Good Riddance Berkeley
I'm sorry for the incoming students, but I'll be happy to leave this town. The people exhaust me, and they make me loathe to ever move back here. For example, the Chronicle reports this chilling (pun) story today. The Berkeley Iceland, closed because it is unsafe, was in the process of being sold so it could become a Headstart preschool. Against the owner and future owners' wishes, a group of Berkeley citizens convinced the City Council to make it a "historical landmark," preventing any part of the building from being torn down.
The owners proposed saving the facade, but converting the rest of the building to its new use. No dice. The City Council instead adopted the most stringent designation preventing any structural changes, mind you, to a building already deemed insafe.
Get ready for the kicker: "A building's interior and use cannot be considered in landmark proceedings, so Iceland advocates focused on the structure's architectural flourishes and history." But the facade wasn't enough. And why not? "It was built in 1940 to fill a great need in the community for recreation and entertainment, and we believe that need still exists," said Elizabeth Grassetti, who co-filed Iceland's landmark application.
So, the community group feels an ice rink is still necessary, even though the owners appear more than ready to exit the business for more profitable ventures. But recall, the landmark designation law doesn't allow the inside use of a building to be considered. So the application filer essentially concedes that the "architectural" virtues of the building are a sham.
But wait, for there's more. The article ends: "Save Berkeley Iceland was one of five bidders for the property after it closed in March. Rickles said the group's bid was the lowest. Because the building has been landmarked in its entirety, the current sale could crumble and the building's value will significantly fall." Thanks to a sham landmark designation, the only bidder left will be... Save Berkeley Iceland. Why pay what the market demands when you can abuse city government?
I wish this had been an isolated incident over the three years I've lived here, but it's not. Ask yourself what happened to CLIF Bar and where the Trader Joe's on University Ave. is. I didn't come to Berkeley an acolyte of limited government, but I leave a convert (for many reasons), but in part by seeing the rampant abuse of power and disrespect for individuals propogated by the city government here.
--
More on Save Berkeley Iceland.
--
You may also remember Berkeley Iceland from this case. The Chronicle article on the settlement is here, and a longer article is here. The value of the settlement to me looks a lot less than the cost of ltiigation, but then it may also have been that the plaintiffs were happy to trade damages for injunctive relief and donations to their lawyers (an aspect of the settlement curiously not noted in the NCLR press release but in the Chronicle article. [UPDATE: This is not true. A "donation" is mentioned in the press release. My lazy reading missed it.]). I remember when the case happened, and it still looks funny to me.
Anyway, between the civil rights litigation and the historic landmark designation, I wouldn't fault the Zamboni family for wanting to get out of Berkeley either.
The owners proposed saving the facade, but converting the rest of the building to its new use. No dice. The City Council instead adopted the most stringent designation preventing any structural changes, mind you, to a building already deemed insafe.
Get ready for the kicker: "A building's interior and use cannot be considered in landmark proceedings, so Iceland advocates focused on the structure's architectural flourishes and history." But the facade wasn't enough. And why not? "It was built in 1940 to fill a great need in the community for recreation and entertainment, and we believe that need still exists," said Elizabeth Grassetti, who co-filed Iceland's landmark application.
So, the community group feels an ice rink is still necessary, even though the owners appear more than ready to exit the business for more profitable ventures. But recall, the landmark designation law doesn't allow the inside use of a building to be considered. So the application filer essentially concedes that the "architectural" virtues of the building are a sham.
But wait, for there's more. The article ends: "Save Berkeley Iceland was one of five bidders for the property after it closed in March. Rickles said the group's bid was the lowest. Because the building has been landmarked in its entirety, the current sale could crumble and the building's value will significantly fall." Thanks to a sham landmark designation, the only bidder left will be... Save Berkeley Iceland. Why pay what the market demands when you can abuse city government?
