Berkeley City Council has put forth a plan that would turn Durant Avenue and Bancroft Way into two-way streets. My first thought: THANK THE LORD. The fewer one-way streets, the better.

My second thought: I don’t even own a car. What the hell am I talking about? As one clever friend noted, one-way streets are easier on us lazy pedestrians, who only have to bother turning our necks one direction before crossing.

The logic behind this proposal is that two-way streets allow for better traffic; bus routes running up Bancroft would also increase access to campus. I would regale you with fancy numbers telling you the pros and cons of such a conversion, but traffic analysis has yet to be done on the two streets.

Berkeley Design Advocates, the design group that put forth the recommendation, says that this transformation would also be better for business. Yes, because being able to drive up Bancroft is really going to incentivize me to go to Urban Outfitters.

There are those, however, who aren’t happy with money going toward redirecting traffic flow. Councilmember Kriss Worthington strongly advocates his Telegraph ACTION plan, which was approved at last Tuesday’s meeting. It would improve lighting, visibility of parking, yada yada, to boost the Telegraph Avenue area. Side note: At the meeting on Tuesday, Worthington said the ASUC would be in charge of doing the lighting survey — that way, the city doesn’t have to pay for it. Good going, City Council. Passing off costs where you can.

Speaking of costs, Roland Peterson, executive director of the Telegraph Business Improvement District, has said that he would rather the city spend money creating parklets. What are parklets, you ask? They are basically small spaces on the sidewalk where you can sit and eat, preen your pet and enjoy green things. San Francisco is apparently known for parklets. I Google-Imaged “parklets” and all I came away with was, “Damn, that is such a bougie San Franciscan thing to do.” Considering how narrow Durant and Bancroft are, I wonder how they’d fit.

It’s not just sidewalks that look narrow; the streets themselves look like they would suffer heavy congestion with traffic moving in two directions. Just imagine that intersection at Bancroft and Bowditch. It’s a nightmare as it is, and with cars going four ways, it can only get worse. Jaywalking would be nigh impossible. But hey, what do I know? I’m no civil engineer.

So, to make up for my lack of scientific knowledge, I called up a few civil engineering students. Granted, these folks haven’t done measurements and tracked the traffic around these streets, but neither has the city. We’re on the same playing field when it comes to our speculation!

Civil engineers differed in opinion depending on whether or not they drove regularly in Berkeley — those who drive thought it would help with traffic but only very slightly; those who didn’t thought it wouldn’t help much at all. I mean, imagine someone trying to parallel park on the very narrow lanes of Bancroft. Think Channing Way during move-in day — but all the time. Can anyone say “bottleneck”?

The general consensus among the civ-E kids I talked to, though, seems to be that this conversion wouldn’t be worth the money. It’s a lot of buck for little bang and much hassle. Take College Avenue, for example — that’s a popular two-way street whose traffic is horrendous.

And that’s not to mention parking, the bane of all our existences (I know you took one look at my picture, and you’re thinking of making that joke. Don’t be that person. I’ll punch you through the Internet). Berkeley City Council hasn’t made parking in this city any easier. Earlier this month, it approved a 30 percent increase in annual parking permit fees to help close a $410,108 projected deficit.

I have no good suggestions for making parking less of a pain, but I will say that if we’re gonna improve something, let’s start with that. The council has yet to approve this plan for two-way streets; discussion over this issue was never reached on Tuesday night because the council took too long on other items, including whether or not the Alameda County district attorney prosecute former president George W. Bush.

So as a lazy, law-breaking pedestrian who only wants to turn my neck in one direction, I will have to selfishly stand in opposition to anything that does not greatly benefit me. That includes this proposal for two-ways. And parklets. Those are just absurd.

Contact Lynn Yu at lyu@dailycal.org or follow her on Twitter: @lynnqyu.

The post This is not a two-way street appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Hmm. That doesn’t sound nearly as impressive or hilarious coming from me.

Given that Berkeley City Council is on spring recess right now, I thought I’d take the time to write about the 10th member of the City Council — the general public.

Some public commenters, the ones who go once to plead their displeasure over X or Y agenda item pertaining to their business, property or what have you, are sane.

The regulars, however, open with something like this column’s first line. They do things like question marriage conspiracies, complain about drones, rant about the government, fascism, the police state and Cal students. Commenters have also been known to bring animals to meetings, the most famous being Sling Shot Hip Hop the bunny.

Meetings have broken out into musical numbers at the prodding of a singing public commenter, and somehow, the entire Crowd knows the lyrics to join in. Granted, it’s the same lyrics over and over again, but then you hear the Crowd turn what is a simple musical melody into a three-part harmony, and you realize that “Glee” isn’t fiction.

A recurring theme for public commenters is “the government is evil.” The most recent manifestations of this theme are comments about how drones are the worst thing ever. Council rejected a proposal demanding Berkeley be a No Drone Zone last December. That hasn’t stopped public commenters from coming and informing us that drones are capable of peeking into our living rooms and spying on us through our curtains and blinds.

Right. Because if the American government truly wanted to track any of us down, it would need drones to do it. And because the city of Berkeley really has the resources to enforce a no fly-over zone.

The most adorable public comments occur when children come to speak to their elected officials. Berkeley starts its activists young: When Rodrigo Guzman, a 9-year-old at Jefferson Elementary, was denied re-entry into the United States after a winter break trip to Mexico, his classmates organized a campaign to bring him home.

At a council meeting last month, his classmates asked the President of the United States to do something to help, invoking Martin Luther King Jr., Cesar Chavez, Rosa Parks and their fight for civil rights. Rodrigo himself, absurdly eloquent for a 9-year-old, video-called in to say a few words at the meeting. “I am very sad of … the law that didn’t let me come back. I hope that in the future, people … (will) have the rights to come back,” he said. Jeez, this kid already knows his basic rights. When I was nine, I didn’t know my rights from my lefts.

On the flip side of the tearjerkers are what I call the Scaries. They’re not physically intimidating, but they make dramatic statements that leave you going, “Whoa, what is life?” For example, City Council was considering getting an armored truck for the city last summer. Naturally, Berkeley residents turned out in force to the meeting, decrying a “police state.”

This one woman, donning a sundress and a straw hat, shuffled up to the mic and quietly asked, “What are you afraid of?,” very melodramatically and then sat down. Goosebumps all over. I can’t even explain why it was so chilling.

But as much as I love to pop popcorn to these wildly entertaining public comment sections, there’s still something to be said about civic engagement and free speech and access to local elected officials. I’m just not the one to say that something.

Instead, I will leave you with an example of an exaggerated public comment so that if you choose to give one, you have a guide for leaving an impression. Here goes: “Hello, I am here to speak about DRONES. As a longtime Berkeley resident, this city stands for ideals and green things. My grammar is not making sense right now and neither am I, but that is OK because I am SO ANGRY. Why would you put a project/development/store on this corner? It’s blocking my sunshine!”

Now the mayor will thank you for your time. Refuse to take your seat. Ask someone to yield time so you can speak for two more minutes. (Don’t even get me started on time-yielding. That inefficient process deserves a column in and of itself.)

Or, if you’re feeling particularly Berkeley, burst into song. I’m sure the Crowd will somehow magically know the lyrics and maybe even supply you with a soprano and bass line for accompaniment.

Contact Lynn Yu at lyu@dailycal.org or follow her on Twitter: @lynnqyu.

The post An ode to the public commenter appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Who would have guessed that a square patch of university land would turn into the biggest headache for the city and the school, a third rail in city politics that leads to shouting, screaming and the inexorable retreat?

For all those who hold nostalgia for what People’s Park once stood for — community gathering, freedom of expression, Berkeley in the ’60s — well, you don’t need me to tell you that that era is long gone. And it’s my firm belief that we will never regain that version of the park.

Ask around. I can guarantee you that most students will say “no” if you ask them, “Have you ever spent considerable time in People’s Park?” Rather than cutting across the hypotenuse of the park, most students will opt to walk around the park, even on the other side of the street, to avoid going through.

Because I live on the other side of People’s Park, I regularly cut through because it’s much faster.

However, when I tell friends of my shortcut, many gasp, asking why I would walk through People’s Park when I don’t need to. “Well, why not?” I counter. The sun is shining, and there are plenty of people around. Nothing is going to happen to me. Nonetheless, friends caution me to be safe.

This, of course, is merely an anecdotal offering. But this attitude toward People’s Park and the reputation it bears among students is not unique to my circle of friends.

So what must be done with it? There are a number of alternatives to be explored. One is to transfer the land from the university to the city — resolutions put forth by Councilmember Kriss Worthington and others have previously been passed to allow the park to become open, public land.

This raises the age-old question of who should hold jurisdiction over the park — the city or the university?

Arguments can be made either way. It’s been speculated that the city would do a better job in addressing the decrepit park, as the university has simply sat on the land for the last half-century.

Or, rather than debating about ownership, another possibility would be for the university to simply develop the land.

The university continues to expand every year — just this spring, we had the wellness referendum asking us to fund new gym space. And very recently, plans have been set forth to construct a $15 million project for a brand new aquatic complex. Insufficient housing to accommodate all students led to the construction of the Martinez complex, and it doesn’t look like our student body’s growth and demand for dorm space is going to diminish anytime soon.

In short, the university is constantly seeking spaces where it can erect new facilities and buildings. Want a new gym? Want a new pool? Want new dorms? Want an actual park? Want to accommodate expanding student interests? There’s a nice patch of land on Haste and Bowditch waiting, wide open, for you.

I can already envision the protests and adamant objections that would arise in response to development, which is probably why the school has not bothered to touch it. Despite the park’s unpopularity, the volume at which dissenters cry back is enough to keep the situation stagnant. And naturally, any discussion of People’s Park will always kick back to how we must deal with the homeless population living there.

Cal has always been an institution dedicated to public service. Relocating Cal Corps to a new facility there, opening a soup kitchen adjacent to a new project and dedicating a museum to the history of People’s Park are just a few ways to enshrine the cultural significance this place holds in our city’s history while holding us accountable to those who’ve caught the short end of the stick in life.

But leaving it be? Letting it further devolve into a cesspool of drugs and crime? That simply isn’t an option.

I’m sick of it. Students are sick of it. I personally don’t want to see it developed into another concrete building. I’d rather have it stay a park — but one that’s actually for the students. It’s long been time for the university to step up and deliver.

Here’s my message to you, UC Berkeley:

You OWN this land. Now do something about it. And if it results in people protesting and name-calling, so be it.

Contact Lynn Yu at lyu@dailycal.org or follow her on Twitter: @lynnqyu.

The post People’s Park problems appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Make fun of candidates and their idiocy for choosing to participate in student government. Laugh with your friends about how cool you are for being uninvolved. Turn an apathetic eye every time someone mentions local politics. Bates, Worthington, Arreguin. These names mean nothing to you. It’s so fucking boring. You’re here to get a degree and then bounce. You’re here to learn how to make money. You’re here to screw around for four years before moving on to bigger and better things.

You don’t need this city, and this city doesn’t need you. The same goes for the ASUC and the administration. Berkeley cries, “Fuck the corporations! Fuck the government!,” and you echo. Nah, who are we kidding? Berkeley cries, “Fuck the corporations! Fuck the government!,” and you scorn the plebeians wasting their time with sticks and signs.

So walk through rain, walk through sunshine with your earbuds in and your head down. Walk like there’s no tomorrow, lest you get accosted by fliers and do-gooders. It’s all a popularity contest. It’s all pointless.

Walk by People’s Park, and fear for your safety. Walk down Telegraph, and despise the smell of urine-saturated concrete; ignore the cold, numb fingers shaking for spare change, because at this point, you’re the one who’s numb to it all. Walk through Berkeley, back to your apartment that you’re paying far too much for. Walk through the city you consider a hippie dump. If it weren’t for this school’s reputation, you’d be living the high life in Brentwood or Isla Vista.

Plug into the Internet. People chat you on Facebook to remind you, DON’T FORGET TO VOTE! Log out on them. Go to sleep wishing no one cared, just like you.

Wake up the next morning and realize that your wishes have come true. Dreams aren’t just for princesses and presidents — the ASUC is gone. Rejoice as you walk through a peaceful Sproul.

Watch as the school cuts millions from its budget because it no longer needs to support the functioning of the ASUC. Celebrate when your fees and tuition subsequently go down. Revel in a silent spring. Delight that UCPD presence decreases; they no longer need to manage protests.

Keep watching.

Watch as student groups diminish or disappear. Watch as only The Daily Californian and clubs with either self-sustaining sources of revenue or minimal monetary needs remain. The campus gets dead-quiet at night because the only reason you or anyone else needs to be around in the late hours is for the library.

