Retire to Berkeley!?

Editor's note: Michael Ackley's columns may include satire and parody based on current events, and thus mix fact with fiction. He assumes informed readers will be able to tell which is which.

U.S. News and World Report has a subset of its listing of the "1,000 best places to retire." It is the magazine's short list of 10 "retirement destinations that attract highly educated folks."

Because Berkeley, Calif., is featured first in the magazine's article on this topic, the alumni association of our alma mater, Cal, has decided this means "the Athens of the West" is among the "brainiest" retirement destinations. Indeed, U.S. News itself uses the term.

"One brainy spot that won't surprise," the magazine gushes, "(is) Berkeley … where residents might head for a screening of a film on urban organic farming in Cuba at the local Unitarian Universalist congregation, attend a University of California-Berkeley professor's speech on counterinsurgency in Iraq or get a tour of the UC Botanical Garden. While traditional bingo is on tap at the South Berkeley Senior Center, residents can also learn a less common skill like self-acupressure or take a class on the millinery arts. …" (Note: That's millinery, not military. The latter arts and their practitioners are not welcome.)

Just stay away from the gang-infested south and west Berkeley neighborhoods – unless you're looking for a home priced below a city median that pushes $700,000 – and be advised that the respected Homilsinger Psychiatric Institute places the city near the upper limit of its 100-point lunacy index.

In fact, when we queried HPI founder Humperdinck Homilsinger about the U.S. News article, he exclaimed, "Retire in Berkeley? You'd have to be nuts."

California's Legislature is deep into its annual dance over the state budget. The so-called "deadline" for adoption has passed, as usual, and the Democratic Party majority has floated its usual, cockeyed tax-increase scheme. This likely will fail due to the requirement of two-thirds majority approval of the budget.

The GOP, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, has been hewing to the no-tax-increase line. In fact, the governor is vying for the coveted "Quote of the Month" award with his assertion: "You have to be open-minded, and that's the only way you can get a compromise done. So I'm open-minded, but I'm against tax increases."

Also in the running for the award is Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Baldwin Vista (named for frequent sightings of the thespian Baldwin brothers).

"We can't solve this budget crisis with cuts alone." Bass said.

Well, you could, Madam Speaker, if the Legislature had not – for decades – refused to confront the Golden State's thorny issues. Instead, it chose to let the public govern by referenda. The result has been voter-imposed spending formulae that make rational cuts difficult.

Judicial madness: Columbia State Historic Park is a Gold Rush-era mining town in California's Mother Lode, surrounded by old placer workings. It preserves buildings that have survived since the middle of the 19th century, where storekeepers dress in vintage costumes, many of the men sport chin whiskers and bushy sideburns and you can refresh yourself with penny candy and sarsaparilla.

However, the board sidewalks are uneven, and the doorways of many of its shops still have the iron shutters installed for nighttime security more than a century and a half ago. It seems these physical features now are problems, for the federal courts have decreed California's state parks must comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. In Columbia, this means – among other things – those sidewalks can't be bumpy, and many shops will have to install automatic-opening doors.

The local daily, the Sonora Union Democrat, quoted one merchant: "They will turn our historic park into a third-rate Knott's Berry Farm."

It might have been helpful if the court had been aware of the National Park Service's "Standards for Preservation and Guidelines for Preserving Historic Buildings," which admonishes that the following are "not recommended:"

"Undertaking code-required alterations before identifying those spaces, features or finishes which are character-defining and must therefore be preserved.

"Altering, damaging, or destroying character-defining features in attempting to comply with accessibility requirements. …

"Making access modifications that do not provide a reasonable balance between independent, safe access and preservation of historic features.

"Making modifications for accessibility without considering the impact on the historic building and its site.

On the other hand, had the court been aware of these federal standards, it might have ordered that the guidelines be overturned, so the more vertiginous attractions of national parks like Grand Canyon and Yosemite be made wheelchair-accessible, too.