Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Potty Talk
Bookshop SantaCruz Owner, Former Mayor, and Current Supervisor Neal Coonerty made some comments about vandalism, his bookshop, and homeless rights advocates Becky Johnson and Robert Norse on-line as a response to a Sentinel story about grafitti painted on City Hall yesterday. The Sentinel deleted the comment (as well as at least 25 others). I saved the webpage, yesterday, however--and here it is!
from: from: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2007/September/20/local/stories/02local.htm
"September 20, 2007
Neal Coonerty 9/19/2007 4:35 PM
Since Robert Norse and Becky Johnson have targeted Bookshop Santa Cruz with political camping ban demonstrations every weekend, the bathrooms at Bookshop Santa Cruz have been heavily vandalized. Someone has repeatedly smeared feces all over the walls and backed up the plumbing by stuffing material down the toilets and repeatedly flushing. Of course, given the privacy rights of people using a bathroom, we do not know who is doing this. However, we are aware of the fact that this vandalism was not happening before Robert Norse and Becky Johnson started their ill-informed protests, but the vandalism started once we were targeted by them.
Since we offer one of the few available bathrooms downtown at great expense to our business, it is always hard for us to understand why people would insist on trying to close them for political reasons or any other reasons.
What is also clear is that Robert Norse and Becky Johnson have always been a destructive force in our city and their efforts have continually harmed our homeless community."
MY COMMENT: First, if anyone wants to read the rash of anti-homeless bigotry that Sentinel story provoked, check out the webpage mentioned above. If it's been taken down, e-mail me, and I'll send it to you.
Second, it would be nice if the Coonerty concern for public access to bathrooms were more than a devise to attack activists who expose their hypocrisy. Ryan, and Neal: translate your toilet talk into City Council initiatives to open real public bathrooms!
Neal took no such action that I recall when he was on the Council in the 1990's. Ryan has done nothing to stop the closing of the Krohn portapotties, put in supposedly on an interim basis in 1999 or 2000, until real bathrooms could be installed. The last one disappeared from Parking Lot #4 adjacent to the Farmer's Market many months ago.
Nor has Ryan moved to facilitate the opening of the costly self-cleaning toilet kiosk imported from San Francisco (but held up because of merchant squeamishness). He did vote to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars refurbishing Lighthouse Field bathrooms.
I have always acknowledged and thanked the Coonerty's for their public bathrooms. I thank them again, even though I--and others the Coonerty's have banned for political reasons--can't use them. I was banned in 1994 for leading protests against him at his store, as I am doing again. Ryan's response is to follow the bad example of his father by banning Becky Johnson and Bernard Klitzner--who had nothing to do with his bathroom problems.
We raised public awareness of Ryan's hypocrisy in hypeing himself as a progressive bookshop manager (his insistence that he's "only a part-time worker" does not persuade me).
We encouraged people to raise concerns about his "arrest the homeless" law since he's likely the next Mayor, is the self-designated "homeless expert" on City Council, and gives classes in constitutional law at Cabrillo and UCSC. Also because he's rarely to be found at City Hall, but does hang out at the Bookshop.
Neal and Ryan now attempt to deflect legitimate concerns about their support for the ridiculous, unconstitutional, and soon-to-be very-costly Sleeping Ban. This potty talk is on a par with SCPD propagandist Zach Friend, denouncing Sleep Ban protesters at City Hall for poo-ing and pee-ing (especially hypocritical because Mayor Reilly refused to open the bathrooms which the protesters agreed to monitor). The only citations at City Hall were for sleeping.
It's similar to the Sentinel's strategy of regarding a painted "Fuck the Sleeping Ban" on City Hall as being a bigger crime and more important story than the Mayor, City Attorney, City Manager, and Police Chief ignoring the 9th Circuit Court's opinion for the last year and a half and ramping up illegal arrests of homeless people.
The Coonerty's are uncomfortable with our exposure of their hypocrisy on basic civil liberties issues. Well, if you support absurd laws against the homeless, don't be surprised if you're challenged. And when challenged, folks show their colors: Ryan Coonerty banned two activists for First Amendment activity. Yesterday, he came out on the sidewalk, said he found 40 of our "end the sleeping ban" flyers placed inside his books, and announced he would "prosecute for vandalism". This is the attorney who teaches constitutional law classes at UCSC and Cabrillo.
If the Coonerty's are really concerned about their workers and separating their politics from the management of the Bookshop, why not have the workers vote on whether they support keeping homeless people criminals for an involuntary activity? It would be refreshing to see a sign in the window of the Bookshop suggesting that the Coonerty's allow their workers the freedom to express a different opinion.
It's pretty basic. In fact, the most basic civil right of a poor people may be not to be criminalized for doing something we've all got to do: sleep at night.
The 9th Circuit Court's Jones decision has persuaded even conservative Los Angeles, San Diego, and Richmond to establish a safe zone or stop nighttime citations for sleeping entirely. If there's no shelter, you can't arrest a person for falling asleep. It's that simple.
If politician-merchants continue to support these laws, the community should choose whether to support their businesses. In all candor, probably most merchants downtown support the anti-homeless laws. They certainly don't oppose them.
But none of them are Vice-Mayor soon to be Mayor or the author of new anti-homeless laws. (Coming up next week: a "no public assembling in the parking lots" law at the Downtown Commission 9-27 8:30 AM City Council chambers--compliments of Ryan Coonerty).
No--don't vandalize Coonerty's bathrooms. Yes--demand open public bathrooms. Yes--demand an end to the Sleeping and Blanket Bans. Yes--Support the Lawsuit! Yes--Boycott Bigotry in Santa Cruz!
"September 20, 2007
Neal Coonerty 9/19/2007 4:35 PM
Since Robert Norse and Becky Johnson have targeted Bookshop Santa Cruz with political camping ban demonstrations every weekend, the bathrooms at Bookshop Santa Cruz have been heavily vandalized. Someone has repeatedly smeared feces all over the walls and backed up the plumbing by stuffing material down the toilets and repeatedly flushing. Of course, given the privacy rights of people using a bathroom, we do not know who is doing this. However, we are aware of the fact that this vandalism was not happening before Robert Norse and Becky Johnson started their ill-informed protests, but the vandalism started once we were targeted by them.
