Berkeley's Public Commons Initiative (Report & Ordinances)

Bluebook Citation:

Memorandum from Phil Kamlarz, City Manager, to Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council of the City of Berkeley of Nov. 27, 2007, re: Public Commons for Everyone Initiative, available at http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/citycouncil/2007citycouncil/packet/
112707/2007-11-27%20Item%2028a%20PCEI%20-%20CM.pdf.

Summary:

On November 27, 2007, the Berkeley City Manager Phil Kamlarz submitted to Mayor Tom Bates and the Berkeley City Council a final draft of the Public Commons Initiative, which the Berkeley City Council passed at a meeting that same date. The Public Commons Initiative (as DAPAC member Juliet Lamont indicated in class) represents an acknowledgment by the City of Berkeley that “there is a growing perception among many Berkeley residents, visitors, and merchants that [Berkeley’s] public commons areas are not inviting due to problematic behavior” – problematic behavior largely exhibited by the homeless and by youth. The Public Commons Initiative (PCI) lays out a two-prong approach to addressing homelessness and behavioral issues:

• a series of general recommendations (including: increasing access to public toilets; expanding services to transition-age youth 18-25 years old; developing a centralized intake system for providing shelter beds; supporting job training and peer outreach), and
• a series of recommendations to respond to specific behaviors (including modifying existing laws on lying on the sidewalks and public lodging and continuing enforcement of state and local laws prohibiting public intoxication, assault, drug use, and “coercive or intimidating solicitation”).

The PCI arose out of a request by the Berkeley City Council on June 12, 2007 that the City Manager explore means and services for improving the “physical, social, and economic conditions of public areas in the City of Berkeley.” Notably, as we have discussed in class, the PCI acknowledges that some of the behavioral problems in downtown Berkeley are due to homeless youth, but the PCI is careful to avoid attributing all threatening and illegal conduct only to homelessness. At the same time, the PCI does suggest that Berkeley can improve the environment for its community generally by targeting improvements in services for the homeless and for transition age youth (that is, youth 18 to 25 who are transitioning into adulthood, and who may be coming from foster care centers or other social service programs). The PCI, which the City projects will cost $930,000 annually (not including upfront costs of $70,000), will be funded through increasing the cost of parking at meters on the city streets, which will generate approximately $1m annually.

In addition to the plans currently being implemented, the PCI also forecasts one notable plan that could heavily affect public conduct downtown: establishing a Community Court for handling offenses such as public urination or public intoxication rather than seeking criminal prosecution of those offenses.

Most importantly, the PCI modifies current Berkeley ordinances regarding the presence of dogs in the city, lying on the sidewalks of the city, and the Berkeley smoking ban. Interestingly, Berkeley seems to leave open enforcement of these ordinances, as it is currently unclear whether violation of these ordinances constitute civil or criminal violations, and what sort of punishments the local government may impose as enforcement mechanisms: the ordinance simply reads currently that “Violation of this section shall be either an infraction or a misdemeanor, in the discretion of the prosecutor. (Ord. 6531-NS § 1, 2000: Ord. 6466-NS §§ 1--3, 5, 1998).”

I would like to add one note briefly. On the basis of the DAPAC report and the redrafting of the homelessness ordinance, Berkeley seems to be struggling to develop a comprehensive and effective system of enforcement mechanisms for ensuring public safety outlawing public sleeping, public intoxication, and other objectionable conduct. On the basis of the current PCI and redrafted ordinances included within the PCI report, I am left confused and unclear (a) precisely what punishments Berkeley imposes for infractions of its ordinance, (b) what regime or system Berkeley uses to impose those punishments, and (c) what the boundaries of prosecutorial discretion are in determining those punishments. I plan to speak to the Berkeley Police Department next week to discuss, among other issues, how the PCI has affected policing goals within the city.