Questions for and Answers from Vice-Mayor Rotkin on Rent Control & Civil Liberties Issues

Dear Mike:

I'm sharing your response and my follow-up questions with santa cruz indymedia and other interested communitymembers.

My questions are captioned under "[Norse]". Your initial responses are captioned under "[Rotkin]". My follow-up questions are captioned under "[Norse response]".

Thanks for responding to me and to them. Please continue by replying to my follow-up questions.

Robert (Norse)



[Rotkin]

Robert, see responses... mike


[Norse]

Mike:

I played the second half of our recorded meeting on Thursday night (go to the HUFF website if you want to review it!) and was reminded that you'd said you'd take some subsequent questions.

Here are a few:

What's the current status of the UCSC "free speech zones" and "free speech demeanor" rules? You may remember Good Times wrote a rather chilling article about the situation at http://www.gtweekly.com/20081020267121/news/activism/speak-here-or-forever-hold-your-peace . And John Williams, campus activist, described in detail the plight of three students suspended for violating those rules.

You told me on the radio in December that there was some kind of significant meeting coming up. What's the current status? Are the rules, as promulgated in September still in force? What's the status of the three suspended students? What actually ARE the rules? Who would know more if you don't? I know these are a bunch of questions, but they boil down to a follow-up on the issue.


[Rotkin]

UCSC unions have set a meeting (second of two) with the Chancellor to talk about changing these rules. They are pressing him strongly on this matter. ACLU of Northern California is considering a legal response to the statewide Regental rules on campus free speech and the specific rules at UCSC, but they have not yet decided on whether to file an action, i.e. it is under review by them.


[Norse Response]

And the rules as they currently stand on campus? What are they? The situation for the suspended students? What action have you taken as a faculty member to protest or resist those suspensions?


[Norse]

On the ACLU situation, has the Board discussed or taken a position on the Downtown Ordinance changes? Were they even brought up? Is the Zimmerman legal committee still active? Have any local ordinances, procedures, or policies up for the discussion in the last 6 months?


[Rotkin]

You should contact Mr. Zimmerman on these matters directly, since because of a potential appearance of conflict I am keeping my hands off of them within the ACLU: donzim [at] aol.com


[Norse Response]

I have left messages with Mr. Zimmerman. But surely you know, as a member of the Board of directors whether the Downtown Ordinance changes were discussed—or are in a position to find out.

What's the situation? Surely you know, as a member of the Board, whether the Zimmerman legal committee is still active. Are you saying you don't know whether any ordinances, procedures, or policies were brought up for discussion in the last 6 months? Do you absent yourself from meetings where these are discussed? Do you abstain? Do you claim not to know anything about them?


[Norse]

On rent control, are you still an opponent of City Council action to provide local residential rent control (i.e. beyond mobilehome park rent control) as, I understand, is the case in Berkeley, Beverly Hills, East Palo Alto, Hayward, Los Angeles, Los Gatos, Oakland, Palm Springs, San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood?

Or renter protection short of rent control as is the case in Campbell, Fremont, Gardena, Glendale, Pasadena, San Diego, and San Leandro (mediation, just cause eviction, relocaton $ for major rehabilitation, non-binding review, etc.)? And what is the status of the tenants at the Clearview Court and De Anza Mobile Home Parks where you effectively removed continuing rent control in the early years of the decade? (source: http://www.caltenantlaw.com/RCcities.htm )


[Rotkin]

I am not an opponent of rent control. Because of a variety of factors including, but not limited to, the large number of small landlords, the relatively low percentage of renters, and the fact that, for the above reasons, the measure has been put before the voters and failed three times in the past and that it lost by an increasing number of votes each time, I, like all of the previous activists who worked on the measures, will no longer waste my time working on this issue. One of the drawbacks of bringing it up, given that it is so likely to pass and help anybody, is that each time it becomes a public issue, many landlords raise their rents in anticipation of what "might happen." Hardly a service to low-income renters you ostensibly want to help.

If, in fact, anyone has any evidence as to why this measure will do better in Santa Cruz now than in the past, I am open to hearing it and will be happy to endorse any meaningful effort to get rent control. Because of the City Charter and California law, any attempt by the Council to pass rent control will be immediately referred to the local voters. In 1982, it took the landlords fewer than ten days to gather the necessary signatures to refer a rather modest City Council ordinance which limited evictions to "just cause" evictions based on failure to pay rent, or evidence of property destruction, or to move a relative in. And, rents were raised all over town just in case this was a step toward more complete rent control. I am happy to provide anyone who wants it, an economic and social defense of rent control and explain why I think it would be a good thing for Santa Cruz. But it is not going to happen no matter what I think.

Please publish this response in any place you bring this issue up again and do not refer to me, dishonestly, as an opponent of rent control.


[Norse Response]

This is your standard response, a sort of boilerplate answer you haul out whenever the issue is raised. This last vote happened in 1982. During the ongoing depression, rent control and renter protection is going to be a very important issue for many people. Relying on events that happened 27 years ago is no answer to the current situation.

If you refuse to bring it up at city council, at least for study, you are in effect saying you oppose it, however much you may have worked on it in the early 80's. I also think it's disingenuous and wonder if this has more to do with your desire not to offend certain real estate, business, and conservative residential interests in Santa Cruz than with a desire to protect renters from higher rents.

