In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Berkeley’s Solution to Increased Homelessness? Arrest ’em all.

bean

Sorry for the extended absence, kids. Between the beginning of work and my partner’s return from his year in Germany, it’s been a busy few days…

…but the bizarre news just keeps on comin’. The San Francisco Chronicle reported Wednesday (via TalkLeft) that Berkeley, that bastion of progressiveness, is struggling under the weight of its homeless problem. The city’s proposed solution? Ban smoking on city streets and then just arrest the homeless for smoking. Because they’re the most likely smokers, of course, and throwing them in jail will get them off the streets. The Chron has more:

As Mayor Tom Bates sees it, the alcoholics, meth addicts and the like who make up a good portion of the homeless population on Shattuck Avenue downtown and Telegraph Avenue on the south side of the UC Berkeley campus “almost always smoke.” And because smoking bans are the hot ticket these days for California cities, why not meld the two as part of a “comprehensive package” for dealing with the street problem that Bates says “has gone over the top”?

In this case, vagrants could be cited for taking a drag on the town’s main drags.

The program will be paid for by raising parking fees by fifty cents per hour around the city.

There are so many things wrong with this program that it’s hard to know where to begin. First, at least in NY, there are lots of people, homeless and homed, who smoke on city streets. Is the ordinance only going to be enforced against the homeless (which would be illegal selective prosecution)? And since when is the best way to reach out to the homeless to punish the behaviors that may have contributed to their predicament in the first place? While the mayor may be correct that many of the Berkeley homeless are meth users or are addicted to alcohol, fining or incarcerating them based on those addictions (and the addiction to nicotine) neither helps solve the level of homelessness nor addresses the cause of homelessness. If the mayor — and the progressive people of Berkeley — are really concerned about decreasing homelessness around their city, maybe they should consider providing support systems for homeless people, including drug treatment, mental health services, and — gasp! — help securing shelter. Laws like the Berkeley law make it even more difficult for the homeless to get off the streets: by ensuring criminal records and preventing access to social services, the city makes it harder for people to obtain and keep jobs.

At least there is one voice of reason in Berkeley. Kriss Worthington, a city Councilman who proposed a law in 2001 that would have prevented cops for ticketing people for sleeping on sidewalks (the law failed of course), recognized that the proposed law would accomplish little:

“My interest is in making things better for the homeless and business,” Worthington said. “And none of these things — a bunch of new laws — look like they will do.

You know what I think is bad or business? Having restaurants tell people they can’t step outside to smoke because they might be mistaken for a homeless person and arrested. Sheesh.

(also at AB&B; thanks to Jill for inviting me to guest blog this week.)

22 thoughts on Berkeley’s Solution to Increased Homelessness? Arrest ’em all.

  2. Having lived in Berkeley, I know that Berkeley has tried the support service route. You correctly identify Berkeley as progressive, which means that they have done all of the things a progressive city would do to deal with homeless compassionately. Part of the problem is that when Berkeley is tolerant of homeless people, they come to Berkeley from adjoining cities that are less tolerant, especially San Francisco, which is a BART ride away. Another part of the problem is that Berkeley stands in loco parentis to the many university students who are the major means of support for the homeless. Yet another part of the problem is that many of the panhandlers are not truly homeless but beg as their occupation. Berkeley has tried encouraging residents to give vouchers for services instead of cash. That plan is undermined by the student population and the fact that the homeless refuse the vouchers. There is no easy solution to this problem. As a resident I can tell you many stories about the aggressiveness of street people when they are simply ignored instead of given money — that makes them more than a nuisance or a social problem. When you figure out how one city can solve the drug and MH problems of all of its adjoining neighbors, let me know. There isn’t much left except “get tough” when all other approaches have failed.

  3. I worked full-time at a shelter in New Mexico for 9 months a few years ago. One of the biggest problems with our society is the combination of the drug laws with background checks. People get felony records for the most minor crimes, and then their futures are shot, because practically every employer (except for the lowest-wage ones) runs these background checks, and automatically denies employment to anyone with a record. We had so many guys with records come through our shelter, who simply weren’t able to get work. It was so depressing, and went against the assumptions that the prison system was originally built on (e.g., prisoners could be rehabilitated; that once you’ve served your time, you’ve paid your debt to society and shouldn’t be punished further, etc.).

