What's The Deal With the Berkeley City Council? (living, homeless)

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Ok, your entire post reads right out of the 1980's. This is exactly what was being said then. They used to camp in that park across from Berkeley High and City Hall. The city of Berkeley has perhaps the best homeless programs around. I say better than San Francisco's because it occupies them. Willard Middle School has free showers for the homeless. Also, many churches around Berkeley offer free meals. There are also shelters that are always open, one is on center street. At the skate park in West Berkeley, homeless with cars are "allowed" to park and sleep there. Berkeley still has a homeless problem as every large (over 100,000 people) city does. I think you are blowing it way out of proportion though.

I think Bezerkeley is making homelessness a viable and almost attractive option.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Conservatives were conservationists back then. If the Bay Area was so liberal, how did Nixon and Reagan get elected?
Much of East Berkeley and part of N Berkeley sent their kids to private schools. Or left for the suburbs, as the article says, so their kids wouldn't have to go to Berkeley High.

Alameda county did not vote for Reagan. Nixon was before my time and he certainly wasn't anything like todays conservative and you know that full well. In the 80's the GOP was much more ppealing than it is today and a good portion of the Bay Area did support them. Marin and Contra Costa county had no trouble voting Republican. Today both are democratic strongholds.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Alameda county did not vote for Reagan. Nixon was before my time and he certainly wasn't anything like todays conservative and you know that full well. In the 80's the GOP was much more ppealing than it is today and a good portion of the Bay Area did support them.

A VERY relative statement! They were by no means the good guys! The Republicans today are split in two: the nut job contingent, and the...um...not-so-nut-job contingent, the more old-style conservatives. The "today's conservatives" your referring to are a relatively recent development. I keep hoping they'll blow over.

Do not underestimate Tricky Dick's nastiness. And I really don't see much difference between Reagan's ability to put a genteel veneer on racism (not to mention his economic policies, well, I could go on and on) and the current nut case tendency in the party.

Contra Costa was full of conservatives in its time. Where there's money, there's conservatism.

But we digress.

[Gentoo]

Unbelievable!

[silverkris]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

I think Bezerkeley is making homelessness a viable and almost attractive option.

So you think it's desirable or fun being homeless?

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

in the 40's and 50's, the Republicans were the liberal party.

This is what's not only unbelievable, but alarming! lol! I can't believe someone would try to whitewash Republicans of the time.
And many of the lawyers and other mucky-mucks living and voting in Berkeley in the 50's, 60's and 70's were corporate types. Standard Oil/Chevron owned/owns 3 buildings full of lawyers and staff in San Fran, and a chunk of those people lived in Berkeley, just an example.

I think it's good that demographics have shifted, but judging by how some issues have been handled, it seems like it's gone to the opposite extreme...? I'm still not getting the soft-on-crime thing.

Berkeley does have good programs for the homeless, which is why so many are drawn there. But let's not forget one reason there are so many homeless in the US in general: Reagan closed mental institutions, and then failed to provide funding for community mental health centers to treat the people who had been turned loose, and for housing for them, much less some form of employment. Smooth move, Ronnie.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

This is what's not only unbelievable, but alarming! lol! I can't believe someone would try to whitewash Republicans of the time.
And many of the lawyers and other mucky-mucks living and voting in Berkeley in the 50's, 60's and 70's were corporate types. Standard Oil/Chevron owned/owns 3 buildings full of lawyers and staff in San Fran, and a chunk of those people lived in Berkeley, just an example.

I think it's good that demographics have shifted, but judging by how some issues have been handled, it seems like it's gone to the opposite extreme...? I'm still not getting the soft-on-crime thing.

Berkeley does have good programs for the homeless, which is why so many are drawn there. But let's not forget one reason there are so many homeless in the US in general: Reagan closed mental institutions, and then failed to provide funding for community mental health centers to treat the people who had been turned loose, and for housing for them, much less some form of employment. Smooth move, Ronnie.

It's not fair that you had to respond to this. I attempted to tell you that you don't know enough for me to continue to engage with you so our discussion is over. Hopefully, you'll get to read it this time.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

It's not fair that you had to respond to this. I attempted to tell you that you don't know enough for me to continue to engage with you so our discussion is over. Hopefully, you'll get to read it this time.

I don't know what this means. If you'd read up on the Berkeley's history (as per article linked), you'd have a better understanding of how things have changed. But I didn't post this topic just for you. I guess we don't have other Berkeley residents here, to discuss? Oh well.

[Natural510]

I don't think it's a secret the town was conservative before the 1960s, but it wasn't exactly Orange County either. It does seem things aren't quite as crazy with the town these days, perhaps because of gentrification and the campus itself becoming less radically liberal. Other than the bill against Marine recruitment, I haven't heard many of their trademark radical proposals in the past 10 years; those seem to mostly be coming out of San Francisco.

[DMenscha]

The premise that the city council is in charge of law enforcement is flawed. Elected government officials everywhere are the legislative branch of government, not the executive branch. The police department is a part of the executive branch, they enforce existing law.