There are two major points of contention in the bitter debate over Berkeley’s Measure S, which would prohibit sitting on sidewalks in commercial districts from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.
The first concerns the vitality of local businesses and the quality of life for Berkeley residents. On this front, proponents of Measure S unambiguously have the upper hand. In a 2011 survey, about 65 percent of the more than 1,800 respondents — most of whom were students — said they would frequent Telegraph Avenue more often if there were fewer panhandlers. We don’t need a survey to tell us this — it’s clear to anyone who has been to Telegraph that the extraordinary rate of homelessness and aggressive panhandling makes the area much less desirable.
When I speak to opponents of Measure S, they are unable to adequately counter this point, besides making the laughable assertion that vagrancy in commercial areas is somehow a part of Berkeley’s “character” that should be preserved.
The second area of disagreement in the Measure S debate involves the most ethical and effective way to deal with homelessness — also an important concern to many Berkeley voters. On this subject, the debate is tighter.
The Yes on S campaign argues that “living on the sidewalks is unhealthy. It sends people into a downward spiral.” And Davida Coady, the director of a program that provides substance abuse treatment to the homeless, told KQED that the measure would help encourage homeless people with addictions to seek help.
But No on S advocates say the city should look for “real solutions to homelessness” instead of “discriminating against an entire class of people who happen to be poor.” This framing of the issue is likely to resonate with progressive Berkeley voters.
In preparation for this column, I spoke with several homeless people on Telegraph last Friday. It became clear to me that Measure S advocates should be able to take control of the second part of the debate by drawing attention to the fact that many homeless people in the Telegraph area — at least the ones I talked to — are not victims of poverty and misfortune but practitioners of a bizarre subculture that glorifies homelessness.
Most of the people who were camped out on Telegraph were in their early 20s. They sat on piles of sleeping bags or mattress pads, some of them shouting at passing pedestrians and cars, their pet pit bulls and cats tied to lamp posts. All of them told me that they chose to be homeless.
Some were local, but others traveled from as far as Kansas to come to Berkeley, which they described as especially accommodating of homelessness (“there’s lots of places to get free food here”). To them, homelessness is an alternative culture — a way to rebel against “the system.”
Though some of the young people I spoke to seemed to be intoxicated, they appeared to be in generally good health. One man even told me his oral hygiene is very important to him and that he brushes his teeth twice per day. He said he frequently uses the bathroom at local coffee shops.
In other words, these homeless individuals may be nice people, but they are not helpless victims who have fallen on hard times. They are, quite literally, vagrants by choice who create an unsanitary environment in public spaces (one man told me his dogs go the bathroom “anywhere they want”), panhandle and shout at passers-by — simply because they want to.
They come to Berkeley because it is so welcoming of them — indeed, it is hard to imagine any other town tolerating this level of abuse of its commercial spaces by nomadic vagrants. Measure S may, in fact, be the only “real solution” to this particular variety of homelessness.
Measure S opponents have noble intentions. They believe they are defending the weak and helpless against scapegoating by a reactionary majority. But they have not, in my view, made a convincing case that restricting vagrancy in commercial areas would harm the homeless. And they have failed to address an important truth — that many people in Berkeley are homeless by choice.
My sense is that voters are already convinced that Measure S would improve Berkeley residents’ quality of life and help local businesses. If any voters are still on the fence, it is because they are concerned that the measure would be ineffective at actually reducing homelessness in Berkeley. Measure S proponents can win over these voters by emphasizing that many of Berkeley’s homeless are not victims in need of protection but voluntarily homeless wanderers who settle in Berkeley simply because it is so accommodating. By making vagrancy slightly less convenient, Measure S would encourage these young people to rebel against the system elsewhere.
Contact Jason Willick at [email protected] or follow him on Twitter: @jawillick.
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.
Within my first month of being at Cal, I had a drink thrown at me, was harassed, and followed by a man on Telegraph who called me a “yuppie scum faggot” that should “get the hell off his street”. I have avoided Telegraph as much as possible since then. All for Measure S.
That really sucks. Students are guests in or fair city and don’t need that crap when they’re supposed to be focusing on their education. You get out there and vote on this, and get your friends to also.
Frankly, Measure S is scapegoating homeless people for something they can’t control. The economy is tough right now and it won’t get better overnight. Criminalizing homeless people for sitting on the sidewalk won’t do anything. IT IS A WASTE OF RESOURCES.
I talked to Mayor Tom Bates today who was on campus at Sproul and he led me through a summarized process.
First, “Ambassadors”, who are not police officers, will tell homeless people (although this Measure does in fact affect ANYONE) who are sitting on the sidewalk to move.
Then, if they don’t move, they will be forced to call the actual police.
Finally, the actual police write up a $75 citation to the individual(s).
Seems easy right? But how is this sustainable AT ALL? Piling a number of tickets on a homeless person, who can’t pay for it because they do not have a steady job or reliable housing, won’t do anything. It’s a band-aid solution to an issue that needs deeper thought.
Does this ordinance provide a program whereby individuals with this citation can find employment or housing? No.
Does this ordinance give any guidance on how a homeless person will pay for this ticket?
No.
How is the homeless person going to pay for it?
Measure S does not give any answers to this.
Measure S is a short-term answer to an issue that needs long-term solutions. Why doesn’t the city of Berkeley take all the time and effort they are spending on this ordinance and divert it to funding solutions that address preventing homelessness rather than criminalizing it?
And as a side note to Jason Willick, walking up and down Telegraph talking to “several homeless people” during a span of time that you do not even state (Was it an hour of talking to people? Was it a week? How long?) does not give you the right to generalize the whole population of homeless individuals to “practitioners of a bizzare subculture that glorifies homelessness.” Homelessness affects families, women and children, and many more groups of people, people that you don’t recognize in your article.
“When I speak to opponents of Measure S, they are unable to adequately counter this point…” –Utterly untrue. The poll in question was a politically motivated “push” poll arranged by anti-sitting law promoters to try to deceive people into thinking there was student support for the measure. There was nothing representative about the poll; the results were immediately discredited. It’s interesting that all of this factual data escaped the notice of this columnist.
One of the things I find most striking about this Op Ed is the way in which the writer has grouped people in a pool of “undesirable” characters with bad qualities that he/we want to be rid of. The group of people who look messy (and he is implying are lazy or unmotivated) have become the people to remove from site. I can’t help but think about the many horrible things I have read people said about Jews and Gypsies (etc.) at the time of the Holocaust and the similarity of negative qualities being ascribed to these groups of people society wanted to be RID OF. Clear scapegoating. If we have learned one thing from the experience of the Holocaust (if only one) I wish it could be to be able to observe that tendency within ourselves to want to persecute people that are different from ourselves, or the main stream, and take negative action against them. Why would we spend our precious energy focused on homeless people (and especially youth) at this tough, tough economic time…when there is no day space open for homeless youth in Berkeley. Why????? Why would we not want to focus instead on positive solutions??? Berkeley has NO DAY TIME DROP IN CENTER for homeless youth so there is no place for youth to go inside to get services. That should be our focus…if we don’t want to see youth on the street.we need to create services for homeless youth.
So you’re lumping self-identifying “gutter punks” in with Jews and other ethnic groups and talking up the Holocaust? Congratulations, you just made yourself look really stupid.
I live a block off Telegraph and the homeless folk in my neighborhood are NOT homeless by choice. They also are afraid to stay in shelters. They hustle – washing windows, raking leaves, asking for handouts. They dread the rain. They are picked up for sleeping places that people don’t want them to sleep. I don’t know what the solution is for the businesses and for their customers. I too am uncomfortable that poverty and depression are so in my face. On the other hand, I want it to be.
If you’re uncomfortable that poverty and depression are in your face that’s your own problem. If you “want” poverty and depression to be in your face you’re not really improving things for anyone.
Measure S really isn’t about true homelessness and it isn’t about poverty.
Nice try, though.
Gail, I’ve lived in Berkeley since 1970, and two and a half blocks from Telegraph, since 1980. I have many friends who are long-time South side residents, who like the excitement of the South side compared to the Elmwood, RockRidge, or the North side. We don’t mean to fetishize the scene, just to flow with it.
> Gail, I’ve lived in Berkeley since 1970
That explains a lot. You’re merely a geriatric hippie holdover who never left because people in the real world outside of Berkeley don’t tolerate your brand of nonsensical crap. So you’re now in your 60s and still trying to pretend you’re some relevant radical activist. A real loser.
And you dont even live in Berkeley and havent been in the city as a resident during this decade and we’re even around for most of the last decade, much less the 60s, 70s, or 80s. Go crawl into the politics of your own local community, although I doubt you go outside there much since you are always on the computer complaining about a place you do not live in.
>”And you dont even live in Berkeley”
But I attended Cal and actually graduated. How about you?
> “Go crawl into the politics of your own local community,
> although I doubt you go outside there much since you
> are always on the computer complaining about a place
> you do not live in.”