  5. I’m with you that this law is utter crap, but do you have any evidence that Berkeley hasn’t tried “providing support systems for homeless people, including drug treatment, mental health services, and — gasp! — help securing shelter”?

    I hope it doesn’t surprise you to learn that Berkeley has indeed tried all of these methods to help the homeless. I’m not sure why you have to resort to hyperbole and smear statements to make your point.

  6. What I have seen–and Perry’s post is a prime example of this–is that people tend to see the homeless as a nuisance rather than as human beings. Homeless people are not an annoying feature of society to be eliminated, like a litter or pollution problem. They are human beings who have been fucked by the system; for the system to go on to say, “Damn, now that we’ve fucked them so much, we have no choice but to fuck them some more,” is both inhuman and disingenuous.

  7. Another thing that we need to realize on a feminist blog is that some homeless people can’t go to shelters because they get threatened, harassed, and attacked. People don’t become homeless just because they are drug addicts. People who do not present their gender in so-called standard ways make up a huge proportion of homeless young people some of whom had to flee abusive situations or got kicked out of their homes. Shelters are communal environments, and they are not policed very well. In my area of the U.S. transgendered people are literally not allowed to use the homeless shelters because shelters are gender segregated. I’m not saying that all homeless people are great. I’ve had my share of creepy homeless men ask me for money, but homeless people are people, as slythwolf already said, and we need to treat them as such.

  8. Under normal circumstances, I’d be all for an expensive and impractical law persecuting smokers! The idea of police officers arresting the foul-smelling woman puffing on her death-stick in front of me, or handcuffing the dude polluting my airspace with the filthy excresence of his tar-encrusted lungs … well worth the 50 cent parking surcharge. Smoking within 5 feet of another human being should be grounds for justifiable homicide.

    But that’s neither here nor there.

    A public smoking ban (while pure genius in principle – let’s roll it out to the whole world!) is obviously not a solution to Berkeley’s homeless problem. As a couple people have pointed out, Berkeley does offer a fair range of services to the homeless, but more services and more funding for shelters would certainly be a good thing nearly anywhere. I also think that Perry is right, however: shelters haven’t solved this problem and they aren’t going to. Accusing anyone who points that out of coldheartedness and indifference to humanity is not constructive. Exhilarating as self-righteous posturing can be, it doesn’t really make all that concrete a positive difference in anyone’s circumstances.

  10. Bean, you clearly don’t know much about Berkeley (seriously, why compare Berkeley to New York? I can’t think of any similarities, and I’ve lived in both cities. And Berkeley is WAY more tolerant of the poor than NY is.) The SF Chron has a long tradition of mocking Berkeley’s sillier city proposals, and you fell right into its trap.

    If you read the full article (what there is of it), you will notice that a line about the Bates “beefing up city services.” If you read other accounts of the law, you’ll notice that the change was minimal- moving the no-smoking line from 20 feet from a doorway to 25 feet from a building. Pus, it only really applies to Shattuck and Telegraph Aves- perhaps six or eight short blocks.

    Melissa, you might be interested to hear that the same session of the city council that proposed this law discussed “providing sex reassignment surgery as part of the city’s healthcare benefits.”

    For more info, read the Berkeley paper, not the SF one: http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=05-08-07&storyID=27002

  11. I forgot one point: I read this blog because the writers present such thoughtful, well-written posts. I’m frankly disappointed to see that the writer of this post did so little research. Matier and Ross, while entertaining, are not a good resource for information about Berkeley politics. (And really, that NY/Berkeley comparison just boggles my mind. Boggles it!)

  12. As I former Berkeley resident, I second & third the comments here about the social services that Berkeley does provide – really it provides more than any other municipality I have ever lived in – which is why it attracts so many homeless persons. From the Suitcase Free Clinic that provides medical services free of charge to the many shelters to the many students offering food on their walk to/from school – Berkeley is not a place lacking social services.

