As someone who lived less than a block away until 2 years ago and had to walk by People's Park for years, the proposed project is the best use of the space for the problems of the day. It was no longer a beacon of Free Speech like it was meant to be, but a hub of Crime and a constant danger to the student and local residents. Many of the so called "vulnerable population" that camped there were petty criminals, drug users, predators and transients. People from that park broke into our backyard and stole things/bikes/computers etc. on an almost weekly basis. Multiple times homeless from the park would just walk into our house if someone left the front or backyard door unlocked. Several of my friends have been sexually harassed walking by. Also, People Park was not a "gathering place for the community" like you say, it was too dangerous. The community gathers at Willard Park, which is two blocks away. There are still lots of well-meaning, naive, clueless enablers, that don't realize they are part of the problem and want to keep the homeless there, but obviously the city and the state has the resources to house this population as stated in the video. The State has a lot of power to house people and give them things with our tax dollars. It's 100% a solvable problem. For instance, Democrats have had a supermajority in CA for decades and never once have I heard about reestablishing a mental healthcare system like they have in states like Maryland, where my schizophrenic uncle has been successfully cared for and housed for decades as a ward of the state. The unsaid question is "Why?" the cynic would say it's by design.
I’m going to remain impartial, but this is a good and well reasoned argument. There are definitely people that say people’s park was still a community gathering place. The people who give out meals and other services for example. But it’s hard to argue that it serves the same function today that it did in the 60s.
@@AdamDoesNotExist As someone who actively volunteers for White Pony Express a fantastic local NGO that distributes millions of pounds of donated food from supermarkets, farmer's markets and restaurants to local shelters, I know for a fact that giving out meals and "other services" are not needed at that location. There are plenty nearby shelters that homeless can go to get well fed and services to help them get back on their feet. Other than the occasional dudes having a pickup basketball game, no one went to people's park to hang out. No picnics, no frisbee, no leisurely reading a book, and you'd be a nut to bring your children there. My father was one of the original people that helped build People's Park and even he told me it served its purpose and it was time for something new, that would hopefully have a positive effect on the community. Anyways, good video. I thought it was informative. Well done.
@@IamBuffal0 Whoa, I don't have to go to Finland or Switzerland or England? Maryland has the solution already?!!!! So as someone not in the field, this is complete news to me. No one is mentioning it, reporting it, etc. I am a big city and transit planning nerd and I spent time in HK, and having been out there, it sucks seeing the planning we have here, and I imagine that's a similar feeling that you have regarding homeless care. I certainly don't trust the government in what they do sometimes, but with the arrogance that we have in general, we're stuck.
A lot of the public opinion pieces are saying this as well. That it hasn't been an iconic park since the 70s. It sounds like there was a big difference in the park pre and post covid.
Back in the late 80s i went there to see this historic site. Holy moly. My eyes burned from the strong urine smell that i feared was permanent. I saw several drug deals. Felt unsafe and weird. I was very young, naive and very pro-hippie back then, but ppls park was not hippie. Its waa a den of iniquity. I can only imagine how much worse it is now. I will say i met a few homeless ppl that were awesome but not at the park. Met those folks on telegraph avenue during a later visit. I use to return n bring sandwiches n water for the folks id met that were cool. Before heading back on the bart at dusk i would go to the student union square with my coffee and watch several street ppl alongside a couple students playing instruments while other students did interpretive dancing. One of my best memories. God bless Berkeley and heal it pls. Peace
Yeah, they say it'll be "affordable housing" until they start accepting applications and then those renters will see that it'll be just as expensive as anywhere else in the area...
The church that I attend uses the brick building across from People's Park. It was a surprise when I saw more and more homeless people move in and set up camp. Heck I even saw a tree house there. Then the containers the just showed up and it was a shock. It's kind of sad to think the historic park is going to be turned into housing, but I know there will be ways to honor the history there. I also understand that there is a need to create more housing with the shortage. One positive thing is a friend that moved from the Bay to the east coast came back to visit and he noticed a huge difference with fewer homeless people just sitting along Telegraph Ave and the feel of the area was actually better. I would agree as well.