In case you didn’t know, computers and related handheld devices have been portable for the last couple of decades. My community is the world, having posted to this site from all over the USA as well as from Japan and Australia as well. But thanks for letting me know that I pissed you off because you can’t offer any type of reply relevant to the subject at hand.
I’m born and raised here since the late 70s, and my politics are pro-measure S, so don’t tell me or Stan De San Diego about the politics of “our community”. Berkeley’s poltics are going to be all over the map, which, I HOPE, reflects our diversity of opinion. Now go take your Stalinist group-think elsewhere and don’t project your own personal politics (which is what they are) on the entire city.
Want Berkeley to stay a 60s musuem? Tough shit. It’s an evolving city.
I’m seriously disgusted by this article. You asked strangers why they were homeless – were you expecting them to tell you all about their problems? Would you honestly answer a COMPLETE STRANGER with your true problems? Defensive answers and attitudes may easily come from entitled college students thinking they have a right to know a person’s life story just because they are in a better position than them. Do you know why they made this so-called “choice” and would you still consider it a “choice” if you knew of their other options? Most of the homeless youth and friends that I know were in that situation because they were escaping much scarier ones. The fact that you were surprised that a person who is homeless cares about brushing their teeth just illustrates how you clearly don’t recognize that these are people just like you or me – and that any of us could end up in this situation. The only shelter available to Berkeley youth is YEAH! shelter, and even that does not fit nearly enough people, it isn’t open during the day because of lack of funds, and it can only be open during winter months. Your piece dehumanizes people who are homeless, as does Measure S. I am disappointed in this article, and embarrassed that the Daily Cal allows an article like this to be published.
Embarrassed that the Daily Cal “allows” this article? Puh-LEASE!!!
For goodness sake please vote Yes on S! take charge of your city and make it safer for Ll students!
Hey, Dad: maybe the whole crazy debate just comes down to “for goodness sake.”
Don’t worry, bud, we will. But you have to do your part and ask your friends to talk to their friends and so on and so forth.
Dear Jason Willick–
My name is Beverly Slapin. I am 68 years old, am a college
graduate, have worked for most of my life, have been a single parent on
welfare, have been homeless for a short time, and have been a Berkeley resident
for 33 years. And I know a few things:
Homeless people are suffering. Had you brought some
sandwiches and had some quality time with the homeless young people you
questioned, this is what you might have found: young people “aged out” of the
California foster care system, young people sexually or otherwise physically
abused by their parents or foster parents, young people kicked out of their
homes for being LGBT, and the list goes on. Of course, these young people will
tell you that they “choose” to be on
the streets. For those who congregate in groups, all they have is each other.
They’re family. They’re hungry, in more ways than one. Many are as smart and
creative as you are—they’ve just run out of options.
Measure S does nothing
to help homeless people. Forcing them from the streets, issuing citations and
warrants, arresting them, and sending them back to the streets—what is that, besides throwing them into an
abyss that will make sure they are never
employable? Are there sufficient shelter beds for homeless youth or adults? Are
there arts or education programs for homeless youth? Are there job-training
programs for homeless people? Why don’t you pretend to be homeless for a few
days, and try to find the city’s
social services of which proponents of Measure S boast?
Berkeley small business owners are suffering, as are most of
us, from the economic shambles created over the years by those to whom we now
refer as the “1%.” How many small businesses are going under because of
egregious rent hikes? How many small businesses are going under because people
are shopping online, in big-box stores, or in the Emeryville and El Cerrito
malls? How many small businesses are going under because those of us who once
enjoyed “recreational shopping” no longer can afford this luxury?
Measure S does nothing
to help small businesses. It does not
put money into revitalizing Telegraph and Shattuck. It does not promote the small shops, restaurants
and craftspeople that made Berkeley famous. It does not bring in an anchor store, such as J.C. Penney, that was here
and left. And it does nothing to stop
the rent hikes that small businesses can no longer afford. Blaming and
punishing homeless people for the economic crimes of the rich will do nothing
but create a convenient distraction from Berkeley’s property owners and
developers who are promoting and financing Measure S.
Dismissing poor people as “practitioners of a bizarre
subculture that glorifies homelessness,” and calling homelessness an
“alternative culture” and homeless people “vagrants by choice” exhibits the
kind of uncritical logic that justifies whatever is done to them, no matter how
unjust it is. Is this what you learned at UC Berkeley?
Measure S will
not help homeless people. Measure S will not help Berkeley small businesses.
Measure S will waste tax money that could be spent on services and job
opportunities, and on revitalizing Berkeley’s commercial district. NO on
Measure S!
