“This Election Is About Big Oil,” News, 10/29
Opinions Versus Journalism
Wow, is this supposed to be an opinion piece or does Gammon really
call this journalism? So much for fair and impartial reporting. Given
the tone of this piece it is clear that there are many people on the
public side of the Chevron-Richmond conflict who have not learned much
about how to search out real facts, assess them for credibility, use
them for negotiation, weigh them against prevailing law, and then be
big enough to settle for compromises that work for both sides. That’s a
shame, since both sides stand to win. Richmond stands to win jobs and
revenue from Chevron. Chevron stands to win continued operations in a
legal and peaceful atmosphere. I have watched this conflict escalate
over the past years and have seen mostly unreasonableness from the more
radical side of the Richmond supporters. I have seen mostly workable
reasonableness from those in the city who understand the law and
business negotiations. I have seen extreme hard work by Chevron to meet
the law and the needs of the city. It is too bad opinion pieces like
this, not real journalism, continue to inflame the debate, and
perpetuate incorrect facts.
John MacDonald, San Ramon
“Life of the Party,” Apprehension, 10/29
We’ll Miss You
Thank you Anneli for a great column which often illustrates the
social and cultural context of local crime issues. We will miss your
reporting. Good luck!
Laura Menard, Berkeley
She Goes, I Go
Rufus’s crime column is the best thing in the Express and
about the only non-PC feature therein. If you can’t make room in your
schedule for her, I can’t make room in mine for you.
Michael Hardesty, Oakland
“Kaplan, Bates, deHaan, and Roy, Plus No on 8,” News, 10/29
Google Your Facts
I hope that the Express editorial staff will rethink its
reflexive and often poorly informed coverage of Berkeley
historic preservation issues in light of the decisive defeat of
Measure LL at the polls on November 4.
Nearly 21,000 Berkeley voters — a nearly 5,000 vote
majority — said no to a severely weakened landmarks ordinance and
voted to keep the current ordinance intact. Far from being a small
minority, as frequently mischaracterized by the Express,
Berkeley preservationists had a decisive majority of voters on their
side this time.
One also hopes that newspapers will base their editorial
recommendations on facts, not incuriously repeat false claims of the
side they favor.
For example, in its endorsements section, the Express
stated “Berkeley now has more historical landmarks than San Francisco
and San Jose combined.” Five minutes of Internet searching
confirms that San Jose has at least 152 designated landmarks, and
San Francisco at least 264, for a combined total of 416
landmarks. Berkeley has just a few more than 300.
And while most Berkeley landmarks are single structures, many of the
San Francisco and San Jose “landmarks” are actually much larger
historic districts, some encompassing scores of separate historic
buildings over several square blocks within single “landmark”
designations.
The same issue of the Express also claimed, “For years,
preservationists used the landmarks law to curtail development in the
city.” In fact, very few development proposals in Berkeley involve
historic properties or result in landmark
controversies.
Literally dozens of infill housing and other developments —
some quite large — have been approved and built in Berkeley in
the past couple of decades without any preservation dispute
whatsoever. And the preservation community has actively supported
some key new developments where high-quality infill buildings would
improve the Berkeley streetscape.
In sum, historic preservation in Berkeley is reasonable, mainstream,
not an obstacle to intelligent and thoughtful development, and is in
keeping with the views and values of the majority of Berkeley’s voters,
as expressed on Measure LL.
Steven Finacom, Berkeley
“Fighting for Their Right to Bike,” Feature, 10/29
A Victory for All
I want to express my views of the article recently written by Nate
Seltenrich about the current Measure WW. As a mountain biker who has
lived in the East Bay for the past two-plus years, I care deeply about
equal access to our park lands.
Getting measure WW passed is important, and I for one will be voting
yes next week. Working with the park district in gaining more access to
the desirable single-track trails is in every user’s interest. Opposing
the measure will only alienate the goodwill the mountain bike community
has established over the last twenty years with the district and other
park users. Certainly the district can do better with trail access to
all users, but we as a group need to work with them to achieve
future success.
I look forward to raising my kids in the East Bay, and having my
entire family enjoy and utilize our local district parks for years to
come.
Passing Measure WW is just the next step in achieving that goal.
Brad Polvorosa, Piedmont
Bicyclists Support WW
As a coach of a high school cycling club that rides in many of the
East Bay Regional Parks, I am strongly in support of Measure WW and
will continue, as EBRPD Trail Planner Jim Townsend urged in the
article, to work with the park district to develop increased cycling
opportunities within the existing parks. The article correctly points
out that the “magic ingredient” to responsible trail planning is
participation by all interested parties, and the City of Oakland should
be commended for its formation of the Joaquin Miller Working Group, on
which I served for a number of years as a representative of cycling
interests. The EBRPD needs to look very closely at how cyclists and
other trail users are able to share the trails in the relatively small
Joaquin Miller Park and apply similar tactics to encourage safe and
respectful use of the trails within the EBRPD’s lands.
It is time that all trail users learn to work together to share the
wonderful natural lands that are within our region. While mountain
bikers might be relative “latecomers” as EBRPD Board President Ayn
Weiskamp states, the elected board needs to understand that many of us
have been riding within the parks for twenty-plus years and that
cyclists are incredibly active stewards of lands — contributing
hundreds of hours of volunteer time to trail repair and education and
helping kids discover nature and improve their physical fitness by
getting outdoors on their bicycles. Rational cyclists are supporting
Measure WW and look forward to working with an elected EBRPD Board of
Directors that is reasonable and willing to be educated regarding how
bicycle access can be safely and responsibly incorporated into both
existing and future park lands.