Since we offer one of the few available bathrooms downtown at great expense to our business, it is always hard for us to understand why people would insist on trying to close them for political reasons or any other reasons.
What is also clear is that Robert Norse and Becky Johnson have always been a destructive force in our city and their efforts have continually harmed our homeless community."
MY COMMENT: First, if anyone wants to read the rash of anti-homeless bigotry that Sentinel story provoked, check out the webpage mentioned above. If it's been taken down, e-mail me, and I'll send it to you.
Second, it would be nice if the Coonerty concern for public access to bathrooms were more than a devise to attack activists who expose their hypocrisy. Ryan, and Neal: translate your toilet talk into City Council initiatives to open real public bathrooms!
Neal took no such action that I recall when he was on the Council in the 1990's. Ryan has done nothing to stop the closing of the Krohn portapotties, put in supposedly on an interim basis in 1999 or 2000, until real bathrooms could be installed. The last one disappeared from Parking Lot #4 adjacent to the Farmer's Market many months ago.
Nor has Ryan moved to facilitate the opening of the costly self-cleaning toilet kiosk imported from San Francisco (but held up because of merchant squeamishness). He did vote to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars refurbishing Lighthouse Field bathrooms.
I have always acknowledged and thanked the Coonerty's for their public bathrooms. I thank them again, even though I--and others the Coonerty's have banned for political reasons--can't use them. I was banned in 1994 for leading protests against him at his store, as I am doing again. Ryan's response is to follow the bad example of his father by banning Becky Johnson and Bernard Klitzner--who had nothing to do with his bathroom problems.
We raised public awareness of Ryan's hypocrisy in hypeing himself as a progressive bookshop manager (his insistence that he's "only a part-time worker" does not persuade me).
We encouraged people to raise concerns about his "arrest the homeless" law since he's likely the next Mayor, is the self-designated "homeless expert" on City Council, and gives classes in constitutional law at Cabrillo and UCSC. Also because he's rarely to be found at City Hall, but does hang out at the Bookshop.
Neal and Ryan now attempt to deflect legitimate concerns about their support for the ridiculous, unconstitutional, and soon-to-be very-costly Sleeping Ban. This potty talk is on a par with SCPD propagandist Zach Friend, denouncing Sleep Ban protesters at City Hall for poo-ing and pee-ing (especially hypocritical because Mayor Reilly refused to open the bathrooms which the protesters agreed to monitor). The only citations at City Hall were for sleeping.
It's similar to the Sentinel's strategy of regarding a painted "Fuck the Sleeping Ban" on City Hall as being a bigger crime and more important story than the Mayor, City Attorney, City Manager, and Police Chief ignoring the 9th Circuit Court's opinion for the last year and a half and ramping up illegal arrests of homeless people.
The Coonerty's are uncomfortable with our exposure of their hypocrisy on basic civil liberties issues. Well, if you support absurd laws against the homeless, don't be surprised if you're challenged. And when challenged, folks show their colors: Ryan Coonerty banned two activists for First Amendment activity. Yesterday, he came out on the sidewalk, said he found 40 of our "end the sleeping ban" flyers placed inside his books, and announced he would "prosecute for vandalism". This is the attorney who teaches constitutional law classes at UCSC and Cabrillo.
If the Coonerty's are really concerned about their workers and separating their politics from the management of the Bookshop, why not have the workers vote on whether they support keeping homeless people criminals for an involuntary activity? It would be refreshing to see a sign in the window of the Bookshop suggesting that the Coonerty's allow their workers the freedom to express a different opinion.
It's pretty basic. In fact, the most basic civil right of a poor people may be not to be criminalized for doing something we've all got to do: sleep at night.
The 9th Circuit Court's Jones decision has persuaded even conservative Los Angeles, San Diego, and Richmond to establish a safe zone or stop nighttime citations for sleeping entirely. If there's no shelter, you can't arrest a person for falling asleep. It's that simple.
If politician-merchants continue to support these laws, the community should choose whether to support their businesses. In all candor, probably most merchants downtown support the anti-homeless laws. They certainly don't oppose them.
But none of them are Vice-Mayor soon to be Mayor or the author of new anti-homeless laws. (Coming up next week: a "no public assembling in the parking lots" law at the Downtown Commission 9-27 8:30 AM City Council chambers--compliments of Ryan Coonerty).
No--don't vandalize Coonerty's bathrooms. Yes--demand open public bathrooms. Yes--demand an end to the Sleeping and Blanket Bans. Yes--Support the Lawsuit! Yes--Boycott Bigotry in Santa Cruz!
Add Your Comments
Comments (Hide Comments)
Thursday Sep 20th, 2007 7:03 PM
sigh.
It's interesting how some of those Sentinel readers are calling the homeless 'degenerates', and express that they are parasites who are draining lots of money from the rest of society. We should barely bother to address the naive insophistication of something who perceives that homeless who can't get into shelters are 'takers' while failing to notice the $9billion in paper cash delivered to Iraq which is unaccounted for, not to mention the $1trillion+ already spent there before we have exited or gotten to veterans benefits, or shelters for the next crop of homeless vets.
It is interesting to explore how how these ideas historically keep cropping up among a squeezed middle class. Perhaps it results from the psychological difficulty for people to connect and understand with abstractions; we will emotionally respond to stories on TV of an individual child hurt in a war and send money, or a mean criminal, or a frivolous lawsuit, and then we interpret broad statistics and trends via these anecdotes. So maybe when people are stretched with their mortgages and rent and healthcare bills plus taxes, mentally ill or drunks on the sidewalk become the first target of blame, because they are local and immediate.
