"Sleep-in" planned in response to Albany Bulb evictions

Bulb resident KC, pictured here in a screen shot from Ken Fisher's short film, Share the Bulb.

As we recently reported, more than 60 homeless residents are facing eviction from the Albany Bulb. For decades, penniless and marginalized Bay Area residents have taken up residence in the unique shoreline park, creating makeshift structures and a tenuous yet tight-knit community. A former landfill, the Bulb is also a popular urban refuge that lures weekend adventurers and dog walkers with wild nature trails and DIY art pieces.

The homeless residents have long been at the center of battles over the park's use. Most recently, the city of Albany ordered police to begin enforcing an ordinance prohibiting camping on the land, effective in October.

In response, a group called Share the Bulb has organized a sleep-in, “to defend the space against impending eviction,” according to a Facebook event announcement. The one-night campout will take place Wed/2 at 6pm, featuring a documentary screening, potluck dinner and live musical performance, according to the event page.

“We hope that all attendees will respect Bulb residents’ leadership,” a Share the Bulb organizer wrote on the event website. “They have requested that people come with the plan of staying for one night only, and that the event not be branded as Occupy. We will discuss plans for the future on Wednesday night.” Organizers have requested that participants meet at the Bulb parking lot for directions to “resident-approved camping locations.” 

We also heard from local filmmaker Ken Fisher, who produced a short film on the plight of the Bulb’s homeless residents. (Another documentary on the Bulb, by Andy Kreamer, is featured on the Share the Bulb site). Fisher's film features two individuals Carly Nairn interviewed for her Bay Guardian story: Attorney Osha Neumann, who is advocating on behalf the homeless residents; and Bulb dweller Katherine Cody, who goes by KC and has been living in the shoreline park for three years. Check it out:


Posted by Guest on Sep. 30, 2013 @ 3:18 pm

this is simply a troll barrier

it is a signpost to indicate to the reader that other anonymous posters on this thread are beginning to purposely diminish the conversation into reactionary hyperbole and/or petty, mean spirited, personal attacks and irrelevant bickering

the barrier is put in place to signal that there is probably little point in reading more replies in the thread past this point

proceed at your own risk

Posted by troll barrier on Sep. 30, 2013 @ 4:19 pm

linking up with other natural spaces - not to allow freeloaders to monopolize a public space which is supposed to be available to everyone. In addition they've been defecating and littering for years in that spot, which has signifigantly degraded the environment and which will cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands to repair.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Sep. 30, 2013 @ 3:54 pm

It's a landfill...

Posted by Guest on Oct. 02, 2013 @ 8:33 pm

MODERATOR, PLEASE PROHIBIT troll barrier from posting those stupid posts.it makes one not want to come to this site anymore.

Posted by David Sloane on Sep. 30, 2013 @ 5:44 pm

is it completely lost on you that the level of endless petty bickering on this blog has declined *dramatically* since these troll barriers started going up? and - far fewer barriers are being required as time passes

isn't it better to see a bunch of these repeated barriers rather than endless streams of pages of insulting bitch sessions?

if you want things to really change, put your two cents in to call for a registration system, so that absurd but necessary measures like troll barriers become


Posted by racer x on Sep. 30, 2013 @ 7:22 pm

indicate that nothing substantial or convincing in terms of an argument or defense of certain contributors is being posted.

Posted by Guest III on Sep. 30, 2013 @ 7:46 pm
Posted by Guest on Oct. 01, 2013 @ 6:05 am












Posted by troll block on Oct. 01, 2013 @ 7:25 am

due to assertions, fallacies, unsubstantiated claims, platitudes, personal attacks and/or ad hominems that the previous post has contained.

