Letters to the Editor

Last spring, Berkeley, the Berkeley schools, BART, AC Transit, and the East Bay regional parks each decided additional revenue was needed. Independently, each public entity placed one or more tax measures on the November ballot.

Seven property tax measures and two others were placed on the ballot with no regard to the cumulative impact of all nine. This impact is significant. To investigate the fiscal impact of the property tax measures, I asked homeowners to send me their most recent tax bills. Ten responded.

The assessed values ranged from $75,000 to $908,000 with an average of $319,583. The home sizes were 3,892 feet square on average. The average current year property tax bill was $6,255.

If all seven property taxes pass Tuesday, the average tax bill for these ten homeowners will increase by $747, or 12 percent. Several will face increases of 20 percent, with the smallest being 7 percent. It is troubling that the biggest increases may be felt by homeowners in modest circumstances or who are retired.

How is it that Berkeley homeowners are facing double-digit increases in their property tax bills? Because each entity looked at the effect of its own measures, not at the cumulative effect of all nine.

Although Berkeley taxpayers have been generous, income growth in the Bay Area has been negative for the last few years. If all the tax measures pass, the resulting double-digit tax increase may lead to a taxpayers' revolt in Berkeley, if it has not already started.

Gordon Wozniak

City council member, District 8

Deadline Should Be Moved

The ASUC is wrong to fight the new drop deadline and claim student consensus behind them. The new drop deadline is the best solution to inefficient use of university resources and funds.

Half the semester is too long for one to take to decide whether or not to remain in a class. Bemoaning the proposed deadlines disingenuously conceals the fact that students have months to decide whether a class is right for them, from when they sign up on Telebears until the second or fourth week.

It is the students' responsibility to research the courses they are taking: consulting GSIs, instructors, former pupils and past syllabi is simple, even if only done in two weeks. Planning ahead is our ethical responsibility when our occupying a spot means withholding it from another student.

Many courses turn away students at their outset, but by the eighth week are under capacity. The university will teach more students and save money by not squandering resources on those who take their time to drop. Pushing the deadline is the only way to fix this.

Waitlisted students work hard in the beginning, then are frozen out by the time the course has room, only because their peers did not decide their schedules in time. Campus leaders should not be protecting slackers.

By supporting tougher drop deadlines, you will maximize your ability to take the classes you deserve.

Michael McFarlane

UC Berkeley student

DNA Database Proposition Not Prudent

I was shocked and dismayed to see that the editorial board of the Daily Cal misguided its readers in their endorsement of Prop 69 (DNA Database proposition). To simplify the entire proposition as law that "would be helpful in convicting felons and solving crimes"is grossly negligent. California has a DNA database of violent felons. Proposition 69 would expand this to include those arrested, not convicted on felony charges. This is an infringement of individual privacy for many.

While proponents tout the "safe-guard" of allowing those not convicted to remove their information from the database once cleared of charges, close reading of the proposition shows that the court can keep that information in the database-skewing the definition of innocent until proven guilty, due process, and the right to privacy. I recommend voters take an in-depth look at Proposition 69. I believe that if you do, the clear conclusion will be to vote no.

Jennifer Eller

UC Berkeley student

Vote No on Parks Measure

I was dismayed to learn that the Daily Cal endorsed District Measure CC (tax increase for East Bay Regional Park District). I am an ardent supporter of the parks, but cannot vote for this unfair and ill-reasoned measure.

Measure CC would only tax the poorest areas of Contra Costa and Alameda County. Residents in the narrow urban corridor from Oakland to San Pablo would be the only ones chipping in. Corporations, as well as wealthier areas such as Orinda and Blackhawk, would not pay a dime for the same services. For this reason alone, individuals concerned with fair taxation should vote against this measure.

It is also unclear whether the Park District truly needs this money. These projects have already been scheduled, but district management diverted the money to maintain their egregious salaries and subsidize their outrageous $2 million dollar public relations department. The district also fails to mention the $5 million per year increase in the property tax base. Instead of savvy fiscal management, they use fears of public safety to scare people into opening their pockets. Hey, if it worked for our president ...

The most dangerous consequence of CC's passage would be ‘localization' of our regional parks. By requiring only certain areas to fund what the entire district should pay for, we risk splintering the entire park system and returning the land to cities and counties. I love our parks, but not enough to write them a blank check.

Alan Krakauer

UC Berkeley student

Tags: