Berkeley’s homeless headache
Via SFGATE…The People’s Republic of Berkeley tip-toes around its homeless problem, hoping for a peaceful coexistence while planning development in the sacred homeless haven called “The People’s Park:”
People’s Park is a social puzzle that has defied nearly 40 years of attempts by UC Berkeley to solve it, largely because the university and many neighbors see it as a problem but the park’s most loyal users treasure it as one of the city’s most vibrant open spaces.
Now the university as owner of the land is trying a new approach, using a consulting firm to patiently confer with park lovers and shunners in hopes of reaching a consensus on the park’s future.
The work is as much therapy as planning — that’s how deep the divisions run over a nearly 3-acre urban rectangle that embodies Berkeley’s role in the anti-war and free speech movements of the 1960s and ’70s.
“This could easily turn into a war,” longtime park neighbor Joseph Stubbs said.
So far it hasn’t, and flickers of consensus can be seen following meetings with more than 40 small groups.
There’s even been talk of adding features like outdoor movies, live theater and a dog run, and linking the park to possible new attractions on nearby Telegraph Avenue, such as a history cafe, a historic district and a museum.
Moderated by a consultant, MK Think of San Francisco, larger public meetings are being scheduled for July through fall, when classes start on campus, in hopes that agreement will develop on new ideas for the park.
Irene Hegarty, UC Berkeley’s director of community relations, said the intention is to attract new ideas for the park, not to remove the homeless. “We expect it is an urban park and there will be homeless using it,” she said.
The characters of Berkeley seem skeptical:
Those with an emotional link to the park run the gamut from the free spirits who vow to lie down naked to block change to neighboring homeowners who are disgusted by the homeless camp that is the park’s most obvious feature, won’t set foot in it and feel intimidated by the activists who sanctify it as a radical shrine.
“It’s intense,” said Hate, formerly know as Hate Man, a longtime Berkeley “outdoor person” and park regular. “There’s a lot of energy on both sides.”
Somehow, I don’t think this is going to work out.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Berkeley
Marginal Revolution
» How much do biofuels drive up food prices?
PoliPundit.com
» Changing one heart at a timeBuzzMachine
» It’s not just meJustOneMinute
» From The ArchivesGateway Pundit
» Happy Independence Day 2008!Belmont Club
» Edgyprotein wisdom
» Friday Fourth Fun: The Feelies [Karl]NewsBusters.org
» NYT Editorial Bashes Obama's Recent Flip-flopsThe Sundries Shack
» Just Say No to the Star Wars Prequels.protein wisdom
» The New York Times explains big American flags [Karl]
I understand that Berkeley doesn’t want to appear crass by forcing the homeless off of their property. But, if they want to develop their own land, that’s what they’ll have to do. Maybe they can offer the homeless jobs in the development of the area. I think that would be a win-win situation.
True, but because it’s in Berkeley, I’m sure they won’t win it…. there will be calls to “Cut & Run” soon enough!!
Berkeley is a satrists dream.
My favorite Berkeley moment was recently when the Mayor, in an attempt to get rid of homeless on a particular street, banned smoking on that street. The only way they can deal with the homeless without having dirty hippy riots is to use even more liberal ideas such as banning smoking in public.
You can’t just ban loitering and ask the homeless to sleep/live somewhere else, but you can ban smoking. HAHAHAHA
‘Amnesty for the homeless’
Is there anything that California frowns upon?
Open another soup kitchen, that will stop the bums from coming (Amnesty logic)
Please don’t equate the loony bin that is Berkeley with the rest of my state.
Remember, 45% of us voted Republican in the last election.
BRING BACK THE HIPPIES. My guess is that the homeless folks won’t be able to stomach the odor and they’ll move away from the park.
Something about reaping what you sow seems to ring very clear here…
“Maybe they can offer the homeless jobs in the development of the area. I think that would be a win-win situation”
What are you some kind of capitalist? Offer them jobs? You mean work for money? What the heck for. They get free everything INCLUDING the full use of land that does not belong to them. I can only hope more homeless show up and UC Berkeley has to walk away from doing ANYTHING (except spend $$$$) with said land…….
……They deserve nothing more.
Point well taken. I realize now how silly my suggestion was…I can’t believe I actually suggested that someone work for a living.
I was walking down Telegraph Avenue one day in the spring of 1975, when I noticed a naked man sitting in one of the trees along the sidewalk. Nobody else on the street paid him any mind. Walked right by, didn’t even look for the most part
I left Berzerkly that afternoon, and I’ve never been back, nor have I had cause to regret this state of affairs.
“There’s even been talk of adding features like outdoor movies, live theater and a dog run,…
But still no public showers WITH soap.
Having witnessed a couple of riots take place in the Park, over the years, I can only sit back & laugh.
Liberalism gets you this.
“Can there be peaceful coexistence between developers and People’s Park?”
No. Tear the park down. It’s an travesty: drug dealing, bums using it as a public toilet, aggressive panhandling, etc. I don’t even feel comfortable walking by that place during the day. It’s Berkeley’s own fault though, by refusing to address homelessness and the crime that stems from this social ill (like San Francisco), it now finds itself contending with the absurd.
Perhaps they could use the strategy of victim vs. victim, encourage thousands of angry Mexican flag waving illegals to overrun the park. They would shout “gringo go home” until the American homeless were forced to move out. Then the SF politicians would be able to duck responsibility for driving out the homeless, and since illegals are also a persecuted victim group, no one in SF could blame them either, lest they be perceived as xenophobic racist mouthbreathing yahoos. Who wants that, right?
I propose that conservatives across the nation chip in a “Berkeley People’s Park Fund” to erect a monument to Irony there.
As a Cal alum and the parent of three others, we all say “Build a dorm there and be done with it.”
Cal can always use more dorm space, and there are already too many loonies wandering the Berkeley streets.
But the gerrymandering has forever removed any power the Californian Republican may have.
I’m sorry, as an ex-Californian, more of the state leadership is looking like Berkeley, rather than having Berkeley looking more like the rest of the state.
Or maybe we could use the “Berkeley People’s Park Fund” to build a statue of a giant hippie with the inscription, “This park is dedicated to the victory of the Hippie Ideal. Look upon our works and despair!”
Not sure how to break this to you, but suggesting that someone work for a living will soon be classified as hate speech.
Or they could erect some esthetically pleasing tents, pay some of the local “residents” (those who wish to actually do something with their day) to pick up the trash on occasion and have a weekly Friday night “Kumbaya” session.
Peace and love all around.
The war is lost! Dynes lied, people died! No blood for parks!
As they said on South Park
We should turn the homeless into tires. That way, we’d still have homeless, but we could use them…on our cars.
Sow to the wind . . .
Heh
for those that do not live in Berkeley, it’s too funny.. otherwise, it’s a sad irony..
California, geesh, I was stationed here last year and still don’t know what to make of this place. The mountian biking rocks and the weather is boringly predictable (southern california). I’ve meet many good people ( far more than I thought I would due to pre conceived notions prior to the move here), but on the other hand I’ve never seen so many people trying to get by doing as little as possible ( think Venice Beach). I’ve always tried to be the kind of Christian that helps the poor as Jesus said to do, but seriously folks. If I handed out a dollar to everyone in California who asked me for one, or bought one of the many useless trinquets for sale on the streets I’d be broke tomorrow. For the most part, if those people wanted to work they could, I believe they (not all but many) chose not too and would rather live their little hippie/bohemeian lifestyle and bum off the rest of us.
If any of those homeowners have property that the city council wants for a shopping center or auto mall, then the city would condemn the property and take it without hesitation. It looks like the homeless are the only ones who really own property and are safe and secure.
No need to bring back the hippies. These probably ARE some of the hippies, their children and grandchildren. The rest are on Capitol Hill.
“Maybe they can offer the homeless jobs in the development of the area. I think that would be a win-win situation”
And for every homeless clown they put to work they would also have to provide a team of higher paid social workers and rehab counselors. And the rejects would STILL only be on the job until they got their first paycheck.