Members of the Berkeley community gathered at Berkeley City Hall Monday to protest a recommendation that would place a measure that prohibits sitting on the city’s sidewalks on the November ballot.
The demonstration against the Civil Sidewalks Ballot Measure, which could make sitting on sidewalks in commercial districts between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. a misdemeanor crime, drew a crowd of about 30 people, and included Berkeley City Councilmembers Kriss Worthington and Jesse Arreguin, as well as a group of Berkeley citizens and activists, some of whom were homeless.
The controversial measure aims “to improve the attractiveness and welcoming nature of all commercial districts in Berkeley,” according to Mayor Tom Bates’ recommendation, but critics of the measure, including the city’s Peace and Justice Commission, say it would criminalize the homeless.
The Berkeley City Council will consider Bates’ proposal at its meeting on Tuesday at 7 p.m.
Currently, only three council members — Max Anderson, Arreguin and Worthington — intend to vote against the recommendation, according to Worthington, who said that two more council members will need to oppose the recommendation for the measure to stay off the November ballot.
“We are here to support practical alternatives, not to attack individual people,” Worthington said at the demonstration.
Worthington pointed to the efforts of the Telegraph Livability Coalition, a group of Southside community members who submitted a list of 21 suggestions last year to the council that they felt would help revitalize Telegraph Avenue. Among the suggestions were the installation of more pedestrian lighting and a plan to turn the Telegraph area between Bancroft and Dwight ways into a historical district, but so far the council has only adopted one of the coalition’s recommendations, Worthington said.
Nolan Pack, an incoming CalSERVE senator, also spoke at the demonstration. Although he said that he was not speaking on behalf of the ASUC, he recalled that the ASUC Senate had voted unanimously against a similar measure when it was presented to the council the year before.
Roland Peterson, executive director of the Telegraph Business Improvement District — an organization that funds various projects in the Telegraph area, including a cleaning team and two district ambassadors — said he supported the measure.
“Lots of people have not gone to Telegraph or Downtown because of people sitting on the sidewalks,” Peterson said. “When (homeless individuals) have a lot of stuff, and dogs especially, and when they act aggressively or outrageously, it creates a scary situation.”
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7sZP4Sb-hU&w=560&h=315]
According to Worthington, the measure’s primary advocates are commercial property owners, while many business owners remain ambivalent.
“I don’t know what the community wants,” said Doris Moskowitz, owner of Moe’s Books. “In terms of Tuesday, I’d like the city council to pass the recommendation … I want to hear everybody’s opinion about what they think would work.”
A recent report released by the City Hall Fellows of San Francisco has called into question the effectiveness of sit-lie ordinances. According to the report, the majority of citations end up going to a small number of offenders, indicating that the city of San Francisco’s ordinance has not dissuaded people from sitting or lying on sidewalks.
Both advocates and opponents of the measure in Berkeley agree that a similar ordinance that currently prohibits lying or sleeping on the sidewalk between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. has been unsuccessful in creating a more conducive environment for businesses in the Telegraph area.
“(The previous ordinance) has not been effective,” Peterson said. “’Lying’ has turned out to be too vague a term.”
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.
Ok no one wants to be constantly harassed for our few remaining resources, but in some way Berkeley brought this on itself. The city of Berkeley is plain old dirty and mean, with it endless ‘deadend’ streets that prohibit common folk from using their street to drive on, to merchants that think they’re to good to clean in front of their businesses or look up, smile and greet their customers.
You are all very urbane and extremely knowledgeable, but unless you are willing to take a good look at your city, you will end up in a prison of your own making.
Actually, here’s the problem: a lot of folks flock to Berkeley to jump on a bandwagon of radical leftism and vestigial hippy crap from the sixties. The most politically active students (who are also the most radical) participate in our local politics by voting, then they leave. We permanent residents have to deal with their ideology, though we are the real stakeholders and they never feel the lasting consequences.