  13. I live in Berkeley, and I was also frustrated by the assumption that this proposal was in lieu of social services. We have a lot of very active programs and we also have a lot of (frequently young) street people who hassle pedestrians in areas like Telegraph, where stores are closing and not being replaced because nobody wants to come and support local businesses if they have to wade through the “I won’t lie, it’s for pot” and “Feed my dog” signs. Amazon.com doesn’t smell like urine, after all! The smoking ban is designed to get enough of this population off of the main sidewalk that the community doesn’t collapse. (Whether I think it will work is another question…)

    The lack of adequate services isn’t a Berkeley problem so much as a state or national problem — the Bay Area, especially Berkeley, has such a visible homeless population because we do have more support, so a lot of people come here. I’m all for increasing the safety net across the country, but don’t expect one community to pick up the slack just because it’s progressive. We don’t make enough money around here for that!

  14. “Berkeley is not a place lacking social services.”

    Yes, in the relative sense, it spends more than nearby cities.

    However, I got to know more about the so-called drug-treatment services called “Options” when I dragged a friend down their to get some much needed help. “Options” (sometimes known as “option” as in there is nothing else) really is pretty minimal care for the East Bay’s poor people with substance abuses problems.

    The suitcase clinic is another so-called example of the so-called generosity of the US. Instead of universal health care, America’s poor get, some BS like this that depends on volunteer labor. The suitcase clinic shouldn’t even exist.

    Yeah, some of the homeless deserve a foot up their ass but for the most part America doesn’t do shit for the poor.

  15. Yet another part of the problem is that many of the panhandlers are not truly homeless but beg as their occupation.

    Okay.

    Maybe I’m totally misinterpreting your comment. But I’ve been both homeless with a job (nothing beats hearing someone yell “Get a job” while on your way to work!) and panhandling while living with others (crashing on their couch, but still not technically homeless I guess) and I have to say I’m a little put out by that comment.

    How ‘homeless’ do you have to be before you’re deserving of some spare change? Does crashing on a friend’s couch count? Living day to day in a motel room? Should we follow people around first, make sure they really truly have no place to sleep before offering them compassion? Make sure they’re really suffering first?

    What are people supposed to do in these situations? Do you know how impossible it is to get a job when you’re homeless? Would you hire a homeless person?

    And do you know how hard it is to get a job when you haven’t eaten in days? And what you ate last was some old bagels the guy at the deli was going to throw away? And do you know how frustrating and humiliating it is to beg for change so you can buy a damn gas station sandwich?

    Because I do.

    Grr. Sorry about the rant. Guess I got a little triggered by the offhand way you dismissed those who are not homeless enough for you or who merely beg as an occupation.

  16. “I won’t lie, it’s for pot” and “Feed my dog” signs.

    Oh. And about this. The first night I had to spare change I was starving, just wanted some food. No one gave me money when I said ‘spare some change for a sandwich.’ However, after I started saying ‘spare change for some beer’ people would have a good guffaw, say “At least she’s honest!” and offer some money.

    Needless to say, I bought a fucking sandwich.

  17. The problem with Berkeley panhandlers is that a good proportion of them appear to be able-bodied teenagers/twenty-somethings who have decided that it’s cool to be homeless. They don’t seem down on their luck, but appear to have willingly opted out of conventional society. It was kind of grating to me to be headed out along Telegraph to one of my three minimum wage part-time jobs and be panhandled by some punk my age who could have easily gotten hired at the same place I was working.

    On the flip side, both Berkeley and San Francisco have a true hard-core chronic homeless population that I’ve never seen in any other city. Mental illness, drug addiction, you name it. It’s not fashionable to say it, but having those people living on the streets in such miserable conditions really does decrease the quality of life for everyone in the city and contribute to a feeling of lawlessness on the streets. The real solution is not championing their “right” to sleep on the streets — it’s giving them apartments, no strings attached. That’s a pretty rare approach to social services for the homeless, though.

  18. This may be obvious, but the fact that it almost never gets below freezing in the Bay Area contributes to homeless people migrating there from other parts of the country, so Berkeley isn’t just dealing with its own homeless citizens, or those who took the BART from San Francisco, but also people who have been cast off and ignored from communities all over the country.

