After more than 100 members of the public commented during Tuesday’s Berkeley City Council meeting, the contentious civil sidewalks measure was approved for the November election ballot.
The measure — which would prohibit sitting on sidewalks in commercial districts between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. and result in a misdemeanor charge after a third violation — passed six to three, with Councilmembers Kriss Worthington, Max Anderson and Jesse Arreguin voting against the measure.
In a press conference yesterday, Mayor Tom Bates said he proposed the measure due to a growing concern for members of the city’s homeless population as well as concerns from local business owners that foot traffic to their stores has been discouraged by people sitting on the sidewalk outside.
According to Bates the main purpose of the measure is to encourage the homeless to seek social services and to get vulnerable youth off the streets. Bates also referenced the sit-lie ordinance in Santa Monica, which he called a successful approach to combating homelessness and street encampments.
The measure also aims to “improve the attractiveness and welcoming nature of all commercial districts in Berkeley,” according to Bates’ recommendation, but critics say it would criminalize homelessness and increase marginalization.
“That is an obscene joke to say that threatening to arrest people is actually going to get them into services,” said Worthington after the meeting. According to Worthington, he will suggest a compromise at the July 10 meeting, when city staff return with the ballot language.
Around 70 opponents of the proposal gathered for a rally in front of the council’s chambers prior to the meeting. Many held signs, and some shared stories of current and past homelessness.
When Bates told Anderson he could not comment beyond the designated amount of time for the issue, Anderson grew angry.
“Next time I’ll bring my gavel and gavel you into silence … You are not going to treat me like one of your little punks,” he said.
UC Berkeley senior Thomas Kinzer was among those who spoke out against the measure during public comment, citing his personal experience with homelessness prior to coming to the university. A native of Santa Monica, Kinzer called that city’s sit-lie ordinance “just a perpetuation of the problem.”
“It’s not illegal to not be very good at life,” he said.
Opponents questioned the intent of the proposal, arguing that its real purpose is to target homelessness in order to clean up the downtown and attract more revenue from shoppers.
“It’s costly to conduct business in Berkeley,” said Paul Kealoha Blake, a board member of East Bay Media Center, at the meeting. “However, I don’t scapegoat marginalized youth for bad business practices. I’d like the council to come up with a better solution.”
Incoming CalServe senator Nolan Pack, criticized the council for bringing up the measure while the majority of students are away for the summer.
Pack called the decision “a slap in the face to the ASUC” and stated that the student government will oppose the measure as it has in the past.
But Maxim Schrogin, a board member for Youth Engagement, Advocacy and Housing — a volunteer organization that provides seasonal shelter for homeless youth in the city — said he supports the measure being voted on by citizens, and that it could potentially increase revenue for the city.
“A stronger business community (could mean) using some of these funds for the progress that we need,” said Schrogin.
Others, such as 40-year Berkeley resident Steven Donaldson, see sitting on the sidewalk as hindering business and intimidating to citizens.
“Many of our neighbors have concerns about bringing their children downtown,” he said. “You can’t take over the streets.”
If the measure is passed by voters in November, it would go into effect in March 2013.
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.
If this law passes and I see someone sitting on those sidewalks, the police will be called.
Why on earth would ASUC/Calserve oppose the measure?
Having a sit ban would be a huge boon to the city of Berkeley and to a campus that both need a major image overhaul, and are currently regarded as dumps by the vast majority of Californians.
ASUC are, of course, comprised of students. Students, of course, are not stakeholders like us permanent residents (or lifelong natives) of Berkeley in that they are really just passing through. It’s easier for them to oppose this kind of legislation because it won’t really impact them in the long run.
I’m very grateful to have such wonderful guests as Cal students, but I’d ask that they really not jump on the leftwing bandwagon without really thinking about residents who intend to stay for a long while. Believe me, even the most liberal folks can get burned out by vagrants taking advantage of this city’s kindness.
I will vote YES.
Good. I hope it passes. The madness outside of the downtown BART needs to stop. Anyone with eyes and a brian can see that this law isn’t meant to target chronic homeless, but the asshole, drug-abusing 20-somethings that are milling about for no reason. They need to go.
Oh, where exactly in the law does it say it will only target 20-something drug-users (I think you call those college students in Berkeley)
I’m so sad this is passing only after I’ve graduated from Berkeley.
