This Is Our Home

This Is Our Home

I don’t remember the first time I saw a homeless person
You can’t find one of those in Lexington, Massachusetts
Birthplace of the American Revolution
Red pavement without payment of litter,
Elegant boutiques, dainty planted trees
Cul-de-sacs curled around mansions
Little girls boys bright, bubbled futures – so few chills
For want is no friend to upper middle class glut
Fear does not feed on green pesticide-not-quite-grass
As dreams are blown from mouths like bubbles – fragile, wet, still steaming
Weightless they cling to skin, nesting, become another skin, home
My home
But if you can’t find a home here, then you have no home
This town is not for the homeless.

Read More

How to Stop the City of Berkeley’s Criminalization of the Homeless

One of the most popular pieces of advice to incoming students concerns walking around People’s Park and Shattuck Avenue, two of the most popular homeless encampment areas. While some claim that “no story of Berkeley is complete without the story of the homeless, whose presence has become familiar to residents,” many avoid these areas because they wish to avoid either the homeless themselves, their belongings (e.g. the sight and spread of their tattered blankets) or their companions (e.g. cats, dogs and other pets). Particularly on Shattuck Avenue, the downtown area where many local stores and restaurants are located, business owners express resentment, claiming that the homeless people have affected their daily operations. They have urged the city government to do something.

There have been recent attempts. The City of Berkeley proposed a controversial ballot measure to ban anyone from sitting or lying at the sidewalks during the day through Measure S, otherwise known as Civil Sidewalkers, in late November 2012. First-time violators would face a penalty of $75 or community service, while subsequent violations could be charged as misdemeanors. Measure S was voted down by a majority of Berkeley voters.

The message is clear: as the measure would have forbidden the basic activities of the homeless in commercial areas, it was really aimed at reducing the visible signs of homelessness. As advocates of the measure claimed, “living on the street is unhealthy, and sends people into a downward spiral” while “keeping shoppers away and hurting local merchants.” In their opinion, the assumed benefits of Measure S were to improve the quality of life of the homeless community by transferring them to the appropriate social services and to increase economic activity of local merchants in the area.

But how likely are policies such as Measure S able to accomplish what they are intended to? According to an article published by the Policy Advocacy Clinic at the UC Berkeley’s School of Law, “Will Berkeley’s ‘Measure S’ increase economic activity and improve services to homeless people,” the benefits are “neither proven nor promising.” Indeed, a similar sit/lie law, passed in San Francisco, was proved to be a failure. According to a recent report from the City Hall Fellows, the measure is radically ineffective in dissuading the city’s homeless from sitting on pavements, and it poses an extra cost to the police force, whose time could probably be better spent on inspecting other activities.

Although voters in a city that is no stranger to political movements said “no” to Measure S, Berkeley is far from having ended anti-homeless efforts by the city government. The victory for homeless rights advocates has proved extremely short-lived: Councilmember Jesse Arreguín has proposed a new series of actions to target the homeless community, dubbed the “Compassionate Sidewalks Plan.” The Compassionate Sidewalks Plan convenes a group of representatives to develop new regulations and law enforcement strategies based on consensus. But certain residents and community activists speculate that this plan is simply a masked version of Measure S, only this time more stakeholders—community members and government officials but not homeless people – are included in drafting a new measure.

Should the homeless be wiped off the streets of Berkeley simply because their appearance seems to deter shoppers and threaten the city’s image? At the very least, I believe, decisions about public space should not be weighted solely in favor of profit.

It is possible that the Compassionate Sidewalks measure would start a trend of criminalization and discrimination in Berkeley against those who are in need. The danger is that if any such measure was passed, the trend would officially be established, could be hard to terminate, and potentially lead to laws that further target homelessness and associated activities (e.g. cooking and congregating in public). Even if the policy successfully displaced the homeless community from the city’s surface, they will only migrate from one place to another, unseen from public view. In the absolute worst case, a sense of alienation is created among the needy, which further intensifies the ever-widening gap between the rich and the poor.

Compassionate Sidewalks is a thinly veiled attempt to hide homelessness, and it undermines efforts that could have addressed the true roots of the problem. Therefore, for incoming students, my alternative piece of advice would be to learn about the transient population first-hand instead of passively consuming formulated opinions about homelessness. A good start would be to volunteer with a student group like the Suitcase Clinic, or to visit People’s Park and Shattuck Avenue and talk to the homeless face to face instead of shying away uncritically.

