Page One

United States makes Japan vulnerable 

Editor: 

Although the movie Pearl Harbor’s domestic box office was $186,600,000 as of July 8, 2001, the Bush administration continues to reinforce the shibboleths of U.S. policy vis a vis Japan of the past 55 years. Fear of resurgent Japanese militarism lead to the drafting of a Constitution which now makes it impossible to ward off or even acknowledge the missiles fired into Okinawa Prefecture waters by the People’s Liberation Army. In their concentration on Japanese militarism, the leaders of the Occupation overlooked the communist trade unions and teachers’ organizations. The left has seized upon an ingenious theory that the Pacific War was an imperialist war insofar as it was directed at other Asians, but an anti-imperialist war insofar as it was directed against the U.S. The Crown Prince presided over Bomb Day, August 6, 1960 in Hiroshima. 

Since then, opposition to imperialism has coincided with “peace and Socialism.” The April election of Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi does not portend that the Japanese people are “weary of their country’s colorless political class and its reluctance to buck the influence of the United States (Reese Erlich).” Just as the People’s Liberation Army has won increased support from the Chinese people by delaying the release of the crew of the U.S. surveillance aircraft, the “political class” in Japan can always drip into the friction caused by its status of forces agreement with the U.S. as the readiest way of increasing support for unpopular policies, e.g. raising taxes during a recession.  

Richard Thompson 

Berkeley 

City could be more helpful with recycling 

The Berkeley Daily Planet received this letter addressed to City Councilmember Maio: 

Reports of rat infestation at public housing should make us all shudder and express interest to councilmembers to remedy the situation, immediately. 

At my apartment, recycling bins recently disappeared; the city does a good recycling job with private residences but not with “commercial” users, according to the manager. 

I store wet garbage in my freezer rather than leave it outside in the monster, often overflowing trash bin overnight where flies and vermin have free access; but flies seem more frequent than ever this year. I doubt if everyone is able to avoid attracting pests with my technique. Our landlord may be “penny-wise and pound foolish,” regarding cutting back on recycling, but maybe the city could be more helpful with fee structures, number of pickups, tidiness, etc. 

Terry Cochrell 

Berkeley 

City officials need a lesson in urban planning 

The Berkeley Daily Planet received this letter addressed to the Berkeley City Council and Planning Commission: 

This whole review, comments, responses and comments process is basically flawed. The flaws should have been recognized and corrected right at the beginning by staff, the planning commission, and the politicians — if they wanted the citizens to fully participate and to make appropriate suggestions which could be used to improve the resulting documents. 

The proposed General Plan and the draft EIR should have had summaries at particular points where the intent of the document and the form of the comments was adequately and fully presented. And then the descriptions of the kinds of appropriate responses and comments of citizens should have been outlined so that those comments would be fully and directly to the point. 

Thus the continually repeated responses by the LSA consultant “that the comments do not relate to the adequacy of the Draft EIR” are cop-outs that are deliberately avoiding an answer to the points being made, which are in fact appropriate and deserve a detailed response. 

Note that many of those comments are made by professional planners and experts who know full well what they are discussing which should have had full responses by the LSA consultant. 

All of this goes back to the basic intent of the General Plan which is thoroughly discussed in the book: 

The Urban General Plan, by T. J. Kent, American Planning Association, Chicago, 1990. 

The late Professor Kent was planning director of both Berkeley and San Francisco, member of the Berkeley City Council, and eminent professor of city and regional planning at the University of California. His detailed concept of the basic role of the General Plan should be understood by Berkeley city staff and citizens, of all places. 

Charles L. Smith 

Berkeley 

Information is hard to come by from the city 

Editor: 

I am writing as a member of the working group attempting to forge an ordinance for the siting of RF radiation emitting antennas. 

On June 17 the City Council will be considering an extension on the antenna siting moratorium which it passed six months ago. I have been informed by a city official that the original moratorium and two extensions are permitted by state law for a total of 24 months. The city staff is recommending an extension of five months, which according to Vivian Kahn is based on a recommendation by the City Attorney’s office.  

In my opinion, based on past performance by city staff, the complexity of the issues and the nature of the work remaining to create a reasonable ordinance, which considers both the needs of the community and the cellular industry, a five month extension will create inordinate pressure on an orderly process, and will then require a thirteen month extension to permit the full use of available time, if needed. 

It would seem reasonable to extend the moratorium for half the remaining permitted time, which is nine months, to allow for less pressure. If we are able to get the work done in less time, all to the good. 

I have asked Ms. Kahn what the rational is behind the recommendation of five months, and I wonder what the rush is. As is usually the case, such inquiries seem to fall into a black hole and remain unanswered. This typical disrespect of city staff toward a reasonable request from an involved citizen strikes me as a problem for the council and city manager to look into. I have experienced similar difficulty from the Manager’s office as well, in requesting a copy of his report on the original moratorium. That report was not available until the actual council meeting on the moratorium. At that time the change to the definition of the word “incidental” was slipped in. This change substantially weakened the ability of neighborhoods to exercise the right of a public hearing in applications for antenna siting. I never did get a response to my request for a copy of his report from his office, and several weeks after the fact obtained one from the city clerks office. The city clerks office is thankfully, one department of city government that is responsive to citizens. 

The people of Berkeley need a sunshine ordinance. 

Leonard Schwartzburd, Ph.D. 

Charles and Anne Smith 

Berkeley