Watch as you lose an advocate with the city. Watch as the city denigrates further into mediocrity and no one cares enough to raise a finger. Rage in furious silence as the rent goes up and the supply of affordable housing depletes. Rage as long ignored issues continue to go ignored — lighting on Telegraph remains dim, crime remains rampant and safety remains poor. Rage when friends or classmates are sexually assaulted and the city and campus fail to put together a coherent response. Regret that UCPD presence has dissipated, because Berkeley Police Department is failing to deliver, and your walks home aren’t feeling any safer.

Rent is jacked up again, and that’s the straw that breaks the camel’s back. You’re done being furiously silent. Realize that you have no idea what avenues you can access that would allow you to articulate your displeasure. Search something up on the Internet. Go to a City Council meeting. Wish that the names Bates, Worthington and Arreguin meant something to you. Express your dismay as a public commenter. Two minutes is not nearly enough. Wonder why the council is surprised to see a student at the meeting. “You’re the first student we’ve had here in months!” they say. “We didn’t know even know this was a problem.” Realize you don’t know what you’re doing or how to get through to these nine.

Wonder why people aren’t speaking up. Wonder where all the protesters and activists have gone. Wonder why the school isn’t doing anything.

Then remember that you do not care; you wished for it, and no one else cares. You’re here to get a degree and then bounce. You don’t need this city, and this city doesn’t need you. The city festers in mediocrity, oblivious to “student issues” because there’s no one around to make them salient.

But you’re happy, remember? You’re very, very happy because, goddamn it, at the very least, no one is bothering you to vote.

Contact Lynn Yu at lyu@dailycal.org or follow her on Twitter: @lynnqyu.

The post You should participate appeared first on The Daily Californian.

There are, of course, restrictions — establishments selling off-sale alcohol (selling alcohol to be consumed at a second site) can only stay open until midnight, regardless of location, while on-sale alcohol (selling alcohol to be consumed on-site, i.e. restaurants and bars) can occur until 2 a.m.

I know you’re thinking it, so say it with me: hell yes. More drunchies. Or munchies, depending on the day of the week.

How sad is it that our first thoughts turn to late-night eating options? Actually, it’s not sad. Embrace those extra carbohydrates. If you weren’t thinking “more food!,” you are either not a normal college student or you spend an inordinate amount of time at Walgreens.

Unfortunately, just because the city has granted permission for a 24-hour district doesn’t necessarily mean that businesses will follow suit. I called around to a couple of Telegraph hotspots and I received the following: a “no one wants to stay open 24/7” from Blondie’s, a “no” from Chipotle and a “that’s not something we’ve discussed yet” from C.R.E.A.M.

Goddamn it. So I have to stick to La Burrita for my Mexican food fix? What’s the point of all this if I can’t get Chipotle at 2 in the morning?!

I called up Councilmember Kriss Worthington, whose district encompasses Telegraph Avenue, in dismay. He confirmed my worst suspicions — no business has actually stepped forward saying it will participate.

What is this gonna do, then? Worthington acknowledges that “it’s gonna take a while before we see practical effects. It will contribute to changing the ambience (of the street), potentially in the long term … If we don’t address parking, signage, lighting, economic issues or safety, this policy will have very little impact at all.”

Hence, Worthington has put forth a Telegraph action plan for short-term improvements, attempting to address the aforementioned issues.

One public commenter at this past Tuesday’s meeting feared that a 24/7 Telegraph would equate to a “24/7 public restroom.” Um, I’m pretty sure that’s the way it already is.

Councilmember Linda Maio, however, brings up a real concern: What about sexual assault incidents in connection to alcohol consumption? She’s not against late hours, but her reason for voting “no” on the policy has to do with the doubling of reported rapes in Berkeley over the last year.

“The general pattern (of rape) is acquaintance rape, the confluence of that with alcohol,” Maio said. “This policy ends retail of liquor at 12, but it allows businesses to appeal the zoning department for later hours. I personally don’t want to open that door.”

I asked Worthington what his opinion was of Maio’s thoughts against the policy. “We’ve seen nearly a doubling in rape without this policy change,” said Worthington. With this policy, “there won’t be an increase in alcohol in late hours. Because of state law, even if a business is open 24 hours, they can’t sell alcohol the entire time.”

Both Worthington and Maio agree that the best way to address the increase in sexual assaults around the city is through education.

While I completely understand the problems we face with sexual assault, I don’t believe there’s much of a direct connection between allowing businesses to stay open 24 hours and a potential increase in rape incidents.