I wish this had been an isolated incident over the three years I've lived here, but it's not. Ask yourself what happened to CLIF Bar and where the Trader Joe's on University Ave. is. I didn't come to Berkeley an acolyte of limited government, but I leave a convert (for many reasons), but in part by seeing the rampant abuse of power and disrespect for individuals propogated by the city government here.
--
More on Save Berkeley Iceland.
--
You may also remember Berkeley Iceland from this case. The Chronicle article on the settlement is here, and a longer article is here. The value of the settlement to me looks a lot less than the cost of ltiigation, but then it may also have been that the plaintiffs were happy to trade damages for injunctive relief and donations to their lawyers (an aspect of the settlement curiously not noted in the NCLR press release but in the Chronicle article. [UPDATE: This is not true. A "donation" is mentioned in the press release. My lazy reading missed it.]). I remember when the case happened, and it still looks funny to me.
Anyway, between the civil rights litigation and the historic landmark designation, I wouldn't fault the Zamboni family for wanting to get out of Berkeley either.
Labels: Moving Out, Only In Berkeley
posted by Tom Fletcher at 9:40 PM
32 Comments:
Uhm, bitter much? I'm not going to argue the merits of this particular issue as I don't know any more about it than the one-sided set of facts posted here, but I really love Berkeley, for better or worse. It has heart, and isn't afraid to do what it thinks is best, making values other than profit paramount. There are very few places anywhere in this world where that is the case. If Clif Bars wants to go somewhere else, that's fine. I'm glad Berkeley exists and can experiment. It's still doing pretty well for itself.
I'd also like to say that, as much as I love this blog to the extent its a forum for Boalt students to get together and talk, I really hope some of the incoming students start their own blog now that the people who run this one have graduated. And I hope the new students are no less opinionated, but represent a greater cross section of Boalt. I wouldn't necessarily say Armen, Tom, and the gang are conservative by general standards in the country, but they are pretty far right relative to Berkeley and Boalt. I'd still love to have someone with that perspective and background, but also more people like Earl and Mad JD and the like. OLs, please pick up the torch!
And Armen et al., please don't misunderstand, I love what you've done here and am grateful for it. I don't need to exist in an echo chamber, but I'd appreciate a Boalt blog with Boalt's character, Boalt's spirit. One that would never, ever utter the words "good riddance, Berkeley."
Forgive me if this seems condescending, but I think "good riddance Berkeley" is very in keeping with the spirit of Boalt.
I don't even live in Berkeley, and as a rising 2L I've already had more than my fill. The hypocrisy of this town is mind boggling.
Walk from Boalt to telegraph and you'll come across at least 5 people shouting about some sort of social justice cause, which would be great, except it seems they haven't REALLY looked at Berkeley.
I mean, have you really thought about this place? In a town full of self-proclaimed crusaders for social justice, students and low income families pay exorbitant rents for barely livable housing conditions on the south side, people, some of which appear to suffer from severe mental disorders, live on the streets with no access to health care or even shelter while the rest of the city pats themselves on the back for how tolerant they are of "street people", if Tom's right (and I don't see why he would lie), they'd prevent a head start (a social justice program) facility to preserve an unsafe "landmark", oh and that's not even to mention the millionaires living in the Berkeley hills literally "looking down" on the rest of the town.
Please. Whatever this place was in the '60s, its nothing but a cruel sham now.
Berkeley really isn't to blame for the homeless problem. The city is in a damned-if-you-do -and- damned-if-you-don't position. So if Berkeley kicks out the homeless, everyone will decry how homeless people have the right to exist, yadda yadda. But if Berkeley does nothing (which is really the only option, because the city doesn't have the resources, nor should it be responsible for solving the Bay Area's homeless problem), then people decry how cruel it is to let people go homeless.
Fuuuuck, is this the ice rink on Milvia? I love that place!!
But I'm a bit confused. What's wrong with preserving the ice rink? Are you (Tom) complaining about the slightly underhanded way they went about getting it?
