What's to stop all the current residents from moving right back in and not paying? I have a hard time believing a single ranger is going to try evicting dozens of homeless each night.

You don't mention the extensive and expensive cleanup necessary for The Bulb to be a safe campsite. It is toxic and dangerous. I am not talking about what the homeless will leave, that is a different and easier cleanup issue.

This was a dumpsite and there are many bad things buried in there that would have to be taken out or neutralized or something. I don't know how that works, but I know I wouldn't want to pay to camp there unless it was ok'd by the environmental people who check these places.

As resdent of 'the bulb' I would like to remind all that this is a closed dump, ie un designated city land and not as frequently mislabled a park. Certainly hazardous and possibly toxic we moved here because nobody wanted it. Our population is growing because of ploice crackdowns on other homeless encampments. This has increased problems with garbage and sanitation. Long time residents here have found solutions to sanitation and trash. We made frequenc requests for dumsters and porta pots. Three times in two years a dumpster was delivered and quickly filled. We continue to aid newcomers in not polluting our living space.
Increaeed population has ncreased police contact and all the same issues as any inner city group substance abuse, theft, and disputes are among them.
Everyone keeps saying we need to go someplace better, but no one I ask knows where that is located. Isn't. That whete you go when you die? Someplace better? Or do they mean soneplace we are not seen? We do not want to be focus of so much concerned attention and living unseen. I certainly don't want to be cause of the week or problem of the year just left alone til I can solve my own finacial problems or a realistic renters market is established. This economic climate is not improving any issues of homelessness or poverty. Many of us are on decreasing fixed incomes .
I know the proponents of some place better actually mean just go but I can't oblige them not by dying either.

Exactly how dangerous/toxic is the Bulb? Has that ever been evaluated? It may be a former dump, but my understanding is that it was debris removed during highway construction, e.g., concrete, rebar, soil, and not, say, PCBs or plastics? How much does what's there differ from what would be found in any undeveloped property, and does the difference matter? (I guess I could understand if there's petroleum-related material, e.g., from asphalt, or concrete bearing oil from a former roadway.) But just how contaminated *is* the Bulb? Is it known?

I say ... lets throw the non existent burrowing owls out of the fenced area and convert that grassy area into a campground and it would become the resposibility of East Bay Regional Parks system. It is naive to talk about using the Bulb without having a clue as to the cost of cleaning it up.

The Bulb has been evaluated and is no longer considered toxic. In 2005 the State Water Control Resources Board advised that landfill analysis on the Bulb showed no impact on Bay waters; apparently if there were still toxics they would be leaching detectably into the Bay (bottom page 1): http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb2/board_info/agendas/200/june/06-15-05-4eosr.doc .Altho not toxic, some consider other existing Bulb conditions dangerous or unacceptable.The State Parks folks (who own the "Neck", "Plateau" and "Beach" at Albany's waterfront) want more than non-toxic conditions to accept the Bulb into the State Park/East Bay regional park district. They want Albany to clear homeless encampments, require dogs on-leash, and remove rebar and possibly the huge concrete chunks, also remove found art. All of which costs far more in $$ and political will than Albany's elected officials have. However I believe Paul is correct about the pernicious effect of allowing homeless encampments to continue. Paul - Berkeley does not appear to have homeless camps - nor managed camping - on Berkeley's waterfront. Could you educate us on what Berkeley does to forestall homeless encampments on its waterfront?

"Fix the Bulb"?
I realize that people who are are homeless have mostly been ignored by the majority of people with homes for over a century in the USA, but maybe it's time to acknowlege these people and try to fix that problem.
So many empty (foreclosed or vacant due to high rent,) buildings, so few places for a person to seek shelter
For now, I'd think East Bay residents are happy to have homeless people out of sight and out of mind.
And... $35 for a walk-in camp spot seems pretty high.

Berkeley police closed the encampment of longstanding. Somee of those homeless ended up here at the bulb. Due to continued harassment more of those former berkeley homeless are being herded in this direction. Though they were not told
Flatt out'go to the bulb' , it seemed infered.
when we moved out here no one cared. Not forb the land ecosystem or any of the new concern. We planted trees, created art, made paths, and bridges. Basically a user created park and an interesting place to come. When the horror of the cosco busan happened we rescued birds. Now the very people who made this a desirable and interesting unique place are no longer welcome. $35 a night that's rich...oh but that's the point isn't it.
By the way way be differant it's so mainstream to ignore the social justice economic :issues ect.