Having the city and university work jointly to improve public safety, education, prevention and enforcement will go a lot further than simply preventing shops from staying open or selling alcohol later.

Craig Becker, owner of Cafe Mediterranean and president of the Telegraph Business Improvement District Board, believes that Maio’s concerns are a misunderstanding of what a 24-hour district is attempting to do.

“The problem of rape has more to do with off-sale liquor. I don’t think this originates in restaurants and bars,” Becker said. “I think (this policy) actually has the potential to improve the safety of the nighttime environment. It’s a strategy that’s been used by other cities to decrease alcohol problems. Now, places can serve alcohol until 2 a.m. but stay open until 3 or 4 a.m. … people can sober up and eat before drifting out.”

Oh, people will certainly eat, all right. If the marijuana doesn’t do the trick, the midterms will. Now it’s up to the city to hold up its end on bettering public safety measures.

And to lobby Chipotle to extend hours. Who’s with me?

Contact Lynn Yu at lyu@dailycal.org or follow her on Twitter: @lynnqyu.

The post Southside story appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Why would we want such a district to begin with? ASUC Redistricting Director Noah Efron said in an email, “If we have a district whose population is 90 percent student, any council member who has to run in election after election in such a district will be forced to be accountable to student issues.”

At face value, that sounds like something everyone can get on board with. Given the fact that students comprise a large portion of the city’s population, why wouldn’t we want more representation of student issues?

There are some problems to be contended with. Councilmember Laurie Capitelli, who supports the student district, questioned the prominence of student issues. He pointed out to me in an email that, “To some degree (student) issues are not completely known by the Council or the community. There has not been a venue for students to articulate their concerns.”

I don’t want to get into a debate over what is or is not a “student issue” or why the Berkeley community isn’t aware of them. Let’s say we’re able to clearly define them for Capitelli and the council. Even then, would one council member attuned to these issues be enough?

Philippe Marchand, the former assembly affairs vice president of the Graduate Assembly, stated in a comment on a Daily Cal article that “there has been very little discussion on how concentrating students in a single district would affect the overall support for students if none of the other council members have to really care about the student vote.”

There’s a reason that The Three Musketeers are never able to trump The Clique. It’s because there are only three of them. It’s cruel arithmetic at work.

Say an undergrad or grad student runs in the next election cycle and is able to oust Kriss Worthington. Will that solitary figure, working tirelessly to bring student issues to the forefront, be able to enact or solidify change without the support of the others? If he/she’s working alone, that’s a no. Cruel arithmetic.

I asked Efron what he thought about the idea that concentrating the student demographic into a single district could be counterproductive toward the end goal of increasing student representation. Efron said that when the old map was drawn in 1986, students were purposely split up to dilute the student voice. He said, “To suggest that having students in multiple districts means more councilmembers represent them is incorrect … (it) means that it’s not politically important for ANYONE to listen to students.”

Current ASUC External Affairs Vice President Shahryar Abbasi backs him up, telling me in an email that “having someone on council who walks and talks with students everyday will be far more significant vs. having scattered representation who are not solely focused on our interest.”

Not all students are united on this front. CalSERVE’s EAVP candidate, Spencer Pritchard, said in an email, “Overall … a student district does not tackle the problem of student under-representation in city affairs … The idea of a single student district does not go far enough. We need to be advocating for further representation for all of city government.”

One thing they can agree on is that the council hasn’t done enough for student matters. While all of the council members I interviewed last week expressed their support for students, Efron, Pritchard and Student Action EAVP candidate Safeena Mecklai believe the council hasn’t given student issues their due. “We’ve seen with the current city council that when students are divided, their voices are not heard and councilmembers are not responsive to their needs,” Mecklai said in an email. “One lone councilmember cannot pass something on the council, but it will allow us to raise our voices … That’s a huge step.”

Pause. That was a lot of quotes and perspectives I gave you just now. I’m sure there are many more I’m missing as well. Chew on  ’em, digest ’em and if after all this you’re concerned, show up when the redistricting maps are presented and have your say.

As for my opinion? I think one is a lonely number. I think the math is stacked against us. Then again, I’m not the one who needs to be convinced.

At the end of the day, it comes back to the core nine on the council. Don’t get tired of these rambunctious people — they’ll decide whether we get a student supermajority district or not.

Get loud. ’Cause the ball’s in their court now.