I agree that the way the Save Icerink group handled this seems a bit haphazard, but what's wrong with maintaining a community recreation place, even if isn't as "profitable" as another venture, so long as people want it?
Tom, you're going to fit right in in DC where they tear everything down every few years and put a new chain in ;)
10:50, if it was a good idea to keep the (private) ice rink for community use, the proper process would be a condemnation hearing using the city's eminent domain power and payment of fair market value for the facility.
This is more subtle. Instead, a group of locals captured the city council, imposed a regulation (no taking), destoryed the building's value, and can now sweep in and get it for much less than its fair market value.
It's a gross abuse of a majority trampling a minority's rights. In Berkeley. I'm with Ashley on this one.
As for DC... I couldn't agree more that it's a poster child for overwhelming government control and failure.
Oh, in other news, Kelo's home got taken down today.
10:06, I love your endorsement of federalism. I just draw the line of experimentation at violating others' rights. But I agree - it is good that Berkeley can have the courage to run a New State Ice experiment for us. While I think it will go down as a miserable failure with respect to parking enforcement, oppressive zoning and landmark designations, I think believe its stance on possession enforcement will be the law in 25-50 years.
As for other forums, feel free to start one. Blogger doesn't cost a penny.
From SBI's site:
"While this is a big step, there is still a long journey ahead to complete our goal. While we do have a lease proposal submitted to the owner's agent, we will be stepping up our efforts to raise funds to lease and purchase the site. From the hearing it was apparent that the only thing separating us from the owners is money. If we can prove to them that we are both serious and capable of providing a fair value for the property, we believe they would look favorably on our offer. With over $50,000 collected, we are on a good path to raising the funds needed. Keep an eye on the site to see how you can help."
Yes, I'm sure the owners who were going to sell for $6.5 million are very interested in SBI's $50 thousand. Good to see that SBI admits that the historical landmark designation was just cover for navigating into possession.
Notwithstanding Tom’s throw-away line about “limited government” – and certainly not wanting to jeopardize my status as his alternative! – I should note there is nothing “liberal” about what the city government is doing. Just the opposite in fact.
‘Liberal’ roughly means believing in the active use of government to help people who need it. Kids don’t need ice rinks. They need better schools. Using city government to preserve recreation for rich people instead of turning the structure over to a YMCA and Head Start for poor people is pretty much the diametric opposite of ‘liberal.’ It’s more like some combination of NIMBYism, elitism, a self-interested wish to “preserve the community” (e.g. keep it friendly for upper-class yuppies), misplaced nostalgia, and bourgeois values.
Same goes for the Trade Joes development (although I think it was approved today 5-3, remarkably). In addition to better schools, poor people also need a) housing and b) accessible grocery stores. It’s hard to see how either is served by keeping an empty lot undeveloped.
The larger problem with the City of Berkeley is that it has lost sight of the fundamental goal of liberalism -- which, again, is helping people -- and instead corrupted admirable lefty tendencies into some sort of repository for bizarre, irrelevant causes (protect us from nanotechnology!), the interests of moneyed property owners (keep out new housing!), and the idle preferences of rich dilettantes (more parking spots for Priuses!).
That each of those causes does absolutely nothing for the mass of poor and working-class Berkeley residents struggling to make ends meet is, I think most people will agree, largely beyond debate.
So as a liberal, I'm doubly pissed at the City of Berkeley 1) for not doing more to genuinely help poor people and 2) in doing otherwise, driving moderates like Tom needlessly to the right.
That said, I’m not sure why Tom suddenly has an objection to what seems like an obvious and valid civil rights suit: places of public accommodation shouldn’t be harassing gay people. Granted, I can see how this might discourage the Ice Rink from staying open, but society has made a broad choice that eliminating discrimination is a worthy goal even if it discourages some economic activity (having bigots operate ice rinks, for one), and I seriously doubt anyone but the hardest-core libertarians would have it otherwise.
I also worry that Tom thinks we need stronger limits on government in general -- limits that would restrict good policy choices to prevent abusive ones. Personally, I just think we need better government.