Well said. I note that idiots like Stan De San Diego and I_h8_disqus can’t rebut your strong argument to vote NO on Measure S.
This is a terribly misleading article full of falsehoods. The “homeless by choice” frame is a Reagan-era mantra that is entirely false. Nobody sets out to be homeless–this is ignorant and absurd. As in all parts of society, homeless people are a diverse group–Measure S punishes an entire class of people for the behavior of a few. The business argument is also false. Yes, polls suggest people avoid Telegraph for a range of reasons, the homeless presence being just one of them. But facts are facts: a Berkeley city manager’s report shows clearly that the business districts most frequented by homeless people (Telegraph and Shattuck) have declined the least in the recession. Measure S is based on stereotypes and falsehoods, pure emotion–there is zero empirical evidence (none, not even a little) showing that homeless people have contributed to business decline. Don’t believe the stereotypes and the hype. Vote no on S!
> Nobody sets out to be homeless–
> this is ignorant and absurd.
Oh, bullshit – the 20-something gutter punks and professional tramps embrace it as a lifestyle choice. You’re the one being ignorant and absurd here. Fortunately, more and more people in Berkeley are no longer buying the nonsensical crap that you and your ilk peddle ad nauseum, and will support Prop S.
The argument on the least declining commercial area are red herrings when you consider that when the survey was taken in 2010, Shattuck and Telegraph had already been long depressed, so they had the least decline in recent times because there was nothing to start with. If you already have economically flat-lined, then it shouldn’t be a surprise to discover that there is little declining in the profit area. If you start at zero, you won’t see much decline.
Doc is right. Good work, Doc.
in a sense your opening is true; the “kids” would rather be on the beach in Waikiki
It’s nice that you pinpointed the latent paternalism among Measure S opponents but group in favor of it might lose some votes if you categorize the panhandlers as “by choice” due to first amendment concerns.
“The first concerns the vitality of local businesses and the quality of life for Berkeley residents.” You state this, but you completely ignore the fact that those on the street are Berkeley residents too. Residents who shop or own businesses are not the only ones who matter. The use of public space is a concern for everyone’s quality of life.
“In other words, these homeless individuals may be nice people, but they are not helpless victims who have fallen on hard times.” As someone else pointed out, you essentially took information from a few people and have applied it to all the homeless in the city. Your argument is hollow. Even if that were true, you have missed the actual issue with Measure S. Whether anyone is a victim or not, sidewalks are public space and belong to the public for public use 24/7. Businesses don’t get to tell the public how and when to use sidewalks. Period.
No on S.
Wait, if you’re coming from Kansas to sleep on the streets of Berkeley, are you actually a “Berkeley resident”? I’d say you’re more of a tourist of the worst kind.
And if sidewalks are a public space, as you point out, then why is it okay for some people to turn them into their own private bedroom/living rooms?
Yes on S.
they are tourists; don’t we want to welcome them, and share our wonderful town with them?
the writer did talk to a few, but he needn’t conduct a scientific study.
I recognize that many people don’t want to hurt the homeless. I don’t want the homeless hurt. However, I don’t believe the status quo does anything other than hurt the homeless. For decades, the homeless have suffered in Berkeley. There isn’t enough money or services to help them. The only way for Berkeley to actually help the homeless is to become a city that has the resources that can achieve its goals. Simply put, Berkeley has to start making more money so it can actually help. Measure S won’t solve all of Berkeley’s economic issues, but it is a step. Next we need the city to be more friendly to business and shopping. Berkeley could be a great place for start ups just like Palo Alto or restaurants and shops like San Francisco, and with property tax revenues we could actually help the homeless. Charitable efforts always get their money from those with money. Berkeley has to become a place with money if it wants to help people. Otherwise the best we can do for the homeless is a sidewalk, a crappy park and pathetic free services.
“the crappy park and pathetic free services” are a great draw. One of those free services can get you $900 a month, but most of the tourists off the road, don’t want the free services.
I live in San Francisco and I am laughing at all of you rehashing the exact same talking points on both sides that took place when we had this on the ballot a few years ago. At the end of the day this measure will change nothing at all and will have been a waste of everyone’s time and money. Now get back to passionately arguing about it for the next two weeks.
Actually, it has made a dent on the Haight and elsewhere in your fair city. And why do you expect Berkeley, a very different and much smaller and in many ways more manageable city than SF, must necessarily follow the same path as yours in being as ineffective as you think your legislation has been? I don’t think we proponents of measure S need to have such a defeatist attitude.