    That said, I used to work in a small shop in Berkeley, and it was very, very unnerving having people come in the store numerous times a day and often behave very aggressively towards employees and customers. It’s a big problem for Berkeley, all the more exacerbated by the housing prices out there, which I’m sure play no small role in the travails of a lot of people on the streets. I like the idea of unconditional free apartments in theory, but that would cost a hell of a lot in the East Bay, and would probably result in an even greater influx of people from less generous jurisdictions.

  19. People, people. I know that Berkeley offers a wide range of social services that best many other cities. And I know that warm cities have larger homeless populations than cold cities becuase the climate is more hospitable. But I really think that just because Berkeley does better and has to deal with more than many other cities doesn’t excuse this kind of law.

  20. naucissa, you don’t think anyone rational actually chooses to be homeless, do you? It seems like a pretty degraded life.

    That said, I sympathize with citizens who feel uncomfortable with aggressive panhandlers. I find it a nuisance to be asked for money by strangers myself. It’s too bad that Berkeley’s good intentions are having these consequences. No good deed goes unpunished, I guess.

  21. Vanessa, that’s absolutely horrifying—-about the sandwich. You had to confirm their prejudices before they’d give you money? Jesus.

  22. i have perhaps a different perspective, and not necessarily a helpful one. i am a former berkeley resident (grew up there, NOT a college student) who has been in economic exile since the 90’s – it is pretty much impossible to afford housing in berkeley unless you are upper-middle class at least, or else bought a house back in the 70’s, or are a student whose parents are footing the bill. everything costs more there – food, clothes, shelter……and if you do have yourself a job, what health coverage to they give you? fucking kaiser permanente.

    i was once a person who was homeless due to a “lifestyle choice” – in other words, i could have called home to my family and begged for financial assistance, but “chose” not to for personal reasons of which i’m sure i don’t need to bring up here – but i didn’t take drugs, i didn’t harrass anybody, or ever ask anybody for change. i did, however, live off of the good graces of generous people. eventually i managed to get a job and was able to take care of myself. this all happened in boston, where the weather is certainly not kind to the homeless. every day i heard about somebody freezing to death on the street. so i can certainly relate to homeless people wanting to relocate to berkeley.

    when i was a kid growing up there, the vibe on the streets was way different from the way it is now. back then homeless people had names like crazy casey and his dalmatian lady, who wanted money for a jug of wine to ease his troubles while sleeping under the bushes at live oak park. i parted with some of my hard-earned cash from my day job, and shook his hand, offering to join him for a drink some time. sometimes people on the street were violent and scary, but those were usually the back ward dwellers that reagan had busted loose. one learned to navigate around them. i doubt he’s still alive now – after all this was about 25 years ago and he was easily in his 50’s at least – but there’s not likely to be any way for me to find out, as he never had a mailing address.

    in subsequent years berkeley has tried to “clean itself up” to make life easier on the gentle burghers whose only wish is to make money in peace. the only thing is, folks – you can’t make money in peace – look what happened to cody’s. and as christ said, the poor ye shall always have with you. and it is true: the street folks are meaner and scarier than they used to be. but maybe, just maybe, it’s a shadowy reflection of how cold and hard hearted and commercial berkeley has become – once upon a time a thriving community geared towards an egalitarian form of economics, now a place for pseudo-liberals to retire with their fancy cheeses and hide from the scary people who smell bad and insult them if they don’t look them in the eye.

    i guess my punk rocker “don’t fuck with me” attitude from my teens would serve me well on telegraph avenue today. although the only way i’d end up there at this point would be as one of those smelly, mean homeless people. i guess we all have a dream. meanwhile i’ll settle for west seattle where the cheese isn’t as good and the homeless people have the good sense to stay in their ghettos where they belong, in the “picaresque” section around historic pioneer square where they remain a manageable spot on the tourist map. heaven forfend if they were to migrate up to wallingford where the wealthy liberals buy their microbrews and cigars.

Comments are currently closed.