Under Attack
December 29, 2008
Community rallies around Berkeley Thai Temple
BERKELEY, Calif. — A weekly celebration of Thai culture and cuisine may come to an end next month, as zoning issues and complaints from a vocal group of neighbors are threatening to shut the doors of what many view as a Berkeley institution.
The Berkeley Thai Temple, formally called Wat Mongkolratanaram, has called Russell Street home for almost thirty years, but it may be forced to end its popular Sunday food offering if the Berkeley Zoning Adjustments Board denies its request for a Broader Land Use Permit on Jan. 22.
The Sunday food offering is part of a tradition that gives Thai Buddhists a chance to earn “merit” by providing time, food and donations to the monks at the temple.
“We started out very small, because it was only for the Thai Buddhist community,” said Chinda Blaschczyk, who has volunteered at the temple for almost a decade.
But word of mouth has made the Thai brunch popular among the larger Berkeley community, attracting upwards of 600 brunch-goers every week eager to exchange monetary donations for a vast variety of authentic Thai cuisine.
Complaints from a small group of neighbors have complicated what would have otherwise been a routine permit request, citing litter, parking issues and odors as reasons why the zoning board should force the temple to scale back its Sunday brunches.
This would be unwelcome news to many who make their way to Russell Street every Sunday.
“It’s more than just a restaurant,” said Davis Burrell, who has frequented the temple for over three years. “It’s a community event. You always see a lot of people that you haven’t seen in a while, and you feel good about eating here.”
The persistence of the controversy, which surfaced last March, has surprised Christina Jirachachavalwong, organizer of the Web site SavetheThaiTemple.com.
“I’ve been coming here for over 11 years … and we’ve never had a complaint,” she said.
Nevertheless, the temple has been quick to address neighbor’s concerns. “We’ve reduced our early morning preparation hours, we’ve put up signs all over the neighborhood, reminding people not to park in driveways, not to litter, we’ve sent a trash patrol around the neighborhood,” said Jirachachavalwong. These concessions have “severely impacted our financial situation” but have not satisfied the complainants.
Wat Mongkolratanaram has garnered vigorous support from the community; a petition circulated by temple supporters gathered over 2000 signatures, including 118 from neighbors living within three blocks of the temple.
The tone of the complaints — particularly the accusations of “offensive odors” — has especially bothered some supporters, including Veena Dubal of the Asian Law Caucus.
“It smells like coconut milk!” Dubal said. “When I heard those remarks, I felt a tinge of pain. That kind of … xenophobic rhetoric has no space in this diverse community.”
Significant cutbacks of the Sunday food offering would be devastating to the temple, which organizes cultural and educational programs as well as religious services.
“We are not a business; we rely on the donations we receive,” said Blaschczyk. “If we are not able to serve food on Sundays, I truly believe the temple will be shut down completely.”
Comments
15 Responses to “Under Attack”
Got something to say?
The Temple means no harm to the community it serves.
I like the brunch and go maybe 3 or 4 times a year. But I’m sympathetic to neighbors. If the house next door to you started hosting something like the brunch then it would have a significant impact on your sundays. Zoning laws exist to make sure that residential neighborhoods stay residential and to make sure that no one does something that unduly impacts the people around them. The temple is a worthy cause, but it’s going beyond what people expect to be living next door too. People talk about the community… just remember that the people living down the street who just want a quiet sunday without traffic are also part of that community.
PS: about smells — I think the brunch smells good… but I only smell it when I’m hungry. If I were full then it might not smell good. People also have different tastes that it’s not being xenophobic to dislike a certain cuisine. For example I love stinky cheeses… but I would not be offended if you found the smell unpleasant. I hate the smell of microwave popcorn, but I don’t think that makes me xenophobic in any way. I like the smell of a nice beef stew, my SO is a vegetarian and thinks beef smells disgusting. Respecting others includes acknowledging that some things you like will not be universally appreciated.
Why are people picking on peaceful, defenseless monks? From my understanding, the temple has made plenty of concessions and has addressed all of the issues as it relates to smells, litter, parking, and such, and has been more than considerate of their neighbors of 25+ years. They have moved their cooking indoors to limit the smell and have moved their food preparations to a much later time. I think they also moved their serving area to a more centralized location and has plans to do even more. Perhaps if they were BBQing ribs or making hamburgers, some of the neighbors would not complain.