I apologize for the above post. A slip of the wrist and the uncorrected rough draft was posted. Ooops! The the Berkeley camp I referred to is the 'pile worm beach' camp.

I'm the first to agree that some of the Bulb's residents have helped make it the magical place that it has been. They also helped with bird rescue - see for example http://www.well.com/user/pk/waterfront/photo-of-the-week/Photo071112.html or http://tinyurl.com/7l7hgss. But the character of the Bulb is changing under population pressure as more people move in, and I'm skeptical of benign neglect as the best public policy for the long term.

It should first be determined whether it is legally and financially possible to establish a public camp. There will be the cost of any approval process required by Federal, State and local agencies. The City would be responsible for any Environmental Impact Report, which could cost $1 million, and insurance premiums, advertising costs, and reservation and financial systems.

Camping sites, trails, restrooms, a better parking lot, information kiosk, lighting, and perhaps fencing, will need to be built and maintained. Hazards may need to be removed or mitigated and ongoing refuse and sewage removal will be required.

With one ranger for 40 hours a week, will a site that attracts unleashed dogs and homeless people, bring in overnight visitors? How will campers that don’t pay be kept out? How could a 50% occupancy rate be applied to a site that is usually windy and cold, and where fog often obliterates its main attribute, the view across the Bay?

Why $35 per camping site? Will the fee be the same for an SUV with a family of six and a lone bicyclist with a bed roll? How will you control people renting multiply sites and having beer parties? Will camp fires be allowed, and if not, how prevented?

The Labs do not allow tourists. GGF encourages visitors but it’s not a popular tourist site. San Francisco is the tourist attraction here, and camping in a small unknown residential town, miles down a busy freeway, will not be a pick for most, if any visitors, to The City.

There is a simple solution ..... open a campground in Berkeley and see how it goes. No need to remove rebar and concrete ... The owls might be willing to share !!!

We already do have managed camping of sorts on the Berkeley waterfront, in the form of a 1,000-berth marina with 113 legal live-aboard boats and houseboats, and provision for transient berthing as well. It works fine, and we do not have the escalating liability of a growing homeless encampment. Not to mention a 375 room hotel, but of course it's a stretch to call that camping.

Point is, Berkeley's waterfront accommodates visitors and has round-the-clock activity and supervision. Albany has essentially abandoned it's outer shoreline to the homeless colony. Maybe when all is said and done, the homeless colony is the highest and best public use - it's not up to me to decide.

Wow, thankyou for the link! I had almost forgotten that to be a real hero sometimes you had to ingnore rules and do the right thing anyway. Those birds were suffering and dying for consumerism. Nothing on that ship was worth the cost to wildlife and ecology. The bird population still is not even close to what it was out here on the bulb. It was the worst thing I have ever seen done to our bay. But that weekend I also saw people that rose to the challenge and did the right things. Heros one and all. The best...surely the best possible response to disaster to just do what needs to be done.
But that was differant...right?
By the way no one is more concerned with the growing population here than we are. Sure wish these new people had someplace better to go...Where? I wish I KNEW. I really do wish I knew. Thanks for listening. Thanks for a little more grace Albany. I don't know where I would be without it. Certainly no place better.
Katherine cody(kc not casey)

Those who do not learn from history's mistakes, are doomed to repeat them.(attrib.: Santayana)
During the 70's the city of Berkeley founded a campsite area, to provide overnight camping (and parking) for travelers to the bay area. They had running water, car window stickers ( Rainbow Village permits), bathrooms and garbage removal, all located at the present Caesar Chavez park. It could not be managed on a 24/7 basis... rotation of (the same) 'campers' every two weeks could not be prevented from lining-up for the sign-up sheets.
While the area looked cleaner, it was no different in usage, and human issues then the campsites at the present Bulb. With easier accommodations, partying, drugs, crime-connections, and HOMICIDES at the site were all much higher as a result. (The vast expanse of well-mowed, but useless gopher-hole ridden weeds is a RESULT of eliminating the Village).