Hearing both sides (from you and local news stories), I really don't see much evidence for blocking the development of the site. As you note, the plan includes safe, modern permanent housing for more than 4 times as many people as were occupying the site, it provides badly needed student housing (which will also benefit non-students who need housing by loosening the market), the 60% remaining as a park will likely be a far better park than the mess which PP had devolved to where it was unsafe to use as a park, and there will even be a monument and commemoration of its historic role. Developing it in this way is supported by an overwhelming democratic majority of city residents, and of students. On the other side, a small minority of the Berkeley population felt entitled to control of the land, but were unable to maintain a healthy or safe environment on the appropriated land. They feel that their invented entitlement over-rides democratic processes, that the minority gets to dismiss majority rule and due process, "just because". I just don't see any solid arguments on this side. The community already used other places to gather before the closure, and the free store can take place elsewhere as well. The outrage over the use of shipping containers is absurd as well. That passive measure was only used because of the violence from that small minority last year when the university tried to develop the property without such protection. The shipping containers were a clever way of passively reducing the violence. The grievance seems to be "hey, you did something we can't just tear down and then vandalize the site, no fair, we are supposed to get our way!". I will briefly note that I first encountered People's Park in 1969 when hitch hiking around California, arriving a few days after the big protests that year. The crash house I stayed in was packing away a pile of gas masks used by protesters, until the next one. At that time, I was 100% on the side of People's Park. Ii held the vision in high regard, and in memory I still have some positive fondness. But despite delaying the construction for so many decades, what it had become in recent years is disgusting, a shameful shadow of the idealism of the 60s. Every once in a while there would be a burst of positive and constructive energy trying to clean up and revitalize the park - followed by years of decay and blight and crime. Basically, even if one generously granted wonderful intentions to the pro-PP activists, they were at best incompetent at creating or maintaining anything. The only thing they were remarkably good at was - tearing down anything the university tried to do. This is a disappointment for me, but we need to face reality and put our positive energies someplace more fruitful than People's Park has proven to be.
I can't believe you were there! You know first hand how much it has changed since the 60s. I think everything you're saying is rational and well thought out. The free store is currently a bock away down the hill, not on the park itself. I but you'd enjoy talking to them if you're in the area.
I have family members who participated in the protests in the '60s and my dad's rock band played on the park's stage numerous times in the '90s when I was a kid. Do the park does have some special meaning to me and it's sad to see it go. However, the lot was getting out of control. My hope is that they really do make a new garden as part if the housing development commemorating the park. Also glad to see some help for houseless who called the park home.
Setting aside the PP's history, UC continues to be a very powerful player in the state of California. And, ironically, they are also the turtle in the race - their size limits quick movements. This most recent change (installing containers as some sort of meta-fencing), suggests to me that UC is done discussing this matter. Why do I say this? I used to work at UC.
I'm shocked that this has been such a big issue for so long. UC kind of has let this linger. It certainly seems like they're stepping up their actions this time around. Thanks your your perspective!
I have never heard of Peoples Park. I am a bit surprised by that. What a mess. I can certainly get more info if I wanted seeing all the suggested videos on the sidebar ➡➡😆
This was another great informative video by you. I agree that the housing project should just move forward as the benefits outweigh the cons. It's simple common sense. We need more housing and this project will definitely help. Otherwise again another great informative video Adam! 😀👍💯
As long as they are offering housing for the people that were camped there they should build on it. Maybe offer them some mental health care/rehabilitation services. I'm a bit suspicious of whether or not the housing they claim will be affordable, actually will be. Governments make this claim a lot, to make themselves look good. The rental application/process tells the real story. Regardless, they need to do it quickly.
Having heard what my peers were saying when I was graduating from there, I knew we were an extremely naive bunch. Seeing the protests surrounding the park when that happened... Yeah, I wasn't surprised that a while bunch of them are students. Why are these girls defending a wasteland that they wouldn't dare to cross? That place was long a hobo hub of nuts and crime, it wasn't a park, even when I was there! Those kids just landed deep, critical, holistic thought! And to suggest that People's Park should be left alone and that building should be done elsewhere... So they think more houses should be destroyed instead? You have a perfect piece of empty land here where no houses need to be destroyed! And to say that if Cal can handle nukes, they can handle this... If they could, they would've built the place up already! But the suggestion is as absurd as expecting Oppenheimer to make you a burrito since he knows nukes.
Adam, I appreciate you discussing the park and the controversy. As a full-time people's park activist for the last 8 years, I've seen the park bloom in rain and shine, in the middle of the day, and the middle of the night. I'm deeply invested in the survival of this space because it is related to my survival. It is where I (grew) fruit trees and garden plots and had mental health resources (green space/nature immersion). I'd love to speak with you about this issue. I think I could provide the opposing side (which is certainly not NIMBY) pretty well. - Aidan
Hey Aidan! I appreciate your work! My hope was that I'd cover a bit of both sides of the argument, but not choose either side. Of course there's no way to cover this story entirely in a short video like this. I don't plan on making another video about people's park, but I'd be happy to listen to what you have to say!