As a religious and cultural institution, they HAVE THE RIGHT to exist, to fund-raise, and to gather donations through food offerings. Without Sunday Brunch, the Temple would not be able to exist and sustain itself and its many educational, cultural, language, and religious offerings on a regular basis for free. It has become a positive buffer in an otherwise crime-ridden area by becoming that neighborhood’s community center and a safe haven for families and individuals to gather from any faith or background. Its contribution to that neighborhood is immeasurable. I’m sure there are other positive things they do that I do not know about.
It is NOT a restaurant as some of the misguided neighbors seem to be expressing. One of the neighbors actually believed that the golden Buddhist statue was made of actual gold and that they must be rich! Why would they need to fund-raise? And that this temple was like a McDonalds fast-food restaurant with “golden arches”! Oh my! Well, I’m sorry to break this to you, but it’s only gold paint. There’s actually a video of this lady saying this to the Zoning Board if you don’t believe me. It’s so laughable, it’s sad. Do you know of any restaurants that operate only 4 hours a week? Oh, and payment is optional? My family owns several restaurants and I guarantee you we would not be able to survive. They do not have employees, but rather dedicated volunteers that (as part of their religion) provide these food services as part of their offering as it relates to their beliefs.
I’m actually Catholic and my church always has a bunch of carnivals, spaghetti nights, Filipino and Chinese lunches almost weekly. They DO get the occasional complaint about noise, parking, and such, but it’s never to this degree of aggressiveness. Catholic churches get to having daily and weekly masses to get donations and offerings. In the Buddhist religion, there is no such thing as mass so they can’t get donations this way. Plus, for Catholic churches, they have a whole support system where if one church is short on funds, the Archdiocese would be able to help with the difference. For these temples, they do not have any hierarchy and are pretty independent from each other. From what I know, the Thai community in the Bay Area is actually quite small as well, and there are only 2 or 3 Thai Temples in all of Northern California. How many Catholic churches are there? And come on. They are Thai. Making food and eating is a very big part of their religion and culture. It’s only natural that this is their primary method of raising funds.
What kind of dangerous precedence are we trying to start here? Perhaps, neighbors should start complaining about the church bell-ringing everyday at noon - it’s too loud! Or perhaps we should put a stop to all the traffic, noise, and the sounds of children playing that happens throughout the school year and during our precious weekends. Christmas? We should ban it! All that singing and gathering at midnight! I’m trying to sleep for goodness sakes! Bah Hum Bug! All those candles and Christmas lights … don’t they know they are contributing to the depletion of the ozone? What if one of the altar boys accidentally drops a candle and starts a fire? They are going to raise my insurance premium and lower the value of my home! Did I mention the very tall and large cross on the top of their building? It’s blocking my sunlight! And oh, the smells. The terrible smells! Every Sunday after the 7AM, 9AM, and 11AM mass, they give out coffee and donuts! I hate the smell of coffee and calorie-filled donuts. Why are they giving out sugar and caffeine to kids and elderly people anyway? What kind of religion does this? And, I believe they have a donation box out there too … the nerve! Get a real job! Oh, but I’m very tolerant. I went to Rome last year …
Silliness aside, neighbors do have the right to have a “reasonable” level of comfort in their own home. What bothers me is how hateful and uncompromising some of these people are. I mean, did you not know you were moving next to a temple? Ever heard of due diligence? I’m sure there are some reasonable people complaining … at least one can only hope. It’s disheartening to see that in a world where war, disease, and terrorism is rampant, and where poverty, crime, the recession, the sub-prime mortgage/auto industry crisis has plagued our society, that this sort of racism also exists … in Berkeley, CA of all places. Good grief.
“The temple is a worthy cause, but it’s going beyond what people expect to be living next door too.” I would have to disagree. You are comparing apple to oranges. The Temple should be treated and protected like any other religious institution, NOT just like any other regular neighbor. If you start comparing behavior, you NEED to start comparing EVERY church, synagogue, mosque, temple in ALL OF Berkeley and in the Bay Area. The treatment should be consistent across the board, otherwise it WILL BE SEEN AS RACIST and preferential treatment. There should also be effort made on the part of the city to understand this non-Western culture/religion and not simply approach this situation with a ONE SIZE FITS ALL approach. If you truly feel that the temple is a “worthy cause,” then to support the restriction or elimination of their “bread and butter” seems a bit ludicrous and hypocritical to me. Their cause requires money … this is how they raise money.
