At its meeting June 12, Berkeley City Council will consider placing a measure on its November ballot restricting the homeless and city residents from sitting or sleeping on Berkeley sidewalks.
The civil sidewalks ballot measure, which would prohibit people from sitting on city sidewalks from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., could cost approximately $26,000 to place on the November ballot and aims to improve the cleanliness and accessibility of sidewalks in commercial areas of Berkeley as well as business for surrounding vendors.
The measure — which could take effect in March 2013 if approved by voters in November — would include a warning before a citation, according to the measure’s recommendation. Following one warning, the next violation would be an infraction, and any subsequent violations could be misdemeanors.
The definition of sitting includes sitting on objects placed upon the sidewalk such as duffel bags or backpacks, according to the recommendation.
Mayor Tom Bates, who put the measure on the June 12 meeting agenda, said the city considered a similar sit-lie ordinance last July that would also make it illegal for anyone to sit or lie on Berkeley sidewalks.
However, the council decided not to take up the ordinance last summer, according to Bates.
Community members who opposed the ordinance when it was proposed last year held a protest in April, which included 70 UC Berkeley students and Berkeley community members who marched through the streets to a council meeting to make their opposition known. Protesters last year said they were responding to the push by Berkeley businesses that had been large proponents of the sit-lie ordinance.
Roland Peterson, executive director of the Telegraph Business Improvement District and a supporter of the ordinance last year, said he appreciates the measure being introduced by Bates.
“I thank the mayor for introducing the (measure),” Peterson said. “It is important because now it can be on the ballot and there doesn’t have to be a referendum.”
Bates said he wants to consider the measure now because it is vital for the improvement of Berkeley.
“We just can’t have people sitting on the sidewalk all day,” he said. “If we were to pass it as an ordinance, people would likely create a referendum, and it would end up on the ballot anyway.”
According to Bates, a component of the measure would be to have city ambassadors — members of the Berkeley Chamber of Commerce who already work to keep sidewalks clean and serve as the eyes and ears of community — report people who refuse to get up and have them cited by police, as well as receive a small fine and the possibility of community service, if they refuse to move.
“It’s not criminalizing homelessness — we want people to come to Berkeley, to shop and spend money in Berkeley,” Bates said.
There have been similar measures from other jurisdictions in San Francisco, Santa Cruz and Santa Monica, according to the recommendation.
But Stephanie Falwell, a clinic director at the UC Berkeley Suitcase Clinic, said that areas the city of San Francisco thought its ordinance would improve are now facing economic decline.
Blue Q. Kazoo, a former Berkeley resident who frequently travels to Berkeley to sit on the city’s sidewalks, disagrees with the measure’s components because it targets homeless people and adds to their despair.
“It sucks,” he said. “I know that the same thing happened in Santa Cruz, and even locals were starting to have a problem with it, saying that police were taking it too far. What’s the next thing? Are they not going to allow pets on the sidewalks?”
Councilmember Kriss Worthington said he would like the option to draft a compromise to the measure like other measures to be included on the November ballot, such as the bond measure to renovate the city’s pools.
Worthington also said he feels the measure is being rushed, and ASUC senators and Berkeley community members may not be able to provide their input before the council decides whether to place the measure on the November ballot.
“It is astounding that (Bates) is trying to race it through,” Worthington said. “All of the other measures have been under consideration for at least six months, and we basically know what is going to be on the ballot. Another key thing is that four commissions … and the ASUC all opposed it last time.”
At its June meeting, the council could vote to have the city manager draft ballot language in order to place the measure on the November ballot.
“I believe very strongly that City Council will see the wisdom in taking this very special opportunity,” Bates said.
News editor Adelyn Baxter contributed to this report.
Clarification(s):
A previous version of this article stated that Berkeley’s civil sidewalks ballot measure could cost approximately $26,000. In fact, that number is the approximate cost of putting the measure on the November ballot, depending on the Alameda County Registrar of Voters costs and the number of other measures on the ballot.
Comment Policy
Comments should remain on topic, concerning the article or blog post to which they are connected. Brevity is encouraged. Posting under a pseudonym is discouraged, but permitted. The Daily Cal encourages readers to voice their opinions respectfully in regard to the readers, writers and contributors of The Daily Californian. Comments are not pre-moderated, but may be removed if deemed to be in violation of this policy. Click here to read the full comment policy.
As a former
attorney of over 30 years I can tell you these types of ordinances have been
found by the courts to be unconstitutional as unfairly targeting and trying to
criminalize the homeless, young people, seniors, the disabled and people in
general. Civil rights law suits are
expensive so why invite this type of litigation? This a public sidewalk and
a City cannot regulate a public sidewalk in a manner that interferes with the
constitutional right of travel of the American people or one that affects the
poor, seniors, and the disabled disproportionately.
