“Gary for Governor,” Feature, 8/6
Finally, someone who got the point
Could it be that Californians who voted against the recall took this farce of an election seriously and expected their votes for Bustamante or McClintock were less wasted than mine and other Californians who voted for Mr. Coleman? It has taken me only 22 years of voting to realize that the only wasted vote is a vote diverted to the candidate who is the lesser of two evils. How many Californians voted for Gray Davis as opposed to an independent because they were afraid of allowing Davis’ opponent to win?
I do not feel my vote for Mr. Coleman was wasted. I can honestly say I fantasized about millions of Californians waking up on October 8, reading the paper, and gasping in shock as they realized they got what they asked for: A recalled governor and a former child star in his place who did not even want the job. Hopefully, not lost in this election will be a recognition by those who can shout with a loud voice to our new governor, “Tread softly and represent us well … you are governor at the whim of a small majority who voted you in … precedent has been set and your position is tenuous. We can now change you as easily as we change our minds.”
Craig Englander, Los Angeles
“A Walking Tour of Berkeley’s Hysterical Landmarks,” Feature, 9/17
Behind the Berkeley Landmarks clique
As a former planning intern for the Berkeley Landmarks Preservation Commission, I found Will Harper’s piece very accurate. Preservation in Berkeley has nothing to do with history or community, but rather with forcing the agenda of a small but powerful clique of, to use the Express‘ own words, hysterical Berkeley residents who grew up in the city, and now, as they are passing through midlife, feel the need to frantically grab at vestiges of the city of their youth with no regard for actual historical “fact.” In the mind of the commission, “fact” is an abstract term that can only be determined by the members of the commission, unless, of course, it gets appealed to the city council by citizens who have enough time and money to fight the process.
In the year I worked for the commission, I witnessed eight properties landmarked or made into structures of merit, the majority done out of hatred and spite. It’s interesting to look at where these landmark proposals come from and who the authors are. Not too surprisingly, one finds the names of several of the “hysterical” commissioners often appearing in the authorship line of designation proposals. It’s also interesting to note that some of these “hysterical” commissioners are also members of (and on the board of directors in some cases), and in one case an employee of, the Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association (the city seems to have caught on to this quaint little coincidence, as this conflict-of-interest matter is currently being tried in court).
If the commission is really expressing the will of the community instead of acting out its own personal agenda, why aren’t more designation proposals coming out of the community? Sure, it takes a lot of work and time to research and write a landmark application, but if something is truly worthy and the community really wants it, couldn’t a willing author be found? Not to mention the fact that these “hysterical” commissioners end up costing the city tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars in legal and administrative costs resulting from their wanton and reckless landmarking of anything they lay their eyes on. Members of the commission have managed to transform what should be a joyful celebration of community and history into a negative and spiteful process, pitting neighbor against neighbor.
And of course there’s the dubious nature of what really qualifies as a landmark and thus is worthy of preservation. Let’s take the case of 2008 University Avenue, the home of the Darling Flower Shop, as an example. The drama with this project started when the more “hysterical” members of the commission saw the name of the evil developer Patrick Kennedy on a project proposal and immediately went into high gear to try to halt the project, peer-pressuring some of the more reluctant commissioners into initiating the building for consideration as a structure of merit (LPC minutes 10/1/01). The property owner in this case merely wanted to develop his property so that he could retire and live off the rent from the apartment units and pass along the flower shop, which had operated from the location since the 1930s, to his children. If he weren’t allowed to develop his land, he would have no choice but to sell the property, spelling the end of the Darling Flower Shop.
So what’s more of a landmark in this case: a dilapidated wooden structure with no real architectural or historical significance, or a business that has operated continuously in downtown Berkeley for three-quarters of a century? The commission has proven in the past that anything is fair game when it comes to landmarking, so why not a business? How to decide? It’s really quite simple; whichever would halt development the most in the city.
Something must be done to stop this out-of-control commission. The Landmarks Preservation Ordinance has existed in Berkeley for over a quarter of a century. Why hasn’t a comprehensive survey of the city been conducted to help ensure that individuals not abuse the process? It would be interesting for the city to conduct a study to see what the monetary costs of such frivolous landmarkings as 2008 University or 1102 Tenth Street have cost the city.
Of course, monetary costs are one thing, the social and psychological costs to the community resulting from the ill will and negativity created by such designations are immeasurable.
Karolina Bufka, Berkeley
Why the wall isn’t “crummy”
Will Harper’s wordy but scantily researched article is high on opinion and woefully low on facts. I will confine myself to the Le Conte Avenue wall, a case with which I am intimately familiar.