Oh, but you do
Oh, but we don’t.
The majority of businesses on the Haight say that they’ve seen no change. The homeless count for 2011 shows no change in street homelessness for the Haight or Golden Gate Park over 2009. The only people who claim that there’s been a change are the merchant & his landlord who were the public face of the pro-L campaign. It’d be pretty embarrassing for them to have to admit otherwise, but the overwhelming majority of their neighbors and the official numbers disagree.
The SF Resident is trying to fool us. He knows if Berkeley’s Measure S passes then the sidewalk campers will hitch a ride to his neighborhood and ruin his life. Oakland is too dangerous and most other East Bay cities have more sensible anti-vagrancy laws.
Interesting observation!
Can you give an example of one such law that Berkeley does not have?
Now we’re cookin!
According to the National Alliance to end homelessness here: http://www.endhomelessness.org/pages/snapshot_of_homelessness, there are There are 643,067 people experiencing homelessness on any given night in the United States. Of that number 238,110 are people in families and 404,957 are individuals. Twelve (12) percent, 67,000 people are veterans.
Jason Willick would like us to believe that these people including children are “homeless by choice”.
His little walk down Telegraph is not a scientific nor controlled survey of the homeless in Berkeley and his conclusions defy logic. Unless Mr. Willick joins the homeless in Berkeley for at least a year, he is hardly in a position to have walked in their shoes to determine if his homelessness could be a choice or not.
It should not be a crime in Berkeley to be poor and not be able to afford the exorbitant rents in the city driven up by wealthy students and greedy property exploiters. If Measure S passes, we already know it will be challenged in court the city of Berkeley cannot afford. Moreover, it will be a waste of police resources who should be used to stop serious crime in the city and not be giving out tickets to people sitting on a sidewalk.
We all know what happened to our neighbor and friend in Grizzly Peak who was killed because our Police Chief Michael Meehan decided to have all his officers watch peaceful protesters on Telegraph as opposed to responding to serious phone calls regarding crime. Our neighbor and friend was killed because our police officers were diverted from their primary duty: to protect us. Let us not repeat that mistake by passing Measure S.
First off, you don’t actually care about allocation of police resources or the guy who was killed up on Grizzly Peak, so please cut it out. If you did, I would just suggest beefing up our police force a little, which, I’m sure, many tax payers will gladly do. Voila: problem solved!
Second off, you’re just not acknowledging that there are different types of homelessness and some are, indeed making living on the streets a lifestyle choice. Hell, many have recently gotten up in front of city council and declared that no one will stop them from being homeless because it’s their way of life. What about this can you not understand?!
When was there a guy killed on grizzly peak?
It was February 18 of this year around the time that Occupy Oakland Protesters marched to the International House here in Berkeley. A mentally disturbed man was sort of lurking around this guy’s house. The owner called police non-emergency to report it, and so it was not given a high priority (and I do concede that police were drawn to the occupy thing in great numbers). The owner went out to confront the fellow and was then dragged into the bushes near his driveway and had his head bashed in with a pot or something like that. The perpetrator was very mixed up and delusional. Sad story. Anyway, I don’t think that if we crack down on vagrancy we will be, in greater numbers, victims of other crimes for lack of resources.
that’s not what happened; I’m a reporter.
“I’m a reporter.” And I’m Bill Gates.
Back up your claims or don’t posture as random people to bolster your faulty claims.
What I meant to say was that I covered the Fuck the Police march Feb. 18 for the Berkeley Daily Planet, and that I also reported on the murder of Peter M. Cukor. Good to hear from you, Bill.
Dude, covering the Fuck The Police march for Berkeley Daily Planet does not make you a reporter. And your little soundbites that you’re posting aren’t even arguments. I’m sorry, but it’s becoming clear it’s not even worth engaging you in dialogue.
just another radical skeptic. Berkeley is full of them. I know I cover the south side for the Berkeley Daily Planet. The word cover, somehow challenges you?
Not challenging at all.
“What I meant to say was that I covered the Fuck the Police march” – Yep, you’re a loser, alright.
then why am I winning the argument? Could it be I have good information?
