The "commons" problem has been posed wrong.

The Mayor says that "40%" of the street people
are unwilling to accept services. Some have
described this as "they prefer to eat out of
garbage cans." This is an inhumane and morally
wrong way to see what is happening. It is also
a view that is promoted by the Mental Health
Administration. The way the M.H. Admin. promotes
it is more a reflection of their moral limitations
and limited Vision. Even the National Freedom
Commission says it's a "system in shambles."
Those who participate in M.H. Administration and
see what I'm saying _cope_, then they leave. I
have had this conversation with several of them.
The idea of that "more services" is the answer
- a major implication of the Mayor's proposal -
is off base, because this is not a problem for
"treatment," not primarily. It is a problem in
healing the commons, a political problem.

What is needed is that the culture needs to
move over from narrow selfishness towards "taking
responsibility." That's a project of generations;
for the City of Berkeley it should be the priority
in how we plan to remake our commons. But today
those who take it as a priority - like the
Berkeley Homeless Action Center - face the same
fate that Wendy Georges formerly faced at the
Food Project; their nurturing of "responsibility"
is treated as second class, while the M.H.
Administration, the police, and the like define
the dominant priority for the commons. Those
groups need to be required by a shift in policy
priorities to support the "responsibility
approach" to the commons, and the "bad apples"
who have a career investment in stopping this,
such as the M.H. Director, need to be removed.

Andrew Phelps
Berkeley Mental Health Commission/Advisory
Board 1986-95 Chair 1990-93

It's a shame that this is so controversial.

We have two daughters who like to visit downtown to shop, go to movies and the library. We would like to be sure that they are safe and are not going to be accosted by dangerous and threatening individuals. We have noticed that the panhandling on Solano and Downtown has gotten more aggressive. Sometimes it feels like we have to run a gauntlet of panhandlers when we take walks on Solano and Downtown. We feel that this measure is needed. It is obvious that many of these individuals who stand on the streets yelling and swearing need to get into a program in order that their lives can be improved. The same goes for the despondent ones who probably could be helped with antidepressant medication. It violates their human rights to just leave them out there when they need treatment in order to make a competent decision.
We also feel that the city needs to have public restrooms. It is hard to shop for any amount of time when so few of the merchants allow people to use their bathrooms

It's OK to set standards for public behavior.

Telegraph Ave and the downtown are now unpleasant to visit. This measure is very important if we are going to restore those areas.

Kathryn Snowden

I live in the Gourmet Ghetto area, and the only black people my kids see are his parents and panhadlers. I find this to be a huge source of frustration. Are the folks in front of cheesboard, B of A, and Peets really being served by being allowed to set up shop outside of these places? I think the true purpose they serve is helping curb white guilt. I feel strongly that they need to go.

Anna's Jazz Island, Beckett's Irish Pub, Blake's on Telegraph, .. Jupiter, La Note Restaurant, .. Raleigh's, Shattuck Down Low, Triple Rock Brewery...

This is a skeletal list of businesses that will be effected if the problematic smoking behaviour by their customers on the sidewalks of our city are further curtailed, limited or criminalized.

Will Mayor Bates' Public Commons for Everyone Initiative have a complaint and enforcement mechanism to ensure an effective, meaningful consequence to business customers who violate the current ban on smoking or any new expansion of a smoking ban?

Deborah Badhia and Mark McLeod of the Downtown Berkeley Association and Roland Peterson of the Berkeley Chamber of Commerce have all supported the Mayor's Initiative. Do they support an expansion of the current smoking ban? Do they support enhanced sanctions for business customers including citations and monetary fines?

It is not a 'right' to disrupt the lives of others w/ out-of-bounds behavior... even if you are mentally ill ... this is the real issue to be addressed.
Pat Scott

Sounds good as up front arguement, but what about arguements against? Where are they?

