Received: from hplms26.hpl.hp.com by opus.hpl.hp.com with SMTP (1.37.109.8/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA27965; Wed, 14 Sep 1994 18:25:44 -0700 Return-Path: <boehm@mri.com-DeleteThis> Received: from mri-gw.mri.com by hplms26.hpl.hp.com with SMTP (1.36.108.4/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1S) id AA01876; Wed, 14 Sep 1994 18:26:09 -0700 Received: from mri.com ([192.9.201.130]) by mri-gw.mri.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA16122; Wed, 14 Sep 94 18:23:05 PDT Received: from sun224.mri.com by mri.com (4.1/SMI-4.0) id AA06224; Wed, 14 Sep 94 18:22:59 PDT Date: Wed, 14 Sep 94 18:22:59 PDT From: boehm@mri.com-DeleteThis (Geoff Boehm) Message-Id: <9409150122.AA06224@mri.com-DeleteThis> To: wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis Subject: Re: 3rd ave Cc: boehm@mri.com-DeleteThis
I think you are all missing the point here. I don't think FC is
concerned about the cost of improvements, or the fire truck access.
They are concerned about asserting their property rights. This is
essentially the same thing that happened in People's Park in Berkeley
in 1967. Street people and students were using a piece of land that UC
had no current use for,and in so doing were putting it to much better
use than UC could at the time (the scene back then was much different -
not the sleazy mess it is now). But UC was afraid that the longer
people used it, the more they would feel they had a "right" to use it,
and when UC eventually wanted it back, they would have a fight. So
they nipped it in the bud (not that it worked - look at it now).
What we have to realize is that such concerns are valid. It would be
nice if we could think of a way to alleviate those concerns, but the
truth is that we can't - because whenever they decide to take back the
parking, they WILL have a fight. So they aren't going to be receptive
to any improvements, even if there is no cost, because that will only
make us want to hold on to the parking that much harder.
Think about how you would feel if somebody asked it was ok to camp on
an empty lot you owned in the mountains. Sure, no problem. You can ask
them to leave any time. Then, they ask if their friend can camp.
Then, they ask if maybe it would be ok to build an outhouse, or park a
mobile home...
It seems our only real hope of a solution is to make them feel secure
that they can take the land back at any time, and then hope that it's a
long time before they do. One way to do that might be to lease the
property at a low rate - then it's a business transaction with a fixed
timespan. Then it's real clear that we are paying for a privilege that
can be revoked on short notice, and we can only hope they don't sell it.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 10 2001 - 02:28:05 PST