Letters to the Editor

All across the nation people are collecting clothes for the needy. But in Berkeley they're throwing clean, freshly laundered clothing in dumpsters, locking the dumpsters, and threatening potential donors with misdemeanor tickets.

And you're paying them to do it.

The University of California, which is flirting with paying its $200,000-$300,000 executives even larger salaries from private donors while asking you for donations, is paying its park staff to destroy clean, useable clothing rather than allowing it to be distributed to the poor.

Because, they say, they have no place to put it.

They have a point. People's Park's freebox was recently damaged and removed. But in September UC ripped out both the footings for the old freebox and destroyed the initial efforts of a group trying to replace it with a new freebox, making it safe to assume they don't really want a place to put it.

People's Park, like many other parts of Berkeley, has always had a tradition of free clothing exchange which takes the form of boxes, cardboard and otherwise, large and small, in which one might find a sweater, a book, or the discarded kitchen utensils donated by someone trading up. You take what interests you, and you toss in whatever doesn't. The scarf or the shoes you no longer wear find a new home, and you don't have to worry about hauling things down to the dump or figuring out when the receiving hours are for a local nonprofit.

My neighborhood has several of these boxes, in which one might find a couple of books, a pair of pants, or the sweater Aunt Mabel-who likes very bright colors-decided to give you for Christmas. As the autumn chills deepens, an extra layer is not only handy, it can make the difference between life and death for someone in need.

Write to the city and the university. The alleged era of cooperation between the two ought to at least enable us to discuss alternatives to the wholesale destruction of clean, usable clothing. We look foolish in no small degree scrambling to clothe those shivering in Louisiana and Texas while letting people shiver here at home.

The city and the university could agree to store the clothing in the park's office, where it is dry. They could gather it up and donate it to a local charity. They could simply allow the community to create a dry place for it. They could stop trying to ticket people simply moved to help others. Times may not be hard for executives at the University of California, but for some, even some here at home, these are very hard times, indeed.

Carol Denney

Berkeley resident

No on Proposition 73

As a parent and a health care provider, I want to explain why Proposition 73 is wrong for California.

Proposition 73 would require parental notification and a 48-hour waiting period before a teenager can seek an abortion. Its supporters say this will reduce unwanted pregnancies, and abortions as well. That is simply untrue.

California's teen pregnancy rate dropped significantly over the last decade because health care providers, parents, teachers and counselors talked with young women about responsibility, abstinence and birth control. These efforts help keep young women safe and enable them to make the right decision.

Laws like Proposition 73 make frightened teens choose between talking with their parents or having illegal and unsafe abortions, instead of getting the safe medical help they need.

Parents rightfully want to be involved in their teenagers' lives, but the government can't mandate good communication. As parents, we have a responsibility to keep our daughters safe, even if they can't, for whatever reason, come to us.

I want to ensure that young women can talk openly with their parents, family members and me as a health care provider about sex, sexual activity and pregnancy. Keep our daughters safe. Vote no on Proposition 73.

Melissa Schoen

Berkeley resident

Library Assistants' Pleas Go Unheeded by Regents

The recent news about the plan to increase UC executives' pay brings up the issue of the shockingly widening gap between the top paid UC executives as opposed to the starving students and the most under-market paid clericals-the library assistants whose pay is 33 percent behind what those at Cal State University earn. Many UC library assistants are so paid so little, they work two jobs. Some of them even qualify for welfare assistance.

This shocking disparity should be made a public concern about our so-called world-class, premier university.

In the recent UC Board of Regents meeting on Sept. 21, library assistants turned in a petition with over 1500 signatures supporting a very modest 14 percent pay increase for the library assistants.

UC executives are now insulting us with cream-puff exhorbitant salary hikes, housing perks and generous retirement deals while allowing their own staff to suffer poverty wages and students to be denied loans while forcing them to pay higher and higher fees.

Nora R.J. Foster

Graduate services at Doe library

Tags: