Nic Nak Liquors--A Case for Over-Concentration of Liquor Outlets in North Oakland/South Berkeley

Nic Nak Liquors at 6400 Shattuck Avenue is attempting to obtain a Major Conditional Use Permit and a Major Variance from the Oakland Planning Commission for liquor sales. Approval of this land use activity would create a major and significant precedent in the ability for liquor stores that have lost their Deemed Approved Status as a non-conforming legal use to re-open in Oakland.

Because the property is located 80 feet away from an existing liquor store, T and K Market, and continuous liquor sales at Nic Nak ceased for more than 90 days, the City of Oakland requires Nic Nak to obtain a Major Variance. A Major Variance relates to a unique or extraordinary physical or topographic constraint which Nic Nak does not have. There is nothing in the Administrative Record that currently supports approval of another liquor store in North Oakland. Not even if former Commissioner Anne E. Mudge and Commissioner Boxer fabricate out of thin air the notion that "historic relevance" is equivalent to a unique physical constraint does this mean the courts will validate their misapplication and misinterpretation of the City requirements for a Variance. We note this because if the City of Oakland approves this land use, contrary to its own adopted public policy and regulations, it will likely receive judicial scrutiny according to some neighbors.

North Oakland is already over saturated with liquor stores, many of which create significant nuisances for North Oakland neighborhoods. The City Staff Report, dated August 5, 2009, recommended denying Mr. Pannell's proposal to peddle liquor and stated that: This proposed location [Nic Nak] is within 80 feet of a market across the street selling beer and wine. A Variance has been requested to allow this Alcoholic Beverage Sales Commercial Activity closer than one thousand (1,000) feet to any other Alcoholic Beverage Sales Activity. This is an adverse precedent for other such uses. This store will not provide an unmet Alcoholic Beverage Sales need for a population in the immediate Oakland Community, since beer and wine can be purchased across Alcatraz Avenue and spirit liquors can be purchased at several locations within a 5-minute drive. The store will not serve as a catalyst for other desirable businesses in the area, such as retail or restaurant uses; rather, the store is planned to operate like liquor stores from 40 years ago.

The August 5, 2009 Staff Report also noted that: the Planning Code Section 17.09.040 defines: "Alcoholic beverage licenses over concentrated areas" as "a police beat with crime rates that exceed the City median by twenty percent or more or a census tract in which the per capita number of on-sale or off-sale retail Alcoholic Beverage Sales licenses exceeds the Alameda County median" The applicant's store is in Police Beat 11-X. In 2008, there were 1,030 crimes in 11-X. the City's "over-concentrated areas "threshold was 1,320. Beat 11-X is thus approximately 30% below this threshold and is thus not over-concentrated by that standard.

In Census Tract 4005, in 2008 there were three alcoholic beverage licenses other than (exempt) full-service restaurants; the applicant's store would make 4, not exceeding the standard threshold of 6. Therefore, this site does not meet the definition of over-concentrated area defined in Section 17.09.040.

We submit that the definition of over-concentrated areas using a threshold that exceeds the median crime rate by 20% or more and/or a census tract is fundamentally defective in capturing the true blight and nuisance activities associated with liquor stores. Using crime rates that exceed the City median by 20% or more is a blunt metric that does not accurately target or identify the most specific crimes associated with liquor stores in a particular community such as North Oakland--loitering, littering, vandalism, public drunkenness, driving while under the influence, etc. It is blunt because it includes all crimes and then establishes that over-concentration is a threshold of 20% or more of the City median. The City of Oakland, by most accepted measures, has some of the highest crime rates in the entire United States. These high crime rates are driven by some of the most blighted, poverty-stricken, depressed, violent neighborhoods in the country. To use a threshold that is 20% or more of the median crime rate of one of the worst crime-plagued cities in the country as a metric for success results in the unbearable tolerance of an incredibly high number of nuisance crimes associated with liquor stores within a police beat as compared to the vast majority of cities of a comparable size in the United States. The fact that Beat 11-X is 30% below the threshold for crime in Oakland is actually a testament to the years of hard, dedicated and focused work of the Shattuck Crime Prevention Council, neighborhood associations, businesses and the Oakland Police. Crime that is 30% less than the Oakland median crime rate would not be tolerated in the vast majority of communities in the United States. To penalize this hard work with the addition of yet another liquor store is contrary to the public interest, the stated public policy of the City, and the health and welfare of the residents of North Oakland particularly when considering the body of research and evidence that establishes an incontrovertible link between the density of alcohol outlets, crime and adverse public health consequences.

The analysis by the Oakland Planning Staff in their report and findings for approval are troubling and highly deficient in that it did not consider or evaluate any liquor stores in North Oakland and South Berkeley, except Nic Nak, for their cumulative contribution to crime, nuisance activities and detriments to quality of life and public health. No assessment was done to map out and show the location of such liquor stores in North Oakland and South Berkeley. Hence no accurate baseline was defined as to the adverse effects liquor outlets are currently having in North Oakland. It is critical, since Nic Nak liquors is located less than 1/4 a mile away from South Berkeley, that liquor stores in South Berkeley also be considered. The absence of any reasonable assessment of the cumulative effects of existing liquor stores fails to properly place the approval of Nic Nak liquors in an appropriate context for decision makers and essentially encourages them to disregard the over-concentration of liquor outlets in their decision tree.

The use of a census tract, while a relatively standardized and efficient unit for comparing and measuring changes from one small geographic area to another, does not adequately assess the over-concentration of liquor stores and, in fact, underestimates the cumulative adverse effects these stores are having on geographically distinct neighborhoods that are larger than a census tract in North Oakland and South Berkeley. The use of a census tract as a geographic demarcation for the assessment of effects on a neighborhood or community is artificial and politically expedient with no real scientific basis or nexus to assess the true public health effects and increases in crime related to the availability of alcohol. In the case of North Oakland, census tract 4005 is also artificially constrained by city boundaries, effectively negating a true assessment of the cumulative effects and over-concentration of liquor stores in the vicinity of the proposed Nic Nak Liquor Store which spans the Oakland Berkeley City boundaries. This is true particularly in our highly mobile community where movement of people and alcohol is facilitated by an abundance of public transportation including AC Transit, BART, personal autos, bicycles and other conveyance methods. This allows the nuisance effects of alcohol outlets to be dispersed over a relatively wide area rather quickly such that the use of a census tract to assess over-concentration of alcohol outlets would fail to adequately capture the true societal costs of increased crime and public health issues. While liquor stores are the epicenter and causation of the problem, the problems and effects are dispersed throughout a community.

There is a wide and growing body of evidence nationally and internationally that shows an incontrovertible link between a concentration of liquor stores, crime and public health concerns. One study in Richmond California, Liquor Stores and Community Health, prepared by the Pacific Institute, notes that: A high density of liquor stores can contribute to a variety of health and safety problems. Studies show that neighborhoods with higher concentrations of liquor stores also have higher rates of alcohol-related hospitalizations, drunk driving accidents, and pedestrian injuries. A recent study across all California zip codes found that neighborhoods with a higher density of liquor stores had higher numbers of childhood accidents, assaults, and child abuse injuries. Liquor stores become places where social controls are weaker, increasing the likelihood of criminal and nuisance activities. A high density of liquor stores is linked to higher levels of crime and violence. A study conducted in Los Angeles found that each new liquor store in a neighborhood resulted in 3.4 more assaults per year. In New Jersey, researchers found that the number of liquor stores was the single most important environmental predictor of why some neighborhoods have higher crime rates than others—a stronger predictor than unemployment rate or median household income.

The Pacific Institutes Study also noted that: A high density of liquor stores also contributes to economic and social disintegration. Similar to power plants and refineries, alcohol outlets represent a form of locally unwanted land use that conflicts with desirable land uses such as schools, parks, and residences. The over-concentration of liquor stores increases the perceived lack of safety and limits walkability in the community. Moreover, concentrations of liquor stores in a neighborhood can constrain economic opportunities for current and new businesses and therefore are both a symptom and accelerator of economic decline.

Recognizing the importance of educating decision makers, the Hermosa Beach Neighborhood Association has compiled a significant list of research on alcohol outlet densities at http://www.hbneighborhood.org/My%20Web/1%20HB%20CrimeNews%202004%202.htm.

These various national and international peer reviewed studies collated by the Hermosa Beach Neighborhood Association conclude or provide significant evidence that: (1) alcohol availability is related to violent assaults at the local level; (2) alcohol outlet density was the single most important environmental factor explaining why violent crime rates are higher in certain parts of the city than in others; (3) neighborhoods with higher alcohol outlet density have higher rates of alcohol-related problems than a neighborhood's racial or ethnic makeup; (4) localities with more alcohol sales had more assaults per capita; (5) the more off-site alcohol outlets a neighborhood has, the more likely it is to have more homicides; (6) three northern California cities with a higher density of alcohol outlets had significantly higher levels of crime among Mexican American youth; (7) there was more youth violence in neighborhoods that had more off-site alcohol outlets than those that did not; (8) areas with more alcohol outlets experience more violent crime; and (9) blocks having more bars had higher crime rates.

None of this body of incontrovertible evidence was either reviewed, evaluated or consulted by the Planning Staff or the Planning Commission in preparing its findings to approve a Major Variance to allow yet another liquor store in North Oakland even though it is readily available on the internet. The approval for the Nic Nak is moving forward despite significant objections from the Shattuck Crime Prevention Council, the East Lorin Neighborhood Association, and local business owners that an additional liquor store in an already over-concentrated North Oakland community will increase alcohol related crimes and public nuisances. In dismissing community concerns, one Commissioner, Sandra Galvez, even went so far as to characterize the predominantly white residents who were objecting to additional liquor stores as fostering" institutionalized racism." The body of peer-reviewed scientific evidence and the actual experience of the Shattuck Crime Prevention Council, the East Lorin Neighborhood Association and local business owners in North Oakland is diametrically opposed to the personal beliefs and political leanings of those Planning Commissioners who are loathe to deny the Nic Nak's application for a Major Variance for fear of opposing a black-owned business and looking very un PC, no matter how detrimental it is to the community.

Since former Commissioner Mudge and existing Commissioner Doug Boxer led the charge for approving another liquor store in North Oakland, and seem to think more liquor stores are a good and positive thing to maintain and retain historic associations including neighborhood, social and leadership activities , and because Commissioner Galvez believes the opposition to another liquor store in North Oakland somehow is the result of "institutionalized racism", we decided to show them and others just how many liquor stores and other off-sales alcohol outlets there are within an approximately 1 mile radius of the proposed Nic Nak Liquor Store. There are a total of 18 existing off-sale liquor outlets within an approximately 1 mile radius of Nic Nak . If Nic Nak is granted a Major Variance to peddle liquor it will make 19.

We chose an approximately 1 mile geographic limitation for our assessment as it takes only 15-20 minutes to walk one mile, 5-7 minutes to bicycle one mile and 1-2 minutes to drive one mile (not counting wait times at lights). A one mile geographic boundary gives a reasonably convenient radius for all modes of travel and provides a more comprehensive assessment of over-concentration than does a much smaller census tract.

This assessment does not include the many on-sales liquor outlets such as the Starry Plough, the White Horse Bar and Inn, Valparaiso, Dorsey's Lockers and Nick's Lounge where disturbances have included everything from people being drunk in public, to drunken bar fights, shootings, stabbings and even murders (Dorsey's Lounge and Nick's Lounge). This assesment also does not include the liquor stores that have already been shut down as public nuisances.

T and K Market
6342 Shattuck Avenue, Oakland
Approximately 0.04 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: Loitering, drug sales, littering, and graffiti. Frequented by North Oakland gang members from nearby Oakland Housing Authority complex.

Alcatel

6363 Telegraph Avenue, Oakland

Approximately 0.30 miles from Nic Nak.

Sells beer, wine, hard liquor, junk food and processed foods.

Documented problems include: None.

Aiban Market
701 60th Street, Oakland
Approximately 0.45 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: According to the City of Oakland it is considered a bad liquor store with several minor violations or at least one serious violation. Loitering, drug dealing, and public drinking. Three confirmed sales to underage minors documented by ABC.

Stanford Market
3400 Adeline Avenue, Berkeley
Approximately 0.47 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: Loitering, public drunkeness, and littering. Frequented by south Berkeley gang members.

M and H Market and Liquor
Adeline Avenue, Berkeley
Approximately 0.47 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, hard liquor, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: Loitering, public drunkeness, littering, graffiti. Frequented by South Berkeley gang members.

Uptown Market and Liquors
5635 Shattuck Avenue, Oakland
Approximately 0.55 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, hard liquor, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: Loitering, public drunkennes, drug dealing, boom cars, unauthorized hip hop promotion, littering, and graffiti. Frequented by North Oakland gang members.

Alcatraz Market
1601 Alcatraz Avenue, Berkeley
Approximately 0.55 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: Loitering, public drunkenness, drug dealing, littering, and graffiti. Frequented by South Berkeley gang members.

Williams Liquors
5830 Telegraph Avenue, Oakland
Approximately 0.57 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, hard liquor, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: Loitering, public drunkenness, littering, and graffiti. Frequented by North Oakland gang members from nearby Oakland Housing Authority complex. Drive by shootings at corner of 58th and Telegraph.

Berkeley Bowl
6363 Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley
Approximately 0.62 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, and full service grocery items.
Documented problems include: Aggressive panhandling.

Black and White Liquors
3027 Adeline Avenue, Berkeley
Approximately 0.72 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, hard liquor, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: Averted declaration of public nuisance by City of Berkeley Zoning Board 5-4. Public drunkenness, public urination, defecation and vomitting on nearby residential streets, litter, and graffiti. Site of violent crimes including recent day-time pistol whipping and armed robbery of a woman. Currently under severe operational restrictions.

M and B Liquors and Groceries
6310 Market Street, Berkeley
Approximately 0.73 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, hard liquor, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: Loitering, littering, graffiti, and public drunkeness.

ASA Liquor Store
5909 Market Street, Oakland
Approximately 0.74 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, hard liquor, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: According to the City of Oakland it is considered a bad liquor store with several minor violations or at least one serious violation. Loitering, littering, graffiti, and public drunkenness.

Whole Foods
3000 Telegraph Avenue, Berkeley
Approximately 0.79 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, and full service grocery items.
Documented problems include: Attempted alcohol purchases by underage UC Berkeley students, and aggressive panhandling.

Safeway
6310 College Avenue, Oakland
Approximately 0.80 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, hard liquor, and full service grocery items.
Documented problems include: Attempted alcohol purchases by underage UC Berkeley students, and aggressive panhandling.

King's Market
5442 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, Oakland
Approximately 1.00 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: Graffiti, litter, and minor loitering.

Adeline Liquors and Market
5702 Adeline Avenue, Oakland
Approximately 1.04 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, hard liquor, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: According to the City of Oakland it is considered a bad liquor store with several minor violations or at least one serious violation. Loiteiring, public drunkeness, littering, and graffiti.

East Bay Liquors
5350 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, Oakland
Approximately 1.06 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, hard liquor, cigarrettes, junk food and processed foods.
Documented problems include: According to the Cit of Oakland it is considered a bad liquor store with several minor violations or at least one serious violation. Public drunkenness, loitering, drug sales, littering, and graffiti. Involved in several shootings including a killing by an Oakland Police Officer.

Andronicos
2655 Telegraph Avenue, Berkeley
Approximately 1.18 miles from Nic Nak.
Sells beer, wine, hard liquor, and full service grocery items.
Documented problems include: Attempted alcohol purchases by underage UC Berkeley students.

We Fight Blight--Geographic Scope and Focus

Several people interested in fighting blight have asked me to clarify the geographic scope and focus of the Fight Blight in South Berkeley-North Oakland effort. Understandably, the terms South Berkeley and North Oakland are a bit amorphous. To start, we have limited our geographic focus as follows: (1) Ashby to the north; (2) Telegraph to the east; (3) Sacramento/Market to the west; and (4) 52nd Street to the south. We picked this area for several reasons. The most important being that we live and travel within this area and became increasingly dissatisfied with the blighted conditions that were affecting the quality of life in our community and the apparent lack of community knowledge or interest in fighting blight. Because of our desire to create a safer community, we also wanted to address the connection between crime and blight, something that did not appear to be actively and comprehensively addressed by any of the existing community groups or neighborhood associations.



Within this geographic area of South Berkeley-North Oakland, we want to provide resources and tools for residents to address blight themselves. Essentially, by arming residents with information on the city processes and giving them an understanding of the laws governing blight, residents will be able to solve blight issues on a block by block basis. Importantly though, this requires an interested citizenry. In addition, we have several people who are actively identifying and reporting blight issues within this geographic area.



Our primary focus at the moment is to identify all the abandoned and inoperable vehicles within South Berkeley-North Oakland and have them removed by the owners or the Cities of Berkeley and Oakland. We are also identifying the most blighted single family dwellings and apartments. This mostly includes those residences with peeling paint, deteriorated siding, large amounts of debris/litter in their yards and on their porches, and overgrown weeds. Next, we will work on commercial properties with deteriorated facades. Of particular interest are the large number of liquor stores/markets that serve as a magnet for loitering, littering, public drunkenness and drugs. BAPAC, the Berkeley Alcohol Policy Advisory Coalition, has been working tirelessly to address the oversaturation of alcohol outlets in South and West Berkeley and to provide the City of Berkeley with the tools that will allow it to systematically and quickly address alcohol-related public nuisance problems before they get out of hand. Our efforts are not intended to supplant those of BAPAC, but to be complementary by actively monitoring and reporting code and blight violations. This will help BAPAC and others develop the evidence for shutting down nuisance alcohol outlets.



In our efforts, we are always trying to partner with neighborhood associations and crime prevention councils. Naturally, these organizations are a great way to help educate the community on the existing tools for fighting blight as well as the necessary policy reforms to assure fair, efficient, and effective reduction of blighted properties.

Why are litter and illegal dumps problems?

This is from the National Center for Environmental Decision Making Research in the United Kingdom. http://sunsite.utk.edu/ncedr/guides/litter/introduction.htm

Litter and illegally dumped solid wastes pose risks to human health and the environment. Litter is transported into drains and commonly ends up in area rivers or bodies of water. Illegally dumped wastes attract flies and may leach into the soil and groundwater.

Litter and illegal dumping signal a lack of pride in the neighborhood. Illegal dumps are often symptomatic of a community's larger problems, such as overcrowding or illegal housing. Litter and illegal dumping behaviors pose challenges to decisionmakers tasked with controlling or reducing these intermittent, persistent problems. A nationwide 1996 survey reports that over the last three years, average local litter reductions have decreased and litter is increasing. The annual Photometric Index, which measures the distribution of litter at sites within a community. Keep America Beautiful found that overall 1996 litter reductions were less than 1995 reductions and significantly less than 1994 reductions. Most alarming is that this study was conducted in areas with active litter prevention programs, leading one to question whether nationwide litter is significantly increasing.

Although these problems occur nationwide, there is not a universally applicable, federal law that prohibits private individuals from littering or illegally dumping. The collection and disposal of solid waste is traditionally a function of state and local governments. The state laws each prohibit litter and illegal dumping, but the means taken by each state varies greatly.

Data on the volume of litter and illegally dumped waste is not uniformly documented. However, state budgets typically include funds for litter pick-up on state highways. Florida and Texas spend approximately $3 million each year, Kentucky spends $4.0 million each year, and the state and parish governments of Louisiana expend nearly $10 million each year on litter removal and illegal dump clean-up.

Local governments, the primary implementers and enforcers of both the state and local laws, are directly burdened by and must respond to litter and illegal dump sites. The local public works departments typically budget funds for litter pick-up and illegal dump clean-up. The City of Los Angeles spends over $4 million annually to clean up approximately 121,000 tons of trash at illegal dump sites. The District of Columbia's Department of Public Works spends nearly $1 million each year cleaning up illegal dump sites. The City of Berkeley, California cleans up approximately 160 tons of illegally dumped items each year at a cost to the city's taxpayers of over $100,000. A City of Philadelphia study determined that illegal dumping activities cost the city $5 million dollars annually.

Nationwide taxpayers are unnecessarily spending over $200 million dollars each year to pick up litter and illegally dumped solid waste, which could be properly disposed of and managed in the solid waste management system.

Why do people litter and illegally dump?

Keep America Beautiful, a national litter education and prevention organization has found that people litter for three reasons:

* they lack a sense of ownership,
* they believe that someone picks up their litter, or
* the area is already littered.

Rapid growth, increasing mobility, and improper disposal habits cause the existence, proliferation and accumulation of litter.

Seven typical sources of litter include:

* household trash collection and placement for curbside collection,
* commercial waste dumpsters,
* loading docks,
* building construction and demolition activities,
* vehicles traveling with uncovered loads,
* pedestrians, and
* people in motor vehicles.