People who are actually FROM Berkeley aren’t on board with being a giant homeless encampent. Unfortunately, people pass through this hobo kingdom and lend to making it what it is. Then they move on.
Gawd forbid the merchants of Tele would like to increase the foot traffic of customers willing to purchase food, services, and goods without tripping over a field of inert bodies scattered along Telegraph with obscene signage, lewd acts, and generally anti-social behavior spewing like diarrhea over their feet. Should I mention the very long list of infractions against the law committed either directly or as a result of this particular group of individuals who actually have little to do with homelessness other than the self imposed homelessness that is a natural byproduct of making a conscience decision to run away from suburbatory. . . During the last election I said that I would vote for the first (any contender really) candidate for my district that would DO SOMETHING, ANYTHING about the blighted conditions in South Berkeley. Imagine my surprise that not one would do anything prior to being elected. Even K.W. who has been warming his council seat for multiple terms without actually DOING anything for his district! Imagine my surprise that it is once again time for elected Berkeley Slackers to come a courting my vote again without having done anything but empower the visiting team and leaving tax paying townies out in the cold, again. . .
Perhaps actually improving the heart of the Telegraph Business District, Haste and Telegraph might improve both pedestrian traffic and revenues. Or… maybe just scapegoating marginalized homeless youth is the answer. Landlords in the Telegraph business district continually drive businesses out or are content to leave prime retail space vacant black holes awaiting another struggling business owner to be sucked into an impossible lease. It has been that way for decades Erich and Kriss Worthington and homeless kids are not the perpetrators of those conditions. The heart of Berkeley is being held hostage by greed… not kids on sidewalks.
“marginalized homeless youth”
Who inevitably go back to Mommy and Daddy in Orinda when they need a sandwich or a shower, right?
Yeah, this is only SOME city residents and officials. Most of Berkeley, believe it or not, is SOOOOOO tired of having all these out-of-towners flock here to spange and ruin an otherwise nice city for us residents, you students, and other visitors who would spend their hard earned money here.
40% of Alameda County’s homeless live in Berkeley, even though the city only accounts for 7% of the county’s populace. They are drawn here because of the plethora of services they can get here, much of which is paid for by the taxes on businesses which are now hurting because of their presence and often manifest anti-social activities. Therefore, if businesses continue to decline because of the homeless lying and sitting in front of their stores, funds to help the indigent will correspondingly decline.
As for the alkies, druggies and just plain bums, they are drawn in great numbers like flies to shit because to date, they have been permitted to do whatever they wish and then have their needs provided for by the generosity of the people they proceed to dump on. This simply has to change.
Of course, the best thing the city and university could do is turn Peoples Park into something other than a toilet for lowlifes…
so stupid this law. the city govt should be trying to stop people killing each other in south berkeley than this. if someone isnt bothering someone then leave them be. Its a free world. Not like a police state right Berkeley!?
Actually, the type of people this targets are belligerent gutter punks (not our harmless homeless, as I like to call them). These gutter punks are, in fact, bothering people on Telegraph and downtown, so you’re wrong.
And it’s not like the city council has to choose between efforts to reduce crime in South Berkeley AND curtail abuse of public space by transient vagrants. They can do BOTH!
And if you think Berkeley, of all places in the United States, is close to being a police state, you’re pretty out of touch.
Ciao.
Tell the gutter punks to go hang out in South Berkeley!
They would get the SHIT kicked out of them and they know it.
The usual suspects, I see…
I find myself usually walking down Bancroft to get to school or the cross street that is closest to the business I want to visit. Channing is the closest street, but I will walk down Durant to get to someplace like Yogurt Park instead of walking down Channing and then down Telegraph. Of course, it isn’t only the people sitting on the sidewalks who congest the sidewalk. The sidewalk vendors do too. I have never purchased anything from them, but their stands always force pedestrians to make their way down Telegraph through a pretty narrow and congested corridor. If I had to choose, I would rather get rid of the street vendors, but I guess they pay the city to block the sidewalk.