Further Comment: (regarding OP's mis-information) the high crime rate at the Berkeley Marina has made the marina un-usable by any boaters that expect to keep a boat their un-attended UNLESS the boat has NOTHING on it to steal.
The residents their love it, but the waiting list for a 'spot' is 7 years. Real 'sailing' out of that harbor is less than 20% of what it used to be; nice boats are at risk unless its guarded. You will find the unattended boats there leave there hatches all UNLOCKED for instance, otherwise they will be crow-bared and damaged during the night.

Paul: You asked me for a plan for the Bulb and how it would cost less than your proposal. I cannot say what would cost less, as you provided no cost estimates and your revenue projections seemed to be based on “I think the market will support that price in that location.”

Your response seems to indicate I criticized your proposal on the basis of its cost. I did not. I simply stated questions I think should be asked of any proposal for the Bulb.

The Bulb is a man made island constructed by Albany out of concrete and rebar. To compare rusting construction materials to natural stone in a park is nonsensical.

State records show that the developers of Berkeley’s Fourth Street and Emeryville’s Bay Street business districts, poured thousands of dollars into the election campaigns of politicians they supported for the Albany City Council. Residents of Berkeley and El Cerrito pack our City meetings, demanding Albany build parks for their enjoyment, but not at their expense. Berkeley lines its waterfront with businesses and insists Golden Gate Fields, which contributes $1.6 million in taxes to Albany, close.

If you have ideas for the Bulb, tell us how much money Berkeley is going to contribute. Berkeley spent $3 million to clear debris, fence and pave a small area for a waterfront bird sanctuary. Although the Bulb will be more expensive, that would be a good initial donation.

Stephanie has a clue .... PKamen has no idea. The Suggestion that homeless indigenent folks could stay at the hotel or berth their non existing boats at the Marina is insulting. He must have studied at the Barbara Bush school of post Katrina survival. If it is so inexpensive to clean up the Bulb ......PKamen , tell us the price.

Paul’s right that round-the-clock activities & supervision improve chances for a waterfront that can be enjoyed by most everyone. Albany's stewardship of its very own 33 acres on the Bulb illustrates the alternative. Situations that would not be tolerated at any other City park/land persist – grow - on the Bulb, see comments above. Katherine Cody’s concern about increased population there is more warning, as is Tatter Salad's history.
Thank you Paul for a constructive proposal; while I agree with some concerns noted by Stephanie, you get points for putting it forward. Not even Voices to Vision made recommendations re the Bulb, how sad & ironic. The missing piece for finding a “fix” to the waterfront/Bulb is Council policy direction. Aside from requesting a grant to remove rebar, Council has let the Bulb be. That will make it much harder to address problems when they can't be ignored any longer. If a majority of Council wanted to be contructive, it could direct contact with the other property owners at Albany’s waterfront to explore current interests and options. Maybe managed camping fits with some scenario(s) that all owners find beneficial for the entire waterfront.

No, the suggestion is that a mixed-use waterfront has a different dynamic than a neglected waterfront. That may provide some insight as to why the homeless encampment is now in Albany rather than Berkeley.

Paul O'Curry - Tell us why it's even necessary to "clean up" the Bulb.

Paul K.'s proposal is that the problem of homeless encampments at the Bulb could be addressed by development, i.e., create a managed commercial campground, is one approach... while I originally raised it rather tongue-in-cheekly, cutting the neck to turn the Bulb into Isla Albania is another possible approach: if it were accessible only via boat or a footbridge that could be gated for intermittent access, it's attraction for camping would plummet.

(Previous comment in response to Paul O'Curry, not Caryl O'Keefe, in case that wasn't clear)

Brian - CESP is back to monthly open-to-the-public Board meetings. Third Wednesday, 7:30 PM, in their office in El Cerrito Plaza above Trader Joe's. For the last few months they tried replacing these meetings with closed committee meetings, but for whatever reason they are back to the old schedule.

I attend these as liaison from Berkeley Waterfront Commission.

I'm frequently at odds with CESP policies, and I think it would do the organization a world of good for their Board to hear more diverse points of view at every one of their meetings.

There is an undercurrent running through this whole discussion of, not how to find a viable plan for the Blub, but how to get rid of the homeless living there. Albany citizens voted to increase property taxes by $10 million to build two swimming pools. Clearly, helping the homeless is not a priority for Albany. As long as there is no will and no funds to help the homeless, and the police are not reporting it as a center of violent crime, I don’t see a need for any change on the Bulb.