Yet, just because we can empathise with the sentiment, doesn't mean it is not the line of thinking used by the nazis, because it is. One of my parents grew up during the nazi period and was able to describe some of it. There was actually quite a liberal upsurge during the 20s because people had been abused so badly by the rulers and remnants of monarchies during WWI, so there were many progressive reforms and a substantial left wing. The regime didn't develop power by advertising ethnic hatreds at the beginning, but rather, they manipulated unhappiness caused by the depression and rapid inflation, and their first focuses were a communist threat, and a 1-2% sector of society who made people uncomfortable (the retarded, schizophrenics, visibly disabled, drunken failures, petty thieves, gays). Ethnic groups came in a second wave. Fritz Stern has a great book about how their family was able to move into the middle class like many jewish, and that many friends and community members privately came and commiserated because earlier on (say '35) people could see what was happening but assumed that it would blow over, fleeing wouldn't be necessary, and didn't exert themselves defending the first targets (viewed as dependents dragging down society).
It's interesting how some of those Sentinel readers are calling the homeless 'degenerates', and express that they are parasites who are draining lots of money from the rest of society. We should barely bother to address the naive insophistication of something who perceives that homeless who can't get into shelters are 'takers' while failing to notice the $9billion in paper cash delivered to Iraq which is unaccounted for, not to mention the $1trillion+ already spent there before we have exited or gotten to veterans benefits, or shelters for the next crop of homeless vets.
It is interesting to explore how how these ideas historically keep cropping up among a squeezed middle class. Perhaps it results from the psychological difficulty for people to connect and understand with abstractions; we will emotionally respond to stories on TV of an individual child hurt in a war and send money, or a mean criminal, or a frivolous lawsuit, and then we interpret broad statistics and trends via these anecdotes. So maybe when people are stretched with their mortgages and rent and healthcare bills plus taxes, mentally ill or drunks on the sidewalk become the first target of blame, because they are local and immediate.
Yet, just because we can empathise with the sentiment, doesn't mean it is not the line of thinking used by the nazis, because it is. One of my parents grew up during the nazi period and was able to describe some of it. There was actually quite a liberal upsurge during the 20s because people had been abused so badly by the rulers and remnants of monarchies during WWI, so there were many progressive reforms and a substantial left wing. The regime didn't develop power by advertising ethnic hatreds at the beginning, but rather, they manipulated unhappiness caused by the depression and rapid inflation, and their first focuses were a communist threat, and a 1-2% sector of society who made people uncomfortable (the retarded, schizophrenics, visibly disabled, drunken failures, petty thieves, gays). Ethnic groups came in a second wave. Fritz Stern has a great book about how their family was able to move into the middle class like many jewish, and that many friends and community members privately came and commiserated because earlier on (say '35) people could see what was happening but assumed that it would blow over, fleeing wouldn't be necessary, and didn't exert themselves defending the first targets (viewed as dependents dragging down society).
Thursday Sep 20th, 2007 7:33 PM
You set up camps in front of the City Hall, and suddenly it's vandalized. It's toilets trashed with smeared feces. It's walls spraypainted with graffiti.
You set up camp in front of Bookshop Santa Crua, and suddenly it's vandalized. It's toilets trashed. It's books inserted with flyers.
But you have nothing to do with it. Your homeless buddies are absolved of any responsibility because they've been driven to drink and drug by being homeless...a situation which in your mind is apparently the fault of Coonerty and Rotkin and the people of Santa Cruz. You're not responsible, because your frequent diatribes against the places never specifically called for vandalizing. Sure, you incited people to call them up, to let them know how upset you are. You post their home phone numbers and home addresses, but you were never calling for harassment.
Tell you what though? Post your home address. I promise not to come by and vandalize your place. I'll just let my opinion be known. If someone else vandalizes your place. Well heck, it's not my fault. I only alluded to that option. And besides, the person who did it is a drug addicted drunk driven mad by your constant ranting anyway, so it's not their fault either...they're just a victim of the system!
You set up camp in front of Bookshop Santa Crua, and suddenly it's vandalized. It's toilets trashed. It's books inserted with flyers.
But you have nothing to do with it. Your homeless buddies are absolved of any responsibility because they've been driven to drink and drug by being homeless...a situation which in your mind is apparently the fault of Coonerty and Rotkin and the people of Santa Cruz. You're not responsible, because your frequent diatribes against the places never specifically called for vandalizing. Sure, you incited people to call them up, to let them know how upset you are. You post their home phone numbers and home addresses, but you were never calling for harassment.
Tell you what though? Post your home address. I promise not to come by and vandalize your place. I'll just let my opinion be known. If someone else vandalizes your place. Well heck, it's not my fault. I only alluded to that option. And besides, the person who did it is a drug addicted drunk driven mad by your constant ranting anyway, so it's not their fault either...they're just a victim of the system!
Thursday Sep 20th, 2007 8:04 PM
Many people in Santa Cruz are house rich. They didn't actually earn their money through labor (if this was key, agricultural workers would have money)- they were just situated in a spot where macroeconomic forces and Silicon valley industry caused property values to rise.
Friday Sep 21st, 2007 6:57 AM
What makes you think the vandalism was done by homeless people? Some guy comes and vandalizes a vending machine at City Hall and its HUFF's fault????? The Homies for the Homeless protest ended over a month ago. Why won't the Sentinel say what the graffiti said? Wouldn't that help members of the public find the perpetrators? Or was the statement about Mike Rotkin a little too true?
Likewise, since HUFF has been holding once a week protests (for less than 2 hours a week!) near the Bookshop Santa Cruz, we have been blamed for the vandalism inside the bathrooms. HUFF has never called for vandalism or any violent acts against anyone or any business. Ryan Coonerty admitted as much in his e-mail to me, where he banned Bernard Klitzner and myself. Threatening to close the bathrooms "because of HUFF" is a way to turn homeless people against HUFF. I think that's pretty obvious. But will it stick with anyone but the most anti-homeless in our town?
