The Planning Commission took its formal position recently and it contradicted the stance of the Downtown Area Plan Advisory Committee (DAPAC). The commissioners asked City Council to fund a study to determine if the DAPAC plan was economically feasible.
The commission called for the evaluation to include 10-, 12-, 14- and 16-story buildings in considering what level of development would be needed to make the plan’s extensive collection of proposed amenities financially viable. This decision directly contrasts with the stated position of the DAPAC majority that height trumped other considerations in their decision to adopt the plan.
While the DAPAC plan will go to the city council, so will recommendations from the Planning Commission and city staff, leaving councilmembers to pick and choose the elements included in the version they finally approve.
The minority group in DAPAC, which wanted an economic study, contended that DAPAC’s restrictions on floor-area ratio and heights would limit development and thus reduce fees collected for parks, streetscape improvements and other amenities included in the plan.
However, the majority group believes that this study is merely a waste of time and a smokescreen in order to undo the adopted DAPAC plan.
The Planning Commission will begin its chapter-by-chapter plan review starting toward the end of March, and the commission will hand the plan on to the City Council in December.
Richard Brenneman, Planners Make First Move to Challenge Downtown Plan, Berkeley Daily Planet (Feb. 29, 2008), available at, http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2008-02-29/article/29344/print.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Becky O'Malley Editorials on Homelessness / PCEI
Bluebook Citations:
- Becky O’Malley, “Another Foggy Night on the Public Commons,” The Berkeley Daily Planet,
- Becky O’Malley, “Thanks for Everything, and Why,” The Berkeley Daily Planet,
Summary:
Becky O’Malley has written several editorial pieces in The Berkeley Daily Planet critiquing Mayor Bates’ proposal of the “
O’Malley’s critiques are illuminating in several respects. First, she provides commentary about how the proposals were introduced and considered at the City Council meetings themselves. For example, O’Malley notes that in May 2007, the City Council did not even begin to debate the PCEI until 11:30pm, when many Berkeley citizens had gone home, and that the debate focused largely upon containing concerns about the homeless. O’Malley writes, for example, that “Councilmember Wozniak told a harrowing anecdote about the time his wife and son saw a vagrant deliberately peeing on the radiator grill of an expensive car on Telegraph—the horror! I’m sure that never happened back in
Second, O’Malley notes that part of the problem with the PCEI is not simply the content of the ordinance but the way in which it will change the priorities of police enforcement of existing criminal laws. O’Malley writes in her May 2007 editorial, for example:
But perhaps Recommendation 4 would take care of that: “Provide for strict enforcement of all existing laws affecting the quality of life in public spaces and parks.” Oh sure, and in the meantime the drug dealers down around
The problem, that is, is that police required to enforce the PCEI’s ordinance on public smoking and lying in the street will be drawn away from doing policing of actual drug crimes, particularly in the context of limited police resources. While I agree with O’Malley on this score, I also think it is notable that Mayor Bates indicated when he visited our class that the PCEI essentially would not be enforced at all.
Third, the final point to note is that O’Malley seems to downplay the effect of the homeless upon the environment in downtown Berkeley, referring to public urination and defecation as being the natural effect of failing to provide bathrooms to people without money and options in being able to use private restrooms. In fact, O’Malley’s November 2007 editorial is devoted entirely to the irony that the City Council considered the PCEI precisely at the time when Mayor Bates had the luxury of celebrating Thanksgiving and enforcing laws against those without the money or the homes to celebrate themselves.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
The Cost Effectiveness of Supportive Housing for the Homeless
The federal government authorized supportive housing as a homeless prevention strategy in 1987. The authorization was in the form of the Stuart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act of 1987.
Supportive housing entails making affordable housing units available to individuals who have need for such housing and for “support services.” Support services are services that help individuals live independently. These services include treatment for medical conditions, employment and training, referral for Medicaid, or assistance in applying for Social Security disability or Supplemental Security Income.
Generally, supportive housing is designed to meet the needs of deinstitutionalized homeless persons, homeless individuals with a mental disability or other handicap, and homeless families and children.
Walsh et al. investigated whether providing affordable housing and support services to the homeless reduced the total cost of homeless-related social services. For example, helping a homeless individual manage his health care needs may decrease his total healthcare costs. This reduction in healthcare costs is achieved by encouraging the individual to rely on primary care providers rather than on hospital emergency rooms for primary care. Treatment from primary care providers generally costs less than similar treatment in hospital emergency rooms. As another example, supportive housing may lead to cost savings by decreasing the need for police to enforce laws against the homeless, which also decreases court and jail costs.
Walsh et al. gathered data on the 21 residents of the supportive housing complex Lennox Chase in Wake County, North Carolina. The data of interest were the costs of the social services—including shelter costs—used by 21 residents prior to entering Lennox Chase and the costs of the social services used by 21 residents after entering Lennox Hill. A before-after comparison of the costs indicated that overall service costs had fallen from $377,141.66 in the two years before entry to $265,785.20 in the two years after entry, a decline of $111,356.46, or 29.53%. If the cost of social worker who was stationed at Lennox Chase was excluded, the service costs decline to $210,950.00, a decline of 44%.[1]
[1] Adam Walsh, Dean Duncan, Laurie Selz-Campbell, and Jennifer Vaughn, The Cost Effectiveness of Supportive Housing, UNC-CH School of Social Work, December 2007 at 2 (http://www.endlongtermhomelessness.org/downloads/news/lennoxchase_costs.pdf).
Supportive housing entails making affordable housing units available to individuals who have need for such housing and for “support services.” Support services are services that help individuals live independently. These services include treatment for medical conditions, employment and training, referral for Medicaid, or assistance in applying for Social Security disability or Supplemental Security Income.
