I say maybe

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?

I say maybe

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

I say maybe

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?

I say maybe

I respect individuals who are selling the street news. They are not the same as beggars. There is one man I know from the Farmer's Market who tells me a new joke everytime I see him there and on Solano in front of Peets. I don't want this initiative to curb this kind of street presence.

I am completely in favor of curbing uncivil behavior and somehow dealing with help resistant and possibly mentally ill people who make the street and the city commons disgusting and hostile for everyone else. I strongly welcome the efforts and reasonable costs needed to achieve this aim.

I say maybe

I'm not a cigarette smoker, but I think banning smoking from anywhere in the city is going a bit far. Smokers would smoke anyway, or walk into residential areas and litter thier butts there in areas that are harder to clean than downtown. Plus it's unrealistic from an enforcement angle. Otherwise, this measure seems fair as long as no one is sleeping in those restrooms.

I say maybe

This is another tax wrapped up to in a neat package. As long as we continue to welcome a resident homeless population we will have a resident homeless population problem.

Businesses don’t come to Berkeley because they can be taxed out of business with each election. Look around…Emeryville and El Cerrito are leaving us in the 1950’s. Berkeley residents need to shop in those towns for the staples. It’s not about a homeless person smoking in a doorway.

The truth is that businesses, in conjunction with Police, are better able to resolve these matters when the business community is thriving. The sales tax revenue further supports these, and many other, civic objectives. The downtown problem is that the City is not aggressively tackling the vacancy problem. If it looks like skid row…

Opening the restrooms in parking garages 24 hours a day would be devastating to businesses…no more women shoppers or diners downtown.

Blaming our homelessness problem on a lack of resources is just false. Portland and Santa Cruz are operating success homelessness management programs on smaller budgets. Here is a more cost-effective idea:

1. Redirect existing resources with a measured plan to REDUCE the homeless number.
2. Enforce the existing code and back our skilled Police force.
3. Ban the 40-60 people who habitually infringe on the safety and well-being of the public.

This is about balancing compassion with the overall health of our City and requires rethinking how the City operates. If we are going to throw our money at the problem we should not do more of what is currently not working.

I know it’s not the Mayor’s intention, but the proposed plan could easily make Berkeley more attractive to transients.

I say maybe

The conditions of Berkeley's streets are reflective of the state of social conditions in our state and country. When you continually cut the help for mental illness and wellness programs it is natural that these social ills spill over into public view.
The tenor of this measure seems to be "Let's address the problems and work towards a solution". That is a positive step. My concern that keeps me from saying an unqualified "Yes", is there is a push and flavor of let's clean up the streets and sweep the problems to somewhere else. As long as there is help and support being provided to people desperately needing it I see this is a positive step to address the social ills of the USA. Dana Merryday

I say maybe

While I completely agree that the situation in downtown Berkeley is intolerable, and is largely responsible for driving away our financial supporters and MANY potential visitors (to Habitot Children's Museum), I am skeptical of the chances for success of Mayor Bates' proposal. Nevertheless, I do applaud him for making the effort. At last.

If I saw the whole city council on board with the proposal, I would be less skeptical. If the language about supposed violations of 'civil liberties was eliminated, I would be less skeptical. If the proposal addressed the existing off-campus privileges for Berkeley HS students with an enforced code of behavior while they are in the downtown area, I would be less skeptical. If the proposal did not finance any additional costs by increasing parking expense, which is already a deterrent to visiting downtown and will drive away more visitors, I would be less skeptical.

I agree with those who have written about a regional response - Berkeley can't be hand-out central - and any effort to address the homeless in particular needs to be implemented in coordination with other cities, regional health departments, etc.

I agree with those who mention that existing laws already exist to eliminate the most offensive behaviors; they just need to be enforced. Allow police to do their jobs.

Personally, I'd be happy if we started with a major cleaning of the streets, sidewalks and general filth in downtown, focusing the work of the existing public sanitation workers and a demand that the city, store owners and BART do their parts going forward, and broadly and consistently enforcing penal codes -- everything from littering, to spitting, to smoking in doorways, to public urination/defecation and drug dealing -- by our very well paid police force.