Twenty percent of litter is generated by people in motor vehicles and pedestrians. Contrary to what one might think, only about twenty percent of litter is attributable to rural and urban areas.

Illegal dumping is due to the lack of convenient solid waste management services and disposal facilities, the price to use those services and facilities, whether local governments are authorized to require residents to pay for and to use the services and facilities. Multiple factors create variations in illegal dumping incidents. A community or private hauler without a permitted municipal solid waste landfill will gain access to a vacant property and dump on it. In other cases, a private property owner seeks to profit by opening his land for dumping construction debris, old appliances, or tires for a lower fee than the municipal landfill. Private landowners may also seek wastes to be dumped as fill on the property.

Research indicates that socioeconomic factors are not an adequate predictor of illegal dumping. Some individuals will chose to engage in illegal dumping despite the convenience or efficiency of the collection and disposal services. A study of the costs and benefits to illegal dumpers found that, the cost of legal disposal must be decreased and the cost of illegal dumping penalties must be increased to reduce the volume of illegal dumping. Some possible socio-economic conditions that may influence illegal dumping are: type of community; demographics; population density; and the amount of spare, abandoned, or undeveloped space.

Litter and Illegal Dumping

Have you ever noticed that some parts of South Berkeley and North Oakland are awash in litter? Take a really close look at Shattuck Avenue Between Berkeley Bowl and Alcatraz. It is a dump heap. Unfortunately, this is typical of our community. Although many in South Berkeley and North Oakland pride themselves on being environmentally sound and green, they do little to stem the tide of litter and illegal dumping, turning a blind eye. Eventually, much of this garbage makes its way into our streams and creeks and the San Francisco Bay.

Recently, while driving in Montclair, Rockridge, Moraga, Walnut Creek and Mill Valley, I took notice of how clean those neighborhoods/communities are. I was hard pressed to find litter and saw absolutely no illegal dumping. In South Berkeley and North Oakland, I can walk any number of places, anytime of the day or night and see the accumulation of litter and the remains of illegal dumpers.

Recently, one resident reported to me that on the 1900 Block of Harmon/65th Street she picked up three shoppings bags full of litter. This included used condoms, drug bags, cigarettes and cigars, alcohol containers, and fast food wrappers all from the local drug dealers who have taken up residence on the block.

The other day, while waiting at a stop light, I noticed a young African American man in a Cadillac Escalade roll down his window and toss out a piece of garbage. I pulled up and gently said, "Excuse me, I think you dropped something". He looked at me, laughed, and said "No I didn't, I threw it there". It's all about attitude. That is the key.

Due to socio-economic issues, we have a large number of residents who feel alienated and have no sense of ownership of their community. Consequently, they dispose of garbage and litter on the streets and sidewalks as a protest, feeling that it gives them some degree of power, that someone else will have to pick up their trash. Sadly, they don't realize that money spent picking up litter, sweeping the streets, and disposing of illegally dumped refuse could go to job training, childcare, parks, and any other number of services that could help lift people out of poverty and provide opportunities for advancement. The lack of respect for community is really a lack of respect for oneself and a protest against their standing in society.

Besides attitude, some suggest that the City of Oakland and Berkeley do not do enough to pick up litter, clean the streets and remove illegally dumped items. Some even go further and suggest that the lack of city services is due to racist or discriminatory policies--South Berkeley and North Oakland do not get the same level of services as North Berkeley, Rockridge or Claremont. Others suggest that other communities like Moraga, Walnut Creek, and Mill Valley have more more money and can afford more frequent street sweeping and litter control. Yet others suggest that we live in a more dense urban environment and consequently there will simply be a higher voume of litter. Others just choose to close their eyes and pretend it doesn't even exist while they wade through the urban refuse.

Packaging, our disposable culture, lack of education, fast food outlets--there is always something or someone else to blame. But what about personal responsibility? Garbage and litter are the direct result of individuals choosing to throw their trash and garbage on our streets and sidewalk. Perhaps we need to start with respect for self, respect for the community and personal responsibility along with a dose of accountability.

Help our community look clean, choose to pick up some litter and put it in its place, tidy up the sidewalk and gutter, and call the City of Berkeley or Oakland when you see illegal dumping taking place.