Any behavior that is truly dangerous to others is already covered by current laws. This is an initiative to "clean up" commercial districts, under the guise of the hip concept "Public Commons for Everyone", though the poor, who have difficulty coping with their trauma politely, are unlikely to be included in that elusive "everyone".

i just saw info on the urination problem.
sorry i cant type and seems to be no spellcheck

please develop a program that addresses the choice to be disbled by substance abuse adn drug induced psychosis

sepreate from the disbeld and unemployed and you will begin to have real and working solutions not just bandiads.

i can tell you if there were public showers and outhouses in parks and aplace to sit inside build shetlers wihotu having to tolerate certain day program employees who arent properly medicated have personilty problems and thier own recvoery issues...etc...people would mostly go there. clean warm peace.

encourage homeless to cook in the parks not beg in town for prepared foods. laso make them feel they are cpable and survivng changes the attitude. self esteem .

its so simple to understand that nothing is beneath people with nothing to lose .

attack the problem not the result.

well again i say on substances they need diversion programs.
please dont do the shelter plus instead of independant living.
mentlahealth and all socil services are clearly failing many . please dont give them more opportunity.
shlter plus is for a specific population and/or a specific time..
only if there is licensed care involved.

dont stop independant living .

the shlters and day prograsm are failing to provide solutions. but the money keeps rolling in., the slick marketing and the reality are night and day.

things have to change from the beginning when soemone finds them selves homeless.
there is no plan. no agreement. i should be able to go in and say here i am. this is what i need. how will you assist? what is the mutal agreement. but reality is here i am. what do i ahve to do to beg for whatever you want to do when you want to do it and how it best suits you and your agency.
though i need a drink well maybe s everal after dealing with the ashlters and agencies.. i know that is unsafe and failure assured.

i aslo know that many an addcit got there after dealing with the system over and over. never getting the help. never getting basic respect. hanging onto then falling off maslow's hierarchy of needs.

whya re people dumped out into the wee hours after beign sellp deprived in shelters ? what are they to do fro housrs and housrs till they can come back..? pee on the sidewalks.. sit in the shops when they open..

susbstance abuse should be prevented has to ahve a differnt track. go from a reahb to sober living. those have to be developed . in so cal there are m any private sober livings . research how they got started. then there are lowered cost rentals and support in house ..keep support going .
throw an addict into shlter sober kick inth rear and a job and housing then done and watch them come back. what is the mystery?
even with kids . many of them need 2-5 years supports before independant living.skilled
having them licensed sober livings also avoilds soem of the pit falls .

unemployed and disbeld need socisl workers adn real job recuriters.a or voc reahb supports,not i used to be high un skilled unliecensed case mangers.
why cant i get into voc reahb or accessbiel housing im not drunk. they sytem does everyhting to create failure for anyone whp caont overcome its defieicencies.
the road to hell is well paved.
fix the system. then it can work.
send a homless spy into any of the shlters or support places and y oull find why the failures. doign a round wehn everyone is on best behcvior and by those who havent a clue what is needed and miossing. just continues the process.

iix the system the problem not micromanage the resultsof its failure.
the system is broken. but none wants to addres it. none of the cogs admit thier part. its not all funding issues. why are many homless just recycling thorugh. over and over.
why can a durnk with a kid get help and housing now.hwy can a single addict get a 6 month shelter bed and a disbeld person 30 days? whay are you allowed to be high in unlicensed shelter?
why is there no path form homless to housing fro most disabeld?
even like me with ssi with a voucher. wihtou susbtance abuse.
i got tossed frfrom shlter 6 months bed fro addict 30 days for disabeld. toomany disblities expenses to afford to get into hosuing.,many staff are having medication and personality and problems. and i was a problem becasue i didbnt abck down when they were innnproriate..
NY has less problems becasue they fix them. The system is broken isnt any longer alowed to be a personal excuse.not becasue less become homless.or in need. becasue they address the issues.
they wouldnt dream of putting someone with mulitple disblities out in the road.

and there is accountablity in the programs. they are not first there to employ the recetntly recoverd. those who cant mange to get along except with a captive audience.

how many people recycle thoguht he sytem multiple times?
how can at leadr one woman be in BFHP a year with no claimed disblity? and how can mh palce addcits fro 6 months and multi disbled are left on thier own adn get 30 days to overcome disblity with no supports?
how many of those peeing in th road sitting in shops for hours leaving needles and beer bottles around are in shelter? how many begging..
how many selling the street sheet are housed?

how can you expect anyhting but failure when there are tons of funds and no real controls or accountbility or license required?

arresting isnt solving.
but pee on the sidewalk when drunk on the road must go to reahb or mh and do community service sure would help.

any any petty theft again community service and a diversion program..

i have never heard of a ticket or aday otr two in jail stopping a drunk form drinking.
i have never heard of tossing a tweekers stolen goods stopping them from vicimizing homeless and ohters (stealing more.)
i have been homless over 7 years and have never met anyone agressive enough to beg on the street who is not also a susbtance abuser.