I say maybe

Another increase to citizens of Berkeley for such a waste! I always advicate to offering those who homeless who decline any form of assistance the best solution....offer them a one way ticket back from whence they originated..it just might prove interesting to find out just how many would except such an offer and leave Berkeley.
Berkeley Can NOT be the land of opportunity and we can NO longer continue giving more and more and see the money going to no benefits...this is ageless and has contineud to worsen as time goes bye...and bye it should be, be gone, go away just LEAVE.
If you make it more restrictive and define the laws more, who benefits...you loose police where needed elsewhere, and crime capitolizes on shortage of police and that is a fact. Just who will inact Mayor Bates' gibberish, is he going to go out and talk with these folks to except the assistance they need? Raise the fee on parking meters, now that's a laugh, try to find one that works or find one anywhere near a City Employee Facility and it meters are jammed with disability hang tags, being used fraudently by employees...that is fact, check out all the parking along Center from MLK to Milvia and who is parked there daily.
Then, provide more public bathroom facilities, and just who is going to clean them up...our City Workers? And open 24/7...hummm, sleeping there and who roused them out when it is time to clean the facility?
Unfortunately, these are the same ole suggestions that have been asked over and over, and even emplimated costing citizens more, what is actually done, nothing what so ever. It is a crisis that simply needs to be addressed as make it the most uncomfortable situation and move them out of Berkeley...violating their civil liberties, I think not...they offer nothing in return and they are violating my rights as well as the rights to our Businesses.

I say maybe

One of the anonymous "no" voters makes a very compelling point: The activities to be regulated by the measure are repulsive, but are not typically a threat to life and limb. In contrast, the awful drivers who drive through our neighborhoods at high speeds, and recklessly, violating pedestrian rights of way, do pose a serious and deadly threat. I am generally supportive of this measure, but I'd place in a higher priority the effort to protect our residents from dangers posed by bad drivers.

(It's also worth thinking about the following quote from Anatole France: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.")

I say maybe

I wholeheartedly support the mayor's stated goals of this program, however I have some concerns regarding the particular details and some suggestions for improvement.

Most importantly, I would like to see added the return of the "guides" that we experimented with downtown and on telegraph a few years ago. This would not neccesarily be in lieu of more police presence and enforcement of existing laws, but I believe they can be an extremely effective tool in the improvement of public spaces that are seen as a problem.

For one, guides are more informal and potentially less anatagonizing than policemen in uniform. They are easier to approach for someone not wanting to "bother" a cop about something little, and less threatening to fellow citizens who have a propensity for mistrusting authority (a demographic that has been overrepresented, for good or bad, in our town since the free speach movement).

Second of all, the guide program is a great way to get young people in Berkeley involved in their community, and contributing to its improvement.

As a last comment, I think that increased trash pick up on sidewalks is a very important aspect to the proposed plan, but that the jobs to do the cleaning should be offered to our homeless citizens who live in the neighborhoods most in need. Perhaps some fast track hiring plans could be implemented for willing people, coupled with the increased social services alluded to in Mayor Bates' article. I have no idea of the feasibility, but it seems like a more persuasive argument if, after you tell someone, "look you can't stand here pissing on the wall, and yelling at people walking by to give you money" if you add, "but if you want to make $10 an hour I've got a trash can and a broom for you".

I say maybe

All of the points seem sound, however I object to the ban on smoking in all public places. I am not a smoker; but since smoking is legal, does this ban effects all citizens, even those workers who step out of the store to have a quick smoke?

I say maybe

Money talks and 'odd' behavior has to walk, as in "get outta here". While I agree that there should be limits, I thinks the authoritarians and business people have to have limits as well.
As usual the devil is in the details of limit construction so I think I will judge the program by its results. I'm willing to give it a try.

I say maybe

I agree that something must be done. I am not sure whether these are the exact steps that should be taken, but I would like to support Mayor Bates and the City Council in addressing this important question. Quality of life is important to all of us, not just the "service resistant." I'd like to be able to stroll with my kids in the shopping areas of Berkeley, but it has become too dicey to do so.

I say maybe

I say maybe

I say maybe

I say maybe

I say maybe

I say maybe