But what else can you expect from someone who feels the need to to inject his snarky comments without having anything else to say? Our little dropout troll buddy can’t handle the fact that not everyone things it’s cool and hip to rub elbows with obnoxious, substance-abusing losers.
let us prevent murders in the hills with Measure “S?” If measure “S” passes it could divert officers, causing more murders in the hills,
One only has to see the groups who turn the bus stop in front of the Berkeley Public Library or the public area next to the main entrance to the Downtown Berkeley Bart Station as well as those who stake out in front of the Dollar Store to see just how bad the problem as gotten. They have turned these spaces into their living rooms spending the whole day in these places. Not allowing others to sit and leaving it smelling of muck. They are high (many of them) and lacking care or concern for others. But they rely on the progressives to save them from any consequence of the their actions. Sadly this group which the writer says means-well is nothing more than enablers.
Let me add the difintion. An enabler is one that enables another to achieve an end; especially :
one who enables another to persist in self-destructive behavior by providing excuses or by helping that individual
avoid the consequences of such behavior.
If I’m nice to the kids, I’m an enabler? spare me that AA pablum.
Why don’t you spare the “oh you’re so mean to the poor homeless kids” pablum yourself?
look again, Stan, the nice is conditional. If I’m nice, then…Nice explained. Nice is just being friendly, a stand-up guy. We’re talking no more than a smile, a “hello, how ya doin? Isn’t Berkeley great?”
You’re neither funny nor clever.
Nice? What is your definition of nice? If it is we’re going to let the status-quo continue and only simply wish for a “wave your magic wand” answer. Then that is not being nice. It is living in that fantasy dream world or as the title of a documentary on the educational system suggests “waiting for superman.”
The words “self responsibility” and “self accountability” do not discriminate. Does not matter your economic level. People have to be accountable for their actions and the effects it has on the community. It is time to apply that here in this situation.
You may think you are being nice. But in reality, you are not helping the situation. And at the same time you are showing the small businesses that exist and the other tax payers that you don’t care.
good description. a no-sitting ban won’t stop that.
The AP recently ran a spot on this issue. The author interviewed a homeless fellow who hitched from the east coast to Berkeley specifically for its reputation as being accomodating to the homeless. This fellow was homeless by choice, and lifestyle.
Berkeley may have a problem just due to its reputation. Assuming that’s true (I believe that it is), unless the city and its citizens do something to discourage hobos from considering coming to Berkeley from other places, the problem is not going to be solved or mitigated. Measure S is a step in that direction.
there is absolutely nothing that can be done, short of turning Berkeley into a mall. Street kids are running away from malls. That’s why they like it here.
There is something that can be done. It’s called Measure S.
they’ll just stand up; then what?
Well, we know that you will still be defending these losers as a way of demonstrating your disdain and contempt for the productive members of society. Something tells me that you’re one of those professional Berkeley activist parasites who never held a real job or had real responsibilities in your entire life.
They like it here because twits like you fight tooth and nail against any semblance of sanity.
“In a 2011 survey, about 65 percent of the more than 1,800 respondents — most of whom were students — said they would frequent Telegraph Avenue more often if there were fewer panhandlers.”
The survey did not ask if students wanted to solve this problem by making it a crime to sit on sidewalks. Actually, many of the open comments on that same question suggest the opposite:
- I firmly believe that the sitting on a sidewalk should not be an offense. It will not solve their problems, it will not solve our problems, it will only hide the problem. And that, is in justice.
- I think there needs to be a larger police presence in the Telegraph area, NOT fewer homeless people.
- While the panhandlers and homeless people are a deterrent from the area, because their omnipresence makes shopping and dining on Telegraph an uncomfortable if not unsafe experience, I don’t mean to say that these people should be forcibly removed as a “problem.” Instead, I would like to see more social services for the homeless, to safely rehabilitate them so that Telegraph can be a friendlier and more just area for all. Also – street cleaning services to keep Telegraph clean!
- I STRONGLY disagree with the bill before the City Council banning sitting/lying on the streets. That is NOT the way to revitalize Telegraph OR help the homeless. I wish there were fewer “gutter punks” or the young homeless youth. They are who makes me feel unsafe on Telegraph.
Basically, while respondents where bothered by panhandlers, not one commented in favor of the sit-lie ordinance and no one saw it as a solution.
the subjects were 75% women, who shopped. Moreover, these were people willing to take the time to be surveyed, perhaps ulterior motives. although the study had the sponsorship of the Cal Dept. of Public Health, I believe it would not hold up well, even to peer review.
Those we call “homeless” in this city are a very diverse lot, each with a unique story to tell. However, they really can be pigeonholed into two camps: the chronic homeless and the lifestyle homeless.
The former are comprised of generally good people with real problems who I’ve grown up seeing around this city as permanent fixtures. They are seldom obtrusive and your heart goes out to them, even if you’re a bit of a cynical and jaded jerk like I’ve sadly come to be in my adulthood.