EW--Sometimes, just someimtes, a more limited government *is* a better government. Think about it.
People who write for this blog too conservative... lols. i think if you actually looked around you might be surprised by how many people at berkeley and boalt are not quite so left. some of us came to boalt despite, rather than because of, its "spirit."
I'm with Tom, Ashley and the others. Berkeley is a pretty crappy city, excepting the amazing food up in the gourmet ghetto. I'll never forgive them for jerking around the guy who owned The Patio--they screwed around with his liquor license approval and forced him to close at 8pm, and he couldnt stay in business.
i didn't know about the ice rink, but the whole trader joes mess was just ridiculous. and someone on this blog posted about a neighbor preventing an old woman from getting wheelchair access to her home or something?
the city survives on the university and rich, misguided aging hippies. The public school system is a tragedy (I met a lot of attorneys at OCIP who did not want to send their kids to Berkeley high--call it elitism or whatever--but it goes to show what kind of problems the city is facing).
And EW, I like your idealism about "better government." That's the fundamental difference between libertarian and modern liberal ideology I guess. Classic liberals and libertarians think that power corrupts, and governments tend to screw up more than they get right. Modern liberals figure that if we can only get the right people in government, we can make good policies. It just never seems to work out that way.
Earl and Tom, the Hockey Haters of Boalt Hall. -Brevity is the soul of wit.
Speaking of things I hate about Berkeley, if Dean O told us we were in the top 10% (Class of '07) are we supposed to get something official about Coif, or is her email it?
Re: Order of the Coif - you'll get a letter in a few weeks inviting you to join and then about 9-10 months after you pay the membership fees, a certificate.
EW - i don't think the skating rink was for "rich people." the times i have been there, it looked like a cross section of berkeley high kids, with no aging hippies to be found.
Tom - really, what is wrong with a lawsuit to prevent ant-gay discrimination? i have no idea what the point of your link to the settlement was. (and in my reading, the NCLR press release did mention the donations to the nonprofits)
"some of us came to boalt despite, rather than because of, its 'spirit.'"
Well, I didn't. I didn't come to Boalt because it was the best school I could get into, as Tom I think rather shockingly admits. I came because of how unique it is among top law schools, its peerless environmental law program, and because of the kind of place the Bay Area is.
Look, Berkeley is crazy, the people there do crazy things, and you can either let it drive you crazy or let it go and fall in love with the place. It's far from perfect, but it's so fucking different. It's not like I don't know about the rich kids who play homeless and smoke pot on Telegraph all day, but I'm not upset by it, I think it's hilarious. Sure there's tons and tons of hypocrisy, and poor decisionmaking, just like everywhere, but a lot of people in Berkeley are really trying to do things right, instead of just making the most money possible, the goal that drives a lot of municipalities. And it's just so silly to bemoan Berkeley's uniqueness, precisely because it is so unique and there are just an infinite number of places you can live for the rest of your life that will manage themselves by your values.
For all your bitching, at the end of the day it really works. Blah, blah, blah, Trader Joes, well it's gonna be built, so shut up. It's like people that bemoan the legal system because of frivilous lawsuits (e.g., $56 million over pants)without seeing that the suits are dismissed and that [GASP] the system works! Same thing with apartments, there are like five new huge, beautiful buildings for all you trust fund babies to fill up and live your lavish lifestyles in. I lived in a series of run down studios run by slum lords - LOVED IT! You complain about people not being able afford rent, that's actually pretty shocking because one of the forms of government intervention here in Berkeley is rent control. In the entire city. IT'S FABULOUS! Oh, but no new construction, blah blah blah, EXCEPT THAT THERE IS. And there's Oakland, right next door, and Albany, and Emeryville, etc. etc. etc. with polar opposite policies. If you love the free market, hate historic places and open space and responsible stewardship of shared resources, live there.
