Late at night on July 10, Mayor Tom Bates faced a tough decision. The Berkeley City Council meeting, at the time focused on placing the contentious “sit-lie” measure on the November ballot, was being derailed by an unruly crowd of the measure’s detractors, who sang loudly in protest. Bates needed to move the meeting forward, and there were several options from which to choose.
He made the right call when he decided to recess. Under the circumstances, it was the most appropriate choice. Bates could have theoretically brought in law enforcement or let the situation continue to escalate — neither of which would have alleviated the tension effectively.
What happened next is not as clear. After the council returned from its recess, it voted to place the measure on the Nov. 6 ballot, despite objections that not everyone had been allowed to speak on the action.Recently, the American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter to the council alleging that it violated both its own procedures and a state law during the course of the meeting.
Specifically in regard to the state Brown Act — which guarantees the public’s right to attend and participate in government meetings — the ACLU cites concern about the recess, stating in the letter that “a majority of the Council may have discussed the matter under consideration” during that time. If council members inappropriately discussed business, then those who violated the public trust should be held accountable. As public officials familiar with the act, they should know better than to discuss agenda items behind closed doors.
To opponents, the measure, that would prohibit sitting on city sidewalks in commercial areas from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. is so absurd that it shouldn’t even be put up for a vote. But completely eclipsing other points of view and preventing the council from conducting its business was not the right way to get their message across.
Moreover, though many are understandably outraged at placing restrictions on sitting, Measure S deserves to be on the ballot. If the public doesn’t make a final call on the measure, then it will likely continue to resurface in the future. The debate over a “sit-lie” ordinance must be put to rest.
Because of the rushed vote and alleged Brown Act violation, the ACLU asked the council to revisit the issue at another meeting. But while such a violation, if true, would be reprehensible, it is not significant enough to revisit placing Measure S on the ballot.
Furthermore, allowing more people to speak to the council would likely do nothing to prevent the measure from reaching the ballot. Yes, this is an extremely divisive issue, so members of the public would understandably want to make their voices heard. However, numerous public commenters were given the opportunity to address the council at that meeting. And isn’t a democratic decision from Berkeley residents a better alternative to the council unilaterally deciding to impose a “sit-lie” ordinance?
Moving forward, public debate should focus on the issue at hand, not the bureaucracy associated with it. Berkeley voters will determine the fate of Measure S. That should not change.
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.
“To opponents, the measure, that would prohibit sitting on city sidewalks
in commercial areas from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. is so absurd that it
shouldn’t even be put up for a vote.”
To opponents, any expectation that individual grown adults act like responsible, accountable human beings is an outrage, and an affront to their philosophy that we should all be wards of the state. So what? There are kooks in our midst – stop catering to their distorted ideas as if what they believe really matters.
Perhaps you’ve
never heard of the Free Speech Movement. It was born in 1964, here on the
campus of UC Berkeley. Perhaps you’ve never seen the historic photo of UC
Berkeley student, Mario Savio, standing on top of a police car, speaking to a
crowd of cheering students. Perhaps you’ve never read the historic speech he
gave in front of Sproul Hall. “There’s a time,” he said, “when the operation of
the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t
take part. You can’t even passively take part, and you’ve got to put your
bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the
apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop. And you’ve got to indicate to
the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the
machine will be prevented from working at all.”
Perhaps
you don’t know about any of this. Or you don’t care. That would be my guess,
from the tone of your editorial of September 14, which sided with Berkeley
Mayor Tom Bates’ “tough decision” as his sit/lie measure was “being derailed by
an unruly crowd of the measure’s detractors, who sang loudly in protest.” You
put the onus on those of us who came to speak out against the measure, for “completely
eclipsing other points of view and preventing the council from conducting its
business was not the right way to get their message across.”
I was there all night. More than a hundred of us
passionately voiced our concerns, as was our right. If I remember correctly,
only one person—the head of the Telegraph Avenue Business Improvement
District—spoke in favor of the “sit/lie” motion. During the meeting, Mayor
Bates continually cut off three City Council members who were trying to speak
against the measure. At about midnight, as the Council was about to vote, we
got up and started singing the civil rights song, “We Shall Not Be Moved.”
Mayor Bates and five City Council members then left the room, returned a few
minutes later, and, over the objections of the three dissenting City Council
members, placed the measure on the November 6 ballot.
This backroom conference was clearly a violation of the
Brown Act. The ACLU knows it, the Mayor and his minions know it, and you know
it. Yet, “moving forward,” you write, “Berkeley voters will determine the fate
of Measure S. That should not change.”
Measure S is a cruel attack on poor and homeless people. Your
editorial notwithstanding, civil rights are not—and should never be—put to a vote, yet that is what the Berkeley City Council
majority, financed by backroom deals, has decided. And in this editorial,
written and published on the UC Berkeley campus, you have shown your contempt
for civil rights and for the Free Speech Movement that began right here and
echoed around the world. Shame on you.
“Perhaps you’ve never heard of the Free Speech Movement.”
In case you haven’t noticed, the 1960′s are over. Get a life, grandma.
In case you hadn’t noticed, calling someone “grandma” in the course of dismissing her ideas isn’t just disrespectful, it hurts the quality of the discussion.
