oskirules said:
It's inevitable, it's going to happen. I don't have a single good memory about the park, never even tried playing pickup ball at the court.
After years of hands-off policy,UC plans to build housing on People's Park
UC Berkeley plans to build housing in People's Park
"Matty, where we supposed to go?"I think the compromise is worth it. I lived next to a supportive housing (formerly homeless) in grad school and they were essentially out of sight. These facilities generally have pretty strict rules for residents.oskirules said:
There's no such thing as an ideal location for a homeless shelter but who's going to step up and tell the mayor of Berkeley it doesn't make sense to provide one next to a student dormitory?
"Don't know, but when we come back, they'll have free wifi."
Snowflakehanky1 said:
I'm sure parents will love this.
Send your 18 yer old kids to Berkeley. Share dorms and a shower with the homeless.
FWIW, there likely are 100 students you could put in the homeless shelter. Student housing is in crises.socaliganbear said:I think the compromise is worth it. I lived next to a supportive housing (formerly homeless) in grad school and they were essentially out of sight. These facilities generally have pretty strict rules for residents.oskirules said:
There's no such thing as an ideal location for a homeless shelter but who's going to step up and tell the mayor of Berkeley it doesn't make sense to provide one next to a student dormitory?
"Don't know, but when we come back, they'll have free wifi."
The Chancellor wants to get the dorm built asap, and this will accomplish that. Additionally, the University will not fund, or manage it, some non-prof will.
Good thing they're building more housing then. Personally, I'm for getting it done. The Chancellor appears to be so as well.wifeisafurd said:FWIW, there likely are 100 students you could put in the homeless shelter. Student housing is in crises.socaliganbear said:I think the compromise is worth it. I lived next to a supportive housing (formerly homeless) in grad school and they were essentially out of sight. These facilities generally have pretty strict rules for residents.oskirules said:
There's no such thing as an ideal location for a homeless shelter but who's going to step up and tell the mayor of Berkeley it doesn't make sense to provide one next to a student dormitory?
"Don't know, but when we come back, they'll have free wifi."
The Chancellor wants to get the dorm built asap, and this will accomplish that. Additionally, the University will not fund, or manage it, some non-prof will.
I hope you're right but it's going to be hard to convince others without having the same experience you had.socaliganbear said:I think the compromise is worth it. I lived next to a supportive housing (formerly homeless) in grad school and they were essentially out of sight. These facilities generally have pretty strict rules for residents.oskirules said:
There's no such thing as an ideal location for a homeless shelter but who's going to step up and tell the mayor of Berkeley it doesn't make sense to provide one next to a student dormitory?
"Don't know, but when we come back, they'll have free wifi."
The Chancellor wants to get the dorm built asap, and this will accomplish that. Additionally, the University will not fund, or manage it, some non-prof will.
This is true, who are the real homeless here?wifeisafurd said:
FWIW, there likely are 100 students you could put in the homeless shelter. Student housing is in crises.
socaliganbear said:Good thing they're building more housing then. Personally, I'm for getting it done. The Chancellor appears to be so as well.wifeisafurd said:
FWIW, there likely are 100 students you could put in the homeless shelter. Student housing is in crises.
Quote:Quote:
Even as the park became increasingly plagued by vagrants and violence, former Mayor Tom Bates consistently argued it was a waste of time for the university to think about building there.
But within weeks of her appointment last summer, Christ hired a $92,000-a-year social worker to work exclusively with the park's intractable homeless population, signaling she was ready to take the first step toward developing the site.
it's a solid plan; there will also be some park left and a "memorial" to PP. While I'm sure there will be some protesting, with Jesse and Worthington behind it (i.e., the progressive wing of Berkeley government), my guess is that the protesting will be limited.ColoradoBear said:
Do it!
There might be some huge protest, but going forward it's what's best.
UrsaMajor said:it's a solid plan; there will also be some park left and a "memorial" to PP. While I'm sure there will be some protesting, with Jesse and Worthington behind it (i.e., the progressive wing of Berkeley government), my guess is that the protesting will be limited.ColoradoBear said:
Do it!
There might be some huge protest, but going forward it's what's best.
A correction to Hanky's post: right now there are dorms next to or near homeless. By definition, if we build the housing, the people there WON'T BE HOMELESS. Now if your concern is that students shouldn't be allowed to be near poorer people, that's a different thing...
There is already a dorm directly across the street from PP, maybe 15 feet away. Turns out students are a lot less pearl clutchy. Now they get more housing and PP is gone? Sounds great.Chapman_is_Gone said:UrsaMajor said:it's a solid plan; there will also be some park left and a "memorial" to PP. While I'm sure there will be some protesting, with Jesse and Worthington behind it (i.e., the progressive wing of Berkeley government), my guess is that the protesting will be limited.ColoradoBear said:
Do it!
There might be some huge protest, but going forward it's what's best.
A correction to Hanky's post: right now there are dorms next to or near homeless. By definition, if we build the housing, the people there WON'T BE HOMELESS. Now if your concern is that students shouldn't be allowed to be near poorer people, that's a different thing...