Excellent job as always. There are still multiple security guards at every corner. It's aggressive as hell, but having a high rise worth of housing actually helps things. We're also not paying for much of it. I just learned from a professor neighbor that 14% of Cal's budget is publicly funded.
This was an interesting video, but I'm disappointed you didn't "pick a side" - that is to say, share your honest opinion. It makes me wonder how the information you provided is biased and what was left out, if anything. I don't believe any of us are neutral, and seeing the comments you're responding to makes it pretty clear which side you're on so I'm very confused why you chose to keep it to yourself . I don't mean to be rude or disrespectful by saying this. You're clearly super talented and dedicated to this and I appreciate the informative video, but I'll be blunt, my gut reaction is that refusing to share your opinion is either done to maintain a "neutral" position to gain/keep a larger audience or it's done intentionally to obfuscate the true argument being made by it's creator. Is there a more noble reason I'm missing or am I confused on the benefits to the information provided by pretending it comes from a neutral source?
It sounds really cool. Back then they'd set up a podium and let anyone talk. Left, right, socialist, capitalist, anyone was allowed to talk. And everyone would listen.
@@AdamDoesNotExist maybe back then, but if you think you’ll have a discussion with someone from Berkeley where they’d listen to opposing views today you are delusional. Conformation bias is strong in that area.
It's a big problem on both ends of the spectrum. Though I will say the people at the free store were open to hearing the other side and respectfully countering. I wonder if it's a partially a media driven narrative. Showing angry people fighting gets more clicks than different people having a respectful discussion.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
As someone who lived less than a block away until 2 years ago and had to walk by People's Park for years, the proposed project is the best use of the space for the problems of the day.
It was no longer a beacon of Free Speech like it was meant to be, but a hub of Crime and a constant danger to the student and local residents.
Many of the so called "vulnerable population" that camped there were petty criminals, drug users, predators and transients. People from that park broke into our backyard and stole things/bikes/computers etc. on an almost weekly basis. Multiple times homeless from the park would just walk into our house if someone left the front or backyard door unlocked. Several of my friends have been sexually harassed walking by.
Also, People Park was not a "gathering place for the community" like you say, it was too dangerous. The community gathers at Willard Park, which is two blocks away.
There are still lots of well-meaning, naive, clueless enablers, that don't realize they are part of the problem and want to keep the homeless there, but obviously the city and the state has the resources to house this population as stated in the video. The State has a lot of power to house people and give them things with our tax dollars. It's 100% a solvable problem.
For instance, Democrats have had a supermajority in CA for decades and never once have I heard about reestablishing a mental healthcare system like they have in states like Maryland, where my schizophrenic uncle has been successfully cared for and housed for decades as a ward of the state. The unsaid question is "Why?" the cynic would say it's by design.
I’m going to remain impartial, but this is a good and well reasoned argument. There are definitely people that say people’s park was still a community gathering place. The people who give out meals and other services for example. But it’s hard to argue that it serves the same function today that it did in the 60s.
@@AdamDoesNotExist As someone who actively volunteers for White Pony Express a fantastic local NGO that distributes millions of pounds of donated food from supermarkets, farmer's markets and restaurants to local shelters, I know for a fact that giving out meals and "other services" are not needed at that location. There are plenty nearby shelters that homeless can go to get well fed and services to help them get back on their feet.
Other than the occasional dudes having a pickup basketball game, no one went to people's park to hang out. No picnics, no frisbee, no leisurely reading a book, and you'd be a nut to bring your children there.
My father was one of the original people that helped build People's Park and even he told me it served its purpose and it was time for something new, that would hopefully have a positive effect on the community.
Anyways, good video. I thought it was informative. Well done.
@@IamBuffal0 Glad you liked the video. And thanks for adding your perspective given all the history you have with the park and the greater community!
@@IamBuffal0well said I completely agree about people’s park.
@@IamBuffal0 Whoa, I don't have to go to Finland or Switzerland or England? Maryland has the solution already?!!!!
So as someone not in the field, this is complete news to me. No one is mentioning it, reporting it, etc.
I am a big city and transit planning nerd and I spent time in HK, and having been out there, it sucks seeing the planning we have here, and I imagine that's a similar feeling that you have regarding homeless care.
I certainly don't trust the government in what they do sometimes, but with the arrogance that we have in general, we're stuck.
It wasnt a park anymore, it was a makeshift homeless shelter/slum. Glad theyre building on it.
A lot of the public opinion pieces are saying this as well. That it hasn't been an iconic park since the 70s. It sounds like there was a big difference in the park pre and post covid.
