I say no

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

I say no

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 say no

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

I say no

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

I say no

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 say no

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?

I say no

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".

I say no

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

I say no

I don't like the sterility of the places cited as examples of the Mayor's proposal. While I don't like the smell of urine or piles of feces that sometimes appear in Berkeley areas, this is better addressed by providing conveniently located, clean public restrooms, not by running people off. If someone approaches me, I just say no (and make donations to local charity).

I liked the community policing methods investigated on Haight St. in San Francisco and suggested by other council members. Why not spend the money Bates is looking for on these methods and clean bathrooms, rather than more draconian measures?

I say no

Everyday, Berkeley becomes a meaner, uglier, less progressive city. Mayor Bates' sleep out in the street with the homeless a few years back to show his "compassionate caring" was a bogus electoral stunt, nothing more.
The corrupt, mean-spirited politics of the federal government has trickled down to the state and, in turn, trickled down to the municipalities.
We are going the wrong direction and will have to pay the consequences eventually. We cannot destroy our humanity without consequence.

I say no

I am a bit confused. Awhile back I seem to recall that the Council declared a Bob Avakian Day. I also seem to recall some attempts to move the Federal Government to the left, vis-a-vis the war and maybe even some other issues. And yet, everything you do locally, where you actually wield power, seems to have a fascistic overtone to it - you always seem to side with big business against the citizenry, especially the underclasses. Where is the attempt to start moving Berkeley toward a socialistic society? Or is the rhetoric involved in declaring a Bob Avakian Day and and in issuing proclamations to the Federal Government just pure hypocrisy?

