Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Expanding Police Power on the Beach: Rotkin Vs. Meyberg Debate
A new law to cover up more Parks and Recreation bad citatations? That's how attorney Meyberg characterizes the latest Rotkin-backed ordinance at City Council coming up for a final vote on April 10th. 10 AM- 11 AM on Free Radio Santa Cruz with Robert Norse moderating. Tune in at http://www.freakradio.org or 101.1 FM. Call in at 831-427-3772 or 831-469-3119.
Attorney David Meyberg and activist Jhon Golder spent an hour and a half on Sunday April 1st, dissecting the proposed law.
Check out their discussion at http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb070401.mp3 (about half way into the file).
At issue: P & R "lifeguards" armed with batons stopped some surfers from a surf school from walking across a public beach to the waves. The P & R lifeguards claimed that the City "owned" the beach and could block access of the school unless the school paid them a fee.
David Meyberg successfully argued in appealing the tickets that the city's law allowed for no such thing. He also reportedly plans to sue the beachbum gumshoes, perhaps for false arrest. In response, with no stats about a crime wave or a need to suddenly pass a law that will prevent independent surfer school access to the beach, City Council is moving to expand the police power of the lifeguards to okay what they did and allow it again in the future.
Council critic Norse, who will be moderating the debate, believes this is another instance of after-the-fact legalizing bad police and staff decisions. It was done in 1994 and again in 2002 with nastier Downtown Ordinances giving police broader powers downtown. It's happened last year when P & R drove The Potters Hand (a homeless feeding program) from San Lorenzo Park and Grants Street Park.
P & R has been showered with money this year septupling (increasing by a factor of seven) its police power in the Pogonip, with no checks on out-of-control Ranger John Wallace, who has been regularly destroying homeless survival gear and camps in violation of the federal Constitution. [See details of the Fresno Kinkaid decision at http://www.fresnoalliance.com/home/homelessness.htm]
Listen in and call in, and then call City Council and tell them to vote no on this expansion at 420-5020.
Be advised, however, the fix is probably in on this bill.
Norse hopes to follow a format that allows non-Council members the time and liberty usually allowed Council members, but also gives Councilmember Rotkin the power to question, challenge, and debate--in a format we'd like to see applied to City Council. Or so host Norse hopes.
Check out their discussion at http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb070401.mp3 (about half way into the file).
At issue: P & R "lifeguards" armed with batons stopped some surfers from a surf school from walking across a public beach to the waves. The P & R lifeguards claimed that the City "owned" the beach and could block access of the school unless the school paid them a fee.
David Meyberg successfully argued in appealing the tickets that the city's law allowed for no such thing. He also reportedly plans to sue the beachbum gumshoes, perhaps for false arrest. In response, with no stats about a crime wave or a need to suddenly pass a law that will prevent independent surfer school access to the beach, City Council is moving to expand the police power of the lifeguards to okay what they did and allow it again in the future.
Council critic Norse, who will be moderating the debate, believes this is another instance of after-the-fact legalizing bad police and staff decisions. It was done in 1994 and again in 2002 with nastier Downtown Ordinances giving police broader powers downtown. It's happened last year when P & R drove The Potters Hand (a homeless feeding program) from San Lorenzo Park and Grants Street Park.
P & R has been showered with money this year septupling (increasing by a factor of seven) its police power in the Pogonip, with no checks on out-of-control Ranger John Wallace, who has been regularly destroying homeless survival gear and camps in violation of the federal Constitution. [See details of the Fresno Kinkaid decision at http://www.fresnoalliance.com/home/homelessness.htm]
Listen in and call in, and then call City Council and tell them to vote no on this expansion at 420-5020.
Be advised, however, the fix is probably in on this bill.
Norse hopes to follow a format that allows non-Council members the time and liberty usually allowed Council members, but also gives Councilmember Rotkin the power to question, challenge, and debate--in a format we'd like to see applied to City Council. Or so host Norse hopes.
Add Your Comments
Comments (Hide Comments)
Thursday Apr 5th, 2007 8:04 PM
I have never seen Robert Norse before. But I saw this article in the Sentinel, and this article and photo looked so cheap and staged.
First, when describing his being dragged out of the council chambers for sitting in the audience and giving a silent nazi salute gesture while they were discussing something along the lines of driving the homeless out of the large forested park or downtown, they were not clear at all whether he was implying that this was a fascist law, or whether he himself was a nazi. They are clearly leaning towards saying that he is a nazi.
