“Measure Y and the Oakland Budget Mess,” Full Disclosure, 4/22
Don’t Blame the Workers
It was disappointing to see the Express and some politicians
resorting to corporate-style “blame the workers” rhetoric.
Oakland’s budget crisis is no mystery: Like every major city,
revenues have plummeted due to the collapse of the housing market and
the resulting recession.
Police, fire, and legal mandates account for all but $70 million of
the general fund. Even if every civilian employee worked for free, it
still wouldn’t solve the problem.
Civilian employees have not had raises since 2007 and are not asking
for raises in our current contract talks. We suffered layoffs last
October and since January we’ve taken 10 percent pay cuts. We have
offered more economic concessions and proposed a retirement incentive
program to shrink the workforce by attrition instead of forced layoffs,
but the city still demands more cuts.
Oakland’s police received a 4 percent pay increase in 2008 and will
get another 4 percent raise in July. The city spends more per officer
on overtime than any other city in the country — as much as
$35,000 each. In San Francisco, the police agreed to defer $14 million
in raises to help close their deficit.
Our members are ready to do their part, but this crisis requires
that everyone share the burden. Our alternative budget to fix Oakland’s
crisis will be released soon. We hope residents and our political
leaders will support reasonable budget solutions that reflect Oakland’s
values and protect services, jobs, and quality of life.
Jeffrey Levin, vice-president for Oakland, and Bob Muscat,
executive director, IFPTE Local 21
“There Will Be Blood,” Theater, 4/29
There Will Be Spoilers
I enjoyed Rachel Swan’s enthusiasm and style in the recent review of
Berkeley Repertory Theatre’s The Lieutenant of Inishmore in the
East Bay Express. That said, I was extremely disappointed by how
much of the plot and the surprises of the play are given away in it!
Ms. Swan herself says in this article of McDonagh’s playwrighting: “He
has a wonderful way of withholding details … saving the ‘aha’ moment
for the very end.” In reading this review, I only wished Ms. Swan could
have taken inspiration from McDonagh, and thought twice before
revealing so much of what happens, as much of this play’s (and most
plays’!) strength is in surprising its audience.
Too late for this review, of course, but perhaps something to
consider in the future.
Michael Austin, San Francisco
“Sierra Water Grab,” Feature, 4/29
Consider the Sierras
East Bay residents, I urge you to think about your impact —
this time in the sierras. I own a house in Amador County and clearly
see the degradation of land and river to get EBMUD water to the Bay
Area. Let’s choose conservation and water recycling rather than ruining
our sierras. Please support the Foothill Conservancy that works to
protect the sierras for future generations: FoothillConservancy.org.
Catherine Squire, Richmond
“Backpedaling in the East Bay,” Seven Days, 4/29
Rush Isn’t a Blowhard
Robert Gammon is lying when he writes that Rush Limbaugh is “an
idiot blowhard who wants … Obama, and … the country to fail.”
What Limbaugh said was: Obama wants to nationalize banking,
healthcare, and the auto industry. I hope he fails.
Let’s review. 1) Banking: The top honchos in the Obama
administration are the same people who gave us Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae,
and years of unregulated credit bubbles.
2) Healthcare: Do we really want to be like Canada and have
seventeen-week waits to see a doctor?
3) Detroit: Our auto industry is dying because people can buy cars
they like better, for less money, from other makers. Obama is doing
nothing to address the $7 billion GM coughed up last year for pensions
and retiree health benefits, leaving far less money for research and
product development. Next to numbers like that, restricting
executive pay is less than a finger in the dike, while unionized greed
is unchecked, enacting laws that require us to buy costlier, unproven
“green” vehicles won’t stop the carnage (pun intended).
Gammon usually has been reliable and accurate. This was a
disappointment.
David Altschul, J.D., Berkeley
Don’t Sacrifice Berkeley
We cannot save the planet by destroying Berkeley.
If Berkeley’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) is worth doing, it is worth
doing right with ample council and public thought and discussion
— which has absolutely not yet occurred. I implore our council,
in the interests of democracy and the well-being of this city, to
postpone any adoption or pre-adoptive votes until:
1. There have been several council workshops/public hearings to
thoroughly and publicly discuss and vet the plan. No more
strong-arming please.
2. There has been a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to
determine impacts. The idea of the proposed Negative Declaration
(“because the CAP would not result in any significant adverse
environmental impacts,” per Climate Action Coordinator Burroughs) is
patently absurd. We cannot know the negative impacts without the EIR
and a plan of this scope inherently has negative impacts.
On specific CAP proposals, we need at least the following
changes:
1. Creation of homeowner incentives, not mandates, whether at time
of sale or otherwise. Use of a Transfer Tax and other possible tax
rebates as incentives is excellent. Yes, the city will get less
revenue, but if the CAP goal is so worthy, the money will be well, and
likely better, spent. In these economic times, it is cruel and
unusual punishment to suggest further financial burdens on our
residents.
2. Careful study and reconsideration of any measures that are
inherently wasteful, like new appliances, cars, windows, buildings etc.
when the old ones still work or can be made to work.
3. The EIR needs to assess the impacts of the CAP on open space,
solar access, views, historic resources, etc. These are also part of
our physical environment and have climate as well as social
impact. This assessment is exactly what a full EIR will do and why
it is absolutely necessary.
4. More attention paid to UC Berkeley impacts on the local
environment and Measure G goals. What good will it do for the city and
its stakeholders to reduce their impacts when UCB is ratcheting up
negative impacts?
Our city must not continue the strong-arm behavior that this CAP has
thus far engendered. Let’s have a thorough and civil
discussion. Measure G was not a license for a totalitarian remake
of our city. The council should take no action now on the
CAP other than to extend the timeline, recommend a full
Environmental Impact Report, and input several preliminary amendments
based on the foregoing.
Barbara Gilbert, Berkeley