Hey, come back for grad school!! We’ll have done a lot of Spring cleaning by then. Change, you see, is in the air!
Simple solution would be to have each of the 100 who attended the meeting take one homeless teen home with them.
[Despite public outcry]
There is no “public outcry”, merely the usual suspects…
Thanks for covering this important issue rather extensively. What I heard last night is that the 1st incidence of sitting would be an infraction, the 2nd one a misdemeanor. Homeless people may not receive the mailed notices of court appearances. If they don’t show, they get a warrant, which impedes getting a job or an apartment, so criminalizing sitting pushes them in a downward spiral. Rosa Parks would sit up in her grave if she knew sitting might be criminalized in the home of the Free Speech Movement. What would Mario Savio do?
Hey, Ms. “Democracy”: If you are true to your name, you will concur with the notion “Let the people decide.” And that is precisely what the vote in November will do.
Or do you oppose such a vote because you are a Stalinist KPFA stalwart?
I agree with you 100%, vote on it and move on the next phase. Unfortunately in Bezerkeley, the next phase will be sore losers suing to stop the implementation of the ordinance. It’ll be a sit/lie version of this:
The vote: http://www.smartvoter.org/2010/11/02/ca/alm/meas/R/
The result: http://www.berkeleyside.com/2012/06/06/lawsuit-challenges-berkeleys-new-downtown-area-plan/
Is Mario Savio Jesus now?
Rosa Parks would yell at you for doing so little for the homeless youth so those youth are sitting on sidewalks. This isn’t about freedom. This is about Berkeley protesters being too lazy to do more than the least they can do to help the homeless.
No matter what you feel about the homeless all you have to do is take the BART over to San Francisco to see how this exact law is working out. (it’s not)
Before you enter the Bart station in Berkeley, you just need to take a look around to see why people are getting upset.
YAY!!!!
Also, I thought articles were supposed to be balanced? I’m counting 5 opponents to 2 proponents quoted in this article, and the opponents are mentioned much earlier in this inverted pyramid reporting format. Save the editorializing for your opinion page.
whiner. there were over 100 people who waited for hours to speak against the measure during public comment and only a few business ass/chamber of commerce reps.
Hey Ms. Democracy-NOT: it’s revenues from the businesses of Berkeley which help pay for services provided by the city for both its truly needed indigent and its alkee and meth bums…
The vote will show the public outcry against allowing people to sit on the sidewalks. We always get protesters showing up at council meetings against things the community at large would like. The citizens for the measure will just wait until it is time to vote to voice their support.
Honestly the sitting has been getting out of hand. An encampment of runaways has been growing and growing outside the main entrance to Downtown Berkeley BART. They bring their large dogs, drugs, and rowdiness all in one spot. This is not a place a parent would want to take their child, or a college student would want to bring their grandmother to. The sitters have erected a makeshift sign, which states, “STOP THE MADNESS.” I couldn’t agree more. Thank you, majority voters of the city council. Let’s hope this measure works. If not, do something else. This needs to stop.
It’s not the sitting that has been getting out of hand. There are already laws concerning dogs, drugs, and rowdiness in commercial districts. Why would a sitting law be any more effective?
the laws are already on the books to stop the probs.
criminalizing sitting will not help.
the BPD needs to stop the meth.
You want the police to stop the meth? What about the idiots who are taking it? They knew before they started taking the drug that it is highly addictive, but they nonetheless took it. Who the fuck feels sorry for someone that stupid? They don’t deserve either help or “services” (unless it’s funeral services–societal addition by subtraction)…
Right, because the main thing pushing people to use drugs is a cost/benefit analysis of their behavior.
People use drugs because their life sucks so much, or they are so clinically depressed that they can’t handle not being high. That’s not being stupid, that’s just really sad.
Excuses, Excuses. People who are failures and out-and-out lazy will always have some rationalizing their role as utter drains on society…
What we need to do is get these people into jobs where they can be attributes to society and earn enough to support themselves. If they are physically or mentally incapable of that, then they deserve help so that they can.
[What we need to do is get these people into jobs]
They don’t WANT jobs, or the wouldn’t be sitting on the sidewalk all day.
Seriously now, what part of “freeloader” do you NOT understand?
Hire them to live at your house.