The latter are comprised of predominantly white, young, able-bodied folks who come to California to hobo around between Seattle and the San Francisco Bay Area. They choose to dress down in a grungy way that suggests poverty but still seems to rigidly adhere to an underlying fashion aesthetic. They belligerently “spange” for drugs while, a couple miles across town, Latino migrant workers cast their fates to the wind and work for whoever will employ them to do practically any task for any pay.
It is these spoiled, white, entitled rascals that flock to the Bay Area that this measure would especially target and I’m FINE with that.
They have come here only to spit on our services and they have managed to downgrade the downtown area and Telegraph Avenue, which would otherwise be VIBRANT and BUSTLING commercial districts.
This is not about the homeless. It is about gutter punks that have long outstayed their welcome.
persuasive, and you’ve interviewed them; you’ve earned the right to your opinion in ways few have.
Not sure if you’re being sarcastic, Steed, but thanks either way.
I was impressed with Berkeleyan’s post
I was shocked to learn that there are both good and bad homeless people. I asked my neighbor down the street, Abby, about this, and she told me that there were also both good and bad people in houses! This is shocking and dismaying. What sorts of laws might we use to get the bad people who live in houses and who have outstayed their welcome to leave Berkeley? Can we add something new that might not be accidentally used against good people in houses?
Well, Emily, there are all kinds of people who are homeless. This should be common knowledge. There are also people who are far more more down-and-out and deserving of a hand up than others. There are also some who don’t want a hand up. There are some who would be more accurately described as nihilistic street punks than homeless people.
But you know all this already.
Petty sarcasm and a straw man does not further this discussion. Please try harder to enrich this dialogue between pro and anti Measure S.
Thanks.
I suppose I might have enriched the dialogue by calling people names. Certainly a fair critique!
You can call names all you want (within reason, I hope), but it is useful to do it in the context of an argument – preferably a better one than you first made. Go for it!
Well, you COULD have “enriched the dialogue” by contributing something of substance instead of making your presence felt merely as a scolding etiquette N-zi.
“There are also some who don’t want a hand up. There are some who would be more accurately described as nihilistic street punks than homeless people.” Is the tacit premise that if one is a nihilist, a “street punk,” or resistant to services (“hard to serve,” in PC social services jargon), then one should not be allowed access to public space (at least not while seated)? Or, consider: “In other words, these homeless individuals may be nice people, but they are not helpless victims who have fallen on hard times. They are, quite literally, vagrants by choice who create an unsanitary environment in public spaces (one man told me his dogs go the bathroom “anywhere they want”), panhandle and shout at passers-by — simply because they want to.” The conclusion seems to be that if you (and/or your pets) are unsanitary, you should not be entitled to public space (at least not in a seated manner). If we want to have any robust sense of public space, the onus must be on those who would take away freedom of assembly (or freedom of sitting, if you prefer) to show that their justifications for doing so can meet stringent legal standards; the onus must NOT fall on “vagrants” to show themselves deserving of the commons. Otherwise “public space” is a sham, a privatized zone in disguise, where the rules (e.g., oral hygiene, apparently) are unwritten and self-consciously enforced in a discriminatory manner.
When you set up camp on sidewalks you are privatizing public space, literally by squatting, turning the sidewalk into your own bedroom/living room.
And no one really cares about someone being dirty, Joe. Hell, this is Berkeley! However, when a bunch of aggressive, drugged up low-lifes congregate and start to intimidate passersby then it’s a problem that needs to be addressed. Yeah, yeah, “there are already laws…” – we, the citizens, are asking for more to make dealing with THIS SPECIFIC PROBLEM easier for our local police to address.
Now I think you said you’re in the homeless services industry here in Berkeley, so you obviously want to keep seeing an influx of new clients coming into this city, so OF COURSE you don’t want to see Measure S pass!!! Oy, why do I even bother responding sometimes.
Hello, Emily. I was surprised as well to find that the reporter met a man whose oral hygiene was very important to him (the homeless man, not the reporter) and that he (again, the homeless man, not the reporter) actually brushes his teeth twice per day! I think that Measure S should go back to the City Council and be tweaked so that it would apply only to homeless people (and people who live in houses as well) whose oral hygiene is not important to them. After all, we wouldn’t want to have to arrest someone who is homeless or someone who lives in a house, for that matter, who regularly brushes his teeth.
You don’t seem to have done your research.