Yeah, we lost an amazing bookstore last year. Except that we didn't, it just moved. And if it were in any other city in the first place, the store wouldn't have lasted anywhere near as long. Just look at Westwood. I was sad a few years ago when they closed another amazing bookstore, one that Philip K. Dick used to work at, in order to open up a GAP. I'm sure that's just the kind of progress some of you would love to see. I, on the other hand, LOVED IT when the people of Berkeley, on a daily basis, threw rocks through the GAP's windows to let them know they weren't welcome. Day after day. Costing them thousands of dollars. Now they're here to stay, and I think that's unfortunate, but that's fine, you guys win that one. Maybe things here aren't quite so unbalanced after all.
I love you Berkeley, don't ever change!
10:41, thank you for your correction. I've udpated. My link was to point out a lawsuit that seems pretty shaky, followed by a quick settlement on somewhat strange terms in my opinion. There's nothing wrong with the law, I just felt that my review of the facts made the case look shaky. Nonetheless, Iceland was forced to settle because risking trial risks a) enormous attorney's fees and b) a local jury verdict. It's not extortion, but it's the kind of expensive cost of doing business that wouldn't make me want to stay open. Much safer to practice law.
As to Michael, I'm not sure what I shockingly admitted. You may have confused me with another poster. I'm not sure I follow all your arguments either. The apartment buildings you submit all seem to be fit only for "trust fund babies," hence, the new construction doesn't seem to help the population aimed to be helped by rent control.
Based on the broken window story though, I think we have a differing view on what a community can acceptably do to the property rights of others. That may stop us from making headway on Trader Joes' lost expectations from years of delay or the massive legal fees incurred in taking the pants case to trial (though I'm not sure why they didn't make an offer of judgment equal to the value of the pants - maybe DC doesn't have a statute for that. or maybe they don't think they could recover their legal fees anyway)
Is T-Ray posting comments now?
yeesh, i'm not exactly pro-big businesses taking over every last independent bookstore (tho i don't blame the big businesses too much, really, it's just unfortunate that land prices have gone so insane that only large chains can afford rent anymore), but you actually are happy about and encourage vandalism and destruction of property? wow. just wow.
not to be a stickler, but i don't know if i would say the GAP is "here to stay"...mostly since they, y'know, closed down...mostly since, y'know, no one ever shopped there. not that walgreen's is a much better replacement. i miss rexall.
Go back to Connecticut, Tom.
A few things:
On 6/26 Tom Fletcher said...
"I think this aspect of the discussion goes to show that people come to Boalt for different reasons. I didn't come because of the grading system or atmosphere - I came because a) it was the best school I got into and b) it has top-notch programs in the areas that interested me."
I was just shocked because (1) when most of us applied Boalt was actually ranked rather poorly relative to I think its true peers (and I know Tom is brilliant and I would have thought had turned down offers from Stanford and Yale) and (2) though accepting the offer from the highest ranked law school you are accepted at is conventional advice, I like to think most people choose Boalt for other reasons. I also personally think Tom is such a great guy that I was sad to hear that kind of calculation was so decisive for him and the comment really stuck with me. Hopefully (b) was at least an equally motivating factor.
Re: housing, obviously the working poor aren't going to live in the Gaia building, but students and others who would otherwise take Berkeley's limited stock of housing do. Housing prices were absolutely insane in the '97-'01 time frame when most of my friends were at Berkeley undergrad. You had to literally get in a line around the block to look at a terrible basement apartment with astronomical rent. When I moved to Berkeley, it was about 30% less expensive than Westwood, whereas before it was about 50-60% more expensive. In Westwood, all students now share bedrooms. In Berkeley, I had my own studio within walking distance of the law school and I didn't know anyone who had to share a bedroom. There are lots of factors that have gone into this, but one of the biggest was the huge influx of new apartments around campus. Berkeley is far more affordable because they are here, despite the fact that the new apartments themselves are only for a certain class.
For the record, I was also happy when McDonald's moved into France and people spray painted their windows every day. As the French have really reached their zenith in popularity lately, you can all hate me for that, too.
Viva la France!
i like the french mostly. but they have their heads up their asses about globalization. hopefully sarko kicks their ass and liberalizes the economy some more. not too fond of his anti-turkey-in-the-eu thing tho.
also, it must be really great to think violence and vandalism is a proper way to express your juvenile unsophisticated dislike of all things big and corporate. it's a very valiant and intelligent way to deal with the world. i'm very excited you are becoming a lawyer.
Michael, I'd forgotten that comment. It's true. I appreciate the compliment, but it was here, UCLA, or USC with respect to (a) and Boalt had better IP & environmental programs (my interests when I applied) with respect to (b). Both weighed in the decision. The fact that the school was in Berkeley did not.
I see your point regarding the difference in rent form a few years ago. I would still submit though that the rent control ordinance doesn't help Berkeley's poor, in this case, the dot-com implosion took a lot of heat off the Berkeley market and lowered prices. While the luxury housing stock has increased, moving some students out of the regular housing stock available to most people, I'd be curious to see a time series of rents paid by the poor. Since we don't have any data (maybe Craig's List gets archived? nevertheless, I have no time), I don't think we can make headway on the empirical question.
Michael,
What's wrong with going to the best (or highest-ranked) school you got into? As people in the real world pay attention to rankings (both of schools and of students within schools), it would seem that, depending on what one wanted to do, the value of your education/degree could vary considerably based on school rankings/class rankings.
This is not to say that rankings based on specific criteria aren't misleading (they can be), that law schools rankings in particular aren't out of whack (they are), or that student rankings don't promote competition or fail to capture the "total" of a student (they do). It is just to say that for some career paths, these things matter, regardless of how erroneous the information these rankings are based on may/may not be.
I realize you were speaking only of school rankings, but I include student rankings as people posting on this blog seem to assume 1) the desire to know one's student rank is based on a desire to compete with other students, rather than a desire to make onself more marketable, and 2) in the alternative, there is something wrong with wanting to be more marketable.
I think my favorite thing about Berkeley is how it infuriates rightwingers. I know nothing about the issues being discussed here but if it pisses off Tom Fletcher or the Sarkozy fan at 2:47, it can't be all bad.
i love how berkeley kids think everyone who disagrees with them is a rabid right winger.
Um, I think the whole world considers Sarko a right-winger. Except perhaps the folks in your isolated corner of the internet.
"Viva" la France? Are you a Basque separatist?
One of the main SBI people is a Boalt alumna, if I'm not mistaken.
Does this go ditto for everything with the warm water pool at Berkeley high school? The situations seem rather parallel from my limited knowledge, and equally infuriating.
I'm a big fan of historic preservation. I did a lot of historic preservation work before I came to law school, and I think it's important. But preserving a building in an unsafe condition to satisfy the whims of the Berkeley elite self-righteous is not historic preservation by my definition.
I'm glad I came to Berkeley to attend Boalt. I consider it one of the best decisions I've ever made. But I also think one of my best decisions since moving here was to move to Oakland after 1L year. I don't think my rent is lower (and Oakland lacks Berkeley's requirement that landlords pay interest on security deposits, so there's an example of a benefit to living in Berkeley), but having lived in both, I'll take Rockridge over the gourmet ghetto anyday. I have been accosted by a homeless person exactly once while waiting for the 51, instead of daily in Berkeley. The Trader Joe's on College actually appears to be moving forward with construction as opposed to being mired in City Council and Planning Commission hand-wringing. I'm still close to Berkeley Bowl (when's the one down by the train tracks opening, again?) and my commute to school isn't much longer than it used to be. Until students start voting with their feet and their rent checks....
And if saying this lumps me in with "conservatives" like EW, then so be it (I still haven't figured out if I think TF is too right for me, so I'm not including him). I'm sure my *actual* right-wing relatives would get a kick out of that.