Berkeley
residents do not want to see their police officers give tickets out to young
people or their children who come to our City, the place where the Free Speech
Movement started. They do not want to see our young being harassed because they
happen to sit down, are selling crafts or are playing music on the sidewalk. I
have traveled all over the world and one of the things that makes a city draw
tourists and money are the cities who have young artisans selling their wares,
playing some music or singing a song on the street.
Seniors and the disabled get tired and
sometimes just have to sit down. The homeless have enough to deal with in life
and should not be harassed by the police just because they happen to put a
duffel bag, back packs, etc. on a sidewalk.
This is a waste of police resources.
Recently there was a murder at Grizzly
Peak in the hills of Berkeley
of one of our residents as a result of a prowler. Police Chief Meehan decided
to put all the city’s officers on duty watching a group of peaceful protesters
walk up Telegraph rather than respond to this call. Did that murder not teach
us that we want our police officers to take care of serious crimes and protect
the people of Berkeley rather than
giving out needless citations for uncollectible fines designed solely to harass
Berkeley residents and tourists?
It is my
understanding the Mayor has stated we will promote the business of our business
owners with this ordinance. Yet a similar ordinance in San
Francisco has not led to economic recovery but rather
economic deterioration. The reason for this is two fold: (1) this kind of
ordinance will not bring in money where there is no money to be had in this
economic recession. People are tightening their belts and not spending money.
(2) Berkeley residents will resent these
business owners who support and have pushed for this ordinance and will
retaliate by refusing to do business in their establishments. Instead they will take what money they have
out of town to a friendlier and more hospitable atmosphere.
Having worked in
People’s Park I know this kind of ordinance discriminates against our youth,
the poor, seniors and the disabled. The mayor is being disingenuous when he
says it will not criminalize the poor as more than 2 citations can lead to
misdemeanor charges being filed. MISDEMEANOR CHARGES FOR SITTING ON A SIDEWALK?
How ridiculous is that?
Finally, it will
cost $26,000 to put this measure on the November ballot. Why are we wasting
$26,000 of city revenue to put a proposed ordinance on the ballot that will
invite litigation, waste police resources to enforce, criminalize the most
needy and vulnerable in our community, drive shoppers and residents out of Berkeley
and not achieve its stated purpose?
I urge the City Council to VOTE NO on this measure and not allow
it to be placed on the ballot for November, 2012.
As has been noted in some of these rejoinders, Berkeley offers plenty of services for the indigent. They are funded largely by taxes paid by local businesses. If potential shoppers of those businesses continue to go elsewhere because of the unpleasant environs caused by some of the homeless hanging out in front of these businesses, there will be no money to provide assistance for these impoverished people.
In sum, the poster who uses the term “heartless” is himself “brainless.”
as always, shitting on the already powerless proves to be a popular past-time
As always, uttering silly statements proves to the fallback position among the bleeding hearts. If anyone believes either off the 2 grifters in the photo are merely unfortunate victims of circumstance trying to scrape together cash for a ride home, they need their head examined.
The solution seems to miss the point. Sure, aggressive panhandling does happen, but aggressive panhandlers are usually standing and walking, not sitting or lying.
a
Berkeley’s Mayor Tom Bates should be ashamed when he makes
the disingenuous statement in this article “It’s not criminalizing
homelessness, we want people to come to Berkeley, to shop and spend money in
Berkeley,” Of course, the proposal is criminalizing homelessness….as well as
Berkeley residents and tourists who would sit or lie in a commercial area. In
addition, it would never create the effect Bates wants which is to increase
revenue for Berkeley or their
businesses.
This law does
targets the homeless as it is designed to push people off the streets of Berkeley.
Rather than taking on the issue of homelessness in a responsible manner by
negotiating with banks to open up the hundreds if not thousands of foreclosures
within its city limits for the homeless or using the
city’s power of eminent domain to take over the property and serve the city’s
poor, the Mayor would rather arrest them, fill our city and county jails with
them and issue them tickets for fines they cannot pay. We spend more money for enforcement than we
ever hope to collect.
According to a
2008 article in Reuters there are 18.6 million vacant homes in the United
States and 3.5 million houseless people in
the county. Of the 3.5 million houseless people at least 1.6 million are children. On
any given night almost 68,000 veterans experience homelessness. Seniors, the
disabled and families are also homeless as companies like Hewlett Packard
announce almost 5,000 lay offs. These numbers can only be rising as time goes
on with no remedy to the conditions that created them. Rather than addressing
this problem responsibly by providing housing, the City of Berkley
would rather sweep these people off the streets.
Amnesty
International has stated housing is a fundamental human right yet few
politicians seek to address the problem that is its charge: providing the
basics for its people.