Neal Coonerty is responsible for pushing through the sit/lie law to end the menace of people sitting down!! Sheila Coonerty is responsible for the one-hour "move-along" law which limits our freedom of speech to 1 hour in a 24-hr. period in any location. Ryan Coonerty is responsible for the 15-min. law in the parking garages which he enacted because "his customers were uncomfortable" seeing homeless people in the garages and NOT BEING ABLE TO ARREST THEM ON THE SPOT!! He fixed it. And when he is Mayor, I shudder to think what he will "fix" next.
My right to redress government grievances was seriously chilled by Ryan Coonerty when an e-mail from me to him at his City Hall address critical of his homeless policies resulted in his vindictively banning Bernard and me from a store I have frequented and been a customer of for 27 years without any problem. And he did so as "Vice-Mayor" of Santa Cruz!
The right to redress government grievances implies that when a constituent expresses displeasure with the way their electeds are conducting City business, there should be no vindictive consequence to that expression. Ryan Coonerty has abused his power. And now it appears that Neal Coonerty is doing the same.
Likewise, since HUFF has been holding once a week protests (for less than 2 hours a week!) near the Bookshop Santa Cruz, we have been blamed for the vandalism inside the bathrooms. HUFF has never called for vandalism or any violent acts against anyone or any business. Ryan Coonerty admitted as much in his e-mail to me, where he banned Bernard Klitzner and myself. Threatening to close the bathrooms "because of HUFF" is a way to turn homeless people against HUFF. I think that's pretty obvious. But will it stick with anyone but the most anti-homeless in our town?
Neal Coonerty is responsible for pushing through the sit/lie law to end the menace of people sitting down!! Sheila Coonerty is responsible for the one-hour "move-along" law which limits our freedom of speech to 1 hour in a 24-hr. period in any location. Ryan Coonerty is responsible for the 15-min. law in the parking garages which he enacted because "his customers were uncomfortable" seeing homeless people in the garages and NOT BEING ABLE TO ARREST THEM ON THE SPOT!! He fixed it. And when he is Mayor, I shudder to think what he will "fix" next.
My right to redress government grievances was seriously chilled by Ryan Coonerty when an e-mail from me to him at his City Hall address critical of his homeless policies resulted in his vindictively banning Bernard and me from a store I have frequented and been a customer of for 27 years without any problem. And he did so as "Vice-Mayor" of Santa Cruz!
The right to redress government grievances implies that when a constituent expresses displeasure with the way their electeds are conducting City business, there should be no vindictive consequence to that expression. Ryan Coonerty has abused his power. And now it appears that Neal Coonerty is doing the same.
Friday Sep 21st, 2007 11:23 AM
So - some vandalism occurred. Who did it? Noone knows.
We do know that the dirty tricks era is back, with a new Tricky Dick in charge (Cheney). We do know that citizen activists who engage in vandalism and violence and aggressive name-calling do more to damage their 'cause' than they do to help it. We do know that the local corporate media goes into a feeding frenzy every time that happens. We also know that Santa Cruz has its fair share of unhinged individuals as well as a large contingent of undercover police officers (no more so than any other US city, though).
Did COINTELPRO ever really end? Think about it.
Draw your own conclusions. Just don't jump to any.
We do know that the dirty tricks era is back, with a new Tricky Dick in charge (Cheney). We do know that citizen activists who engage in vandalism and violence and aggressive name-calling do more to damage their 'cause' than they do to help it. We do know that the local corporate media goes into a feeding frenzy every time that happens. We also know that Santa Cruz has its fair share of unhinged individuals as well as a large contingent of undercover police officers (no more so than any other US city, though).
Did COINTELPRO ever really end? Think about it.
Draw your own conclusions. Just don't jump to any.
Friday Sep 21st, 2007 5:54 PM
If a homeless person is injured, cited or dies for any reason, be it drug abuse, alcohol abuse, etc, then it is immediately the responsibility of the City Council (or, as Becky and Robert like to call them, the "Reilly-Coonerty-Rotkin-Etc-Etc council). They are directly responsible for the tragedy, no matter what the facts may bear out. That is directly because the council made a policy decision 20 years ago to not allow people to sleep wherever they please, complete with all the inherent issues that come with that.
However, if someone(or more than one) smears feces on the walls of a store directly targeted by these two clowns, or defaces city hall referencing the same folks targeted by these monkeys, then HUFF (Johnson and Norse, and a few people who like the free food and show up from time to time) can't POSSIBLY be held accountable, can they? I mean, HUFF has never advocated those exact actions, have they? No, they've just targeted city hall and Bookshop Santa Cruz on a regular basis and have personally named individuals as being responsible for all of the evils that homeless people face in town.
There's no double standard, is there? No, of course not.
Unless you are so absolutely blinded by a goal to never realize how disengenous you are. As has been pointed out time and time again...
However, if someone(or more than one) smears feces on the walls of a store directly targeted by these two clowns, or defaces city hall referencing the same folks targeted by these monkeys, then HUFF (Johnson and Norse, and a few people who like the free food and show up from time to time) can't POSSIBLY be held accountable, can they? I mean, HUFF has never advocated those exact actions, have they? No, they've just targeted city hall and Bookshop Santa Cruz on a regular basis and have personally named individuals as being responsible for all of the evils that homeless people face in town.
There's no double standard, is there? No, of course not.
Unless you are so absolutely blinded by a goal to never realize how disengenous you are. As has been pointed out time and time again...
Saturday Sep 22nd, 2007 8:11 AM
I will admit, that it is POSSIBLE that the person who smeared City Hall/BSSC/Community TV COULD have been motivated by the criticisms of City policy that HUFF is making. It could also have been a "Black-ops" action done by HUFF's opponents. Are you saying that we SHOULDN'T make those criticisms because some marginal types might on their own, escalate their response? What exactly are you proposing?
The Sleeping Ban was passed in 1978 (a fact Shana McCord of the Sentinel still hasn't properly researched). It outlaws sleeping at night out of doors in the entire City in or outside of a vehicle with a fine of $97. Common sense tells us that if a homeless person can't afford a $65 motel room, they surely can't afford a $97 fine. The law just becomes a way to abuse, criminalize, harass, and stigmatize homeless people who are already in crisis. It does NOTHING to end homelessness. In fact, it exacerbates homelessness.