Austin McInerny, Berkeley
Trails Are for Everyone
I agree that there is an unequal treatment of trail users. Bike
riders in the East Bay Park system are unfairly characterized as
malcontents. Many of the bike riders I know are courteous and
respectful, yet a few bad apples continue to ruin it for everyone.
There are many stories of hikers harassing bikers on the trails, yet no
one hears about that. It should be understood that the trails are for
everyone, not just hikers and equestrians. I think they should allow
more single-track use by mountain bike riders, and an alternate day
system sounds like a good place to start.
Like all people who enjoy the parks, no one wants to be on a fire
road, and some of the greatest areas to ride are the single-tracks. I
cannot see the need to provide tax money to the parks without an
agreement in place for equal use prior to passing the measure.
Shem Stygar, San Ramon
We Can’t All Get Along
As someone who grew up riding dirt bikes in the East Bay hills, I
can tell you that there will never be a way to have riders, hikers, and
equestrians simply getting along on the trails. There are way too many
people out there these days and the three things just don’t mix
physically. Bikes are fast and loud, horses get spooked, and hikers are
busy looking at trees and birds. They will always get in each other’s
way. A friend and I were on a bike ride sometime ago when a guy who
must have been eighty years old got out in front of us and began
yelling that we were “Worthless Swine!” while attempting to grab my
friend’s handlebars. We were probably moving at less than one mile per
hour on an uphill grade with more than enough room on the trail for
everyone. It was complete road rage in Tilden Park. We couldn’t believe
it. I also know guys who ride downhill bikes and have smashed around
corners only to have people literally jumping out of their way. Another
time I was standing on the side of a trail in Redwood with my bike
leaning against a rock, waiting for my wife, when an elderly man’s
horse noticed me, spooked, then reared and fell down just about
crushing the guy and nearly falling into a ravine only to then stand
back up as if nothing had happened. That shit was horrifying to
watch.
A surefire way that the park folks can make everyone happy is to
spend some time and some of this newly acquired space on dedicated MTB
trails. And make them good! Get local riders together, and let them
design/make the trails that will give them the technical challenge and
the space they’re looking for. Equestrians and hikers will be fine
together so long as the hikers keep their dogs under control. Then
everyone can get along from a distance.
Justin Page, Richmond
They’re Cry Babies
Conflicts between bikers and other park users are rare, and I say
that as a runner, but this anti-WW group really amounts to a political
temper tantrum. We all enjoy the parks and we’ll figure out how to use
the new land in a way that’s fair to everyone. I showed up to an EBRPD
meeting about a year ago because I didn’t think Selby should be opened
to bikes and I was impressed that there was a bike advocacy group
— the Bicycle Trails Council, which in this article wisely points
out that no land means no trails. In the specific case of Selby I
disagreed with the group and its representative, but he was prepared
with facts, and as I recall at that meeting other trails were opened
for consideration. A yes on WW is good for mountain bikers and everyone
else.
Michael Caton, Oakland
We Can All Get Along
It’s important to be clear about what it is that cyclists want from
the EBRPD. No one is asking to ride “where ever they want” as Kulas
suggests. Nor is anyone trying to “destroy everything.” Inflammatory
exaggerations only make one sound unnecessarily inflammatory.
Trails are merely passages through beautiful, natural spaces. Just
like hikers, dog walkers, and equestrians, cyclists are only interested
in passing through such beautiful spaces. Just a few hours from the
East Bay, 26-acre Annadel State Park in Sonoma County provides a great
example of the potential for a shared narrow trail experience. On any
given day, hikers, equestrians, and cyclists trade greetings as they
pass one another safely on narrow and wide trails alike.
Currently in the EBRPD system, cyclists have no opportunity to enjoy
the majority of these trails despite being a significant portion of the
audience/user population. On the few trails that cyclists can access,
incidents of conflicts have been sparse at best. To me, this suggests
that more trails can indeed be shared by all willing users, but it
requires that they treat each other with civility in the process.
Josh Church, Oakland
Treat Them Like Dirt
Better East Bay Parks, a mountain biking organization, opposed
Measure WW because the East Bay Regional Park District “has failed to
properly manage and provide access to its existing land, especially for
mountain bikers.” “Mountain bikers are treated as second-class
citizens,” according to spokesperson Ted Stroll.
As a 49-year-old lifelong hiker in the Santa Cruz and Diablo Range
parks and mountains, I have just a couple of comments. One, mountain
bikers as a group deserve to be treated as second-class citizens. I’ve
never been nearly run over and seriously injured by any hiker or
equestrian, going 20 or 30 miles an hour down a narrow mountain trail,
as has happened to me numerous times from mountain bikers. Two, I hope
that Better East Bay Parks, and mountain bikers that support it, put
their money where their mouths are and stop using the parks in the East
Bay; if they oppose funding for parks, they have forfeited their right
to use them. Anything less would be hypocritical; do the rest of us a
favor and stay home, or go somewhere else.
Larry Jensen, Oakland
Editor’s Note
Voters approved Measure WW on November 4.
