Jun 15, 2007

Letters

Population also an environmental issue

Dear Editor: Population growth affects everyone everywhere. People change the environment. As of now, we have altered more than one-third of Earth's ice-free surface and threatened the existence of many plant and animal species. These changes also pose threats to our well-being. From the global warming that shortens skiing season to the water pollution that prohibits surfers from enjoying the ocean, environmental degradation, furthered by increasing population pressure, does and will continue to affect all of our lives. So how do we protect our well-being?

Many people look toward conservation as the solution to this environmental problem. In the past couple of days, articles citing positive steps toward sustainability have appeared in the paper; Berkeley is adopting a composting plan and funding a bio-fuel project. These are commendable movements in the right direction, but I am afraid a critical piece of the puzzle is missing - the population question.

No matter how much we conserve, increasing population will increase pressure on our environment. We need to highlight the correlation between population pressure and environmental degradation, and increase awareness about the importance of stabilizing population growth.

Please support this seemingly obvious but much-overlooked piece of the sustainability puzzle through increasing awareness. Talk to your family and friends - emphasize that a fundamental way of securing our well-being in the future is through addressing population growth right now.

Georgia Gann,
Berkeley field organizer,
Population Connection,
Berkeley


Saddened by exit of housing director

Dear Editor: I was saddened to learn that Berkeley Housing Director Steve Barton has resigned from his job. I am a single mother of wonderful twin daughters and we would not be living in our Berkeley condominium today if not for the efforts of Barton.

About 15 years ago, the former building owner tried doubling the rent on each of the 11 units in our building. The rent board prevented the rents from skyrocketing but the owner then threatened to evict everyone and go out of business. The tenants got together and wanted to end the harassment by buying the building. The problem was that most of the tenants were working but of limited means. With Barton's guidance, we were able to structure the financing so the sitting tenants could purchase the 11 units if they desired.

Rent control kept the tenants in our building from being pushed out of Berkeley and Barton's efforts and advice allowed us to purchase our units and become homeowners.

Without the assistance of Barton and the rent board, my family probably would not be in Berkeley today. I try showing my gratitude to the city by volunteering in many ways, including as a PTA officer, youth soccer coach and a middle school cheerleading coach. The other members of our building association contribute to the city in countless other ways. None of this would have been possible without Barton.

Thanks, Steve.
Hillary Kitka,
Berkeley


Parks for smokers
Dear Editor: Can we design micro parks in our cities where smoking is allowed? We can kill two birds with one stone.We can keep other public spaces healthy for nonsmokers. At the same time, by providing attractive green sites for smokers we can remind them that they have a choice about smoking. When they come to these micro parks, they will inhale a lungful of fresh air before lighting up.

Romila Khanna,
Albany


Economic models
Dear Editor: A market economy can be made to thrive under any social ideology (communism in China to all European flavors) and economic capitalism does not need to dominate all areas of the social ideology of a country. The communist system failed precisely because of Marx's rigid economic determinism (the economic system determines the social ideology of a society, therefore to remain communist one has to have a rigid communist economy). Starting with China, more and more countries nowadays successfully break this false linkage. We too have to move away from our widespread belief that in order to remain "socially free in the American way and prosperous," we have to allow a rabid market economy to hijack our social ideology. We can reform our health care, education, prisons, Social Security, electoral, energy policies, etc. along social principles that do not have to be absolutely subordinated to maximum profits. We have to allow reform-minded social thinkers and national interests to manage this country in order to move away from the "dead spot" we find ourselves in today.

Nothing can and will happen until we remove the power of money from our electoral system, thus allowing the best to run based mostly on clear social policy platforms. Only in this way can our leaders respond to our concerns and obtain mandates that reflect these concerns. Then we might see true voter awakening, participation and influence once again. Then it may become possible to distinguish among candidates other than by how much money they raise.

Virgil Stevens,
San Carlos