If you don’t care to embrace one of the brightest moments in Berkeley’s heritage, that’s no cause to be ageist.
Looks like you self-identified as one of those geriatric hippie holdovers from the 1960′s.
Perhaps you have never heard of the democratic process of voting. Let the people have the freedom to speak through their vote. Your talk about freedom of speech is just your backhanded way to try and silence the rest of us in November.
Also: You’re seriously siding against the ACLU on this one? Do you also oppose the National Council Against Kicking Puppies?
Sure. We should have kick a gutter punk day.
When the ACLU stops supporting the civil liberties of the voters, then they should be opposed. The fact that the most you want to do for the homeless is to let them sit at your feet is more in line with someone kicking puppies.
1) Measure S on the ballot is not a good thing. No one’s civil liberties should be up for a vote, and people with comfortable homes to sit in should certainly not be allowed to vote away others’ right to sit in the only places they have.
2) Violating the Brown Act means we’re not just looking at one bad decision; we’re looking at people willing to corrupt the democratic process. That kind of corruption warrants a no vote on the ballot measure. Even if this weren’t a terrible law, it’s desperately important that we not throw democracy under the bus.
3) Context is missing here. Bates silenced both members of the public and members of the city council when he shut down the legally required debate–and it was the second time he had done this on the same measure. At two meetings in a row, Bates had delayed council discussion of the anti-sit law until midnight, at the end of a five-hour meeting. At two meetings in a row, Bates used the late hour as an excuse to prevent council members from discussing the measure.
This was a measure brought into existence by backroom deals and procedural manipulation. It was forced through over attempts to discuss, modify, and compromise. As the Brown Act violation demonstrates, Measure S is corrupt to the core.
“No one’s civil liberties should be up for a vote”
There’s no “civil right” to park your ass on a sidewalk and obstruct traffic.
Thank you for the opportunity to clarify.
Measure S–as the ballot argument makes clear–is an attack on homeless
people, and will be discriminatory in effect, violating the right to
equal protection.
Measure S would play havoc with our ability to gather in public, violating the right to peaceful assembly.
Measure S would criminalize meditation and prayer in public, violating the right to free exercise of religion.
Measure S would ban many forms of protest, violating the right to freedom of speech and the right to petition government for redress of grievances.
In the United States, these rights (protected by amendments to the Constitution) are commonly known as “civil liberties,” and it is to them that I was referring.
More of your nonsensical crap. There no Constitutional “right” to squat on a public sidewalk and impede public traffic, nor does allowing the “poor” or “homeless” (conditions that are for most of these people the natural consequences of their own voluntary actions) to camp out there do anything to help their own position. You, like many of the mentally disturbed left-wingnuts here, merely feel compelled to carry the water for the parasites in any confrontation with productive people.
This is what it comes down to, isn’t it? When you walk down the sidewalk, do you see people or do you see “parasites”?
I’m not carrying water for anyone; I’m working with people to defend a right to public space that our whole community shares.
I’m not sure where you got the idea that someone being poor is a good excuse to mistreat them, but I hope you’ll reconsider. People on the street are disproportionately people of color, LGBTQ folks, former foster kids, veterans and mentally ill people. These are people who have lived with marginalization and oppression all their lives.
They need support, not another kick while they’re down.
> “This is what it comes down to, isn’t it? When you walk down
> the sidewalk, do you see people or do you see “parasites”?”
If the people are squatting and panhandling (which is the behavior in question) then they are indeed parasites.
>”I’m not sure where you got the idea that someone
> being poor is a good excuse to mistreat them,
I never suggested such a thing, so you’re either a liar or have some serious reading comprehension issues.
> People on the street are disproportionately people
> of color, LGBTQ folks, former foster kids, veterans
Got news for you. Most of those claiming to be “homeless vets” never made it as far as getting off the bus at Camp Happy Valley and standing on the yellow footprints. The vast majority of those claiming to be military veterans are outright scammers.
> and mentally ill people. These are people who have
> lived with marginalization and oppression all
> their lives.
And once again we have yet another example of the total bullcrap that liberals/progressives post when they can’t come up with a logical argument. This has NOTHING do to with the “poor” or any of your other marginalized groups, since the vast majority of these squatters are from white middle class backgrounds. But thanks for letting us know that you will defend any type of behavior in order to maintain the silly illusion that you’re some champion of the oppressed.
You are making up a lot of rights that don’t exist. People’s Park is close by. How is it an attack on the homeless, when there are plenty of better places to sit in Berkeley? How is it violating the right to equal protection? It applies to everyone and keeps the walk ways safer for everyone. There is no such thing as free exercise of religion in the way you are trying to create it. Again, there are lots of legal places in Berkeley to meditate or pray. We don’t let you stand in the middle of the street on Telegraph to meditate, and the sidewalk shouldn’t be the place you meditate either. Nothing in Measure S is banning forms of protest that we have seen on Telegraph or Shattuck.
“Legally required debate”? Oh, you mean the protesters who refused to allow the meeting to continue, obstructing it by chanting slogans and singing songs. If the legally-required debate was shut down, it was by the opponents of the measure, who tried to prevent it being put on the ballot by misbehaving at the public meeting. It seems to me disingenuous to accuse the mayor & council of procedural manipulation in light of this clear example of the same.