“Respecting others includes acknowledging that some things you like will not be universally appreciated.” That’s a non-argument. There will always be things people like or dislike whether it be smells, the color of your home, the barking of your dog, etc. The real question is at what point does it become unreasonable and unlawful. Now “unreasonable” is a subjective thing. What is acceptable to one person can be horrendous to another. So where does one draw the line? Well, that’s what laws are for and what precedence and consistency is for. If there was a permitting problem before, then fine, make sure they get the right permit and everything is up to code. However, were they ever given proper warning and given a chance to make changes and improvements? Was this warning written in their language or was an interpreter offered? Is this Temple being treated the same other religious institutions? I believe the answer is all NO. One has to keep in mind that there is a language and cultural barrier here and that cannot simply be ignored. For all the 20+ years they’ve been there, they never received any complaint. Now that they have, they have made plenty of changes. Traffic? Isn’t there other events or things going on in that neighborhood that may be causing it? Don’t ASSUME every piece of litter comes from the temple. Has there been any actual studies made by an impartial third party (that both sides are comfortable with) that proves any of this? They’ve rented out the nearby school yard to help with the parking situation as well as put up no parking signs everywhere. They go around the neighborhood picking up litter afterwards as well. Given all of that and more, the Temple has been plenty reasonable since the time they’ve officially found out about this and have been more than respectful of their neighbors in doing so. Do some neighbors still feel slighted? Yes. Do the super-majority of neighbors living within the span of 3-5 blocks support the Temple and Sunday Brunch as it is run now? Yes. Do the slighted neighbors just have a little too much time on their hands and are just itching for a fight? Yes.
I just went there last weekend … really good food and the nicest of people. I support the templ!
This article and the comments that follow play the race & culture card unfairly. The Temple supporters contend they are “under attack” by “racist” neighbors. Furthermore, the Temple supporters suggest their very existence is under threat.
This is irresponsible, and unfortunate. As one member of the Berkeley Zoning Board stated, the Temple has attempted to frame this issue by holding themselves hostage. That is to say, they claim no other option or reason for existence other than the Sunday Food Service.
The issue at hand is not one of race, culture, or diversity. This is classic neighborhood zoning issue. That is to say, what type of activity is appropriate for the use of this space? Since the Temple is in the heart of a residential area, it makes sense that the residential neighbors of the Thai Temple have concerns.
Consider the facts (source Berkeley Daily Planet Archives):
Each Sunday, the Temple operates a large scale outdoor food activity. This activity occurs on a residential zoned lot approximately 5200 square feet, and it adjacent to similar residential zoned lots. The Temple achieves fund raising revenue from this activity estimated at $7,000 - $10,000 per week, or $364,000 or $520,000 per year. (1000 attendees, paying $7 to $10 each)
The Temple has made three significant real estate investments in recent years. In 2001, the Temple announced the completion of a $600,000 renovation to their existing facilities. In 2005, The Temple purchased two adjacent lots from the estate of Weston Havens for $500.000. In 2009 the Temple proposes to develop the Weston Havens lots. This site expansion plan includes a parking lot and a two story sanctuary. The cost of this project is estimated at $700,000.
Consider these facts as a reasonable person. First, the Temple activity is a cash operation that generates significant money. Second, the Temple clearly has abundant financial resources: $2,000,000 in projects and land acquisition since 2001.
With these vast reserves of cash, assets and property, it is difficult to understand how the existence of the Temple is under threat. Considering the facts, the emotional appeals of the Temple supporters do not ring true.
Let me be very clear: None of this questions the Temple’s right to exist. None of this suggests that the Temple is bad. No statement has been made regarding Thai culture or the quality of the Thai community. This is simply another perspective.
The Neighbors to the Temple have a right to culture, to peace, to prosperity in their own homes. The zoning laws are in place to protect these rights. It is up to the Zoning Board to make a determination. Utlimately, this decision will be made with respect to the appropriate use of space in a residential setting.
In regards to “A Berkeley Resident’s” comment about smell(s). I don’t necessarily think you actually understand the definition of what “xenophobic rhetoric” or “racist” actually mean. In all honesty, they are ever-evolving terms just like any other and acquire new meanings as social communities change.
People have different tastes – no one can deny that. But what makes the usage of “unpleasant smells” as xenophobic rhetoric is how the complainants are used to “attack” a certain ethnic enclave with their own cultural markers. When a group’s own cultural diversity is used against them to implement some sort of “us against them” outlook, such as the smell of one’s own food, that’s when defining taste become more than just a separation of culinary likings. It evokes a foreign response that continuously separates what you find normal and the “other.”