HUFF has never asked that homeless people be allowed to sleep "everywhere" or "anywhere." The problem is, they need to sleep SOMEWHERE. Currently there is shelter for 40 people to serve 1,500-2,000 people. Are you REALLY saying these people should walk around all night just to make YOU feel better?
Ryan Coonerty volunteered to be the point person on the council for homeless issues. Otherwise, we would have targeted the Mayor instead with our protest. Ryan is adamant about keeping the ban in place, ignores the Jones decision to the City's detriment, and plays a game about his ownership of Bookshop Santa Cruz.
I have a copy of Ryan's campaign literature when he ran for office in which he claims he is an "owner" of Bookshop Santa Cruz. He has also called it his "family business" AND has also claimed he "only works there part time." Let me ask you this. Can a part time cashier BAN someone permanently from a business? Doesn't a MANAGER or OWNER have to do this?
You say we at HUFF are "disingenuous" but ignore Ryan's self-motivated positions on the City Council which directly affect Bookshop Santa Cruz. He was quoted in the Sentinel as saying that "his customers" were bothered by seeing homeless people in the parking garages and "didn't feel safe." This was his primary motive for pushing for the 15-minute parking garage restrictions. Never mind that the law drove homeless people into the rain at 3AM from the huge, empty garages! When I directly called for Ryan to recuse himself, he claimed he was "not an owner" and he not only voted, but he pushed hard for the law.
Regarding the homeless death rate: Last year we had a record-breaking homeless death toll where the Homeless Person's Health Project documented that people were dying on the average of 20 years earlier than the national average. Reilly, Coonerty, and Rotkin were in the forefront of promoting enforcement of the Sleeping Ban. They bear direct responsibility for these deaths. I think this is a little more serious than some graffiti at City Hall or a stopped up toilet. But you'd never know it by reading the Sentinel.
The Sleeping Ban was passed in 1978 (a fact Shana McCord of the Sentinel still hasn't properly researched). It outlaws sleeping at night out of doors in the entire City in or outside of a vehicle with a fine of $97. Common sense tells us that if a homeless person can't afford a $65 motel room, they surely can't afford a $97 fine. The law just becomes a way to abuse, criminalize, harass, and stigmatize homeless people who are already in crisis. It does NOTHING to end homelessness. In fact, it exacerbates homelessness.
HUFF has never asked that homeless people be allowed to sleep "everywhere" or "anywhere." The problem is, they need to sleep SOMEWHERE. Currently there is shelter for 40 people to serve 1,500-2,000 people. Are you REALLY saying these people should walk around all night just to make YOU feel better?
Ryan Coonerty volunteered to be the point person on the council for homeless issues. Otherwise, we would have targeted the Mayor instead with our protest. Ryan is adamant about keeping the ban in place, ignores the Jones decision to the City's detriment, and plays a game about his ownership of Bookshop Santa Cruz.
I have a copy of Ryan's campaign literature when he ran for office in which he claims he is an "owner" of Bookshop Santa Cruz. He has also called it his "family business" AND has also claimed he "only works there part time." Let me ask you this. Can a part time cashier BAN someone permanently from a business? Doesn't a MANAGER or OWNER have to do this?
You say we at HUFF are "disingenuous" but ignore Ryan's self-motivated positions on the City Council which directly affect Bookshop Santa Cruz. He was quoted in the Sentinel as saying that "his customers" were bothered by seeing homeless people in the parking garages and "didn't feel safe." This was his primary motive for pushing for the 15-minute parking garage restrictions. Never mind that the law drove homeless people into the rain at 3AM from the huge, empty garages! When I directly called for Ryan to recuse himself, he claimed he was "not an owner" and he not only voted, but he pushed hard for the law.
Regarding the homeless death rate: Last year we had a record-breaking homeless death toll where the Homeless Person's Health Project documented that people were dying on the average of 20 years earlier than the national average. Reilly, Coonerty, and Rotkin were in the forefront of promoting enforcement of the Sleeping Ban. They bear direct responsibility for these deaths. I think this is a little more serious than some graffiti at City Hall or a stopped up toilet. But you'd never know it by reading the Sentinel.
Sunday Sep 23rd, 2007 6:46 PM
Yes, it MIGHT have been a "black ops" thing, or space aliens, but the likely answer is that is was one of your unfortunate lackeys. Maybe it was a young UCSC student who thinks he/she is doing real activism and thinks you guys are real activists. Or maybe it was a homeless person riled up by your personalized demonizing of individual council members.
My point was this: when something bad happens to someone who happens to be homeless, it is, in your mind, the complete responsibility of the city council no matter what the extraneous circumstances might be. However, when graffiti happens (or poop smeared on a wall) conveniently at the same locations you're holding your little 4-person "protests", you are surprised to think that you might be responsible.
Double standard? Maybe?
Sarcasm perhaps?
No, don't have all the answers. But neither do you, and yet you continue to advocate for a policy that would end with people camping everywhere, defecate everywhere, shoot up drugs everywhere, etc etc. Instead of fighting for more housing or shelter space, you demonize people who don't think that it's a good idea to let people set up camp wherever they want.
And back to the old question: if you're so passionate about ending homelessness, when was the last time you or your trust-fund buddy hosted tents in your yard?
My point was this: when something bad happens to someone who happens to be homeless, it is, in your mind, the complete responsibility of the city council no matter what the extraneous circumstances might be. However, when graffiti happens (or poop smeared on a wall) conveniently at the same locations you're holding your little 4-person "protests", you are surprised to think that you might be responsible.
Double standard? Maybe?
Sarcasm perhaps?
No, don't have all the answers. But neither do you, and yet you continue to advocate for a policy that would end with people camping everywhere, defecate everywhere, shoot up drugs everywhere, etc etc. Instead of fighting for more housing or shelter space, you demonize people who don't think that it's a good idea to let people set up camp wherever they want.