This proposal will
do nothing to accomplish the Mayor’s goal of bringing: “….people to come to Berkeley,
to shop and spend money…” Just in case the Mayor has not noticed, we are in an
economic recession. This economic situation is being felt all over the world
even as “1 in 2 Americans have fallen into poverty or are struggling to live on
low incomes in the United States”(http://blog.amnestyusa.org/us/housing-its-a-wonderful-right/
). As Stephanie Falwell, a clinic director at the UC Berkeley Suitcase Clinic,
said in this article “…areas the city of San Francisco
thought their ordinance would improve are now facing economic decline.”
Besides the Mayor, Roland Peterson, the
Executive Director of the Telegraph Business Improvement District and its
President, Craig Becker, owner of The Med on Telegraph have been proponents of
this law. Becker has hired his “Ambassadors” to troll through the streets of Berkeley
to ostensibly “…keep sidewalks clean and serve as the eyes and ears of
community”. Rather these individuals with no legal authority for anything they
do harass people on the streets of Berkeley.
Berkeley
residents see this harassment by the “ambassadors” and the police every day.
What it does is NOT make us feel safe but rather FEEL DISGUST and turned off to
the business proprietors who pay for and support this harassment. What money we
have we take out of town to a place who does not treat its residents in this manner.
IF ANYONE HAS NOT CHECKED THE MED LATELY, IT
IS PRACTICALLY VACANT. Why is that? It is because Berkeley’s
residents will not go into The Med knowing what Becker and Peterson have done to
its own by using their “Ambassadors” and the police to harass the poor, our veterans,
our homeless, our children, our seniors, our disabled and our needy. Who wants
to give money to people like Becker who is the source of the problem? There is
for all intents and purposes a BOYCOTT OF THE MED and that has and will transfer
to any other businesses that support this proposal.
CONTACT THE
MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF COUNCIL IN BERKELEY
AND TELL THEM TO VOTE NO ON THIS PROPOSAL!!
Why Obama will be a One Termer….worse than Carter.
Barack Hussein Obama is a self-created myth, polished further by
David Axelrod and a compliant media. He is a chameleon who takes on
whatever shape and form best suit his purposes and goals. There is
little substance behind the façade other than an Elmer Gantry style of
politics. He is completely malleable into whatever form and shape best
serve his personal interests.
A few examples of this “flexibility” are the following:
He changed his name when he believed it served him to do so.He is
not a religious man, but he joined a Black Liberation Church to sell
his bona fides to the black community in his early days in Chicago.He said that preacher Jeremiah Wright was like his father yet threw him under the bus when it became convenient (necessary).He claimed to have been born in Kenya in order to enhance book sales as a younger man.He
likely lied on his applications to college to gain foreign student
status. At the time, that category provided more favorable admission
and funding treatment than afforded domestic blacks.He claimed to be a constitutional professor when he was neither a professor nor particularly well-versed in the Constitution.
Obama’s track record is abysmal. Floyd and Mary Beth Brown discussed four of Obama’s failures:
Obama’s 825 billion dollar stimulus failed to keep unemployment below
8 percent as promised. Since President Obama’s stimulus passed, America
has lost 1.1 million jobs. If you count people who have become
discouraged and are no longer seeking jobs, some economists believe that
real unemployment rate is above twenty percent.Obama called his
health care package one of his major accomplishments. He told CBS’ Steve
Kroft he was “putting in place a system in which we’re going to start
lowering health care costs.” Yet it has failed to make health insurance
more affordable. According to the fact watchdog website FactCheck.org,
ObamaCare is actually making health care “less affordable.” Workers
paid an average of $132 more for family coverage just this year.Obama
predicted his investments in green energy would create 5 million jobs,
but the Wall Street Journal reports: “The green jobs subsidy story gets
more embarrassing by the day. Three years ago President Obama promised
that by the end of the decade, America would have five million green
jobs, but so far, some $90 billion in government spending has delivered
very few.”Obama pledged to cut the deficit in half, saying: “And
that’s why today I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by
the end of my first term in office.” Even if every part of Obama’s
deficit reduction proposal was enacted, the deficit at the end of his
first term would still be $1.33 trillion, more than twice what he
promised.In addition:
His Obamacare legislation, despite all the state propaganda
supporting it, remains unpopular and is viewed by more than half the
country as unconstitutional. Recent hearings in front of the Supreme
Court were embarrassing to the administration. The legislation is
wildly over-budget and threatens to accelerate the bankruptcy of the
nation. Further, the more people begin to deal with its implementation,
the more unworkable it is considered and the more it is considered a
mistake. Obama’s trophy piece of legislation is increasingly viewed as
an unworkable, unmitigated disaster.Relations between Republicans
and Democrats and blacks and whites are worse than at any time in my
lifetime. The former is on evidence every day. The latter has been
emphasized with the circus surrounding the tragic death of Trayvon
Martin.The country’s foreign policy is a growing embarrassment.
