Whatever happened to the nice bench at the corner of Bryant and Churchill? Around Town, posted by Susan, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Jul 21, 2011 at 3:42 pm
It was such a nice bench, and in a very shaded corner of our town. I used to love to sit there and read a chapter of my book. A very interesting African American man began to use it to take a nap. I talked to him several times, and his life story was very interesting. He told me that it was only a matter of time before the bench was removed, because the local neighbors don't like poor black people. I thought he was being overly concerned, but he was right, and the bench was removed. This was a real shame.
I would like to know who made that bigoted decision. Does anybody know? Is there a public records act that allows one to trace the details of that horrible and racist decision? For example, who were the neighbors who complained to the city, and who gave the work order to remove the bench?
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jul 23, 2011 at 11:08 pm
Minus the sarcasm I have to agree with Outside Observer. The homeless ruin everything like that for all the rest of us. Who wants to have a homeless person who does not live here sitting next to them while waiting for the best or whatever. The guy needs to get some help and we all need to figure out a way to maintain society in the face of homelessness and desperation because it is going to get worse.
The answer is not let them sleep all over the place. Very sad, sorry you lost your bench.
Posted by palo alto mom, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Jul 24, 2011 at 11:37 am
My guess is that the bench was removed because it was being slept on - not because of "poor black people". New benches are deliberately sized to discourage homeless (and non-homeless) people from sleeping on them in the parks. BTW - if the man that slept there was the gentleman with the shower caps and lots of bags covering his body, he is also one of the people who use yards as toilets. I know because I've picked up after him.
Posted by Susan, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on Jul 24, 2011 at 5:16 pm
Oh my! The bench was clearly on public property. One can go by that spot and still see the outline of it (Bryant and Churchill). That is, until a new work order goes out, and the spot is painted over.
I personally oppose a ban on overnight car sleepers, but I can also understand why College Terrace residents have had too much of it. The general City attitude is to send "them" over to CT, while, at the same time removing the single bench in the toney part of town. This was a lovely bench, but now it is gone, because the elites demand their own solutions.
If I lived in CT, I would demand that the homeless move over into the elite parts of Palo Alto. Why not? Where do the mayor, and the rest of the city council, live? What is the public record, regarding the original work order to remove this lovely and peaceful bench?
Posted by Susan, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on May 11, 2012 at 8:08 pm
Other neighborhoods have made your argument, for example, College Terrace, which is tryly impacted by vagrants. However, that single lovely bench, on a public corner, was a classic, until a black guy started napping on it. Then it got removed.
Who drove the removal? Where is the work order? This is a very easy reporting case for the Weekly or the Daily. Who will report on it?
Posted by Susan, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on May 11, 2012 at 8:32 pm
"The issue is the safety of our children"
Was that black man a threat to your children? He seemed pretty harmless to me, just out of the mainstream, and the police knew him. I think there are some serous threats in places like College Terrace, yet they get no similar "help" from the city.
Who gave the order to remove this lovely bench? When? Why? Work order?
It is time to bring back that bench. It was there for decades. Was it destroyed? If so, who gave the order to destroy it?
This is a simple story, with deep implications. Like a Southern novel, sans the alligators and swamps. Why the coverup? Who, among the powerful, is being protected? Why is the local press silent? Old money, or new money?