And back to the old question: if you're so passionate about ending homelessness, when was the last time you or your trust-fund buddy hosted tents in your yard?
Sunday Sep 23rd, 2007 6:58 PM
You seem to be insinuating that because Ryan Coonerty, who has live in Santa Cruz all (or most of) his life, happens to be part of a family ownership of a downtown business means that he shouldn't be serving on the council.
So apparently the views of someone who experiences downtown via his business everyday are void in your mind. Or you need to get caught up in semantics as to whether he is a "cashier" or "manager" or whatever.
Get the heck over yourselves. Ryan, whom I don't know personally by the way, is a local kid whose family has owned a local store in our downtown since before you and "Trust Fund" Khan made your way here. So to somehow state that his legitimate concerns for people he interacts with because of his family's business is somehow tainted is rediculous.
I know you remember when you were ostracized from this website, how your views were contrary to others, how you were ambushed with questions similar to those you routinely ask of others... have YOU forgotten?
So apparently the views of someone who experiences downtown via his business everyday are void in your mind. Or you need to get caught up in semantics as to whether he is a "cashier" or "manager" or whatever.
Get the heck over yourselves. Ryan, whom I don't know personally by the way, is a local kid whose family has owned a local store in our downtown since before you and "Trust Fund" Khan made your way here. So to somehow state that his legitimate concerns for people he interacts with because of his family's business is somehow tainted is rediculous.
I know you remember when you were ostracized from this website, how your views were contrary to others, how you were ambushed with questions similar to those you routinely ask of others... have YOU forgotten?
Monday Sep 24th, 2007 2:17 PM
HUFF and its allies have made the community and the homeless more aware of their rights (under the Jones decision, most recently). Coonerty's City Council prefers to ignore them (as other Councils have for the last 29 years).
People get angry. Some because such basic rights are being ignored; others defensively because uncomfortable voices are being raised where previously there was silence.
Similar things have happened in past civil rights struggles. Status quo defenders blame the activists for actions provoked by the existence of unjust laws and police practices. And the hypocrites who assure us that everything is "fine" ("Santa Cruz has best homeless services...").
The ironic thing about Santa Cruz is that we hear from a City Council and business community that claims to be "progressive". Exposing the hypocrisy of that claim is what the boycott, the protests, (and perhaps the vandalism) is all about. (There could be a "mad pooper" at large; I've heard of other recent incidents of bathroom vandalism unconnected to Coonerty or City Hall I've heard about).
It's not pretty; it's not reasonable; it's not effective. It's not something I advise, support, or endorse. It gives City Councilettes and the darker bigots a chance to scream bloody murder over grafitti and stopped up toilets.
While ignoring, of course, the Council's refusal to put in 24-hour bathrooms, address the Sleeping Ban scandal, or follow the Constitution as enunciated a year and a half ago by the 9th Federal Court of Appeals.
When that Constitution is nightly vandalized by the City Council's police, when homeless camping gear is destroyed and tents shredded by Ranger John Wallace (whom the Council celebrates as a hero), the word gets around, and the anger grows.
Instead of addressing the issues, those in power and their groupies remain silent or mouth the same red herrings that Craig does above.
We get hoarse at our end repeating "sleep SOMEWHERE not ANYWHERE & EVERYWHERE".
That, of course, is because obviously much less reasonable to argue that poor people without means or alternatives should be harassed, cited, or arrested. Arrested for the crime of falling asleep after 11 PM on public property. That's ANY public property no matter how distant, no matter how exigent the circumstances, no matter how utterly inadequate the current shelter situation.
It even sounds like a form of torture. It sounds like the Black Codes of the 1860s after the civil war used to "rein in" the free blacks. It sounds like discriminatory laws the world over against despised groups. It sounds like that--because that's what it is.
Instead apply the "attack the messenger, ignore the message" approach. Often used by Rotkin, Coonerty, and others when talking with complacent media or newcomers.
Ryan and Neal Coonerty are politicians who publicly support these anti-homeless policies. Yet they expect us to believe that they run progressive businesses. Sorry, there's a real contradiction there.
Ryan Coonerty called me "cowardly" on Wednesday as he ducked back into his Bookstore rather than discuss issues [check http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb070920.mp3 --towards the end of the audiofile]. Ryan's projecting again. He's the one whose policies criminalize the poor yet asks progressives to patronize his store. What's wrong with suggesting people vote with their dollars?
Give Craig his due: when these issues are raised publicly, the temperature may rise as well. But shouldn't objective observers consider the City Council's refusal to respond, the doubling the SCPD camping ban ticketing from last year, and the shrinking/stagnating shelter situation? Is it good public policy to blame the activists primarily, because their organizing has raised the level of indignation?
Only if you'd prefer to see a quiet compliant class of poor people who don't speak up and band together. Only if you'd like to see a community that believes the lies and spin that the aspiring politicians emit when challenged on this issue.
Let Craig condemn Wallace's systematic destruction of homeless property. The cruel courtroom maze homeless people are subjected to like rats for sleeping. The failure of politicians to address these issues. Then he can gain some credibiliity on criticizing activists for not controlling persons unknown who plug up a toilet or paint on a wall.
But that ain't likely. If you hate the activists and their message, what difference do these arguments make? After all, why bother to respond rationally when you can dismiss them as coming from a "trust fund baby", ?
Nobody said Coonerty shouldn't serve on the Council because he's an advocate for his family's business. He should recuse himself from votes that involve a conflict of interest.
He should recognize the broader good of the community requires a restoration of basic rights for the poor. He should not be surprised if he makes himself inaccessible that folks will seek him out at his business.
He should recognize that the Council's policies and attitudes create a lot of hostility and that perhaps the Council bears some responsibility here (not all the responsibility, but much of it).
When Reilly shuts me down at Oral Communications (as she did last Council meeting), others may see this and think "why bother to stand in line and get muzzled? I'll just buy a bucket of paint."
Such tactics, of course, just provide grist for those who want to further disenfranchise homeless people (and those who speak out on the issues).