As for the issue of business, that debate has been decided resoundingly in favor of No on Measure S. The City Hall Fellows report on sit/lie in San Francisco found that the sitting ban was a complete failure. Berkeley’s own tax data shows that businesses where there is visible homelessness (Telegraph and Shattuck) are actually weathering the economic downturn better.
The “survey” you mention was an online poll that made no pretense to accuracy. Random sampling was not even attempted. Even if it had been, the questions asked shed no light on the effect of making it a crime to sit on the sidewalk–which would impact students waiting in line at CREAM as well as homeless people.
Your claims about “voluntary homelessness” are questionable on a number of levels, but I’ll restrict myself to pointing out what you are doing: you are taking a handful of individuals and using them to stereotype an entire demographic.
To rephrase your argument: “I met some homeless people who are homeless voluntarily. Therefore, we do not need to worry about hurting homeless people.”
It is ridiculous to say this anywhere, much less in a town that has 135 shelter beds for 600 homeless people, no youth shelter most of the year, and not a single shelter open during the day, period.
There is no element of this debate on which the commercial landlords who proposed Measure S have any footing. The reason is simple: what they are trying to do is make it a crime to sit down. They propose to take away our public space in the name of business interests. There is no good argument for criminalizing the public’s use of public space.
Go to berkeleycivilsidewalks.com and see how many supporters Measure S has. Now go to noonsberkeley.com and see how many supporters it has. I think that just about sums up how people feel, buddy. Yes on S!!!
Students, get out there and vote, no matter which side you stand on!
I don’t blame the small businesses that support Measure S. They are having a hard time and have been convinced this measure would solve their problems.
I blame the mayor and other politicians whose bureaucracy and red tape continue to dissuade businesses from opening, and instead of fixing this, go out and blame the homeless for the lack of commercial activity.
that’s the reputation, but Berkeley has a new planning director, who wants to speed things up
The Yes on S campaign is financed almost entirely by real estate and developer interests. These are landlords who simply want to be able to charge higher rents. Don’t be suckered by their campaign–many merchants are against Measure S. And just about all their money comes from big business–none of it from Telegraph or Shattuck merchants.
Their campaign is built on lies–the measure itself has zero for homeless services, nothing. And the evidence shows clearly that sit-lie does not work. Read the City Hall Fellows Report. And the Berkeley city manager’s 2010 report showing business has declined the LEAST in Telegraph and Shattuck business areas. Forget the emotional ideological hype and look at the facts. No on S.
TONS of merchants are for measure S, while almost none are against it. Again, I’ll refer you to berkeleycivilsidewalks.com and noonsberkeley.com to see the list of supporters. And most of these merchants are small business owners made up of honest, hardworking people. Then there’s the broad community support from citizens who don’t want to be hassled by punks with pitbulls. Pardon my saying so, but you’re completely full of it.
oh yeah, the supporters list; those are endorsements, which don’t tell us anything about people who don’t endorse–a much higher number.
The noonsberkeley.com site is signed by those who DO NOT endorse measure S (oppose), so there you have your other list. It is far less extensive than the list of supporters.
real estate and developers supporting “S.” So what? This is guilt by association, as well as guilt for being an association.
where does it say anything but views (bots?). How do you know the comparison count of supporters?
listed supporters at both sites prove nothing. No on S is well-organized, holds more events than Occupy Berkeley did, and is out canvassing on weekends. Many local clergy have spoken out against the ban. Support to defeat this measure is growing.
The City Hall Fellows report did not seem to indicate it was a failure. While there were a couple of long term homeless who continue to sit on the Haight, the type of homeless people Jason mentions had moved on to other areas like Golden Gate Park.
You’re right that the City Hall Fellows report doesn’t say that the sit/lie law was a failure. It says:
“[I]t is apparent that the Sit/Lie Ordinance has, on the whole, been unsuccessful at meeting its multi-faceted intentions to improve merchant corridors, serve as a useful tool for SFPD, connect services to those who violate the law, and positively contribute to public safety for the residents and tourists of San Francisco.”
So you would rather just leave things the way they were. Leave the homeless in the streets without any help. Measure S and the similar law in San Francisco are promising too much. Measure S isn’t the cure for everything. It is one part of what should be a much larger plan to improve Berkeley so that the city can build the resources that will actually help those who Berkeley wants to help. For decades, the homeless have been stuck in the cesspool of the Berkeley homeless world, and you celebrate this. I think it is time for it to end. It is time for Berkeley to actually help those in need instead of just letting them suffer.
> So you would rather just leave things the way they were.
Of course they would. Despite their claims of being “radical” or “progressive”, most of these lefties want to maintain the status quo in Berkeley.