Ugh. This one is a hard one to choose between. In the end, though, given that lawsuits are still in progress, I'm going to have to side against the university for strong-arming while legal actions are still ongoing.
this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2024
12 points (80.0% liked)
AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND
516 readers
342 users here now
This is a page for anything that's amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
♦ ♦ ♦
RULES
① Each player gets six cards, except the player on the dealer's right, who gets seven.
② All posts, comments, and participants must be amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
③ This page uses Reverse Lemmy-Points™, or 'bad karma'. Please downvote all posts and comments.
④ All posts, comments, and participants that are not amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound will be removed.
⑤ This is a non-smoking page. If you must smoke, please click away and come back later.
Please also abide by the instance rules.
♦ ♦ ♦
Can't get enough? Visit my blog.
♦ ♦ ♦
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
Not even a close call, TTM. People's Park has been people's property since it was taken by the people in 1969. It matters not to me who 'legally' owns it; it's the people's park, but you'd have to have lived in Berkeley to feel that in your gut. :)
Grew up in the area, lived off of College Ave for many years, and I spent a lot of time around the park since the late 90’s. Since that time it’s never really felt like a safe place for the people.
It’s always just struck me as dumping ground for people who need help and an unsafe place for consumption. I get the intentions, but the park is hub for some pretty violent crimes. People are calling in incidents to the cops all the time, and it’s been sketchy for decades.
I haven;t been there for too many years, sadly, but I think the park has always been sketchy. It sure was when I was there. It wasn't a hub for violent crime, at least not in my era. Sketchy, though, has always been my home turf and always has my sympathies. Hell, I'm sketchy now.
It’s been quite bad for decades. These are the stats from city and campus police:
Whoa, a stat sheet compiled to make People's Park look as scary as possible!
I've lived in scarier places than that and been fine, and if "lots of crimes happen there" is justification for tearing a place down, send the wrecking crew to Washington DC.
There are definitely sketchier parts of the Bay Area. The TL for example. That said, those numbers for a 1 block park aren’t exactly fantastic.
But safety aside, my main point is that locals don’t universally want to keep the park as is. Far from it. A lot of locals believe the park has changed significantly since the 70’s, and not for the better. Many have been pushing hard to redesign that space for like 30 years.
I would argue that only thing more Berkeley than people’s park is the push to completely redevelop people’s park. Every couple years there is another big push to redevelop, and then counterwave of protests to halt redevelopment. There are two sides that are both quite loud and passionate.
I would argue that only thing more Berkeley than people’s park is the push to completely redevelop people’s park.
I love that line, and it feels exactly right. That's my Berkeley.
My mind was made up on People's Park thirty years ago, when I lived there. Beautiful place. :)
Sorry, but I think actual human beings who lack (affordable or at all!) shelter might just trump a park that was popular in the hippy scene.
If there weren't outstanding legal challenges this would be a no-brainer for me. Fuck the hippies. I'd rather see people sleeping on the streets having options that don't include, you know, sleeping on the streets.
With the outstanding legal challenges, though, I tilt against the university.
They're not planning a homeless shelter or any kind of housing for "human beings who lack (affordable or at all!) shelter." They're planning student housing — dormitories.
I'm kind of confused. Everyone's always demanding low-cost, high volume housing. Berkeley decided to build such a structure, and now those same people that demanded it are protesting it. Where do they expect such structures to be built, if not on the available land an organization owns?
They're planning student dormitories, which "those same people" and actually no people are demanding, except university honchos.
"Not in my back yard!", of course.
NIMBY's are a social cancer.