Posted by Guest III on Oct. 01, 2013 @ 7:19 pm

Those high white curtains which hid from the eyes the bed placed as if in the rear of a sanctuary; the scattering of light silk counterpanes, of quilts with flowers, of embroidered bedspreads, of linen pillowcases, this scattering under which it disappeared in the daytime, as an altar in the month of Mary under festoons and flowers, and which, in the evening, in order to go to bed, I would place cautiously on an armchair where they consented to spend the night; by the bed, the trinity of the glass with blue patterns, the matching sugar bowl, and the decanter (always empty, since the day after my arrival, by order of my aunt who was afraid to see it "spill"), these instruments, as it were, of the cult-almost as sacred as the precious orange blossom liqueur placed near them in a glass phial-,which I would no more have thought of profaning nor even of possibly using for myself than if they had been consecrated ciboria, but which I would examine a long time before undressing, for fear of upsetting them by a false motion; those little crocheted open-work stoles which threw on the backs of the armchair a mantel of white roses that must not have been without thorns since every time I was through reading and wanted to I noticed I remained caught in them; that glass bell on which, isolated from vulgar contacts, the clock was babbling privately for shells come from far away and for an old sentimental flower, but which was so heavy to lift that when the clock stopped, nobody but the clock-maker would have been foolhardy enough to undertake to wind it up; that very white guipure tablecloth which, thrown as an altar runner across the chest of drawers adorned with two vases, a picture of the Savior, and a twig of blessed boxwood made it resemble the Lord's Table (of which a priedieu, placed there every day, when the room war "done," finished evoking the idea), but whose frayings always catching in the chinks of the drawers stopped their movement so completely that I could never take out a handkerchief without at once knocking down the picture of the Savior, the sacred vases, the twig of blessed boxwood, and without stumbling and catching hold of the priedieu; finally, that triple layer of little bolting-cloth curtains, of large muslin curtains, and of larger dimity curtains always smiling in their often sunny hawthorn whiteness, but in reality very irritating in their awkwardness and stubbornness in playing around the parallel wooden bars and tangling in one another and getting all in the window as soon as I wanted to open or close it, -a second one being always ready if I succeeded in extricating the first to come to take its place immediately in the cracks as perfectly plugged by them as they would have been by a real hawthorn bush or by nests of swallows that might have had the fancy to settle there, so that this operation, in appearance so simple, of opening or closing my window, I never succeeded in doing without the help of someone in the house; all those things which not only could not answer any of my needs, but were even an impediment however slight, to their satisfaction, which evidently had never been placed there for someone's use, peopled my room with thoughts somehow personal, with that air of predilection, of having chosen to live there and delighting in it, which, often the trees in a clearing and the flowers on the road side or on old walls have.

Posted by Literary Troll Barrier! on Sep. 30, 2013 @ 7:49 pm

You know, I had never actually read Proust, until you posted that, and I looked it up.

The next time someone complains about one of my run-on sentences, I'll show them this...

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 30, 2013 @ 8:12 pm

all of your posts are full of high logic and full of irrefutable opinions as fact that are beyond dispute for those of the correct intellectual and educated persuasion.

Posted by Matlock on Sep. 30, 2013 @ 7:59 pm

We accept you, we accept you, one of us, one of us! Gabba Gabba!

We accept you, we accept you, one of us, one of us! Gabba Gabba!

We accept you, we accept you, one of us, one of us! Gabba Gabba!

We accept you, we accept you, one of us, one of us! Gabba Gabba!

We accept you, we accept you, one of us, one of us! Gabba Gabba!

We accept you, we accept you, one of us, one of us! Gabba Gabba!

Posted by Troll Barrier Supreme! on Sep. 30, 2013 @ 6:31 pm

I'll bring the madeleines!