I say no

It’s been almost forty years since I gave up smoking, but watching Tuesday’s city council meeting made me feel for the first time in years that I’d really like a cigarette. Why? Well, watching the city council stumble and stutter their way through an agenda which came with a 1400 word packet which they clearly hadn’t bothered to read was a nerve-racking experience. It culminated in a pathetic charade which purported to address the Mayor’s heartfelt interest in “improving the quality of life of public commons in the City.”
What’s pathetic about that? Well, first, the grammar. Perhaps the drafter meant to say “in” or “on” the public commons. Whatever the “public commons” might be, it’s inanimate, doesn’t have any life of its own, nor any quality of same.
Maybe what was meant was the quality of life for “people” in or on the public commons. But what does “public” commons mean anyway? Is it to be contrasted with “private” commons, and if so what would a “private” commons be? Let’s just assume for discussion purposes that “public” is simply redundancy for the purpose of emphasis, and that that the triple redundancy in the title “Public Commons for Everyone” initiative is meant to convey the very great sincerity of the proponents.
In case you were afraid that there might be some insincerity at work here, you might have caught the mayor’s introduction to the discussion on Tuesday night. He maundered on for several minutes, eyes downcast, seeming to be reading from a text written by someone else, assuring anyone who cared that he really really does feel their pain.
You might have missed the whole discussion, though, since it took place at 11:30 or later, after the allotted time for the council meeting had been extended. Presumably it was placed at the end of the agenda to make sure that as few people as possible saw it, and that even fewer were able to show up to express their opinions on the topic.
What was actually on the agenda for this item? Just five recommendations, all either obvious or pointless:
1. “Restrict smoking in public areas in commercial zones.” Yes, yes, I’m fully aware that tobacco is the devil’s weed, and that one of the privileges of living in the Berkeley Bubble is never having to inhale anything you believe to be health-threatening or simply offensive, whether it’s tobacco smoke, cheap scent or body odor. (Perhaps medical marijuana is an exception, perhaps not. The no-smoking signs on the 51 bus my kids took to Berkeley High had hand-lettered “this means pot too”, but whiffs of The Other Weed still drift in through the windows in some areas.) There are already laws against public smoking, widely ignored by the police. The proposal would extend the no-smoking zones to even wider areas, making them even less likely to be enforced.
But perhaps Proposal 4 would take care of that: “Provide for strict enforcement of all existing laws affecting the quality of life in public spaces and parks.” Oh sure, and in the meantime the drug dealers down around Oregon and Sacramento are cheering. This one will keep the police off the streets and out of trouble, busy handing out tickets for public smoking.
Better get the officers some foreign language instruction too. Every year about this time Telegraph Avenue is deluged with French youth, guidebooks in hand, looking for excitement and puffing up a storm. If the cops are going to try to stop them, at least they should learn to say “Defense de Fumer”. Some Chinese wouldn’t hurt either, since sadly most people in China are still heavy smokers, even when they visit the U.S.
Which brings up, in a roundabout way, elimination. In many countries urination in alleys is no great sin if there’s no public facility handy, particularly for men. I’m personally a bit too timid for that-- the reason I finally stopped buying clothes in downtown Berkeley is that Ross-Dress-for-Less closed the bathrooms in the building they took over from J.C. Penney, and it became virtually impossible to find a place to pee in peace downtown. We’ve told the city should “Develop prohibitions and increased fines for public urination”... but just wait until the police snag a hapless foreign tourist in an alley.
This will all be solved, however, by Proposal 2: “Install better directional signage to public restrooms.” Turns out that when you find them there are only four public restrooms in the downtown/Telegraph area, and trust me, three of them you wouldn’t want to go into. They’re only open during business hours anyhow, though the mayor in his benevolence now suggests keeping them open longer, and of course the signs will be bigger....
But obviously the target of all this is not tourists or desperate shoppers, it’s the homeless and/or crazy folks in the “public commons” who offend. That “Everyone” in the title of the proposal really means “everyone except anyone who offends someone else who’s more important”.
Councilmember Wozniak told a harrowing anecdote about the time his wife and son saw a vagrant deliberately peeing on the radiator grill of an expensive car on Telegraph—the horror! I’m sure that never happened back in Nebraska.
And there are urban legends that some of these types even defecate where they shouldn’t to show their contempt for something or other. How often does this happen, in reality? Wouldn’t a better explanation be that they just couldn’t find a bathroom in time? Not pleasant, but not criminal, and until the city can provide enough public facilities in enough places it will be hard to prove intent-to-annoy. (On the other hand, in the defecation category don’t get me started on dogs and their lazy owners.)
And the recommendation that is the red meat in this proposal is Number 5:
“Reduce warning provisions associated with regulations prohibiting lying on the sidewalk.” Anyone who’s ever shopped with a two-year-old knows that lying on the sidewalk is a regular feature of the tired-of-shopping-tantrum. Anyone who occasionally gets dizzy knows that sitting or lying down helps. Even the mayor recognized problems like this with his suggestion that the city needs more approved places to sit down, but don’t hold your breath waiting for new benches on Telly.
Again, however, it’s not naughty toddlers or dizzy walkers who are being targeted. It’s the homeless/disturbed/anti-social people who are the real problem for Everyone Else. And what do we propose to do about them? Give them tickets, of course, but now without the traditional and customary “okay, buddy, it’s time to move on.” And if they get enough tickets, they go to jail, since of course they don’t have money for fines. That’ll show’em.
The latest North East Berkeley Association newsletter sums it all up without apparent irony:
“... serious impediments to safe and enjoyable use of our public spaces and commercial districts are inappropriate street behavior, drug-dealing, vagrancy, and panhandling.... Mayor Bates has, commendably, put forth a call for a serious examination and resolution of this issue, with an emphasis on making our public spaces more attractive to the vast majority of Berkeley residents. It remains to be seen whether common sense and the needs of the vast majority will prevail against well-organized homeless advocates. ” That vast underprivileged silent majority of North East Berkeley homeowners speaks up for themselves for once! Thank God someone’s finally looking out for their rights!
Oh, and by the way, earlier in the evening the council discussed plans for cutting the funding for social service programs in next year’s budget. The “well-organized homeless advocates” were wringing their hands, but to no avail. And councilmembers stomped all over Kriss Worthington’s excellent ideas for using genuine community policing to solve Telegraph Avenue problems. It’s so much easier just to write some new laws, isn’t it? But on Tuesday the council didn’t even get around to that by the time the meeting ended.