Back in the late 80s i went there to see this historic site.
Holy moly.
My eyes burned from the strong urine smell that i feared was permanent.
I saw several drug deals.
Felt unsafe and weird.
I was very young, naive and very pro-hippie back then, but ppls park was not hippie. Its waa a den of iniquity. I can only imagine how much worse it is now.
I will say i met a few homeless ppl that were awesome but not at the park. Met those folks on telegraph avenue during a later visit.
I use to return n bring sandwiches n water for the folks id met that were cool.
Before heading back on the bart at dusk i would go to the student union square with my coffee and watch several street ppl alongside a couple students playing instruments while other students did interpretive dancing. One of my best memories.
God bless Berkeley and heal it pls. Peace
Yeah, they say it'll be "affordable housing" until they start accepting applications and then those renters will see that it'll be just as expensive as anywhere else in the area...
fact
The church that I attend uses the brick building across from People's Park. It was a surprise when I saw more and more homeless people move in and set up camp. Heck I even saw a tree house there. Then the containers the just showed up and it was a shock. It's kind of sad to think the historic park is going to be turned into housing, but I know there will be ways to honor the history there. I also understand that there is a need to create more housing with the shortage. One positive thing is a friend that moved from the Bay to the east coast came back to visit and he noticed a huge difference with fewer homeless people just sitting along Telegraph Ave and the feel of the area was actually better. I would agree as well.
Hearing both sides (from you and local news stories), I really don't see much evidence for blocking the development of the site. As you note, the plan includes safe, modern permanent housing for more than 4 times as many people as were occupying the site, it provides badly needed student housing (which will also benefit non-students who need housing by loosening the market), the 60% remaining as a park will likely be a far better park than the mess which PP had devolved to where it was unsafe to use as a park, and there will even be a monument and commemoration of its historic role. Developing it in this way is supported by an overwhelming democratic majority of city residents, and of students.
On the other side, a small minority of the Berkeley population felt entitled to control of the land, but were unable to maintain a healthy or safe environment on the appropriated land. They feel that their invented entitlement over-rides democratic processes, that the minority gets to dismiss majority rule and due process, "just because". I just don't see any solid arguments on this side. The community already used other places to gather before the closure, and the free store can take place elsewhere as well.
The outrage over the use of shipping containers is absurd as well. That passive measure was only used because of the violence from that small minority last year when the university tried to develop the property without such protection. The shipping containers were a clever way of passively reducing the violence. The grievance seems to be "hey, you did something we can't just tear down and then vandalize the site, no fair, we are supposed to get our way!".
I will briefly note that I first encountered People's Park in 1969 when hitch hiking around California, arriving a few days after the big protests that year. The crash house I stayed in was packing away a pile of gas masks used by protesters, until the next one. At that time, I was 100% on the side of People's Park. Ii held the vision in high regard, and in memory I still have some positive fondness.
But despite delaying the construction for so many decades, what it had become in recent years is disgusting, a shameful shadow of the idealism of the 60s. Every once in a while there would be a burst of positive and constructive energy trying to clean up and revitalize the park - followed by years of decay and blight and crime. Basically, even if one generously granted wonderful intentions to the pro-PP activists, they were at best incompetent at creating or maintaining anything. The only thing they were remarkably good at was - tearing down anything the university tried to do. This is a disappointment for me, but we need to face reality and put our positive energies someplace more fruitful than People's Park has proven to be.
I can't believe you were there! You know first hand how much it has changed since the 60s. I think everything you're saying is rational and well thought out. The free store is currently a bock away down the hill, not on the park itself. I but you'd enjoy talking to them if you're in the area.
Unreal. I knew of PP from the 1960s but had no idea this was still going on. Keep us posted on significant changes.
I have family members who participated in the protests in the '60s and my dad's rock band played on the park's stage numerous times in the '90s when I was a kid.
Do the park does have some special meaning to me and it's sad to see it go. However, the lot was getting out of control. My hope is that they really do make a new garden as part if the housing development commemorating the park. Also glad to see some help for houseless who called the park home.
This is causing a lot of turmoil at the moment. But I really hope that in the end they can do right by everyone.
Setting aside the PP's history, UC continues to be a very powerful player in the state of California. And, ironically, they are also the turtle in the race - their size limits quick movements. This most recent change (installing containers as some sort of meta-fencing), suggests to me that UC is done discussing this matter. Why do I say this? I used to work at UC.
I'm shocked that this has been such a big issue for so long. UC kind of has let this linger. It certainly seems like they're stepping up their actions this time around. Thanks your your perspective!
