Public vs. Public Access
For my public policy analysis class, I have been working on a mock Cabinet Submission on the access of homeless people to public spaces, and their rights when in these spaces, most specifically, do they have a right to sleep in public places? My answer so far has been yes, withing limitations, if we don't have enough shelters for these people, than where else are they supposed to go?
Anyways, this has gotten me thinking about broader questions about how we, the public, view our spaces. It is my belief that we increasingly have turned public spaces into public access spaces via user fees, limitations, regulations and probably (well, in my mind) most profoundly by the increasing adoption of CPTED (Crime Prevention through Environmental Design) initiatives that are being adopted nation-wide by various police agencies. This has led me to question how these initiatives have shaped how we view public spaces because the main idea behind CPTED regarding public spots such as parks is to make it easily for surveillance and clearly defined for 'legitimate' users as opposed to 'illegitimate' users. This has made parks boards including measures such as benches that have handles through the seats so that people cannot sleep on them. This has led me to think that 'illegitimate' users are specifically the homeless, which of course, makes sense from a police perspective.
My final question is when did we give the police the right to decide who is legitimate and who is illegitimate when it comes to public spaces? Isn't that the right of the government who administers such spaces? Don't get me wrong, I believe that regulation is needed to preserve such spaces and for public safety, but if we continue to redefine public spaces as only open to legitimate users as defined by the police, they are no longer public, but rather public access. Further, if we continue to push illegitimate users such as the street person that can't get a bed at the local shelter away from places such as parks, then where are they going to go? this is only serving to further ghettoize the people that are left on the margins.
Anyways, this has gotten me thinking about broader questions about how we, the public, view our spaces. It is my belief that we increasingly have turned public spaces into public access spaces via user fees, limitations, regulations and probably (well, in my mind) most profoundly by the increasing adoption of CPTED (Crime Prevention through Environmental Design) initiatives that are being adopted nation-wide by various police agencies. This has led me to question how these initiatives have shaped how we view public spaces because the main idea behind CPTED regarding public spots such as parks is to make it easily for surveillance and clearly defined for 'legitimate' users as opposed to 'illegitimate' users. This has made parks boards including measures such as benches that have handles through the seats so that people cannot sleep on them. This has led me to think that 'illegitimate' users are specifically the homeless, which of course, makes sense from a police perspective.
My final question is when did we give the police the right to decide who is legitimate and who is illegitimate when it comes to public spaces? Isn't that the right of the government who administers such spaces? Don't get me wrong, I believe that regulation is needed to preserve such spaces and for public safety, but if we continue to redefine public spaces as only open to legitimate users as defined by the police, they are no longer public, but rather public access. Further, if we continue to push illegitimate users such as the street person that can't get a bed at the local shelter away from places such as parks, then where are they going to go? this is only serving to further ghettoize the people that are left on the margins.