Secondly, they have this photo of him sort of pointing at something with his right arm, outside of the building, and it clearly looked like they snuck up on him and waited for him to lift his arm.
Then tonight on 101.1FM, he was explaining that this is pretty much what they did. I couldn't listen to the whole segment because I had to turn the radio off, but he was saying that he almost expected them to try to trick him into posing like that, and that they sneakily caught him.
The photo is no longer attached to the article for some reason, but it looked ridiculous. It was like they stood there until he pointed at a bird up in a tree or something and was sort of in midsentence.
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2007/April/04/local/stories/09local.htm
First, when describing his being dragged out of the council chambers for sitting in the audience and giving a silent nazi salute gesture while they were discussing something along the lines of driving the homeless out of the large forested park or downtown, they were not clear at all whether he was implying that this was a fascist law, or whether he himself was a nazi. They are clearly leaning towards saying that he is a nazi.
Secondly, they have this photo of him sort of pointing at something with his right arm, outside of the building, and it clearly looked like they snuck up on him and waited for him to lift his arm.
Then tonight on 101.1FM, he was explaining that this is pretty much what they did. I couldn't listen to the whole segment because I had to turn the radio off, but he was saying that he almost expected them to try to trick him into posing like that, and that they sneakily caught him.
The photo is no longer attached to the article for some reason, but it looked ridiculous. It was like they stood there until he pointed at a bird up in a tree or something and was sort of in midsentence.
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2007/April/04/local/stories/09local.htm
Friday Apr 6th, 2007 12:58 PM
The previous comment is posted under the wrong article; it more properly belongs at
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/03/27/18383947.php?show_comments=1#18384888 under the story Federal Hoedown: In Court with Four Attorneys, Three Mayors, One Cop, and a Bad Judge
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/03/27/18383947.php?show_comments=1#18384888 under the story Federal Hoedown: In Court with Four Attorneys, Three Mayors, One Cop, and a Bad Judge
Friday Apr 6th, 2007 1:03 PM
In response to "cp"
The fascist salute case didn't directly involve the homeless issue (though it had been a major activity earlier in the afternoon). It was rather a straight response to an abusive "sit down or we'll arrest you" attitude and decision by Mayor Krohn, violating a previous agreement he'd had to let Susan Zeeman speak.
The second false arrest in the lawsuit (January 2004) did directly concern the homeless issue. Mayor Kennedy's denied homeless supporters an accessible oral communications period, and then bullyed and abused them from his immune position as Mayor.
"Reporter" McCord and photographer Coyro did try to get me to make a fascist salute for their photo. I felt the issue was one of Council repression and that the fascist salute angle was sensationist. So I declined to pose for one. They played it up anyway catching me just before or after I'd shown it to McCord to demonstrate how brief it was.
The fascist salute case didn't directly involve the homeless issue (though it had been a major activity earlier in the afternoon). It was rather a straight response to an abusive "sit down or we'll arrest you" attitude and decision by Mayor Krohn, violating a previous agreement he'd had to let Susan Zeeman speak.
The second false arrest in the lawsuit (January 2004) did directly concern the homeless issue. Mayor Kennedy's denied homeless supporters an accessible oral communications period, and then bullyed and abused them from his immune position as Mayor.
"Reporter" McCord and photographer Coyro did try to get me to make a fascist salute for their photo. I felt the issue was one of Council repression and that the fascist salute angle was sensationist. So I declined to pose for one. They played it up anyway catching me just before or after I'd shown it to McCord to demonstrate how brief it was.
Monday Apr 9th, 2007 8:54 AM
The old (current) law is:
13.10.010 PERMIT FOR SALES IN PUBLIC PARKS AND BEACHES.
No person shall sell any goods, food, beverages or any other thing in any public park or on any public beach under the jurisdiction of the department of parks and recreation, unless authorized by a permit issued pursuant to this chapter and unless in conformity with the terms and conditions of such permit. (Ord. 80-32 § 2 (part), 1980).
The new law (voted unanimously by City Council two weeks ago at a first reading and coming up for a final reading as Item #15 on the afternoon agenda (shortly after 3 PM) Tuesday April 10 at City Council (809 Center St.).
It reads:
13.10.010 COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES AND SALES IN PUBLIC PARKS AND BEACHES.
In City parks and on City beaches including all waters for which the City has law enforcement authority, jurisdiction and lifeguarding responsibility, no person shall solicit, sell, hawk, or peddle any goods, wares, merchandise, services, liquids, or edibles for human consumption, except as permitted by the City.
