Bulb Settlement: Not the End, but a Major Step Forward

The settlement reached this week in Cody v. Albany is good news for all concerned, though it is already drawing fire from the ‘hard-nosed’ advocates for the Bulb campers, as well as from those who resent the transfer of tax dollars to them.  It is the nature of a compromise that it fails to make anyone really happy, and the anger at the extremes of the issue may actually be a good sign. 

The departing campers will have resources available to pursue a constructive transition through the Berkeley Food & Housing Project (BF&HP) and other nonprofits that are pitching in, as well as the $3,000 payment.  The past year was a constructive period for those campers who were housed by the city, and for those who used the time to secure benefits and sign up for programs that will help them move forward.   Hopefully, there are others among them who have used some of their extra time on the Bulb to plan their next steps in life.

The city staff, legal counsel, and elected leadership all deserve congratulation for an agreement that assures so many will leave the Bulb under their own power, at such a reasonable cost.  The campers’ lawyers deserve recognition of a sort for managing to keep their clients on the Bulb for an extra five months, in accordance with their wish to stay as long as possible – even if the extra time had deeply unfortunate consequences for ‘name’ plaintiff Katherine Cody.   Assuming the campers’ lawyers are waiving their fees, they have also secured some extra resources for their clients’ transitions.   

So far so good.  And now?  The news articles about the issue contain rumblings of continued ‘resistance’.  But it seems likely that the current Bulb encampments will soon be gone, and the area will be returned to the status quo that prevailed between 1999 and 2007 - when enforcement of the anti-camping ordinance kept the encampments few, transient, and low profile.   Hopefully, Albany will now be able to unite behind a serious effort to finally secure a family-friendly waterfront park to be enjoyed by all. 

While there is much to celebrate here for homeless advocates, park advocates, and good government advocates – campers getting funds and services, the public getting a park, the city avoiding major financial liability – there is also much to regret about what has happened.  We should all be disturbed by the waste of resources, on both litigation expense and the legally-required-but-unwanted temporary emergency shelter – it is painful that the lion’s share of the funds involved were used for these purposes, rather than to help the campers or restore the park.   

Less tangibly, there has been an horrendous waste of community good will.  Perhaps it is unsurprising that groups with varying priorities - homeless advocates, park advocates, good-government advocates – would fall into a blame game, and fail to work together to identify and achieve shared objections.  That’s always a risk in policy disputes.  But this dispute took an unnecessarily nasty turn, especially with the homeless advocates’ camping out at the home and office of a leading park advocate, with the ugliness of anonymous online comments, and so forth.  Let’s hope we are past the worst of this. 

Everyone involved in this situation will have his own take on what lessons should be drawn from the Bulb experience of the past year . . .  here is my own ‘top three’ list:

1)       Albany needs to fulfill its commitments and obey the law. 

As the Bulb issue came to a head a year ago, it brought to light the many ways that Albany was neglecting important legal and contractual duties.  Albany had a contractual obligation to the state to maintain the Bulb as a park accessible to all, which it violated when it suspended enforcement of the anti-camping ordinance in 2007.  It has legal obligations under the Clean Water Act, which it violated when it allowed trash, raw sewage, and erosion from ‘mines’ on the Bulb to flow into the Bay.  It has obligations under State health and safety codes and tort law to take measures prevent the foreseeable outbreak of communicable disease, dog bite injuries, drug sales, and other ills within its boundaries, which it violated by turning a blind eye to the dangerous and unhealthy situation on the Bulb.   

The Bulb issue also publicized some broader failings of the City that occurred over a much longer period of time, namely the failure to develop a compliant housing element to accommodate homeless shelter development and other housing needs, to properly maintain its sanitary sewers, and to secure its share of resources available for social services to its residents through state and county programs and private philanthropy.  Amber Whitson deserves our thanks for bringing these matters to broad public attention. 

2)      Albany needs more transparent government processes.

It is reasonably clear that in 2007, the city council decided to suspend enforcement of the city’s anti-camping ordinance.  I have tried and failed to find any documentation of that decision, such as a resolution, or minutes of a meeting.  I suspect that the decision was taken in a closed session due to the threat of litigation made by Osha Neumann in that year, in response to a routine enforcement action by the Albany police.  If this is correct, then the public never had a chance to weigh in on the matter, nor even to be properly informed that such action had been taken. 

Also, accountability for the decision is obscured – we simply do not know how it was made.  Litigation deliberations must not be allowed to become the new smoke-filled room – while discussions of legal strategy can and should be held in closed session, important policy decisions must be made in public. 

Could a settlement have been reached last year, one that directed more resources to needy campers’ benefit and fewer resources to not-so-needy lawyers and to unwanted services?  It seems to me that an opportunity was missed for such a resolution.  

The lion’s share of the responsibility rests with the campers’ lawyers, who refused to pursue such an approach until it was too late.  But the city could have been more proactive itself, pressing the campers’ lawyers to engage constructively before committing itself to the temporary emergency shelter program and to being sued by the campers.  We will never know if such an approach would have been successful, but surely it would have been worth a try. 

Let’s hope we can now pull together in a positive way to work for a better future for the campers, and for the park.   People who want to help the departing campers should consider checking in with BF&HP, or with Francesco Papalia who runs the terrific ‘Neighbors Helping Neighbors’ project, to see what they can do.  People with an interest in seeing the park completed should consider checking in with Citizens for East Shore Parks, the Sierra Club, or the East Bay Regional Parks Foundation to see what they can do to support that effort now that it has a real chance to progress. 

With some cooperation, and some luck, both Albany and its least fortunate residents can hopefully look forward to a brighter future.