Three law firms have written an ominous letter to the City of Albany, demanding that the City abandon its plan to offer transitional housing to campers required to leave the Bulb when enforcement of the anti-camping ordinance begins. They do not claim to represent anyone but themselves, but they assert that "[i]t is very clear to us from past experience and from conversations with current Bulb residents" that the campers will be unwilling to move into the housing the City proposes to provide. They demand that the City instead spend money on a plan to provide 'permanent' housing to the current Bulb residents.
Some prophecies are self-fulfilling. If a lawyer convinces me that it is not in my interest to do a particular thing, I will almost certainly not do it. Did the work of these lawyers undermine the efforts of the Berkeley Food & Housing Project and the Solano Community Church, which failed so dismally over the summer? And will they undermine an Operation Dignity effort to provide transitional housing and start people on the path to a better life?
Sadly, it appears that the campers, on advice of counsel, are pursuing what we might call a 'Blazing Saddles' strategy. They are saying: "Let us stay on the Bulb for the foreseeable future, and spend the City's money as we direct, or else . . . we will refuse transitional housing and throw ourselves right out onto the streets!"
The law firms suggest what they call 'a reasonable compromise'. But they are being disingenuous, because they KNOW their proposal will not achieve the City's objective of ending camping on the Bulb. Buried deep in a paragraph near the end of their four page letter are the following sentences: "People for whom housing was found would agree not to return. New people would not be permitted to take up residence on the Bulb." Oh, really ? How, precisely, is the City to legally and practicably stop new people from taking up residence? And how will housing ever "be found" for people who have no interest in moving into it? Haven't these matters been the heart of this issue since the spring, when the Housing Task Force was still holding its meetings?
This is not a 'reasonable compromise', it is a set up.
So should the City behave like the benighted townspeople and cave to the campers' demands ("Oh, baby, you are so talented--and they are so dumb!")? Or, should it risk spending another quarter of a million dollars on housing that will only cause the campers to turn up their noses?
The latter path will make it possible to legally recover the Bulb for the public. But it is still a tragedy for everyone involved to see public funds wasted to meet a legal requirement without benefiting anyone. The City has already spent some $60,000 on the failed Berkeley Food & Housing Project/Solano Community Church partnership 'outreach and engagement' effort. Are we doomed to watch another $250,000 wasted? Even worse, to see huge sums of public money burned up in litigation?
Here is a suggestion that might get the City out of this dilemma. The City Council should give its staff authority to move forward with the proposed transitional housing. But it should ALSO give it authority to send back to the lawyers a demand for explication of their proposals: how EXACTLY will they prevent new campers from moving in? and EXACTLY what housing offer by the City or its contractors will be considered sufficient to require a camper to move, whether that housing offer is accepted or not? After all, the City is already planning to offer housing, and the campers are already planning to reject it - so this is an issue that must be addressed.
The lawyers should have one week to answer these questions to the satisfaction of the City's lawyers, administration, and law enforcement. If they do - there will be a real proposal on the table for the Council to consider at its next meeting.
If they do not, then the transitional housing plan should go forward. Nobody should be too saddened, in this scenario if the campers decline the decent and dog- friendly transitional housing on offer by the City. Anyone who is not a subject of a conservatorship is ultimately responsible for choosing where they wish to live, and some may not choose wisely.
But at least we will have done our best (and invested several thousand dollars per camper) to provide them not only immediate shelter but a connection with services that can help them put together better lives over the long run. And, at long last, we can in good conscience recover the Albany Waterfront Park for use by the public - its rightful owners.
