The Bush administration became infamous over the years for
perverting the English language to disguise its true motives. When
large timber interests wanted to log national forests, they called it
the “Healthy Forests Initiative.” And when corporate polluters sought
to pollute the air even more, they dubbed it the “Clean Skies
Initiative.” In the last few weeks, however, a group of Berkeley
anti-growth advocates has come up with a bit of language perversion
that would make Karl Rove proud.
The group, led by councilmembers Kriss Worthington and Jesse
Arreguín, is attempting to overturn a plan adopted last month by
a majority of the Berkeley City Council that could lead to dense urban
growth. The plan itself is groundbreaking. It would require that all
new buildings in downtown Berkeley meet strict environmental standards
and it pushes the envelope on what is possible for downtown
development. The plan also could help Berkeley meet its aggressive
greenhouse-emissions goals by increasing urban density, and thereby
slowing the need for long commutes.
But the anti-growth group wants Berkeley voters to overturn the
so-called Downtown Area Plan, because they say it doesn’t go far
enough. So they’ve launched a referendum campaign to put the issue on
the ballot. The group calls itself the “Alliance for a Green and
Livable Downtown.” In truth, however, the group is advocating for a
downtown that will be neither green nor livable because if its demands
are met, it likely will result in a revised plan that will stifle
downtown development, prohibit the city from doing more to fight global
warming, and help spur suburban sprawl at the same time.
But the group’s name isn’t the only thing that’s misleading. The
language on the official referendum petition, for example, tells voters
that the city’s downtown plan comes “without the environmental
protections and improvements essential for a vibrant downtown.” In
reality, however, page 27 of the plan specifically requires that all
new buildings or major renovations in downtown Berkeley be rated “LEED
Gold or its equivalent.” LEED is an internationally recognized
green-rating system developed by the US Green Building Council. It has
four rating categories. A gold rating is the second most
environmentally stringent after platinum.
“It’s completely inflammatory and deceitful,” Erin Rhoades, the
volunteer executive director of Livable Berkeley, a pro-downtown
development group, said of the referendum campaign. Rhoades, whose
husband is a developer and former city planner, also said that the
anti-growth group’s signature gatherers have attempted to fool voters
by asking, “Do want a green downtown?” when attempting to collect
signatures. Livable Berkeley and other supporters of the council’s
decision have been showing up on street corners, talking to voters
alongside the signature gatherers, trying to set the record straight.
The petitioners must collect about 5,500 valid signatures by next
week.
The Alliance for a Green and Livable Downtown also has come under
criticism for posting a letter on its web site from the Sierra Club,
making it seem as if the respected environmental group supports the
referendum, when, in fact, it has taken no position. (The alliance’s
web site is GreenDowntownBerkeley.org, a
name that also would surely make Rove smile.) The letter posting
prompted Kent Lewandowski, chair of the Sierra Club Northern Alameda
County Group, to write a second letter to the council and area
activists, clarifying that the Sierra Club neither supports nor opposes
the referendum or the city’s downtown area plan.
In an interview, Lewandowski expressed disappointment that the
alliance had posted the Sierra Club’s letter, and thus had confused
people as to the club’s true position, saying he “would rather not see
our letter on the web site.” The letter came from the club in late May
and expressed opposition to the downtown plan developed by the city’s
planning commission. The club backed a second plan put together by a
city-sponsored panel. Originally, the council was leaning toward
adopting the planning commission plan, but then in June and July it
incorporated many of the requests made by the Sierra Club into the
final downtown plan. “Let me put it this way,” Lewandowski said, “we’re
not totally unhappy with what came out of council.”
When asked whether the alliance planned to remove the Sierra Club’s
letter from its web site, Arreguín told Eco Watch that the issue
was being “discussed.” After Lewandowski sent out his clarification
letter, the alliance posted an addendum on its web site, noting that
the Sierra Club neither supports nor opposes the referendum campaign.
“In no way do we want to mislead people into thinking that the Sierra
Club has taken a position on the issue,” Arreguín said.
But when asked if the referendum petition itself was misleading,
Arreguín acknowledged that the final downtown plan requires LEED
Gold ratings on new buildings and major renovations. But he maintained
that the council also should have required developers to pay for “open
space and transportation mitigations,” along with more affordable
housing. Arreguín also argued that such requirements would not
kill downtown development, despite assurances from developers that they
would and a city-commissioned feasibility that concurred with
developers. “I think it will still be profitable for developers to
build in downtown Berkeley, regardless of the requirements we put on
it,” the councilman said.
But of course, if that were true, then developers would have
clamored to build in downtown Berkeley during the housing boom. But
they did not, and they certainly won’t once the housing market
rebounds, if the anti-growth advocates have their way.
