Coming up at 7 PM on Tuesday is a significant ordinance change which is specifically described at http://64.175.136.240/sirepub/cache/2/em3o1eipccr2gomz23qe3lmx/131842503102008100134368.PDF


STAFF RECOMMENDATION

The staff recommendation is as follows:

"Motion to introduce for publication an ordinance amending sections 9.37.020, 9.37.030 and 9.37.050 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code, pertaining to charges for special security services for Loud or Unruly Gatherings, which will effect the following:

1) Reduce the fine for the first violation in the ordinance to one-half of the current level;

2) Prohibit Landlords from charging tenants a fee, or deposit, or increased rent before a residential unit has been found in violation of the ordinance;

3) Create a City Administrative Hearing Officer with the authority to dismiss fees or fines levied against tenants or landlords who are not, in fact, responsible for unruly parties at a particular residential property; and

4) Clarify that written warnings are to be mailed to occupants, tenants, landlords and/or other persons responsible for unruly parties under the ordinance."

The full staff report can be found at: http://64.175.136.240/sirepub/cache/2/em3o1eipccr2gomz23qe3lmx/131842403102008100315149.PDF


ORIGINAL LAW'S SORDID HISTORY

The original law was slipped through in the summer when UCSC was on vacation and over the opposition of many students.
See "City Council Unanimously Passes First Reading of “NO PARTY” Ordinance" http://santacruz.indymedia.org/newswire/display/17931/index.php

Now comes Rotkin apparently acknowledging problems in the law (2 1/2 years rather than 1 year later).

No change in the part of the ordinance that leaves things up to the officer's discretion; no change in the ordinance that mandates sending letters to landlords and parents.


AN ORIGINAL CRITIC'S CRITICISM

http://santacruz.indymedia.org/newswire/display/17931/index.php
01 Jul 2005
by Anonymous Poster
Fact: Mike's ordinance makes new occupants pay for the actions of prior occupants. This applies to new tenants as well as new property owners.

Fact: Mike's ordinance uses one phone call as a trigger and leaves the responding officer complete and absolute discretion.* The old arrangement, whereby two separate calls had to come in, was more reasonable. Now, one person with a vendetta can target a tenant or property owner just by making a phone call.

Fact: Mike's ordinance singles out one specific problem (loud parties) and imposes an unspecified, unlimited police response fee, plus 33% administrative overhead. Meanwhile, you can beat up people, damage property, commit hate crimes, do all sorts of malicious things, and the City won't charge you for the police response.

Again, I favor regulation of loud parties, but in a way that respects due process.

* Here's the exact language: "9.37.020. RESPONSE TO LOUD OR UNRULY GATHERINGS ... (a) The OFFICER [my emphasis] has determined that a loud or unruly gathering exists ..."


CHANGES INADEQUATE

The changes are all good, but they are an inadequate response to the original criticism when the law was rammed through in 2005 when Rotkin was mayor. Rotkin, ever the receptive ear to police power enhancement, wouldn't hear of changes then.

I find myself wondering if lawsuits or credible threats of lawsuits have finally forced his hand. That's good, of course, but the objections to the original law remain.


QUESTIONS AND AVENUES TO FURTHER INFORMATION

Were any public meeting or subcommittee hearings held to which the public was invited? Usually once a law hits the City Council it's a done deal, particularly when backed by the Mayor and the shadowMayor. Rotkin will explain "we can change it later if we want to, but let's pass it as is". I predict a similar fate for these liberalizing changes. The rationale and record of the underlying law is unlikely to be examined.


HOLD SCPD AND COUNCIL ACCOUNTABLE

If someone's interested, make a Public Records Act request to the SCPD (by e-mail) asking them to see copies of all citations issued under this law. They are required to respond within 10 days.

The SCPD failed to provide meaningful statistics around Coonerty's repressive Parking Lot Panic Law ("Local ACLU Statement on the Parking Lot Panic Law" http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/28/18475525.php)

http://santacruz.indymedia.org/newswire/display/18043/index.php "No Party Ordinance Approved!" contains statements from Rotkin following the 5-2 passage of the law as well as further concerns from critics.


ROTKIN AND COONERTY INVITED ON FREE RADIO NEXT SUNDAY TO DISCUSS THE ISSUE

I have invited the Mayor and the shadowMayor on Free Radio next Sunday morning to discuss the issue. Rotkin--to his credit-- has often been receptive to such requests; Coonerty--never. Call them both at 420-5020 and leave them a message if you'd like to hear them and have a chance to ask them questions and discuss the law with them before it goes through the usual slam-dunk process.

The law itself, though likely to be passed tomorrow with little opposition, does require a second reading and a second vote on March 25th.

To hear Rotkin's latest Free Radio broadcast, go to http://www.santacruzcopwatch.org/robert/brb080302.mp3