After reading up on this I’m actually going to have to side with the NIMBY’s on this one. Public space is maybe the only thing in California that’s in shorter supply than housing. And reportedly there are plenty of surface parking lots that could be built on since the university needs more housing.
The problem here is NIMBYs aren’t acting in good faith, if UC did take up on that suggestion, you know they will force UC to start from scratch and still fight UC every step of the way
I’m a Berkeley alum and the counterpoint is that, while People’s Park is some (relatively) rare green space near downtown Berkeley, it has been, for the past 20 years, solely the domain of the homeless, drug-addicted, and mentally unwell. It’s not usable public space for most residents. You cannot have a peaceful picnic in People’s Park. The housing proposal included a facility to house and offer services for homeless people, to its credit.
I have mixed feelings about it being turned into housing, but it was unusable as a park and Berkeley has a severe housing shortage. Only freshmen* are guaranteed on-campus housing, a large fraction of the housing in town is owned and operated by a convicted human trafficker, and there was a highly-publicized story about a student who recently completed his degree by living in SoCal and flying to Berkeley a few times a week. The situation is quite dire and Berkeley is really doing quite well when it comes to not having surface parking. There are a couple of lots near the football stadium that are surface lots, but most everything else is a parking structure, usually with an activated roof of some sort.
After reading up on this I’m actually going to have to side with the NIMBY’s on this one. Public space is maybe the only thing in California that’s in shorter supply than housing. And reportedly there are plenty of surface parking lots that could be built on since the university needs more housing.
It’s not like NIMBYs ever fought tooth and nail to protect park lots
That would be silly
Well that’s why it’s surprising. Usually they are my sworn enemy.
The problem here is NIMBYs aren’t acting in good faith, if UC did take up on that suggestion, you know they will force UC to start from scratch and still fight UC every step of the way
Of course. But that doesn’t change my feelings about this particular project.
Anyway, I don’t live in Berkeley so my opinion hardly matters.
I’m a Berkeley alum and the counterpoint is that, while People’s Park is some (relatively) rare green space near downtown Berkeley, it has been, for the past 20 years, solely the domain of the homeless, drug-addicted, and mentally unwell. It’s not usable public space for most residents. You cannot have a peaceful picnic in People’s Park. The housing proposal included a facility to house and offer services for homeless people, to its credit.
I have mixed feelings about it being turned into housing, but it was unusable as a park and Berkeley has a severe housing shortage. Only freshmen* are guaranteed on-campus housing, a large fraction of the housing in town is owned and operated by a convicted human trafficker, and there was a highly-publicized story about a student who recently completed his degree by living in SoCal and flying to Berkeley a few times a week. The situation is quite dire and Berkeley is really doing quite well when it comes to not having surface parking. There are a couple of lots near the football stadium that are surface lots, but most everything else is a parking structure, usually with an activated roof of some sort.
Everyone is a NIMBY, some just don’t know the issue and the timing
Edit: downvote from someone who hasn’t found their issue yet.