As to providing attractive overnight camping facilities on the Bulb; unless, you surround the Bulb with barbed wire, and post a guard 24/7, all you will do is draw more homeless to the area. As apparently no work was done to determine the financial and legal possibilities of that proposal, a great deal of research would have to be done to determine if that proposal is even feasible.

Removing the concrete and rebar, will mean the Bulb will disappear, as that is its foundation. Albany initially planned to dump two more mounds of concrete and rebar farther out into the Bay to create two islands. Why, I have been unable to find. I understand they were stopped by the early actions of Save the Bay. If anyone is interested, that organization might have archival information on the City’s motivation.

Yes, the more Albany residents who visit the Bulb the greater chance the homeless will leave, or at least be fewer in number. And is that our goal, to finally push them into the sea?

The Bulb poses many challenges, thus it's frustrating to recall some past City $ priorities and local pols' waterfront rhetoric. BUT no one is proposing to push homeless into the sea. Paul Kamen points out correctly that there are serious legal, economic and social justice issues around homelessness - and the goal of his proposal is to prevent the Bulb from becoming a permanent homeless camp. This is a good goal which requires real political will, and I hope that that Council will agendize public discussion of homelessness (not just on the Bulb) in Albany. Here's a link to a community policing site associated with US DOJ. It talks about the broad planning that has to happen around homeless camps: http://www.popcenter.org/problems/homeless_encampments . Be sure to read the "philosophical debate on chronic homelessness" as it sets the rational foundation for discussions about homeless camps.
ps Stephanie, the park district's requirement to remove rebar and dangerous rubble from the Bulb is for only EXPOSED stuff. A few years ago a genius on Park&Rec suggested packing the earth scraped up from the racetrack (when it installed the required $10M new track surface) over these exposed "safety hazards" on the Bulb. Not sure why that didn't happen.

The OP, in comments stated:
" Not the same as market-rate camping with months-in-advance registration. Managed camping on the Bulb would be similar to many other popular campgrounds in highly desirable locations."
Do tell; TO IMPLEMENT: we set-up a Yosemite-like booking arrangement, water, bathrooms, parking, ALL wheel chair accessible by state law, and parking permits for overnight vehicles, which must accommodate motorhomes too.
Oh wait! Yosemite has the SAME problems too; commercial 're-leasing' of camper sites REPEATEDLY, so that the 'motorhomes' never leave the area.

Also, you're reference to Daily Cal regarding Rainbow Village is ludicrous. First of all: don't believe what you read in the papers, particularly the Daily Cal. The article is an author's rehash of old press information regarding Ralph International Thomas (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-supreme-court/1262908.html).
At the time, Ralph (the 'Mayor' of Rainbow Village) murdered two visitors; because of a concert at the Greek the next evening, MANY Grateful Dead fans were in the Berkeley area. The denizens of Rainbow Village had no more connection to being Dead Heads then the Bulb denizens align with the Raiders.
The original goal of Berkeley was to provide a Hospice/Camper environment for tourists, much as can be found in Europe (and L.A. at that time). Berkeley's idealized wishes were IDENTICAL to yours.
BTW: Leaving the implementation aside, yours is a GREAT idea!

> "Paul Kamens' ridiculous suggestion that Marina Berths and/or the hotel provide shelter for poor people is nonsense."

Paul O'Curry - Of course it's nonsense, and I apologize for not being more clear. My point was that Berkeley does have people living on its waterfront, both permanently and transiently. It's the mixed land use and legitimate 24/7 activity that I'm contrasting with Albany's neglect.

Tatter - I'm suggesting walk-in campsites with parking far off-site. No motorhomes, no parking on the Bulb. Also, we've already seen that water service is too expensive even to run to Albany Beach, so the bathrooms would likely be the vault type with no service hookups.

The Bulb as it is now seems to be a lot more like Rainbow Village than any sort of market-rate managed campsite would be.

Meanwhile, I've found my copy of Bums' Paradise. Anyone interested in a screening over at Berkeley Yacht Club some evening this week? Everyone who has posted in this thread is invited, let me know what day works. Email off-patch, pk@well.com.