Posted by Chromefields on Oct. 01, 2013 @ 7:19 am

The Primitiveness of the Economists and the Organization of the Revolutionaries

Rabocheye Dyelo’s assertions, which we have analyzed, that the economic struggle is the most widely applicable means of political agitation and that our task now is to lend the economic struggle itself a political character, etc., express a narrow view, not only of our political, but also of our organizational tasks. The “economic struggle against the employers and the government” does not at all require an all-Russia centralized organization, and hence this struggle can never give rise to such an organization as will combine, in one general assault, all the manifestations of political opposition, protest, and indignation, an organization that will consist of professional revolutionaries and be led by the real political leaders of the entire people. This stands to reason. The character of any organization is naturally and inevitably determined by the content of its activity. Consequently, Rabocheye Dyelo, by the assertions analyzed above, sanctifies and legitimizes not only narrowness of political activity, but also of organizational work. In this case, Rabocheye Dyelo, as always, proves itself an organ whose consciousness yields to spontaneity. Yet subservience to spontaneously developing forms of organisation, failure to realise the narrowness and primitiveness of our organisational work, of our “handicraft” methods in this most important sphere, failure to realise this, I say, is a veritable ailment from which our movement suffers. It is not an ailment that comes with decline, but one, of course, that comes with growth. It is however at the present time, when the wave of spontaneous indignation, as it were, is sweeping over us, leaders and organisers of the movement, that an irreconcilable struggle must be waged against all defence of backwardness, against any legitimation of narrowness in this matter. It is particularly necessary to arouse in all who participate in practical work, or are preparing to take up that work, discontent with the amateurism prevailing among us and an unshakable determination to rid ourselves of it.


We shall try to answer this question by giving a brief description of the activity of a typical Social-Democratic study circle of the period 1894-1901. We have noted that the entire student youth of the period was absorbed in Marxism. Of course, these students were not only, or even not so much, interested in Marxism as a theory; they were interested in it as an answer to the question, “What is to be done?”, as a call to take the field against the enemy. These new warriors marched to battle with astonishingly primitive equipment and training. In a vast number of cases they had almost no equipment and absolutely no training. They marched to war like peasants from the plough, armed only with clubs. A students’ circle establishes contacts with workers and sets to work, without any connection with the old members of the movement, without any connection with study circles in other districts, or even in other parts of the same city (or in other educational institutions), without any organisation of the various divisions of revolutionary work, without any systematic plan of activity covering any length of time. The circle gradually expands its propaganda and agitation; by its activities it wins the sympathies of fairly large sections of workers and of a certain section of the educated strata, which provide it with money and from among whom the “committee” recruits new groups of young people. The attractive power of the committee (or League of Struggle) grows, its sphere of activity becomes wider, and the committee expands this activity quite spontaneously; the very people who a year or a few months previously spoke at the students’ circle gatherings and discussed the question, “Whither?”, who established and maintained contacts with the workers and wrote and published leaflets, now, establish contacts with other groups of revolutionaries, procure literature, set to work to publish a local newspaper, begin to talk of organising a demonstration, and finally turn to open warfare (which may, according to circumstances, take the form of issuing the first agitational leaflet or the first issue of a newspaper, or of organising the first demonstration). Usually the initiation of such actions ends in an immediate and complete fiasco. Immediate and complete, because this open warfare was not the result of a systematic and carefully thought-out and gradually prepared plan for a prolonged and stubborn struggle, but simply the result of the spontaneous growth of traditional study circle work; because, naturally, the police, in almost every case, knew the principal leaders of the local movement, since they had already “gained a reputation” for themselves in their student days, and the police waited only for the right moment to make their raid. They deliberately allowed the study circle sufficient time to develop its work so that they might, obtain a palpable corpus delicti, and they always permitted several of the persons known to them to remain at liberty “for breeding” (which, as far as I know, is the technical term used both by our people and by the gendarmes). One cannot help comparing this kind of warfare with that conducted by a mass of peasants, armed with clubs, against modern troops. And one can only wonder at the vitality of the movement which expanded, grew, and scored victories despite the total lack of training on the part of the fighters. True, from the historical point of view, the primitiveness of equipment was not only inevitable at first, but even legitimate as one of the conditions for the wide recruiting of fighters, but as soon as serious war operations began (and they began in fact with the strikes in the summer of 1896), the defects in our fighting organisations made themselves felt to an ever-increasing degree. The government, at first thrown into confusion and committing a number of blunders (e.g., its appeal to the public describing the misdeeds of the socialists, or the banishment of workers from the capitals to provincial industrial centres), very soon adapted itself to the new conditions of the struggle and managed to deploy well its perfectly equipped detachments of agents provocateurs, spies, and gendarmes. Raids became so frequent, affected such a vast number of people, and cleared out the local study circles so thoroughly that the masses of the workers lost literally all their leaders, the movement assumed an amazingly sporadic character, and it became utterly impossible to establish continuity and coherence in the work. The terrible dispersion of the local leaders; the fortuitous character of the study circle memberships; the lack of training in, and the narrow outlook on, theoretical, political, and organisational questions were all the inevitable result of the conditions described above. Things have reached such a pass that in several places the workers, because of our lack of self-restraint and the inability to maintain secrecy, begin to lose faith in the intellectuals and to avoid them; the intellectuals, they say, are much too careless and cause police raids!