Generally, supportive housing is designed to meet the needs of deinstitutionalized homeless persons, homeless individuals with a mental disability or other handicap, and homeless families and children.
Walsh et al. investigated whether providing affordable housing and support services to the homeless reduced the total cost of homeless-related social services. For example, helping a homeless individual manage his health care needs may decrease his total healthcare costs. This reduction in healthcare costs is achieved by encouraging the individual to rely on primary care providers rather than on hospital emergency rooms for primary care. Treatment from primary care providers generally costs less than similar treatment in hospital emergency rooms. As another example, supportive housing may lead to cost savings by decreasing the need for police to enforce laws against the homeless, which also decreases court and jail costs.
Walsh et al. gathered data on the 21 residents of the supportive housing complex Lennox Chase in Wake County, North Carolina. The data of interest were the costs of the social services—including shelter costs—used by 21 residents prior to entering Lennox Chase and the costs of the social services used by 21 residents after entering Lennox Hill. A before-after comparison of the costs indicated that overall service costs had fallen from $377,141.66 in the two years before entry to $265,785.20 in the two years after entry, a decline of $111,356.46, or 29.53%. If the cost of social worker who was stationed at Lennox Chase was excluded, the service costs decline to $210,950.00, a decline of 44%.[1]
[1] Adam Walsh, Dean Duncan, Laurie Selz-Campbell, and Jennifer Vaughn, The Cost Effectiveness of Supportive Housing, UNC-CH School of Social Work, December 2007 at 2 (http://www.endlongtermhomelessness.org/downloads/news/lennoxchase_costs.pdf).
Paper topic
I would like to work on city infrastructure. I'm particularly interested in green space issues, and particularly the proposal to close a portion of Center Street and/or Shattuck Ave. I'm also interested in the parking issue.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Berkeley Mayor Went Homeless for a Night
Not exactly on point, but I thought it was really interesting
especially given the mayor's recent Public Commons Initiative and his
responses to questions about the homeless when he came to speak.
On April 22, 2003, Berkeley's mayor Tom Bates spent 24 hours
living as a homeless person after he was challenged to do so by a member of
Berkeley¹s permanent homeless population during his campaign.
The mayor began his 24 hours at 4 pm on a Tuesday and got his
first free meal at Trinity Baptist Church. He then did a walking tour of
Telegraph Ave, went to the Berkeley Free Clinic, and hung out in People¹s
Park. The mayor eventually went to sleep in the park behind City Hall with
about 25 other people, and was awakened at 2 a.m. by a policeman, whom he
told he had special permission from the mayor to sleep there. He was then
awakened again at 4 a.m. by gathering news crews. Finally the mayor got up
and got a free breakfast at Trinity Methodist Church. He then spent time at
the Homeless Action Center and the Center for Independent Living.
The mayor stated that he wanted to do this "to draw attention to
the problem and learn more about it himself." He apparently saw a lot of
tragic cases but was also elated by the number of volunteers that were
assisting the homeless in numerous ways.
Mayor's Office, "Media Advisory: Mayor Bates to go Homeless on April 22nd,"
especially given the mayor's recent Public Commons Initiative and his
responses to questions about the homeless when he came to speak.
On April 22, 2003, Berkeley's mayor Tom Bates spent 24 hours
living as a homeless person after he was challenged to do so by a member of
Berkeley¹s permanent homeless population during his campaign.
The mayor began his 24 hours at 4 pm on a Tuesday and got his
first free meal at Trinity Baptist Church. He then did a walking tour of
Telegraph Ave, went to the Berkeley Free Clinic, and hung out in People¹s
Park. The mayor eventually went to sleep in the park behind City Hall with
about 25 other people, and was awakened at 2 a.m. by a policeman, whom he
told he had special permission from the mayor to sleep there. He was then
awakened again at 4 a.m. by gathering news crews. Finally the mayor got up
and got a free breakfast at Trinity Methodist Church. He then spent time at
the Homeless Action Center and the Center for Independent Living.
The mayor stated that he wanted to do this "to draw attention to
the problem and learn more about it himself." He apparently saw a lot of
tragic cases but was also elated by the number of volunteers that were
assisting the homeless in numerous ways.
Mayor's Office, "Media Advisory: Mayor Bates to go Homeless on April 22nd,"
Apr. 16, 2003, http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/mayor//PR/pressrelease041603.htm.
Charles Burress, "Homeless for a night: Berkeley mayor keeps promise, sleeps
with city's down-and-out," The San Francisco Chronicle, Apr. 24, 2003,
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/04/24/BA291997.DTL
Thread for "TDRs" Paper Topic
This is a thread for those interested in writing about TDRs. Hopefully, we can use it to coordinate more effectively (plus -- it helps minimize frontpage clutter).
Please "vote" for the TDRs topic by expressing your interest in the comments section below. If you have specific areas you would like to write about, please note them as well.
Thanks.
Please "vote" for the TDRs topic by expressing your interest in the comments section below. If you have specific areas you would like to write about, please note them as well.
Thanks.
Homeless Services in Berkeley
I wanted to find out what services were available for homeless people in the
For meals, breakfasts are available Monday through Saturday at the University Lutheran Chapel at College and Haste. Food is also provided by the Food Not Bombs Lunch every Monday through Friday at People’s Park. Hot lunches are available Monday, Wednesday and Friday at the
There were also several shelters listed in
Other services that are available in Berkeley include a Berkeley Food Pantry, several drop in clinics that provide medical and mental health assistance, free clothing boxes in People’s Park and at the Ann Carter Free Clothes Center, free showers at MASC in Berkeley, a number of free legal clinics, 3 organizations providing employment assistance, and a number of care centers providing alcohol and drug assistance programs.
http://www.berkeleyfreeclinic.org/download/Homeless%20Survival%20Guide.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)