Secondly, the use of terms such as “racist” and “racism” is because they have evolved from what most people connotate them with. If you only think that racism involves KKK members or a “black and white” conflict — we’re going to have a problem here. Racism walks hand-in-hand with ignorance and vice versa. How some people view this situation to be a mark of ignorance is that the remarks made about “unpleasant odors” and (as I have read on Thai Buddhism) how the act of Buddhist merit-making is directly tied to food offerings on Sundays is not understood and just negated. To not understand this and to merely complain is ignorant and therefore a form of racism.
You state that “respecting others includes acknowledging that some things you like will not be universally appreciated” is true. But I think what you need to be understand is not how various people have various tastes, but how, in this sense, the culinary odors brought upon by thai food is used as firepower by the neighbors to evoke a foreign entity. Your stance as well as the neighbors complaints become more of an critique of not necessarily understanding the evolution of the language that is used, but also how dangerous their uses are.
“Consider the facts (source Berkeley Daily Planet Archives): ”
The Daily Planet got this information from talking with the neighbors who are against the Temple’s Sunday Food Service, so to call it fact is false. This it not to discredit the paper, rather, to put out the fact that you are putting a spin on the actual article. I was recently at the temple and it was no where 1000 people there. Through out the course of the day there were maybe 500 over a span for 4 hours. If you are going to state numbers, make sure you have the correct facts and don’t use a political spin.
Next, If you really wish to find out the temple finances, go to the city and look it up. All religious non-profit organization , by law, have their tax record as public record.
Third, the Zoning Adjustment Board specifically said that the temple finances is not relevant to the hearing. If you were not at the last meeting you can find a video of it on the ZAB site. I saw the video and nothing was edited by the city or left out. You can find all cases for that hearing meeting on that same video.
Fourth, correct me if I am wrong, but the Temple is also home for 8 monks. This doesn’t include several teachers from Thailand.
Fifth, Everyone including the Temple has a right to culture and peace. So what makes 18 to 21 neighbors who signed the petition against the Thai temple any more “special” that the 2000+ that signed the temple’s petition (of which if I remember the video correctly, 800+ are from Berkeley and from that, 118+ live within 1 to 2 blocks of the temple)? It looks to me like the complainants won’t be happy until they get “their” way.
Lastly, who knows, since the economy has turned sour and the property value has dropped in Berkeley by and average of 30-40% the complainants are trying to look for a scapegoat. Silly complainants, don’t you know that the temple brings more value to your homes (which from what I saw after visiting was very run down and not taken care of) than any section 8 housing could. The plots of land that you mention the temple purchasing are plots of land is an extra plot of land that is a crime free zone. Before you call yourselves the neighbors look at the numbers. 21 out of the 118 is a vast minority and calling yourselves representatives of the neighbors is a gross exaggeration. Again, quit trying the spin facts.
Oh, one more thing, if you want to bring real facts to the table I’ll be glad to debate them with you!
Peace
Dear Open-Minded One:
Thank you.
Aside from your cited “facts” and “sources,” you are one breath of fresh air in today’s fetid atmosphere of greed and fear and racism.
Add xenophobic lack of sociocultural smarts.
But, what can one expect from a “people(s)” who elected, well, make that selected, suspicionably, the likes of Dubya. Twice, yet.
That said, may we hope that the incoming Obama Team will prove the beginning of a balancing act that will, one hopes, restore America to its “right”ful place in the assembly of nations.
One and all should read today’s online CounterPunch piece by Alexander Cockburn, a sardonic summary of our two-term, well, make that multiterm, leadership.
Aside from the down -home assays of the familial constellatilon that produced a Dubya, Cockburn continues to tell it like it is/was? My only quibble is that whereas the Dubyous ones deserve the laughter AND the Bronx cheers, the author omitted the obverse, the terror and pity subsumed in the juvey “we had fun” summation of a Nero sans fiddle.
Cockburn, as a Brit MP and a “Jew:” at that today as reported in the London Guardian, properly affixes the title Nazi to the neoZionist megalomaniacs in charge in Tel Aviv.
Can similar charges lag far behind in re our own Cheneyi/Bushitters?
P.S.: And if Obama can find it in his heart and soul to continue America’s descent into the very maw of Hades in its blind self=serving with the current Israeli regime, what a “change” that will be.
P.P.S.” And, guys, keep them postcards comin’ on this venue. And where the Hell are you, Ted Fang? Or should that query be addressed to the matriarch?
All I have to say to the residents lobbying against Thai brunch is: seriously?
I lived in the neighborhood for years - and that you’re picking a much-beloved community tradition to gripe about over, say, how easy it is to get run down crossing Ashby Avenue, or, if you want to go for unpleasant smells, urine in the streets, is deeply and truly sad.