"The Bulb as it is now seems to be a lot more like Rainbow Village than any sort of market-rate managed campsite would be." PK
There's truth in that.
Rainbow's crowd lived primarily in vans and buses, not tents. The area surrounding their 'parking lot' was grass and weeds. A much higher proportion of the denizens held down day-jobs, as the commute was easy. Many actually went to their 'real' home on weekends, as the commute was to far for daily commting; week-night stays is also common at every yacht harbor on Bay.

The Regional Park District provides managed campsites now (Family Campsites at Anthony Chabot, Del Valle and Sunol can be reserved through: c/owww.reserveamerica.com.) But these areas all meet code, and are predominantly 'camp outa-the-car' sites with picnic tables, with shower and wheelchair accessible facilities, water, etc. ...ALL mandated requirements. More importantly: these areas are inhospitable to other uses; joggers, hiking etc. are all done peripherally, not in the area.
So yes, Rainbow was little different than the bulb; and your suggestion offers little difference as well. There is nothing to offer (Albany citizens) that would be much different than 'the big gorilla' that exists now.

Providing a dumpster and enforcing/implementing 'no RESIDENT dogs' would be a big improvement, and within the means of the City IMHO.

There's still room for a few more guests at our private screening of "Bums' Paradise," the 2003 documentary about life on the Albany Bulb. Thursday Feb 22, Berkeley Yacht Club, 7:30. Email pk@well.com for an invite.

This whole discussion is based on the false premise that the public cannot currently camp or engage in any other activity at the landfill anytime they want. It is a beautiful open space available to everyone, not a dangerous, desperate pit. To describe it as a problem is entirely the wrong approach. The albany bulb is a local treasure sought out by visitors and residents alike as an inspiration about the radical use of space. Albany landfill: "You're perfect! Don't change a thing!"

Paul I can help arrange you a stay at local shelters if you're interested in attempting to develop a sense of what homeless people's actually housing options are. Housing is a human right, & until that becomes a reality in our society Albany Bulb's current use as a community is it's best use. You're proposal is disturbingly lacking in compassion for other people.

There needs to be housing within proximity to service providers. There residents need access to resources on site. Dignity Village is an example of successful ways to address homelessness. If you're unfamiliar with Dignity Village here's a trailer for a documentary about it. http://youtu.be/B6n7rbKArAo

I agree with Patrick. The premise of the article, that "The managed camping proposal begins with the assumption that the bulb's current status as a homeless encampment is not the best public use of this part of the waterfront" shows a deep lack of compassion for the people who live there. This is their home. It does not belong to you. And the greater public absolutely benefits from house-less people having a space to live, with dignity and self determination. Until there is money on the table for an alternative plan, advocating for the removal of the Bulb residents is a reactionary engagement with economic and social justice issues. This is a moral question of whose lives we value, and whose we do not. "Financially responsible travelers" over "indigent transients".

Also, hosting a movie screening about homeless eviction at the Yacht Club seems revealing about the author's position. Not a very accessible choice for a discussion about class, wealth, and disenfranchisement.

Why? The use of the room was free, and the invitation was extended to anyone who wanted to attend, Bulb residents included. Whatever you may think about yacht clubs (and much of it might be true), the screening was fully accessible to everyone reading this thread.

> "You're perfect! Don't change a thing!"

Let's agree that the Bulb is in fact the "local treasure sought out by visitors and residents alike as an inspiration about the radical use of space" as described above.

But will it stay that way? Population tripled in the last few years, now estimated at 75. Current residents have expressed concern as the growth continues. Will this utopian vision scale up?

Rainbow Village, when it was established on Berkeley's own landfill waterfront in 1985, began with much the same ideology. And the City provided water, sanitation and trash collection. It all ended when a visitor was murdered. Perhaps it's wrong to rely on a single incident, no matter how egregious, to discredit the concept of a self-regulated homeless encampment. But by most accounts, Rainbow Village did not scale.

Dignity Village, on the other hand, seems to have found a stable equilibrium with an effective form of local government. The trailer that Patrick pointed to is great, don't miss it. But also see the wikipedia entry for Dignity Village: The enforced relocation to the site near the airport is where the successful village ended up, although this is not really clear from the trailer. Every city and town should have something similar.

That said, I submit that the Albany Bulb is not the place for a Dignity Village. It's too expensive to provide utilities, too far from services, and population growth become increasingly incompatible with other uses.