As far as I know, the building is not in unsafe condition, the problem was that they were using a sixty year old ice cooling machine that began to leak ammonia and it needed to be replaced. The Zamboni family preferred not to make the investment themselves and put the place up for sale.
That said, if I were on the City Council, I would have been one of the four votes against upholding the Landmark Preservation Commission's decision. I can't see any historical value in a giant ice barn. But I still love Berkeley. Just think about it, there were these people who love to ice skate and want to preserve their beloved local ice rink that has been in their town for over sixty years. They band together, draw up a full business plan, including a provision where the new cooling system will be powered by solar energy (apparently like the rink in Oakland), and even raise $50K for their cause. It's like something out of the Gilmore Girls! In what other town would something like this happen, would people put so much time and energy into saving an ice rink? How can you not love it? Are the results absurd? Uhm, yeah, but hopefully if the prospective buyers had $6.5 million to start a preschool they can do it elsewhere and the project will still happen. It's not the best resolution but it's not so horrifically bad that I'm giving up on the whole city.
Re: choosing law schools, I don't mean to discount the fact that there is a real hierarchy among law schools in the eyes of the legal community and that rankings matter. I also don't think there's anything wrong, per se, with doing something to make yourself marketable. I would also wholeheartedly encourage everyone to do as well as they possibly can in law school, if only because it would help you gain more from the experience. And if your choice is between a top ten school and a regional school, I would go with the top ten school every time.
That said, if you are choosing among the top ten, the difference in marketability is relatively minor. You will get a firm job if you want, and if you goal is with something ultra competitive, like academia or the ACLU, then your grades will matter far more than your school. I think rather than focusing on getting a job, people should think about how well they will do once they actually have that job, because your performance will have a far greater impact on your career trajectory than the name of your law school. Because of that, I think it's important to choose the place that will offer the best opportunities for personal and professional development, and that will best prepare you to be the best attorney you can possibly be when you graduate. The law schools in the top ten are very different places, with very different specialties, class offerings, and priorities, and even slightly different student bodies. I think you should choose a place that you think would be a good fit for you and where you will be happy for three years. And, if you already have an idea of what kind of law you want to practice, the place with the best resources and faculty in that area. In other words, I hope there is a lot more that goes into the decision making process than what number the school is in the latest issue of US News.
Just randomly stumbled upon this blog, and wanted to clear up a few facts:
1) As was stated by Michael, there was nothing unsafe about the building itself.
2) I highly doubt the developer was going to pay all that money to rent it out to the YMCA. That was a PR spin. If you read all the reports prior to that article, they were going to build ugly condos.
3) The ice rink was built with money raised by the COMMUNITY in the late 1930's. It is quite fitting that members of the current COMMUNITY should try to prevent it from being torn down.
All you students who've only lived in Berkeley for a few years have no perspective about it.
You think Berkeley is too radical, but the truth is that it's only mellowed with time. Anyone who hates Berkeley today, would have hated Berkeley even more during the 60's and 70's! Either that or you would have been too doped on drugs to care.
I think that Save Berkeley Iceland acted in a legal and responsible way to prevent this historic ice-rink from being torn down.
Compare that to the 70's, when members of the community violently protested turning People's Park into a parking lot.
I'm more conservative than liberal myself, but I admire Berkeley's community. There are plenty of souless cities all over the country that would eagerly let a historic landmark be torn down and replaced by some condos, a Walmart, a Gap, or whatever external influences want to put there.
You know what happens? The community dies and all you're left with is a shell. Without people who have "community pride", the whole country will end up looking like LA, the capitalist mecha of the world. If you want to live in LA, fine...but not all of us want that!
The biggest problem with Communism (represented by the Soviet Union) is that it went around destroying communities, all for the sake of uniformity and efficiency. Capitalism, if left unchecked, has the exact same dangers.
I understand that it is not fair if the owner doesn't get market value for his real estate, but the greater crime is to destroy history for capitalist gains.
Post a Comment
<< Home