Posted by Revolutionary Troll Barrier! on Oct. 01, 2013 @ 8:07 am

The Proust barrier was better.

Posted by Chromefields on Oct. 01, 2013 @ 8:12 am

Proust is a better writer than Lenin.

But if you are going to post idiotic "troll barriers", why not fill them with cloying, unreadable, Bolshevik rhetoric? (Can you imagine that people had to take classes on this tripe in the Soviet Union?)

That is no worse than manically repeating the same thing over and over again.

Posted by Revolutionary Troll Barrier! on Oct. 01, 2013 @ 8:21 am

Let's hope racer x is listening.

Posted by Chromefields on Oct. 01, 2013 @ 8:40 am

The City of Albany has added information to the City's website regarding the Albany Bulb, Homelessness in Albany, and facts related to the City's efforts: http://www.albanyca.org/index.aspx?page=1297

Posted by City of Albany PIO on Oct. 01, 2013 @ 8:12 am

The City of Albany has added information to the City's website regarding the Albany Bulb, Homelessness in Albany, and facts related to the City's efforts: http://www.albanyca.org/index.aspx?page=1297

Posted by City of Albany on Oct. 01, 2013 @ 8:14 am

I remember walking out here with my girlfriend back in 2000, thought what a nice piece of land but said to myself housing is needed. Either it is a park or should be built for housing.

If it stays a park this homeless camp needs to be moved.

Posted by Garrett on Oct. 01, 2013 @ 11:50 am

First one there gets to sleep next to KC!

Posted by Chromefields on Oct. 01, 2013 @ 12:05 pm

Amazing how a bunch of lazy people are trying to convince the world of what they aren't, and present an image that doesn't exist.
The real image is these are MOSTLY drug addict alcoholic people with issues.
On top of it they hide their violent life style and pit bulls which have brought residents a lot of problems.
No one can walk around these camps in fear of attack from them!
Wake up, get a life and don't mislead people with your BS!


Posted by Guest on Oct. 02, 2013 @ 6:08 pm

I think campgrounds of some sort are perfect for homeless people. It is far more affordable for cities across the nation to build campgrounds (with hot showers, restrooms, lockers to store valuables) for the homeless, than to try to build innumerable "homeless shelters" which are expensive, and the homeless people don't like them because they can't stay there all day and they don't allow enough privacy or individual expression. A campground where homeless people can to some extent design their own home is perfect.
Albany bulb may not be the place for this, but cities across the nation should begin thinking about building campgrounds for the homeless. The problem with Albany Bulb as a homeless camp is that you can't very well combine a homeless camp with a city or state park. Albany BUlb used to be a regional park with a few homeless people living there. It is now a homeless camp with a few intrepid souls daring to walk in there, amid massive encampments and angry dogs caged in large kennels. People who come to use a park generally do not want to encounter homeless persons in the park...it makes it awkward when you're walking along a trail and suddenly find yourself in someone's de facto living room or bedroom. Albany BUlb has NO public restrooms in the homeless encampment area, so there has been a human waste disposal issue there for quite some time.

HOmeless campgrounds could be built in industrial areas of cities, and homeless individuals could do art there and to some extent decorate their own home. THis is a far more humane solution than leaving people to live on sidewalks or in the bushes under highway overpasses, and more realistic than thinking that it is possible to finance the number of homeless shelters we need for all the homeless in the US.

Posted by No more taxes on Oct. 25, 2013 @ 11:45 am

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.