I have never heard of Peoples Park. I am a bit surprised by that. What a mess. I can certainly get more info if I wanted seeing all the suggested videos on the sidebar ➡➡😆
Neither had I until the shipping containers came in. It really is a huge mess!
This was another great informative video by you. I agree that the housing project should just move forward as the benefits outweigh the cons. It's simple common sense. We need more housing and this project will definitely help.
Otherwise again another great informative video Adam! 😀👍💯
Thanks as always! Your views are certainly the most popular, and at the moment, it feel like things are headed in that direction.
2:18 I think this was the first time in my life I've seen cops sitting down outside.
Free speech and opposition to war.... oh my how things have changed...
Yup. 50 years later much is different
As long as they are offering housing for the people that were camped there they should build on it. Maybe offer them some mental health care/rehabilitation services. I'm a bit suspicious of whether or not the housing they claim will be affordable, actually will be. Governments make this claim a lot, to make themselves look good. The rental application/process tells the real story. Regardless, they need to do it quickly.
Having heard what my peers were saying when I was graduating from there, I knew we were an extremely naive bunch. Seeing the protests surrounding the park when that happened... Yeah, I wasn't surprised that a while bunch of them are students. Why are these girls defending a wasteland that they wouldn't dare to cross? That place was long a hobo hub of nuts and crime, it wasn't a park, even when I was there! Those kids just landed deep, critical, holistic thought!
And to suggest that People's Park should be left alone and that building should be done elsewhere... So they think more houses should be destroyed instead? You have a perfect piece of empty land here where no houses need to be destroyed!
And to say that if Cal can handle nukes, they can handle this... If they could, they would've built the place up already! But the suggestion is as absurd as expecting Oppenheimer to make you a burrito since he knows nukes.
Amoba is near by .we got reggae there just in time early 90s. Nice 80s vinyl
Amoeba is awesome!
Adam, I appreciate you discussing the park and the controversy. As a full-time people's park activist for the last 8 years, I've seen the park bloom in rain and shine, in the middle of the day, and the middle of the night. I'm deeply invested in the survival of this space because it is related to my survival. It is where I (grew) fruit trees and garden plots and had mental health resources (green space/nature immersion). I'd love to speak with you about this issue. I think I could provide the opposing side (which is certainly not NIMBY) pretty well.
- Aidan
Hey Aidan! I appreciate your work! My hope was that I'd cover a bit of both sides of the argument, but not choose either side. Of course there's no way to cover this story entirely in a short video like this. I don't plan on making another video about people's park, but I'd be happy to listen to what you have to say!
you seem lovely and i like the videos a lot :)
Thank you so much 🙂
Build on the park
I believe this is the most popular opinion
Dope den in current years
i'd say Chicago & NYC have out done California in the NIMBY contest.
It's certainly a pretty close race
and yet they had the means to get to PP.
Excellent job as always. There are still multiple security guards at every corner. It's aggressive as hell, but having a high rise worth of housing actually helps things. We're also not paying for much of it. I just learned from a professor neighbor that 14% of Cal's budget is publicly funded.
str8 up from liberty city 😂
lol! I thought that was NYC?
Good presentation and very informative. Thanks.
Thank you!
This was an interesting video, but I'm disappointed you didn't "pick a side" - that is to say, share your honest opinion. It makes me wonder how the information you provided is biased and what was left out, if anything. I don't believe any of us are neutral, and seeing the comments you're responding to makes it pretty clear which side you're on so I'm very confused why you chose to keep it to yourself . I don't mean to be rude or disrespectful by saying this. You're clearly super talented and dedicated to this and I appreciate the informative video, but I'll be blunt, my gut reaction is that refusing to share your opinion is either done to maintain a "neutral" position to gain/keep a larger audience or it's done intentionally to obfuscate the true argument being made by it's creator. Is there a more noble reason I'm missing or am I confused on the benefits to the information provided by pretending it comes from a neutral source?
Why do you need him to form your opinion for you?
They support all forms of free speech ? ** press E for doubt 💀
It sounds really cool. Back then they'd set up a podium and let anyone talk. Left, right, socialist, capitalist, anyone was allowed to talk. And everyone would listen.
@@AdamDoesNotExist maybe back then, but if you think you’ll have a discussion with someone from Berkeley where they’d listen to opposing views today you are delusional. Conformation bias is strong in that area.
It's a big problem on both ends of the spectrum. Though I will say the people at the free store were open to hearing the other side and respectfully countering. I wonder if it's a partially a media driven narrative. Showing angry people fighting gets more clicks than different people having a respectful discussion.