I encourage folks to organize, publicize what's going on, form links with students, vets, young people, minorities, and others to build a broader local civil rights movement.
Sign on by calling 423-4833 or coming to the next HUFF meeting (check out http://www.huffsantacruz.org).
People get angry. Some because such basic rights are being ignored; others defensively because uncomfortable voices are being raised where previously there was silence.
Similar things have happened in past civil rights struggles. Status quo defenders blame the activists for actions provoked by the existence of unjust laws and police practices. And the hypocrites who assure us that everything is "fine" ("Santa Cruz has best homeless services...").
The ironic thing about Santa Cruz is that we hear from a City Council and business community that claims to be "progressive". Exposing the hypocrisy of that claim is what the boycott, the protests, (and perhaps the vandalism) is all about. (There could be a "mad pooper" at large; I've heard of other recent incidents of bathroom vandalism unconnected to Coonerty or City Hall I've heard about).
It's not pretty; it's not reasonable; it's not effective. It's not something I advise, support, or endorse. It gives City Councilettes and the darker bigots a chance to scream bloody murder over grafitti and stopped up toilets.
While ignoring, of course, the Council's refusal to put in 24-hour bathrooms, address the Sleeping Ban scandal, or follow the Constitution as enunciated a year and a half ago by the 9th Federal Court of Appeals.
When that Constitution is nightly vandalized by the City Council's police, when homeless camping gear is destroyed and tents shredded by Ranger John Wallace (whom the Council celebrates as a hero), the word gets around, and the anger grows.
Instead of addressing the issues, those in power and their groupies remain silent or mouth the same red herrings that Craig does above.
We get hoarse at our end repeating "sleep SOMEWHERE not ANYWHERE & EVERYWHERE".
That, of course, is because obviously much less reasonable to argue that poor people without means or alternatives should be harassed, cited, or arrested. Arrested for the crime of falling asleep after 11 PM on public property. That's ANY public property no matter how distant, no matter how exigent the circumstances, no matter how utterly inadequate the current shelter situation.
It even sounds like a form of torture. It sounds like the Black Codes of the 1860s after the civil war used to "rein in" the free blacks. It sounds like discriminatory laws the world over against despised groups. It sounds like that--because that's what it is.
Instead apply the "attack the messenger, ignore the message" approach. Often used by Rotkin, Coonerty, and others when talking with complacent media or newcomers.
Ryan and Neal Coonerty are politicians who publicly support these anti-homeless policies. Yet they expect us to believe that they run progressive businesses. Sorry, there's a real contradiction there.
Ryan Coonerty called me "cowardly" on Wednesday as he ducked back into his Bookstore rather than discuss issues [check http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb070920.mp3 --towards the end of the audiofile]. Ryan's projecting again. He's the one whose policies criminalize the poor yet asks progressives to patronize his store. What's wrong with suggesting people vote with their dollars?
Give Craig his due: when these issues are raised publicly, the temperature may rise as well. But shouldn't objective observers consider the City Council's refusal to respond, the doubling the SCPD camping ban ticketing from last year, and the shrinking/stagnating shelter situation? Is it good public policy to blame the activists primarily, because their organizing has raised the level of indignation?
Only if you'd prefer to see a quiet compliant class of poor people who don't speak up and band together. Only if you'd like to see a community that believes the lies and spin that the aspiring politicians emit when challenged on this issue.
Let Craig condemn Wallace's systematic destruction of homeless property. The cruel courtroom maze homeless people are subjected to like rats for sleeping. The failure of politicians to address these issues. Then he can gain some credibiliity on criticizing activists for not controlling persons unknown who plug up a toilet or paint on a wall.
But that ain't likely. If you hate the activists and their message, what difference do these arguments make? After all, why bother to respond rationally when you can dismiss them as coming from a "trust fund baby", ?
Nobody said Coonerty shouldn't serve on the Council because he's an advocate for his family's business. He should recuse himself from votes that involve a conflict of interest.
He should recognize the broader good of the community requires a restoration of basic rights for the poor. He should not be surprised if he makes himself inaccessible that folks will seek him out at his business.
He should recognize that the Council's policies and attitudes create a lot of hostility and that perhaps the Council bears some responsibility here (not all the responsibility, but much of it).
When Reilly shuts me down at Oral Communications (as she did last Council meeting), others may see this and think "why bother to stand in line and get muzzled? I'll just buy a bucket of paint."
Such tactics, of course, just provide grist for those who want to further disenfranchise homeless people (and those who speak out on the issues).
I encourage folks to organize, publicize what's going on, form links with students, vets, young people, minorities, and others to build a broader local civil rights movement.
Sign on by calling 423-4833 or coming to the next HUFF meeting (check out http://www.huffsantacruz.org).
Tuesday Sep 25th, 2007 11:08 PM
CRAIG WRITES: "you continue to advocate for a policy that would end with people camping everywhere, defecate everywhere, shoot up drugs everywhere, etc etc. Instead of fighting for more housing or shelter space, you demonize people who don't think that it's a good idea to let people set up camp wherever they want."
BECKY: We advocated in 1997 for an ordinance change that would have allowed legal sleeping in about 40% of the City, excluding residential and beachfront areas. Hardly "everywhere" but not confined to such a small area it becomes a homeless "ghetto." In 2000, the council ignored our plan to adopt on a first reading safe zones in the two tiny industrial areas of santa Cruz. Rotkin engineered its demise and then falsely claimed some kind of "homeless magnet effect" had occurred. However, only anectdotal evidence was cited while the Homeless Services Center noted no upsurge in clients.
Currently, under Jones, the CITY is liable for continuing to cite and arrest homeless people in a situation in which they have no choice but to sleep outside. I no longer argue to protect residential areas or the beachfront from the menace of sleeping people. It always was a bad idea making innocent behavior criminal---that of sleeping or of covering to stay warm with a blanket. Instead, the City should use other ordinances to maintain public order: littering, public defecation (in a situation where a toilet is available), public urination (where a bathroom is available), illegal drug use, excessive noise, etc. the point is, there are enough laws on the books to assure residents that the public order will not fall apart if sleeping at night is made legal.
