We Won!

Thank you, voters of Berkeley, for voting your consciences and voting pragmatically. Now, on to making some real positive changes!

Yesterday, the Berkeley Patch held an on-line discussion with two public policy students who had carried out a study of Measure S on behalf of the UC Berkeley Public Policy Clinic.
You can read the full report in PDF form.

The Daily Californian just endorsed No on Measure S! They end their argument, succinctly, “Stand up for human rights and constructive solutions to homelessness. Vote no on Measure S.”

We’re so thrilled that we’re rallying at 1 p.m. on the Savio Steps of Sproul Plaza with the students who’ve worked so hard to make this happen. Come join us! (Facebook link)

You can read the argument for yourself on the Daily Cal’s website, but we’re so thrilled that we’re reproducing it in full below:

No on Measure S

Homelessness is ubiquitous in some parts of Berkeley. For UC Berkeley students, the scene is especially familiar on Telegraph Avenue, where panhandlers oftentimes aggressively seek spare change and other transients loiter near storefronts. Measure S supporters claim it will make commercial districts more welcoming and help get homeless people off the streets. But Measure S is not the right way to solve this problem.

The homeless people in Berkeley’s business areas should receive help, not punishment. While proponents of Measure S, which would prohibit sitting on sidewalks in commercial districts from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., claim it will get homeless people to the services they need, the measure will more likely push them even further into the margins of society.

What the city needs is improved homeless services. Measure S could arguably allow for that to happen since its delayed implementation would encourage the city to find ways of bolstering its programs. But the cost of getting there — trampling on the right of free people to sit down and ostracizing a minority community — is too high.

Instead, the local community should continue the conversation started by Measure S to investigate how we can meet the needs of homeless people. Measure S’ failure would not be a victory for anyone; homelessness will still afflict city streets. Rather, if the measure does not pass, residents should use it as an opportunity to find a better solution. City officials need to determine more clearly what the characteristics of our homeless community are and what resources are needed to get them off the streets in a more responsible way.

Stand up for human rights and constructive solutions to homelessness. Vote no on Measure S.

The Cal policy clinic students who recently released a report (PDF here) investigating the claims of proponents of Measure S had a letter published yesterday in Berkeleyside.

The students started out open to the Measure: “Like anyone who lives in Berkeley, we have grappled with issues related to homeless people on the sidewalks. A law that would help people get the services they need and help the economy sounded good to us.”

But once they began researching what laws like S have done elsewhere, they began to see things differently: There was no evidence that a law like S could achieve what proponents claimed, and there was significant evidence that it might do some serious social harm.

An absence of evidence doesn’t mean for certain that Measure S will fail to meet its goals. But such lack of evidence combined with the likelihood of harm should give Berkeley voters pause. According to Measure S proponent Roland Peterson, executive director of the Telegraph Property and Business Management Corporation, “it doesn’t need analysis.” Having looked closely at the facts, we disagree.

You can read the full letter for yourself on Berkeleyside.

Andrea Guzman has a story in the Daily Cal covering a report (365 Kb PDF) from the UC Berkeley School of Law Policy Advocacy Clinic which found no evidence to support the primary claims in support of Measure S.

The report looks at five cities in California that previously implemented sit-lie ordinances, including Santa Barbara, Modesto and Palo Alto. By comparing the retail sales in each city from before the ordinance was enacted to one year after it went into effect, the report found that only one city showed a positive economic change.

Additionally, the students sought evidence to support the claim that homeless people in the Telegraph and Downtown Berkeley area had negatively impacted economic activity. According to their research, all nine of Berkeley’s commercial districts have experienced declining sales since 2008.

“In relative terms, however, Downtown Berkeley and Telegraph Avenue have out-performed all other business districts during that time,” the report states.

The report also states that while police costs are unlikely to be significant, the city will incur some costs through the implementation of the measure.

Contrary to proponents’ arguments that Measure S will help homeless people access social services, the report found that the measure does not contain any provisions to connect homeless people to services.

“Before you implement a public policy, you should have some proven fact of what it is going to do,” [researcher Ericka] Meanor said.

You can read Guzman’s full story here or find the report on the BerkeleyLaw Website.

Yesterday, the UC Berkeley School of Law Policy Advocacy Clinic released a report entitled Does Sit-Lie Work: Will Berkeley’s “Measure S” Increase Economic Activity and Improve Services to Homeless People?. The answer, in brief, seems to be No:

At the request of a local coalition of community groups and individuals opposed to Measure S, the clinic conducted an independent analysis to test whether Sit-Lie laws deliver on their promises. Law students reviewed data on economic activity and homeless services in more than a dozen state and national Sit-Lie jurisdictions. They surveyed community organizations, municipal human services and economic development agencies, business groups and police departments; and they consulted local stakeholders about implementation challenges and opportunities. The clinic team said they were unable to find evidence of the purported benefits of Sit-Lie ordinances…

The report’s key findings include:

• No evidence that retail sales have increased in California’s other Sit-Lie jurisdictions relative to their surrounding counties;
• No evidence that retail sales on Telegraph Avenue and downtown Berkeley have suffered relative to other commercial areas due to homeless people;
• No evidence that Sit-Lie ordinances have connected homeless people to social services in other cities;
• No evidence that Measure S will improve services to homeless people in Berkeley;
• Evidence that implementing, enforcing and defending Measure S against legal challenges will likely be costly to the City of Berkeley; and
• Evidence of better approaches to increase economic activity and improve services to homeless people in Berkeley.

KALW’s Crosscurrents has an interesting piece by reporter Kyung-Jin Lee on the impact of San Francisco’s sit/lie law, passed in 2010.

The only referrals most violators get are to phone services at 311 and 211, printed on the back of written warnings and [Coalition on Homelessness Executive Director Jennifer] Friedenbach says that doesn’t help them get off the streets.

“There’s 37,000 on the wait list for housing in San Francisco,” she says. “Hundreds and hundreds on the waitlist for substance abuse treatment. It takes 17 hours a day to get to shelter beds and over half of the people after 17 hours trying to get a shelter bed are turned away only to have to try again at 3am.”

Some city officials agree the current system needs improvements. Bevan Dufty is the mayor’s advisor on homelessness. While he didn’t support the measure himself, he accepts the will of the people who passed the ballot measure. But he doesn’t think police should be forced to hand out referrals either.

“The cops have laws to enforce,” says Dufty. “They don’t have a whole lot of options.”

Have a listen for yourself to the full story.