Allista Cheung is an undergraduate student in Economics and City and Regional Planning at UC Berkeley. She can be reached at allista.cheung@gmail.com.

"Sit/Lie" Laws Don't Rest Well with Planning Philosophy

November 6, 2012 It is a brisk morning as I walk hurriedly in my New Yorkers fast pace shuffle up the slight hill on Bancroft Street towards Wurster Hall, the building of the College of Environmental Design at UC Berkeley. I pass a man who looks to be in his mid to late 40s sleeping on a heating grate. Generally if I get to school before nine I see this same gentlemen sleeping there most cool mornings. Other students join the daily walking ritual passing this homeless man without so much as a glance. As it turns out if Measure S passes this November 8th, this man along with other homeless folks will no longer have the right to sit, lie down or sleep on the sidewalk from 7:00am to 10:00pm. Violation of this law can result in criminal prosecution although proponents for the measure insist that the homeless will be given the opportunity to seek the services they need but for some reason have resisted thus far.

The sidewalk holds a symbolic weight most people do not consciously acknowledge but undoubtedly respond to in their daily grind. The difference between suburban neighborhoods with sidewalks to those without makes a bold statement of who is welcomed. It was not uncommon in my old neighborhood on Long Island to get strange looks on the few occasions I opted to walk to a friend’s house. On one occasion I remember walking back from a fast food joint late one evening with a group of friends. A group of 16 year olds walking down a sidewalk (one of the few that existed, probably because of its proximity to commercial and retail businesses) warranted enough suspicion for a police officer to slow down in his vehicle, roll down his window and inform us that loitering was not allowed. What this officer was implying as he equated walking on a sidewalk with loitering was that we were not using the sidewalk as the neighborhood’s perceived acceptability, namely this was a space designed for patrons to go to and from their vehicle. We were perceived to be in violation of this norm.

Photo by Sydney Cespedes

The city space is not likely to run into quite this same dilemma. City sidewalks are actually for walking after all. But laws and regulations such as Measure S do present this same exclusive “normalization” of spatial use and they are a blunt reminder of the social stratification implicitly (and often explicitly) ingrained in our legal institutions. Criminalization of the homeless and the poor has its roots in our history, particularly with vagrancy laws that became racialized after the Civil War. It wasn’t till just a few decades ago that the US Supreme Court ruled against vagrancy laws but the response hasn’t necessarily to rethink government’s responsibility of the homeless population. Instead, local laws have evolved to target specific, unwanted populations. If Berkeley passes Measure S they will be just like the dozens of other cities to pass similar laws in the last decade. Among the proponents of the measure are small business owners who claim that homeless people in front of their storefronts scare away customers but the city of Berkeley has never actually implemented a study evaluating if any causal relationship exists between the presence of homeless people to the decline in business profit. In today’s economy it is easy to sympathize with the struggling business owner but without actual data to suggest the homeless may be contributing negatively to their profits, it is no wonder Measure S raises a few eyebrows. Opponents against the measure also argue that the initiative does not obligate the city to create any new programmatic services or shelter to accommodate the wave of homeless people who will theoretically be ushered into these resources and thus stretch their capacity to properly serve all new clientele.

I for one can’t get over the psychological and symbolic meaning of the “no sitting” laws. For me, it brings up feelings of living in an Orwellian society where children are not allowed to play in the street and elderly men are forbidden to play board games on cardboard boxes on the sidewalks. These laws imply a private societal life and a transient public existence. The reality is, this isn’t the population that is meant to target and the fact of the matter is, laws like these gets enforced with a purpose. Essentially, if you are not homeless or don’t look homeless you probably won’t be affected by Measure S even if you and your friend decide to have a chat while sitting on the sidewalk. But the existence of these laws provide the precise foundation and normalization of a police state where we ask law enforcement officials to police inconsequential actions instead of real criminal dangers.

Sydney Céspedes is a student at UC Berkeley in the Master of City Planning Program. Previously she attended Hunter College of the City University of New York for her bachelor’s degree in Political Science. Sydney has also been published in the Hunts Point Express, a local newspaper serving the Bronx community of Hunts Point and Longwood. She can be reached at syd2987@berkeley.edu.