Homelessness has little to do with poverty. It is all about hard core drug use, and/or mental illness, and/or criminal anti-social behvior. It is incredibly inappropriate to locate shelter for vagrants close to a bunch of 18 year old college freshman.
The entire parcel should be developed for students, and it should be made clear from day 1 that any protesting of construction will not be tolerated.
Yea, I know dude, I live in that dorm. I'm very well aware of the area.socaliganbear said:There is already a dorm directly across the street from PP, maybe 15 feet away. Turns out students are a lot less pearl clutchy. Now they get more housing and PP is gone? Sounds great.Chapman_is_Gone said:UrsaMajor said:it's a solid plan; there will also be some park left and a "memorial" to PP. While I'm sure there will be some protesting, with Jesse and Worthington behind it (i.e., the progressive wing of Berkeley government), my guess is that the protesting will be limited.ColoradoBear said:
Do it!
There might be some huge protest, but going forward it's what's best.
A correction to Hanky's post: right now there are dorms next to or near homeless. By definition, if we build the housing, the people there WON'T BE HOMELESS. Now if your concern is that students shouldn't be allowed to be near poorer people, that's a different thing...
Homelessness has little to do with poverty. It is all about hard core drug use, and/or mental illness, and/or criminal anti-social behvior. It is incredibly inappropriate to locate shelter for vagrants close to a bunch of 18 year old college freshman.
The entire parcel should be developed for students, and it should be made clear from day 1 that any protesting of construction will not be tolerated.
Also, this isn't like some emergency shelter they're putting up. Supportive housing apartments are generally for the most at risk, elderly, women, children, abuse victims etc. Not just some drunk off the street who wants a place to crash for the night.
So it's great that they're developing the park, right? You mean they are going to screen and hand pick the people that get to live here and they're going to be under surveillance? No more lawless encampment land? This seems like a great great move. The area will be much better for it. That's what I think.Chapman_is_Gone said:Yea, I know dude, I live in that dorm. I'm very well aware of the area.socaliganbear said:There is already a dorm directly across the street from PP, maybe 15 feet away. Turns out students are a lot less pearl clutchy. Now they get more housing and PP is gone? Sounds great.Chapman_is_Gone said:UrsaMajor said:it's a solid plan; there will also be some park left and a "memorial" to PP. While I'm sure there will be some protesting, with Jesse and Worthington behind it (i.e., the progressive wing of Berkeley government), my guess is that the protesting will be limited.ColoradoBear said:
Do it!
There might be some huge protest, but going forward it's what's best.
A correction to Hanky's post: right now there are dorms next to or near homeless. By definition, if we build the housing, the people there WON'T BE HOMELESS. Now if your concern is that students shouldn't be allowed to be near poorer people, that's a different thing...
Homelessness has little to do with poverty. It is all about hard core drug use, and/or mental illness, and/or criminal anti-social behvior. It is incredibly inappropriate to locate shelter for vagrants close to a bunch of 18 year old college freshman.
The entire parcel should be developed for students, and it should be made clear from day 1 that any protesting of construction will not be tolerated.
Also, this isn't like some emergency shelter they're putting up. Supportive housing apartments are generally for the most at risk, elderly, women, children, abuse victims etc. Not just some drunk off the street who wants a place to crash for the night.
Your faith in vagrants and the Berkeley homeless services industry and its processes is far greater than mine.
Here's a story from just two days ago, which took place a few feet from the location we're discussing. I could share 100 other stories as well. I wonder if these two students were wearing pearls when they were nearly raped? What do you think, Socaliganbear?
http://www.berkeleyside.com/2018/04/30/berkeley-man-faces-felony-charges-after-sex-crimes-near-campus
tequila4kapp said:
I lived in an apartment 2 buildings away from PP. I am nothing but happy that monstrosity will go away.
socaliganbear said:There is already a dorm directly across the street from PP, maybe 15 feet away. Turns out students are a lot less pearl clutchy. Now they get more housing and PP is gone? Sounds great.Chapman_is_Gone said:UrsaMajor said:it's a solid plan; there will also be some park left and a "memorial" to PP. While I'm sure there will be some protesting, with Jesse and Worthington behind it (i.e., the progressive wing of Berkeley government), my guess is that the protesting will be limited.ColoradoBear said:
Do it!
There might be some huge protest, but going forward it's what's best.
A correction to Hanky's post: right now there are dorms next to or near homeless. By definition, if we build the housing, the people there WON'T BE HOMELESS. Now if your concern is that students shouldn't be allowed to be near poorer people, that's a different thing...
Homelessness has little to do with poverty. It is all about hard core drug use, and/or mental illness, and/or criminal anti-social behvior. It is incredibly inappropriate to locate shelter for vagrants close to a bunch of 18 year old college freshman.
The entire parcel should be developed for students, and it should be made clear from day 1 that any protesting of construction will not be tolerated.
Also, this isn't like some emergency shelter they're putting up. Supportive housing apartments are generally for the most at risk, elderly, women, children, abuse victims etc. Not just some drunk off the street who wants a place to crash for the night.