BECKY: We advocated in 1997 for an ordinance change that would have allowed legal sleeping in about 40% of the City, excluding residential and beachfront areas. Hardly "everywhere" but not confined to such a small area it becomes a homeless "ghetto." In 2000, the council ignored our plan to adopt on a first reading safe zones in the two tiny industrial areas of santa Cruz. Rotkin engineered its demise and then falsely claimed some kind of "homeless magnet effect" had occurred. However, only anectdotal evidence was cited while the Homeless Services Center noted no upsurge in clients.
Currently, under Jones, the CITY is liable for continuing to cite and arrest homeless people in a situation in which they have no choice but to sleep outside. I no longer argue to protect residential areas or the beachfront from the menace of sleeping people. It always was a bad idea making innocent behavior criminal---that of sleeping or of covering to stay warm with a blanket. Instead, the City should use other ordinances to maintain public order: littering, public defecation (in a situation where a toilet is available), public urination (where a bathroom is available), illegal drug use, excessive noise, etc. the point is, there are enough laws on the books to assure residents that the public order will not fall apart if sleeping at night is made legal.
Thursday Sep 27th, 2007 3:07 AM
Ever Made History in the Bathroom?
pissrcommunitymeeting [at] yahoo.com
Ever Made History in the Bathroom?
Here’s your chance! People In Search of Safe Restrooms (PISSR) is holding a community meeting to help develop goals for a new Safe Bathroom Access Campaign which aims to create legislation to ensure safe bathroom access for transgender folks and others who face difficulty, harassment or violence when using gender segregated restrooms.
An important first step in kicking off this campaign is to bring together community members to share with us the critical issues that will shape the approach we take to ensuring safe restroom access for all. Your participation would be very valuable to the conversation.
This is a very exciting project because it is the first campaign in the country to address gender-neutral bathroom access on a legislative level. Come help us make history!
Thursday, Oct 13
7:00pm
SF LGBT Center (at Market & Octavia).
Room 300
For more information please contact us at pissrcommunitymeeting [at] yahoo.com
http://www.pissr.org
pissrcommunitymeeting [at] yahoo.com
Ever Made History in the Bathroom?
Here’s your chance! People In Search of Safe Restrooms (PISSR) is holding a community meeting to help develop goals for a new Safe Bathroom Access Campaign which aims to create legislation to ensure safe bathroom access for transgender folks and others who face difficulty, harassment or violence when using gender segregated restrooms.
An important first step in kicking off this campaign is to bring together community members to share with us the critical issues that will shape the approach we take to ensuring safe restroom access for all. Your participation would be very valuable to the conversation.
This is a very exciting project because it is the first campaign in the country to address gender-neutral bathroom access on a legislative level. Come help us make history!
Thursday, Oct 13
7:00pm
SF LGBT Center (at Market & Octavia).
Room 300
For more information please contact us at pissrcommunitymeeting [at] yahoo.com
http://www.pissr.org
Thursday Sep 27th, 2007 3:09 AM
once while at the local Bart station I ducked in to use the men's room, as I sat there doing natures work I suddenly noticed that there was no toilet paper!
ho-what am I to do! none any where. I called for help but no one came, I pleaded and begged but on one
came to help. so I had to call 911 for help. and help did come! the Police came, the fire department came,
the paramedics came,the Bart security came, and the local news crew came as well. after an extended explanation and a TV interview I was given some old news paper (at this point it worked just fine) and I was escorted past a crowd of on lookers into a waiting police car and taken home.
I am the only 911 rescue from a toilet in the history of San Francisco
ho-what am I to do! none any where. I called for help but no one came, I pleaded and begged but on one
came to help. so I had to call 911 for help. and help did come! the Police came, the fire department came,
the paramedics came,the Bart security came, and the local news crew came as well. after an extended explanation and a TV interview I was given some old news paper (at this point it worked just fine) and I was escorted past a crowd of on lookers into a waiting police car and taken home.
I am the only 911 rescue from a toilet in the history of San Francisco
Sunday Sep 30th, 2007 4:30 PM
Becky and Robert. See, the problem is that you people have never had jobs or participated in constructive dialog of any sort, or ever been part of any solution to any problem ever. If you had ever done any thing around a business besides incite your stoner wastrel buddies to vandalism, you would know that business owners can be part-time, full-time, cashiers, janitors or best of all, the ones to kick out jackass "activists".
It bothers EVERYONE to see homeless people in the garages. Lord knows you jokers won't shut up about it. People have different ideas about how to solve these sorts of problems. The only thing anyone really agrees on, pretty much unanimously, is that you clowns are most definitely not going to help, because you don't want to. What you want is for every merchant to go out of business, and to then get free handouts of EVERYTHING for your homies, since this is what YOU got in life, and you can't imagine that there is any other way to carry on.
Yes, vagrants in the garages are threatening. Are you complete idiots?
Becky, you don't have any right to go onto someone's private property. Period. Ask your boyfriend what he did when he got kicked out of there. You know he would have gotten old Kate Wells to sue him back in there if he could have.
You people are such sorry excuses for activists. Sheesh. Go back to playing Magik, the Gathering. You were a lot more tolerable back then.
It bothers EVERYONE to see homeless people in the garages. Lord knows you jokers won't shut up about it. People have different ideas about how to solve these sorts of problems. The only thing anyone really agrees on, pretty much unanimously, is that you clowns are most definitely not going to help, because you don't want to. What you want is for every merchant to go out of business, and to then get free handouts of EVERYTHING for your homies, since this is what YOU got in life, and you can't imagine that there is any other way to carry on.
Yes, vagrants in the garages are threatening. Are you complete idiots?
Becky, you don't have any right to go onto someone's private property. Period. Ask your boyfriend what he did when he got kicked out of there. You know he would have gotten old Kate Wells to sue him back in there if he could have.
You people are such sorry excuses for activists. Sheesh. Go back to playing Magik, the Gathering. You were a lot more tolerable back then.
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