Public Comment

Mayor Bates recently introduced at City Council an initiative to improve the quality of life for all Berkeley residents and visitors. He named this “Public Commons for Everyone” initiative. If one only listened to a few critics, one would think that this is some sort of absurd assault on the homeless. Rather, all one needs to do to realize the absurdity of that exaggeration is to read the initiative. Note the following: 

First, the text of the initiative never uses the word “homeless” or any other word which is the equivalent of it. This initiative attempts to address anti-social problematic behavior. Homelessness is simply a description of residential status, not remotely any description or predictor of behavior. Just as there are many wealthy, well-housed individuals who behave badly, so there are many homeless who are well-behaved. It is behavior that this addresses, not residential status. 

Second, critics who deride this initiative impose a double standard that if used differently they would deplore. The published and verbal critics of this seem to all state that this targets the “homeless” and therefore is unfair. So, to follow this distortion of logic, the “homeless” presumably are afforded a different standard of conduct than the regular population. Is it correct that when the “homeless” may behave badly, we are to be tolerant, but others may not behave equally badly? I could give two simple examples to show how absurd this logic is.  

Some homeless live in their cars. All drivers of motor vehicles are required by law to have a driver’s license and obey all traffic laws. By this logic, if a homeless person drives his/her vehicle at an unsafe, excessive speed, then it could be excused because of their homeless status. Of course, virtually everyone would say no, that excessive speed endangers the health and safety of the broader community. But if a homeless person is acting in a threatening behavior, these critics suggest it should be tolerated. 

An even more insidious example of this would be unequal laws pertaining to race, gender, disability, or sexual orientation. As a community, we would all strongly object to this, but somehow the blinders are on when it comes to the “homeless.” Again, the point is to address problematic behavior while turning a truly blind eye to residential status. 

Other critics suggest that adequate laws already exist. Other than in the most obvious extreme cases such as murder, assault, robbery, rape, and so forth, the critics can’t prove such. However, on the contrary, the City Council has passed policies requiring the police to issue warnings that the city attorney has ruled are site-specific. This has the practical effect of eliminating the laws altogether because the laws could never be enforced. Therefore, it would be appropriate to suggest that the supporters of the warnings are the same persons who really wish to abolish these laws but don’t have the courage to do so openly. 

Third, the initiative calls for those who are detained for threatening behavior to be brought into services. This is a compassionate and appropriate response. Note that the goal is services, not incarceration. Note that the goal is wholeness, not a criminal record. The community is effectively saying, “We don’t want you to live in this sort of degraded manner, and we don’t want a degraded city. We have pride in our city. We respect you as an individual so much that we won’t tolerate overt self-destruction.” One council critic of this initiative suggested that if it passed, he would mobilize people of conscience and the faith community to overturn it by referendum. How absurd!! Is it not a matter of conscience and an affirmation of the worth of the human being as fashioned by a Higher Power to insist on wholeness and health, and not degradation and depravity? Is it not immoral to insist on maintaining that the most helpless, addicted, and mentally ill must remain in their misery and not be helped?  

Fourth, some critics argue that this is somehow flawed because it is supported by the business community because it applies to commercial areas. Some of these critics go a step further and claim that it is for increased profits. So what?! Increased profits mean principally two things for Berkeley—more jobs and more revenue for the city. Are floundering businesses somehow better for the city than successful ones? Many have noted the obvious—shoppers vote with their dollars, and the dollars are going out of Berkeley. Shoppers, including thousands of Berkeley residents, unquestionably want better shopping districts in Berkeley. 

Again, critics resort to hyperbole here by suggesting that this won’t solve the underperformance of some of Berkeley’s shopping districts. In a sense, they are right. By itself it won’t, but it is one necessary step among many. 

Lastly, critics have already condemned a bill that hasn’t even been written. The only thing the City Council accomplished was to direct city staff and commissions to discuss this and make recommendations. We hope that this will cause many in this city to take an honest, realistic look at a situation that is overdue for addressing. I am sure that privately almost every service provider, police officer, and mental health worker in this city would support this initiative in principle. (I say “in principle” only because it hasn’t been written yet.) Few are willing to publicly engage in the controversy. However, a small number of people are and they are speaking. They thank Mayor Bates for taking the lead. Together with the silent majority, we ask the council to act with conscience and common sense, move forward, pass this bill when it is finally written, stand in solidarity with the afflicted and suffering, and move this city toward wholeness and health. Passing this will be a positive act of conscience and honor to the Creator and our fellow man and woman. 

Roland Peterson is executive director of the Telegraph Business Improvement District and chairman of the Berkeley Chamber of Commerce. Both organizations support the views expressed here.