yeah but like...
Trash pandas?
Raccoons. Small animals that look like pandas and go after trash. It's comical, like volunteers cleaning the campus of a university with a $7 billion endowment.
Aren't the pullouts closed with logs?
The pullouts are closed, but there's plenty of parking in front of the logs and along most of the shoulders. Hundreds of people park all along the road every day.
Isn't grizzly Peak a no parking zone?
On paper, but hundreds of people still park all along the road every day. Many if not most of the no parking signs have been cut off and thrown down the mountain - they're surprisingly heavy to haul up! - and we’ve never seen any form of enforcement.
That's not our trash!
Grizzly Peak is a hellish tangle of jurisdictional complexity. UC Berkeley and Oakland have primary responsibility for the road, pullouts, and lands to the west - the main trashed areas - but Alameda County, Contra Costa County, the City of Berkeley, Lawrence Berkeley Lab, the Lawrence Hall of Science, the East Bay Regional Park District, the East Bay Municipal Utility District, the state of California, several private owners, and the Tooth Fairy aren't afraid to get involved when they see fit. This Monty Python skit of governmental responsibility invariably leads to games of bureaucratic hot potato - we’ve even had one agency carry our trash across the road for another.
In many ways, Grizzly Peak is a microcosm of our politics writ large, where paralysis and inaction are the default positions and nothing ever seems to get done. In addition to the solutions proposed on our Views page, what Grizzly Peak really needs is a shift in outlook from problem to opportunity.
In many ways, Grizzly Peak is a microcosm of our politics writ large, where paralysis and inaction are the default positions and nothing ever seems to get done. In addition to the solutions proposed on our Views page, what Grizzly Peak really needs is a shift in outlook from problem to opportunity.
Won't trash cans just encourage more use?
The main objection we hear to installing trash cans is the idea that they'll somehow encourage more visitation, more trash, or both. We don't get it.
For starters, that cat is entirely out of the bag - Grizzly Peak currently sees hundreds of visitors every day, possibly thousands on summer weekends. Literally no one thinks hey, let's drive up for the trash cans! Instead, they think hey, let's drive up for the world-class views! Trash cans are a mature response to an established fact, not a tourist attraction.
Second, anything would be an improvement over the open dump status quo. Most people use "open dump" as hyperbole. Not here - Grizzly Peak is literally an open dump. If not providing trash cans is some sort of cynical management theory designed to deter use, it has failed. Worse, it flies in the face of the broken window theory and thus encourages the very antisocial behavior the logs were installed to deter.
Refusing to provide the same mature land management practices we offer in every other park and public space sends a clear message to Grizzly Peak's hundreds of daily visitors and tens of thousands of daily commuters, cyclists, and hikers that the government doesn't care. If we want to stop the erosion of public trust in institutions and civic cohesion, reclaiming this marquee site as a clean and welcoming space for everyone to enjoy would be a fantastic place to start.
For starters, that cat is entirely out of the bag - Grizzly Peak currently sees hundreds of visitors every day, possibly thousands on summer weekends. Literally no one thinks hey, let's drive up for the trash cans! Instead, they think hey, let's drive up for the world-class views! Trash cans are a mature response to an established fact, not a tourist attraction.
Second, anything would be an improvement over the open dump status quo. Most people use "open dump" as hyperbole. Not here - Grizzly Peak is literally an open dump. If not providing trash cans is some sort of cynical management theory designed to deter use, it has failed. Worse, it flies in the face of the broken window theory and thus encourages the very antisocial behavior the logs were installed to deter.
Refusing to provide the same mature land management practices we offer in every other park and public space sends a clear message to Grizzly Peak's hundreds of daily visitors and tens of thousands of daily commuters, cyclists, and hikers that the government doesn't care. If we want to stop the erosion of public trust in institutions and civic cohesion, reclaiming this marquee site as a clean and welcoming space for everyone to enjoy would be a fantastic place to start.
Why don't we just close the road?
Grizzly Peak Boulevard was constructed with public funds to serve as a scenic route for everyone to enjoy, and clean and welcoming common areas are essential to a healthy and thriving democracy. Rather than abandoning the best view in the Bay due to the actions of a few bad apples, let's use some of UC Berkeley's $7 billion endowment to offer the same mature land management practices we provide in every other park and public space.
Won't literal raccoons attack the cans?
Grizzly Peak is currently a 24-7 all-you-can-eat trash buffet. Installing animal-resistant cans will be like imposing a five-plate maximum.
I can see trash cans on street view!
Those images are several years old. Volunteers installed and emptied trash cans out of their own pockets for several years, but then someone removed them during the pandemic because of course they did.
This sounds hard!
Hundreds of tons of logs was harder.
This sounds expensive!
UC Berkeley has a $7 billion endowment.
Why are you doing this?
I love nature and I hate trash. Also, we live in a culture that encourages pessimism and passive consumption. This work brings people together and turns that frown upside down.