Contact Lynn Yu at lyu@dailycal.org or follow her on Twitter: @lynnqyu.

The post District 7 appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The first faction consists of Max Anderson, Jesse Arreguin and Kriss Worthington. They are referred to as the “WAA” coalition, but I like to call them “The Three Musketeers” because they’re the more outspokenly progressive members of the council and are known for fighting for the “causes of the people.”

The other five are “The Clique.”

Tommy B. gets to be ASB President, Linda Maio is Everyone’s Best Friend Forever, Laurie Capitelli is the Sarcastic Kid on the Debate Team, Gordon Wozniak the Nerd, Darryl Moore the Kid Who Never Talks and Susan Wengraf the Dozer.

It’s the Breakfast Club, Berkeley style.

The Three Musketeers and The Clique clash on the most controversial of issues, with The Three Musketeers consistently losing out.

However, these two lively factions may not last forever. With the upcoming redistricting process, it’s very possible that district lines may be redrawn in such a way as to favor certain members and disadvantage others.

Rather than try to understand redistricting — a very important process that is now a whole different ballgame for Berkeley due to the passage of Measure R last fall — myself and its potential implications for a “student district,” I hit up a few of our lovely council members.

Arreguin explained in an email that “In an ideal situation, redistricting is a technical process in which legislative district boundaries are drawn to achieve equal population in each district, to protect the principle of one person, one vote.’”

But, of course, we don’t live in an ideal situation that speaks so diplomatically, so there’s sure to be drama.

Clique members Wengraf and Bates both expressed enthusiasm about seeing the new maps that are due to the city clerk on Friday, March 15, while Wozniak chimed in with an email that he believed these efforts to keep “communities of interest together” was an example of “participatory democracy alive and well in Berkeley.” What a PC group of folks we got here.

Bates was especially keen on having the maps “make sense” — “I want boundaries that make sense, lines that make sense.” But what makes a boundary or line sensible? One that pleases a certain side? The Clique certainly sounds genuinely interested in what the public has to propose and probably has the city’s best interests at heart.

Not everyone agrees, though. People’s Princess Worthington noted in an email that, “Even in Berkeley we have had … lines drawn to include specific candidates in a district and block candidates out of a district.” Arreguin backs up his buddy, saying, “Measure R … opens the door for Councilmembers to politicize the redistricting process and draw lines that punish opponents. This particular City Council is partisan and sometimes more petty than professional.“

Guys, this is like Gossip Girl for Berkeley nerds, so pay attention.

When I asked Wengraf and Bates what they thought of the idea that redistricting could be done in a way that would hurt certain council members, Bates said, “I don’t think that’s even possible,” and Wengraf scoffed, “I think that’s a very paranoid approach for redistricting … if you are a strong candidate, I don’t think it’s a problem.”

Can we please pop the popcorn and get this show on the road already?

I know I shouldn’t condone political drama for the sake of my own entertainment, but let’s be real — do we honestly think this is going to end any other way than in bloodshed?

Arreguin added that he hopes the city can have a “grown-up” discussion on this topic. Unless your last name is Solo, hope is pretty much futile.

We can strive as much as we want to make sure redrawn lines are objective, rational and sensible, but at the end of the day, there’s no way politics doesn’t come into this.

If you’ve reached the end of this column and you’re thinking, “Wow, this is gonna be a shitshow,” then I’ve done my job. If you aren’t thinking that, here’s some logic for you:

1) The Three Musketeers (more like two, as Anderson was nowhere to be found) don’t like the implications of redistricting.

2) The Clique does.

3) Put them in a mixer and blend well. You’ll get a dirty martini, shaken not stirred.

Makes sense, right?

Contact Lynn Yu at lyu@dailycal.org or follow her on Twitter: @lynnqyu.

The post There will be blood appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Mayor Tom Bates hosted a forum last Thursday concerning the revitalization of Telegraph. According to Berkeleyside, plans have been put forth to construct new projects on the empty lots of Haste Street and Telegraph Avenue; other proposals include improving lighting on the street along with adding Wi-Fi capabilities.

This is usually what much of the talk over rejuvenating Telegraph looks like — “projects, development, buzzword, buzzword, projects.” New storefronts are great. New lighting is even better.

But more often than not, people fail to mention the elephant in the room. I don’t know if it’s because we want to be politically correct or if there seems to be no lasting solution to this issue, but it has to be said: What are we to do with Telegraph’s homeless population?