The wall of contention is not merely a “crummy retaining wall,” as Harper and Mary Hanna would have it. It is part of the Hillside Club Street Improvements in the Daley’s Scenic Park Tract, City of Berkeley Landmark No. 75, designated in July 1983 — thirteen years before Mary Hanna bought the Bentley House at 2683 Le Conte Avenue. According to its 1911-12 Yearbook, the club’s object was primarily “to protect the hills of Berkeley from unsightly grading and the building of unsuitable and disfiguring houses; to do all in our power to beautify these hills, and above all to create and encourage a decided public opinion on these subjects.”
The Hillside Club took an active role to ensure that Daley’s Scenic Park remained unspoiled by outside interests. The Hillside Club Street Improvements include not only the Le Conte Avenue retaining wall but an entire system of walls, median strips, stairways, and elevated sidewalks that form a continuous line over blocks in Daley’s Scenic Park, including Le Conte, La Loma, LeRoy, Virginia, and Hilgard avenues. These street improvements visually unify our neighborhood, lend it a unique character, and support the planted slopes that contribute to the peaceful ambience we all love.
Yet the walls are in constant danger. Every seven years in recent memory, there has been an attempt to remove part of the walls for private gain. In 1983, a precedent driveway was built at 1709 La Loma Avenue. Upon obtaining the city’s approval for the driveway, the owner promptly sold the house and moved out of Berkeley. In 1990, the owners of 1715 La Loma Avenue, without a permit, cut down all vegetation from the public elevated planted strip in front of their property and cut into the retaining wall to build another driveway. Luckily, the project was halted.
In 1997, Mary Hanna came along, wishing to replace a thirty-foot wall section (in a fifty-foot frontage) with a garage that would also have required excavation into the hillside, replaced a significant portion of the planted slope in front of the house, and been tall enough to obscure a significant portion of the Bentley house itself (a brown-shingle Dutch Colonial Revival constructed by A.H. Broad in 1900), although the latter is situated at the very top of the slope. No matter how old the “ugly old retaining wall” is, it is infinitely more harmonious with its surroundings than Hanna’s proposed hulking garage would have been.
Will Harper reports: “When she bought the Bentley house it was a disaster, Hanna says.” In fact, the house only became a disaster after Hanna had left it open to the elements for an entire winter. “Without parking, Hanna says, she couldn’t sell the house.” Lo and behold, not long after the debacle, the Bentley house was sold again, and without parking. Since then it’s been beautifully restored by its present owner, whose family of five actually lives and thrives in the house.
According to Harper, “Realtor Mary Hanna isn’t this story’s pariah, but its victim.” Hanna knew what she was getting into. She took a business gamble and lost. Had she won, an entire neighborhood would have been the loser.
Daniella Thompson, Berkeley
Save the shag carpet!
The article on Berkeley’s hysterical landmarks explains a lot about the appearance of the Bay Area. I moved to this area two years ago, and cannot believe the terrible quality and state of disrepair of the buildings in Berkeley and throughout the Bay Area. I’ve often thought that there was nothing wrong with Bay Area structures that a truckload of dynamite and a bulldozer couldn’t fix. I’m certain some commission must have bestowed landmark status upon shag carpet from the 1970s. How else can its pervasiveness in rental units be explained? Your article does a great job of outing the regressives who have done so much to spoil the quality of life here.
John Schroeder, Castro Valley
Our one truly sacred site
Will Harper’s assessment of the West Berkeley shellmound is blind and misinformed.
At the original shoreline by the mouth of Strawberry Creek, the mound was once thirty feet high and a hundred yards long, a pyramid of shell and earth, a burial ground for ancestors of the Ohlone Indians, a sacred site. The Ohlone people lived here continuously from around 3,700 BCE until 800 AD, when they moved their village, and thereafter used the mound as a ceremonial site.
The Berkeley Shellmound is the earliest inhabited location in the Bay Area. Contrary to Harper’s misinformation, archaeologists have recovered large numbers of tools and ornaments from the mound, and 95 human burials. Most of the artifacts are stored in the catacombs of UC. Yes, the above-ground part of the shellmound was leveled and paved over. But much of the below-ground part remains intact today, extending up to twenty feet down in some parts, under parking lots, streets, railroad tracks, and buildings. Ceremonies are still performed on the mound today by the local native people.
The shellmound needs to be treasured and preserved, the heritage of future generations. A museum should be built on the spot, with access down into layers of the mound. It is the one truly sacred site in Berkeley. The Muwekma Ohlone Tribe and the City of Berkeley are currently negotiating a collaborative legal and economic framework for all decision-making over the mound.
When you step onto that West Berkeley parking lot, let the mound below transport you back a thousand years. Hear the drum beats, the rattles, whistles, and chants of the dancers, feel the stomp of their feet.
John Curl, planning commissioner, Berkeley
CORRECTION
The Radiohead album Kid A was released in 2000, not 2001, as we suggested in “Radiohead Rorschach” (9/17).