America has alienated many of its allies. America and its enemies are
not doing so well, either. We don’t have a Cold War, although we don’t
need one with what is happening. Russia is not our ally. China is
exerting its newly developed muscle. Iran openly mocks the president as
it proceeds to nuclear weaponry. North Korea plays Lucy with the
football, and Charlie Brown falls for the trick every time. The
Mid-East is in shambles, with the Arab Spring being nothing more than
the replacement of tyrants who were friendly to the U.S. with tyrants
who are not. Israel looks like it will have to act alone against its
existential threat.The economy has not improved despite record
stimulus. Economic statistics are routinely “massaged” to make outcomes
look better. Suffocating regulations, increasing debt levels and
regime uncertainty prevent recovery. Capital and talent increasingly
flee the U.S.Obama has mortgaged the country’s future with his
spending. By the time of the election, he will have added almost $6
trillion in new debt. There is no interest in cutting spending despite
the doomsday warnings from multiple sources. Markets will eventually
choose how and when the spending will cease. It will be at the
convenience of markets when matters cease. Likely this timing will not
be favorable to the country’s preferences.Gasoline prices are
soaring. The so-called “green energy” initiative has been exposed as
corrupt political payoffs that will not produce economic energy for
decades, if ever. Coal is under attack, exploration for oil is
unnecessarily restricted, pipelines are stymied, and power plants are
closing. Politically correct politics moves us away from modernity
toward the Stone Age.Obama is no longer seen as The One — just,
instead, as another scheming Chicago politician. He is increasingly
viewed as arrogant, dishonest, and incompetent. These are not messianic
attributes. He is just another politician, although more flawed than
most.A great mistake was made in 2008. That mistake is now
blatantly apparent to most voters and most political analysts around the
world.
Nothing Obama promised has been accomplished. Furthermore, much of what he did added to the country’s problems
I WILL ‘contact the city of council in berkeley’ and tell them they SHOULD vote YES on the proposal. Good job convincing me to take action. Job well done.
Housing doesn’t become a right because Amnesty International says it is a right. I am all for us figuring out how to get people off the street, but I am tired of some org trying to make up rights.
Hey Arwen, go get a real job.
If the point is to promote public safety, shouldn’t the measure apply during nighttime (vs. the other way around?)
I’m for applying it all hours.
Curious Mr. Bates, what is this wisdom of taking a very special opportunity?
Does Telegraph Avenue now belong to the university too?
How about increasing outreach for services in Berkeley instead of having low-income folks turn other poor folks in to the police? Focusing on solutions, not symptoms.
Is your term almost expired? Shelf-life retirement on the horizon?
Even SF, where sit/lie was passed, the city promotes services. Many people have nowhere to go.Many people on the streets are living with disability. They need outreach. How about a day center that serves hot meals?
It’s getting bad when self-proclaimed liberals do like fascists.
Already TONS of outreach in this city. In fact, Berkeley accommodates 40% of Alameda County’s homeless population. You can throw all the services and programs you want at the situation, but it won’t change that some folks just like to choke herb, loiter, panhandle for money for more of their poison of preference.
Also, we’re not necessarily talking about truly down-and-out folk that panhandle on Telegraph. Usually it’s the obnoxious spoiled little white gutter punks and their dogs that give students, residents, and consumers a hard time.
Lastly, it gets SOOOO old when you call someone a “fascist” nowadays. When they start rounding people up and persecuting them for their beliefs then it’s appropriate to call someone a fascist. If you throw it out there left and right it loses its firepower.
Oh, and if the sidewalk is a public space then folks need to stop treating it like it’s their own living room/dining room/bedroom and WALK or STAND on the Avenue.
I’m born and raised in this city and I’m totally voting “yes” for this. Where you from?
”Already TONS of outreach in this city. In fact, Berkeley accommodates 40% of Alameda County’s homeless population.”
While that’s quite true, in fact it is a real part of the problem. The maxim “if you build it, they will come” applies to handouts, social services, and other freebies that naturally attract those who never cared to work in the first place.
The sidewalk is indeed a public space, and it’s for walking on–not sitting on, or lying on.
If all the homeless people in Berkeley can’t be on the sidewalks…where can we possibly fit them?
Easy. Those filthy homeless losers can be shoved into People’s Park.
Visualize a colossal garbage disposal…
Or inside a septic tank…
You could spend some time watching the homeless, and then you would know where they go. Most are not on the sidewalks during the day. That is why you will often notice it is just out of town young people sitting around like the two pictured in the article.