Ask UC Berkeley students about Telegraph. They’ll tell you the street is “colorful,” “quirky,” “lively” and “cultural”; they’ll also tell you that it’s “dirty,” “grungy,” “sketchy” and, if you missed it the first time, “dirty.” It’s impossible to escape a conversation about Telegraph without someone mentioning “hobos” and “weed.”

Measure S, a failed ballot measure supported strongly by Bates that would have banned sitting on commercial sidewalks such as Telegraph, was an attempt to address just this issue. While the measure was poorly formulated, I can give kudos to the man for at least trying to take action.

The measure was fortunately voted down, and now we’re back to square one, skirting the “homeless problem” with enthusiastic plans for development and excited chatter over amping up night life. But you are never going to have a substantial nightlife on the street if you can’t guarantee student safety by mitigating, or at least reducing, the homeless presence.

The homeless people that populate the street may be there because of circumstances out of their hands, may suffer from mental health issues or may be caught in a cycle of inescapable poverty and depression. You can sympathize and fight for their cause; you can be PC about it and try to avoid it entirely by focusing solely on building, building, building.

At the end of the day, the harsh truth, no filter, is this: You can have all the pretty restaurants and storefronts you want, but as long as much of the student population finds the homeless population “scary” or “annoying,” and I assure you that there are far more students who are disgusted by the “hobos” rather than sympathetic toward them, Telegraph will never attain the vivacity that College or Solano avenues have achieved.

I’m not being insensitive to the homeless population’s plight. I’m not refusing to acknowledge that it’s imperative that the city offer more services to the homeless. I’m simply noting that if your end goal is “revitalization,” a considerable homeless or “drifter” culture and a thriving, modern student-oriented Telegraph cannot coexist.

Do I have facts and research backing up that last statement? No. That’s an intuition derived from two and half years of close observation. You may have a different intuition, and if you do believe that the two can go hand in hand, then tell me this: How do we work toward that happy medium?

Councilmember Jesse Arreguin has put forth the Compassionate Sidewalks Plan, designed to form a committee to examine the causes of homelessness and to improve existing laws and services. This sounds promising, but I fear that once again, this is one of those “Let’s have conversations and hold meetings! Let’s give reports on the status of things! Let’s spew out buzzword after buzzword and try not to offend anyone!” It sounds like a classic recipe for talk turning into talk about talk.

As Councilmember Kriss Worthington noted at last Thursday’s meeting, “I’ve seen most of the people who are in this room at one, two, three or 30 meetings over the course of the last 10 years … having another 30 meetings is not something to be greatly looked forward to and desired.”

Ironically, this column adds to that chorus of voices that are talking and not acting. I’m well aware. I’m one more person joining in on that “discourse” and “conversation,” writing instead of acting. Words can inform and enlighten, but they cannot clean the sidewalk or juice the street.

Everyone agrees that Telegraph has potential. The question over revitalizing Telegraph, then, is not, “How do we go about it?,” or, “What should we do?” or even “When will it finally happen?” Rather, it’s “Why hasn’t it already happened?”

Perhaps it’s because we like to hear the sound of our own voices a little too much.

Contact Lynn Yu at lyu@dailycal.org or follow her on Twitter: @lynnqyu.

The post Talking on Telegraph. Stop. appeared first on The Daily Californian.

This reference is not in any way intended to offend, demean or imply anything concerning the council member’s sexual orientation. As an ally of the queer movement and as someone who openly and actively supports LGBTQ rights in this country, I would never attack any member of the queer community for his or her sexual identity.

In my first column on Berkeley City Council, I provided nicknames for many of the council members. I called Worthington “Princess Worthington” as a reference to Princess Diana, who was famously known as the “People’s Princess.” Worthington, similarly, is the “People’s council member,” known locally as a staunch supporter of progressive causes. This reference should have been made more explicit in my last column.

From my observations of the council, I’ve seen Worthington interact regularly with audience members, students and even protesters, more so than his colleagues. He is, in my opinion, the “Man of the People,” and I use that phrase for him in my latest column.

As part of a humor column, none of these nicknames or references is intended to be offensive and most certainly not for Worthington, whose work I have great respect for. I understand that my reference to Princess Diana may be a little outdated, but that is all it is — a reference to the “People’s Princess.” I apologize if this reference was unclear or if it was interpreted in any way other than its original intent.