AND why aren't their social workers in the streets?

isn't that where the clients are?

M. Bates again is a shill for the Chamber of Commerce. This expensive plan does nothing for me in south Berkeley.

the city of berkeley's historical permissiveness to individuals who verbally abuse and threaten citizens has created an environment difficult to operate a succesfull retail business. i moved out of berkeley because of constant harassment as i walked down the street. i believe there is a way to preserve berkeley's unique culture while protecting its citizens.

While I do recognize there are some street problems I feel laws against sleeping or sitting on the sidewalk, against public urination or defecation where there is inadequate public housing, providing of shelter beds or legal areas to set up tent or to go to the bathroom especially in the evening do not solve these problems but make them worse by making those criminalize more surly and resentful at the injustice, the unfairness of their present state of impoverishment, lack of shelter and compassionate care. We still are waitng for the detox and the sobering station and the implementation of the full service partnerships for the mentally afflicted on our streets and in danger of losing the AB2034 that helped to get 100 seriously mentally ill off our streets into assisted housing if the governor gets his way. -Michael Diehl

When I first heard about 'Public Commons for Everyone', I foolishly thought the homeless were part of 'Everyone'? First on the agenda should be providing enhanced services, safe places to sleep, doing a better job about getting information out regarding health services, public bathrooms, etc. As of now I do not see any more money being directed for these services, in fact the last I heard funding for homeless services was being cut.

I have two young children. There are a lot of families with young children on my block, and we are ready to spend money on Shattuck Avenue. However, the blight on Shattuck drives people away. I walk from the downtown berkeley bart station along Shattuck to my home every day, and I'm well familiar with the problems. My issues:
1) Not everyone can walk or bike all the time: just ask anyone who has young children! We need downtown parking if business is to survive.
2) I'm tired of seeing the same panhandlers every day on Shattuck. Some of these people are clearly ill, and as many or more seem pretty satisfied with whatever income they make by panhandling every single day. I'm really tired of it. I support the mayor's policy. I believe in freedom of expression, but Berkeley has become the tragedy of the commons.
3) We need public restrooms downtown, and we also need them to be serviced & cleaned. My young child needed to use the portable toilet at the new 'skate park' near city hall, and it was entirely filled up to capacity. Let's keep the restrooms but also pay to service them!
4) I'm pleased that UC will open a building downtown for meetings/conventions. Frankly, we need SOMETHING new to happen on Shattuck! I object to the rants in the 'Daily Planet' about the university as if it were the essence of evil. Is ANY other business-generating enterprise likely to happen on Shattuck? I highly doubt it.

We don't need this new law. Instead, we need to provide more housing and available public restrooms. We need more outreach workers to encourage homeless people to get the psychological and addiction-fighting help they need, and followup to give them training and jobs. We need to work regionally so that all the surrounding cities provide these services. We need to enforce existing laws against public urination (and defecation, although I think that rarely occurs), against assaultive behavior, against obstructing public sidewalks, which means that citizens who encounter these behaviors need to report them, not just complain to their friends. But asking for spare change is not a crime; sitting on the sidewalk is not a crime; hanging out with friends is not a crime. None of these should be criminalized.

Studies have shown that the mere presence of an authority (such as uniformed police and Berkeley Guides) tends to curb antisocial behavior in an area.

How about hriing and training Berkeley young people seeking summer work as Guides? Or to monitor and clean public restrooms? How about everyone taking responsibility to clean up a restroom a bit when they find it dirty? How about everyone choosing not to give to individual panhandlers but instead to the social service agencies (Berkeley Emergency Food Project, BOSS, Free Clinic, youth agencies, ethnic agencies) that serve all the needy?

Public restrooms are key, and greater enforcement. I do not believe that a subset of people should be held to a different standard of behavior that the rest of us. It is not compassionate to enable behavior that is destructive. It is not compassionate to relieve a certain subset of humanity from consequences.

This proposal is merely another attempt on behalf of businesses to "clean up" commercial districts at the expense of homeless residents, and others who do not keep their feelings politely to themselves.

Berkeley is a town famous for, and proud of, its political and creative counter culture. Shame on you for paving the way for more police repression, and further erosion of people's rights to refuse "help" they deem unhelpful.

Truly dangerous behavior is already covered by existing laws. There is no need to further empower the police or psychiatrists to project their (or your) judgment of what "behavior" is "acceptable".

we don't need all of the proposed measures --
enforcement will end up being arbitrary