As the singing chorus of protesters drowned out the final vote after midnight early Wednesday morning, Berkeley City Council moved to place the contentious civil sidewalks measure on the November ballot.
The vote on the civil sidewalks measure — which bans sitting on commercial sidewalks — is being challenged by Councilmembers Kriss Worthington, Jesse Arreguin and Max Anderson, who claim the due process and rules of the council were not followed when the motion was put forward without any debate among the council.
The disputed vote — ruled a 6-3 decision with Arreguin and Worthington refusing to vote and Anderson voting no — came after more than five hours of heated debate on almost all council action items on the agenda at Tuesday’s City Council meeting.
“I did not believe it was in order for us to vote on the motion, so I did not vote,” Arreguin said. “Our rules require debate of a motion, and a motion to call the question suspends debate. There was no motion to call the question. (Mayor Tom Bates) tried to stop there from being debate. That’s out of order, it’s improper. The vote was improper.”
City Clerk Mark Numainville, however, said the vote on the measure was a valid action. Numainville also said there may not be any time for further discussion of the measure at later council meetings, as the motion was resolved and not moved over by the council.
“We believe that the people in the city of Berkeley should decide what’s good for the city of Berkeley,” said John DeClercq, co-CEO of the Berkeley Chamber of Commerce. “Commercial districts are the concern of all of Berkeley, not just those few of us who are able to be here tonight to attend council meetings.”
Arreguin’s alternative to the civil sidewalks measure, the Compassionate Sidewalks Plan, was not considered by the council at Tuesday’s meeting. Arreguin’s proposal calls for many actions from the council, including a recommendation that City Manager Christine Daniel convene a group of representatives of council members, homeless people, business owners, police and others to evaluate the current homeless situation in the city.
Many protesters of the measure — who sang, chanted and sat in protest and spoke to the council for an hour and a half before the meeting was quickly adjourned — voiced support for the Compassionate Sidewalks Plan, calling for a postponed vote on the civil sidewalks measure while the council consider Arreguin’s plan.
“I was hopeful that (Arreguin’s) compromise would have been considered widely by the council because I think it (would have moved) the city in the right direction with the holistic approach,” said West Berkeley resident Denisha DeLane, who is running for City Council in District Two. “I don’t think that people at heart will support this measure, regardless of where they are in Berkeley. I would have been more willing to support something like Arreguin’s compromise.”
The measure will cost an estimated $26,000 to be placed on the November ballot, according to the item.
If the measure is approved by the voters in the November election, it will go into effect on July 1, 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.
OMG $26,000 of YOUR TAX MONEY!!! The horror!
But seriously, this is a kinda messed up idea. Yes, it’s nice to not have homeless people chillin’ on the sidewalks, but where else can they go? Their house? Right…
Maybe we should try to decrease the number of homeless people in Berkeley by *gasp* offering affordable housing and government sponsored get-back-to-work programs giving them a way to make a living wage. But wait, because we would call that “socialism”, we can’t do it.
We’ve already got programs and affordable housing in this city. Must all the housing be section 8? How much is enough? And why must all the homeless in California (and maybe Ohio, Oregon, and other states) be taken care of by the city of Berkeley?
ALSO, this is more about itinerant vagrants than homeless folks. Big difference.
I was thinking of moving this summer, but I will definitely stay in Berkeley through november so I can vote YES.
Suck it, leftists.
I have never seen the ladies in the picture sitting with the kids by Bart or on Telegraph.
I can’t wait to vote in favor of this!
I hope we can finally clean up downtown and take our city back!
If Arreguin and Worthington refused to vote, then wasn’t it a 6-1 vote in favor with two abstentions?
I attended the meeting, and Robert’s Rules do require opportunity for council members to debate. I believe those who suggest that the rush to vote without opportunity for debate was improper are correct:
Robert’s Rules, Section 42: “The right of members to debate and,
make motions cannot be cut off by the chair’s putting a question to vote with
such rapidity as to prevent the members getting the floor after the chair has
inquired if the assembly is ready for the question. Even after the chair has
announced the vote, if it is found that a member arose and addressed the chair
with reasonable promptness after the chair asked, “Are you ready for the
question?” he is then entitled to the floor, and the question is in
exactly the same condition it was before it was put to vote. But if the chair
gives ample opportunity for members to claim the floor before putting the
question and they do not avail themselves of it, they cannot claim the right of
debate after the voting has commenced.”
Ummmm…. Carol, don’t you remember the part where you guys were singing your little protest song and WOULDN’T STOP to allow council to resume discussion? You kinda forgot that, didn’t you? And when Mayor Bates asked you guys to stop and argued you were hindering council’s freedom of speech because you just wouldn’t stop singing?
You basically knew council was going to outvote you on this by the same numbers as last time, so you tried to prevent a vote from taking place by singing in protest. Now you’re upset?
Shoulda thought about that before your childish antics. Next time have some respect for the process.
When we were singing the mayor was out of the room entirely. So were many of the other council members, leaving only three, which means there was no quorum. Then they suddenly piled back in the room and voted without debate. The point stands that a vote requires debate. As you said, respect the process.
You wouldn’t stop singing. You didn’t allow debate. Sorry, Carol, you’re just deluding yourself at this point.
Your trollish behavior and blatant disregard for the democratic process is despicable.
“When we were singing the mayor was out of the room entirely.”
But others, who probably wished to voice their views, were there as well. You children seem to think that only your opinions matter, and that public meetings are some type of venue for your narcissistic outbursts. Sounds like your parents did a pretty shitty job of raising you as children.
Where in Robert’s Rules did all the disruptions fit? I missed the section calling for the singing period. Either follow the rules or don’t quote them. Act like children, and the council will treat you like children. When they left the room, they might have been debating.