If you have any concerns over my references or questions about my column, feel free to contact me at any time at lyu@dailycal.org.

The post For the record appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Berkeley City Council’s matchup pits Mayor Tom Bates against Councilmember Kriss Worthington. These frenemies have been fighting for forever — Worthington, the People’s Princess (a la Princess Diana) and Tommy B. exchange hostile glances at every council meeting, and if not for societal standards demanding civil restraint, they would be throwing punches at each other.

When the mayor cuts off a speaker, brings down his gavel just a little soon or makes even the slightest move indicating an infringement of First Amendment rights, the Man of the People is there to jump in and demand that the people be heard. As you can imagine, endless interruptions from your dais neighbor for nigh on eight years will get on your nerves.

So what do you do as mayor when you’re forced to sit next to an irksome council member?

Perhaps you talk to the guy, tell him “Stop being so mean to me. It isn’t very nice.” Perhaps every time he opens his mouth to cut in, you jab him with the butt end of your gavel. Perhaps you make your point passive-aggressively, saying things to your buddy Laurie Capitelli like, “Wow, don’t you hate people who wear blue all the time and can’t stop interrupting the mayor?,” and Laurie chuckles and goes “Ohmygod yeah, those people are the worst,” and then the two of you laugh loudly like it’s some hilarious inside joke.

Perhaps Bates has done all of the above, but to no avail. Perhaps he’s done none of the above and instead goes for the quick and painless option — a game of musical chairs.

Alas, it is the latter option that our dear mayor has resorted to — the People’s Princess has been shifted one seat away so that Bates and his BFF Capitelli can be dais buddies.

Why is this a big deal? Well, the way the City Council dais is set up, the mayor sits in the center, and the seating to his left and right seems to be generally arranged according to seniority. So Jesse Arreguin, the youngest council member, sits on the far outside right end, while Worthington, one of the most senior members, sits directly to the mayor’s left. This is tradition, which means you don’t mess with the seating arrangement. Unless you’re the Master.

I guess the best thing to do is to put ourselves in their situation. If you’re Kriss Worthington, your constituents would be sitting in the audience. The crowd consists of the people voting for you. Council meetings are a show, a show where you, as the Man of the People, must do your due diligence and ensure that the average citizen gets the chance to speak.

A good theater performance means showing up the guy in charge, the authority figure that your constituents are not at all fond of. The easiest way to go about this is to call him out, loudly and regularly.

Now if you’re the mayor, this is … well, annoying. You’re just trying to do your job, and this hostile force next to you is ready to pounce on every little misstep you make.

But interruptions are not the only issue at hand here. The mayor has accused Worthington of manipulating the speaker’s board on the dais — a lighted board that shows the order in which council members are slated to speak and a board on which members can add or remove their names.

Said board is located directly within Worthington’s line of sight, and the mayor believes Worthington adds and subtracts his name in a way that will allow him to get the last word (Worthington profusely denies such allegations of debauchery). Hence, another reason to move him.

So who’s right in the end? Should the mayor have dealt with Worthington on his own terms rather than outright casting him away? Probably. Would Worthington have let up on his harping and bothering? Probably not. It’s an impasse that can only be resolved by the warm body of Laurie Capitelli.

Why am I discussing such a trivial aspect of Berkeley City Council with you instead of lighting upon larger topics such as homelessness or redistricting? Because I want you to have the same reaction I had when I first heard about this — “God, what children.”

Worry not, dear reader; we’ll be getting to the heavy stuff, too. First, we must realize that despite the impact the council’s decisions may have upon this city, it is internally a very petty engine, rife with petty drama and petty disputes.

And yet, the council somehow still functions in spite of all this. All the more reason to celebrate when it is able to enact collective action.

Contact Lynn Yu at lyu@dailycal.org or follow her on Twitter: @lynnqyu.

Clarification(s):
A previous version of this column should have indicated that the nickname given to Berkeley City Councilmember Kriss Worthington was a reference to Princess Diana, who was known as “the people’s princess.” The column also may have implied that the Berkeley City Council has stringent seating assignments arranged according to seniority. In fact, there are exceptions.

Correction(s):
A previous version of this column incorrectly stated that Kriss Worthington is the most senior member of the Berkeley City Council. In fact, Linda Maio is the most senior member.

The post Tommy B. and the People’s Princess appeared first on The Daily Californian.