Tree Sitter Takes Roost As Park, Poverty Debated

1

There has been recent debate surrounding the Park due to a list of demands against the Park placed by land and business owners in the Southside area. The Telegraph Business Improvement District's director, Roland Peterson, had issued a letter to the UC (specifically Ed Denton, Vice-Chancellor) asking for: the instillation of security cameras, tight restrictions on food and clothing distribution, re-landscaping the Park by removing all berms and mounds, continued thinning of the vegetation. As well the letter more broadly demands "discontinued tolerance of unsanctioned (by the UC) activities", as well as the rezoning of the Park to take advantage of stricter regulations which govern commercial properties (People's Park is currently zoned as residential).

If implemented, such broad strokes damage the integrity of the Park as an ecosystem, and punish all poor people in the area, instead of focusing on the real social elements which can attribute to crime in Berkeley. There is no way to ignore the faltering economy. Around 4100 homeless people reside in Alameda County, not counting migrant homeless who pass through the county, according to new statistics released by EveryOne Home (a non-profit). There has to be a way to balance public safety and the personal dignity of the homeless population.

The services homeless people need are not met by the government. It takes the efforts of non-profits and singular individuals to met to help hold a livable standard of living for the homeless. Food services are delivered by Catholic Workers, Food Not Bombs, and many others. There is no government run program serving cooked meals. Clothing is delivered almost daily by people from all over Berkeley. There has to be an agreed upon place for food and other items to be delivered and received in order for donations to really be helpful. Historically, People's Park has been one of those places where the poor know they can find food or clothes.

The UC's management of the Park has always been questioned. The same populace has access to all Parks in the city of Berkeley. Only the UC managed park is surrounded by such level of heated debate; the city and county managed spaces do not. The UC is not fit to manage a park; it is not something they are interested in doing. The Telegraph Business Improvement District is not fit to make demands on the Park; as there interests are business related, not land management nor social service related. As well, the TBID is a non-democratic body which operates outside public input.

Park management is an actual field of study; people study parks, their usage, write books on the subject, give lectures, and et cetera. An excepted social theory regarding parks is that increasing park usage increases park safety. In Park settings, people can self police behaviour for the most part. In large diverse groups, people are less likely to go against social norms regarding public safety. Willard Park is an example of a large and diverse group which self-regulates itself with little outside police presence. Between the students, families with kids, dog-walkers and homeless people, there is little problems between people.

Conversely, decreasing park usage invites crime. If the UC promoted a student gardening club, or if business owners found ways to donate to the Park's upkeep and created cultural events for the Park, the Park would be more alive, and appealing for everyone. But both the UC and the TBID have tendencies to describe the Park as dangerous and unappealing. Both the UC and the TBID are attempting to increase Park usage by first decreasing the usage; by pushing students away, the poor away, and visitors to the city away. This tactic does not typically work. It creates a type of "self-fulfilling prophecy".

The Park needs more public debate and more public input. Overall it needs more visitors and more support. The Park was created through volunteerism and a desire to improve the local community. That spirit is what will transform the Park into something stronger. The Park cannot be improved by tighter, authoritative control.

======================================

2

The situation outside the Park on Telegraph Avenue is related to the economy, and not the fault of homeless in the area. Berkeley's status as a type of sanctuary must not be compromised. Other cities in the Bay have criminalized pan-handling, and sleeping outside. Many cities don't have the amount of food services Berkeley has. Berkeley has as much homeless people in it, because many people here are kind. Restricting people's kindness will not improve the economy of the city.

The Wars, bank bailouts and tax breaks for the rich are creating a system which is grossly inequitable. The poor are carrying the rich, while at the same time being punished for being poor in the first place. It is a double strike to have less, then be scapegoated for being in less stable situation.

Businesses are hurting around the Park because people don't have the same amount of expendable income as they used to in the past. Moe's Books will blame the homeless for their lack of sales, but will ignore the fact that booksellers all across the nation are facing tough times, even one's which don't have homeless people around them. A major book chain, Borders Group, had to shut down operations nationwide. A store like Moe's has to face reality. The two record stores, Ameoba and Rasputin's, are competing with digital music and online cd/vinyl retailers. Retailers like Amazon.com don't have sales tax; closing those loopholes for online retailers has more to do with helping the Telegraph Ave business than targeting the poor does.

Non-essential spending is going to stay low. For consumer confidence to grow, we need to exit the draining, bleakness of war. The rich, that top tier, must also give back more to the society from which they've taken so much. And lastly, there must be true job creation in the Bay. Right now, people don't feel responsible going out to eat, or going out to get a haircut, or purchasing a lot of books/music.

Scapegoating only tears people apart and makes our city less friendly. Scapegoating doesn't address actual economic problems.