control as practiced in Berkeley is synonymous with black removal.

The BPOA, therefore, do not want these elements as part of Berkeley’s revised General Plan or Housing Element.

We urge the inclusion of this letter as part of the official record and we encourage you to provide copies to all Berkeley decision makers and officials connected to the adoption of the General Plan and Housing Element.

Frank Davis, Jr.

President, Black Property Owerns Association

Berkeley

Editor:

President Bush’s report to Congress was full of promises and covered many topics, except a few important ones: Women’s’ reproductive rights were not mentioned (does he think that they have none?) and nothing was said about the administration’s foreign policy (does he have one?).

The President was mainly concerned with returning the current surplus of funds to the tax payers. He logically claims that the tax refund would help most lower and middle class tax payers to pay for the recent increase in oil and energy prices (his own words, as reported in a front page article of the S.F. Chronicle Feb. 6). Of course, the public could be helped if the administration imposed restraints on the price of gas but Bush would not want to cut the profits of their friends in the petroleum business.

Despite our own shortage, the oil currently recovered in Alaska is mostly sent to Japan for sale. The President now proposes to extend oil recovery to still another part of Alaska which is suspected to contain a measly supply of six months on the domestic market. I actually heard a person phoning in to a talk radio program