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.
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.
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.
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.