This prohibition includes sales activities that utilize park and beach property or facilities to complete the terms of sale or provide a service as a result of the sale or that effect park or beach operations, facility use or visitor safety.
This prohibition also includes sales activities which encroach on the sales rights of a vendor authorized to sell such products or services pursuant to a concession contract with the City.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Councilmember Rotkin defended the law in a debate with Jhon Golder, attorney David Meyberg, and host Robert Norse on Free Radio Santa Cruz on Sunday.
The debate is saved at http://www.radiolibre.org/ brb/brb070408.mp3 (about half way through the file).
Norse accused Parks and Recreation of pushing a law that significantly expanded its authority in order to justify one citation to Surf School teacher, whose "crime" was walking across the beach to use the surf, and by doing so supposedly "using" Parks and Recration beach facilities (the access path).
The citation was appealed and reversed by attorney Meyberg, who says he'll probably be challenging the new law if it passes as written.
Rotkin said at Council two weeks ago that the law was needed to deal with a variety of situations, but confronted on the air, could not name one. Nor could he explain why the matter had to be done so quickly.
Golder raised constitutional considerations and pointed out the lack of documentation available to justify the law as well as the difficulty of getting information from the Parks and Recreation Department.
Rotkin insisted that the principle involved was the city's right to charge private businesses using public facilities. However the law specifies "persons" not businesses.
He also spoke of the need to "generate revenue" and to protect vendors already contracting with the city.
At the last Council meeting Councilmember Ed Porter asked Parks and Recreation to specify what the fees and fines would be before the final reading. Rotkin said he did not think that was important or necessary and would be worked out in the course of time.
The issue is being brought up at an afternoon session difficult to attend for most working people. Evening sessions now seem to reserved for special interest developer items.
13.10.010 PERMIT FOR SALES IN PUBLIC PARKS AND BEACHES.
No person shall sell any goods, food, beverages or any other thing in any public park or on any public beach under the jurisdiction of the department of parks and recreation, unless authorized by a permit issued pursuant to this chapter and unless in conformity with the terms and conditions of such permit. (Ord. 80-32 § 2 (part), 1980).
The new law (voted unanimously by City Council two weeks ago at a first reading and coming up for a final reading as Item #15 on the afternoon agenda (shortly after 3 PM) Tuesday April 10 at City Council (809 Center St.).
It reads:
13.10.010 COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES AND SALES IN PUBLIC PARKS AND BEACHES.
In City parks and on City beaches including all waters for which the City has law enforcement authority, jurisdiction and lifeguarding responsibility, no person shall solicit, sell, hawk, or peddle any goods, wares, merchandise, services, liquids, or edibles for human consumption, except as permitted by the City.
This prohibition includes sales activities that utilize park and beach property or facilities to complete the terms of sale or provide a service as a result of the sale or that effect park or beach operations, facility use or visitor safety.
This prohibition also includes sales activities which encroach on the sales rights of a vendor authorized to sell such products or services pursuant to a concession contract with the City.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Councilmember Rotkin defended the law in a debate with Jhon Golder, attorney David Meyberg, and host Robert Norse on Free Radio Santa Cruz on Sunday.
The debate is saved at http://www.radiolibre.org/ brb/brb070408.mp3 (about half way through the file).
Norse accused Parks and Recreation of pushing a law that significantly expanded its authority in order to justify one citation to Surf School teacher, whose "crime" was walking across the beach to use the surf, and by doing so supposedly "using" Parks and Recration beach facilities (the access path).
The citation was appealed and reversed by attorney Meyberg, who says he'll probably be challenging the new law if it passes as written.
Rotkin said at Council two weeks ago that the law was needed to deal with a variety of situations, but confronted on the air, could not name one. Nor could he explain why the matter had to be done so quickly.
Golder raised constitutional considerations and pointed out the lack of documentation available to justify the law as well as the difficulty of getting information from the Parks and Recreation Department.
Rotkin insisted that the principle involved was the city's right to charge private businesses using public facilities. However the law specifies "persons" not businesses.
He also spoke of the need to "generate revenue" and to protect vendors already contracting with the city.
At the last Council meeting Councilmember Ed Porter asked Parks and Recreation to specify what the fees and fines would be before the final reading. Rotkin said he did not think that was important or necessary and would be worked out in the course of time.
The issue is being brought up at an afternoon session difficult to attend for most working people. Evening sessions now seem to reserved for special interest developer items.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$ 117.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network