I say no

A waste of tax payers dollars. Just enforce the existing laws.

I say no

It is obvious that Berkeley is faced with this very complicated problem of dealing with the homeless and street folk but it is NOT just a Berkeley issue.
It is a Regional issue that should demand Regional resources.
This proposal by the Mayor, while well intended, looks like the "same 'ol", throwing MORE Local resource and creating MORE bureaucracy that will more than likely just muddy the water.
What Happened to the Mayor's Joint Effort Proposal, announced not that long ago with SF Mayor Newsome, To address this Big Issue of Homelessness at the Regional Level ????

I say no

Without fundamentally changing the way we enforce laws, and without fully understanding the relationship between homelessness, business, and law enforcement in a community, these initiatives are doomed to fail and waste our city's resources.

The Berkeley PD doesn't need more rules and laws to enforce. The current penal code is more than sufficient. Instead, we should train our officers in Community Policing. Community Policing is a distinctly different method of law enforcement. Officers would live as a part of the community, would become very familiar with local business owners, home owners, and repeat offenders. Active residents and business owners in the community would be able to contact their Community Officer when a disturbance arose. This kind of relationship would build trust between the community and the Police Department, would improve the PD's ability appropriately divert the needy and mentally ill to local service providers, and would be a more comprehensive way of understanding and addressing the evolving needs of our City and all of its residents.

Council Member Kriss Worthington and others of the Telegraph community recently visited Haight Street in San Francisco to learn more about Community Policing and how it could be adapted to Telegraph (see the 05-08-07 issue of Berkeley Daily Planet). Please support the development of Community Policing in Berkeley.

I say no

There are far more pressing issues in Berkeley. How about working to improve the way city council meetings are run for instance. Issues such as this are devisive and appear to be "class" oriented.

I say no

We as a city need more comprehensive planning for those people who for various reasons are out on the streets. Partioning them off, in the old "them" and "us" routine, will not help Berkeley become the socially-enlightened city it aspires to become. The City requires more social, medical and employment/educational services.

I say no

Balanced? The Mayor's proposal isn't broad enough to enforce laws for antisocial behaviour on the public right of ways (common walkways and streets) for everyone by various rule breakers who victimize us. When I heard about the concept of public commons for everyone and something about street behavior problems I thought you meant the antisocial and dangerous rule breaking behaviors of drivers--both in cars and on bicycles who drive through stop signs and make turns at trafic signal and hit those of us walking in cross walks! Then they do not stop--keep on going. EVERYONE in my neighborhoodon Milvia in North Shattuck has been hit by a car or a cyclist. Except for 2, these frightening incidents were not serious enough for the 911 operator to send an ambulance so you do not learn the high incidence of these vehicles grazing our trouser leg or hitting sometimes mangling our bicycle tyres. It is as if we do not belong out there crossing the street--they 'own' the right of ways and we are in the way. Some even honk at us to get out of the way faster. We live on a slow street--a bicycle route--still we are frightened as both cars and cyclists rush towards us and even drive around us when we are in the lane.
A balanced use of resources would be to review existing laws and enforce them for car drivers and cyclists as well as crazies and beggars who violate the law on the sidewalks and streets. These driver rule breakers are far more scary and can cause more harm than the beggars and crazies. Lately our neighborhood has opened several more upscale bars--at night when walking dogs many folks have been grazed or almost hit by cars--they say they believe those are drunk drivers. Please work for more enforcement across the City of ALL rule breakers.

I say no

Berkeley already supports over 40% of the adult male homeless population of Alameda County. This proposal requires Berkeley taxpayers to spend even more money on a bandaid which does not really deal with the problem. And the real solution is for all municipalities in Alameda County to do their fair share. The County should be subsidizing the extra services and costs, not us. And i really oppose providing more services in the downtown area, as that will just attract more of the problem, not solve it.

I say no