The temple and it’s inhabitants are indeed accorded freedom of expression but being a member of a religion is not a blank check to do what you want, despite the consensus of the community in which you live or whatever zoning laws there may be that are designed to keep the area residential. The individual who raised the issue of residential versus non-residential concerns has a point. The individuals in that community who are neighbors to the temple are host to noise pollution, foot traffic, and vehicle traffic every Sunday that I would imagine could be very disruptive. It’s a cop out to simply say, “Well these are just defenseless monks providing a service to the community, and anyone who doesn’t let them do whatever they want is xenophobic, hateful, or ignorant of culture,” just as it is equally ridiculous to suggest that any small group of people within the community should be able to completely change the standards of the community as a whole. As someone who has served in the religious clergy in the past I recognize that you must consider and carefully balance the delicate issues in something like this. It appears that the monks have made efforts to mitigate the concerns of some of the neighbors, but if a sufficient portion of the community finds the event to still be disruptive then it requires taking another look at the concerns of both sides. Keep in mind that a popular event like this surely grows over time, and now that it is receiving some sort of media coverage imagine how much more it will grow.
What is the difference between 2000+ Temple supporters and the 21 households that oppose the Temple expansion?
The 21 households have legal standing as adjacent property owners. In a zoning dispute much consideration is given to the rights of adjacent property owners to peace and quiet in their own homes.
The 2000 + supporters of the temple are viewed as patrons or customers. The patrons or customer will not be deprived of Thai Food or Thai Culture as a result of this zoning initiative. Clearly, the Thai Community has vast financial reserves sufficient to fund $2million in expansion since 2001. The Temple also enjoys the support of an energetic community. As far as Thai Food, the yellow pages list 100’s of Thai restaurants in the Berkeley area. None shall be deprived.
However, the 21 household have been and will continue to be deprived of their right to peace in their own home should the ZAB grant the expanded use permit to the Temple.
The Pro-Temple public relations folks suggest that the rights of the Temple are more important that the rights of the neighbors. I say each party has equal rights and equal responsibility. In this case, however the Temple is on the wrong side. By the Temple’s own admission, this was a function of the growth that they did not intend and could not control. “We are a victim of our own success.” they say.
Be that as it may, the Temple is obligated to grow in a responsible fashion. They chose to operate at a commercial scale in the middle of residential block. They have clearly grown beyond their capacity to serve. They have the responsibility to find the appropriate venue that can house their operation in a zoned commercial setting.
These are the same equal rights and equal responsibility all other individuals and institutions must live by. The Temple should not hold themselves apart and above the rights of their neighbors to have peace in their homes on Sunday.
I think someone did the math wrong on the temple revenue. If the temple raised fund from the brunch an average of $7,000 per week, assuming $7 per person for a ridiculous number of 1000 people (200 people per hour) per week running at full usual operation from 9am to 2pm at (this was the operation hours before the complaint incident), and in a 52 week per year, that’s $364,000 per year. Now if you factor monthly cost of things needed to prepare the food ($4,000) utility bills ($4,000, I think they got 4 buildings there averaging $1,000 each), cost of housing monks, laypersons, and teachers(although there’s no cost for monks and layperson, but for teachers from Thailand, $2,000), cost of running the language and cultural schools ($10,000, books, school supplies, musical instruments and dance costumes supplies and maintenance), general maintenance($1,000), basic office supplies ($500, their monthly newsletter, administrative stuff) and other cost associated with providing religious ceremonies ($1,000) (and I’m also using a ridiculous number here) it would amount to $22,500 per month; $270,000 per year for baseline cost. Then you gotta consider 20% overhead for external cost such as flying the monks to and from Thailand, special religious events, cultural outreach events (such as the Chinese New Year Parade), donations to charity organization in Thailand, so that totals to $324,000 per year. So, the temple net $40,000 per year.
Due to the concession, because the hours is cut down from 10am - 1pm, 3 hours, the temple would now raise (using the aforementioned factors) $4200 per week, $218,400 per year. This means the temple would have to cut $51,600 from it’s yearly base line cost, or $4,300 per month. Now, if the Sunday brunch is shut down complete, does anyone have at least $250,000 of donation to keep the religious institution running, the existence of Thai language and culture in the US, and keeping kids active instead of being on the streets?
on top of the incomes from the brunch, what about the incomes coming from temple goers, rich Thai tourists who visits and donate, the Thai government, other fund raising events, fees collected from students, and other ways to make monies