Article: It's Time To Help, Not Harass, the Homeless

The author of this piece sounds like some business association douche bag. The phrasing used suggests as much, with its focus on "safety," "feelings," and "lighting." I'm betting the author has ties to the city's chamber of commerce or city hall, or both. It's almost as though the mayor wrote this garbage himself. Or someone like Roland Peterson, whose opinions I have read in the past.

The following seems like more of the same from that guy:

        "The new city policy is a welcome improvement. But it is
        not the only answer. Together with the other changes
        like better lighting, proactive safety measures and
        reconstruction of empty spaces, the 24/7 policy could
        very well restore the avenue to its former stature."

Again, with the lighting. First of all, it's not like you're walking into a blacked-out cave or something when you walk Telegraph Avenue at night. Is it lit up? No. But again, it's not as dark as they're stating. It's an overemphasis to get what they want: street kids out of the purview of public space and their butt-hurt "affluent" marks into it. What is overlooked, however, is that, vexing as the street kids may be to those with money, their presence is not illegal. Therefore, any harassment they suffer is harassment, period. I once had a cop tell me, "'Technically, you're not breaking any laws by sitting here." That was when I first sat in front of John's Ice Cream to panhandle. I said, "Well, 'technically' is all I need."

The "proactive safety measures" invoked in the editorial sounds a lot like harassment to me. Terminology such as that suggests that whoever wrote this piece is advocating the violation of a citizen's civil rights. There is a lot of room for ambiguity in those words, and that is where opinion makers like this one live--in the gray areas. He belongs to the same kind of folks who turn "torture" into the euphemism of "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques." Using such "techniques" to extract information is okay, as long as it's based on someone's idea of "immediacy."

The statement in the same quoted passage that the changes recommended "could very well restore the avenue to its former stature" is bullshit. For almost fifty years now, the avenue ha s not changed from "its former stature." Someone needs to inform these people of the local history here in Berkeley. It doesn't take much research. Yes, by all means, let's "restore the avenue to its former stature"--and leave it the hell alone!

"During the climactic 1969 "Peoples' Park" protest, sparked by a government attempt to reclaim an unused lot that had been turned into a makeshift community park, an Alameda County deputy shot and killed a 26-year-old spectator from San Jose named James Rector. Rector's offense? He allegedly had thrown a rock. Years later, Ed Meese, Reagan's adjutant during the Berkeley protest and later attorney general during Reagan's presidency, summed up the establishment point of view: "James Rector deserved to die.'"

(Michael Washburn , The Boston Globe. Link Below.)

[http://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/books/2012/09/01/book-review-subversives-the-fbi-war-student-radicals-and-reagan-rise-power-seth-rosenfeld/d4cKG3Bs73rMC2RVBFAINK/story.html]

I wonder how "safe" James Rector felt--even in the middle of the day.

Next Page 1 | 2

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).