Please ask staff for an FYI regarding rent control and renter protection in other cities in California since 1982 so we can understand how other cities are dealing with this issue.


[Norse]

Re: taser use (which Canada has just banned for "resisting arrest" and other low-grade forms of resistance), please forward me any reports on taser use in the last four years, the guidelines for taser use, whether there are any guidelines for display of tasers, and specifics of any injuries inflicted by tasers used by the PD or P & R (if they have them). I address this to you because of your continuing presence as a member of the Public Safety Committee.


[Rotkin]

I will find the relevant policies on Taser use and forward them to you. I don't believe we have any reports on Taser injuries, but I will look. I must say that your first sentence puzzles me, since what reason other than dealing with resisting arrest would a Taser be used for? It is not supposed to be used as punishment, even for the most serious crimes, but as a less lethal weapon than a firearm (and probably less lethal than a billy club) to secure the arrest of a resisting individual.


[Norse Response]

See http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Columnists/Hanon_Andrew/2009/02/13/8377651-sun.html

“Top Mountie's assertion that Tasers can kill stuns some Edmonton authorities” The relevant quote is “RCMP Commissioner William Elliott [the first civilian appointed commissioner of the Mounties] declared yesterday that Tasers can kill. 'The RCMP's revised policy underscores that there are risks associated with the deployment of the device and emphasizes that those risks include the risk of death, particularly for agitated individuals.' He said RCMP members are allowed to use stun guns only in cases involving threats to officers or public safety. They cannot use them on people who are simply resisting or unco-operative. Commons public safety committee of tightened rules for the use of Tasers by Mounties across the country...” To reiterate what I wrote above, please forward me any reports on taser USE in the last four years, the GUIDELINES for taser use, whether there are any GUIDELINES FOR DISPLAY OF TASERS, and specifics of any INJURIES inflicted by tasers used by the PD or P & R (if they have them).

Also did the SCPD have any training or policy response to the in-custody death-by-taser of David Anthony Cross in the downtown jail, in a room with numerous deputies while reportedly being restrained? Do we have any information on whether the female deputy who killed Cross was ever disciplined or prosecuted?



[Norse]

Re: the Downtown Ordinance changes. Are the laws retroactive? I.e. are infractions incurred before the laws going into effect next month considered part of the "three snoozes and you're jailed" change?


[Rotkin]

I'll find out.


[Norse Response]

Thanks, I await your response.


[Norse]

Re: the Metro Transit Board. I have still received no Public Records from the Board. Please let me know if you're going to inquire into this or "leave it to the clerk and the courts"? Frankly, I think it's irresponsible when there is a moment-by-moment audio tape available to you of misconduct by Metro police (and SCPD backup) on this issue, and you choose instead to require me to go through the courts and possibly a civil lawsuit process. I do appreciate your bringing up the general question of Transit police procedures at a meeting last fall. Can you advise me what meeting that was and how I can get a copy of the meeting? Were any specific guidelines issued as a consequence? Are there any such written guidelines?


[Rotkin]

I don't have records on what meeting I brought that up at. It would have been shortly after the incident in which you were ticketed. I did request of staff that they respond to your information request as soon as possible.


[Norse Response]

When did you make this request of staff that they speed the two-months overdue response to my Public Records Act request? To whom? Again, I repeat the questions you ignored: Where are the written specific guidelines for the security guards/police so that the public has a clearer sense of how much discretion law enforcement at the Metro has and how far the public has to bend over for any demand of a security guard there, lest they be banished from the property?

As a Board Member, don't you have access to the guard's report regarding my “refusing to leave a business when asked” crime? If so, have you read it?

I raise this issue, not because of my specific case, but because I wish to know if security guards and SCPD are colluding in misusing city ordinances and police authority to cite people for MC 9.60.010 (“Failure to leave a business”) instead of the obviously more appropriate MC 9.62.010, which specifically references the Metro.

The second ordinance also requires that any demand to leave “shall specify the period of time (not to exceed fourteen consecutive days) and the particular public transit facilities from which the person to whom the notice is given (recipient) shall keep away. Such notice shall also contain a statement informing the recipient that he or she may appeal the issuance of the withdrawal of consent to the issuing person’s superior (hearing officer).” ​

Furthermore, this demand to leave “shall be stayed pending the conduct of an informal due process hearing on the appeal unless the hearing officer determines that the presence of the recipient will cause a substantial and material threat: (a) To the orderly operation of the public transit facility; or (b) Of significant injury to person or property. A withdrawal of consent may be issued only to a person who has (within the issuing person’s present) violated duly adopted written rules or regulations applicable to a public transit facility or otherwise disrupted the operation of a public transit facility in a manner proscribed by statute or ordinance.”

This is the reason I ask you for the duly adopted written rules or regulations, whether “loitering” or “sitting on the side of the entranceway” constitutes “disrupting” and which “statute or ordinance” proscribes this behavior. This isn't a court's job, it's the Board's job to define just what the limits are, and you sit on this board.

In regards to my case, you also have access to my unedited recording of the incident on line at http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb081106.mp3 and http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb081109.mp3 (download and fast forward until you find the relevant audio).

I think you understand I have some real concerns about your devotion to civil liberties in areas where you actually have some power. At City Council you arrested me for trying to speak for two minutes in 2005. ["Arrested and Assaulted for Speaking Out at City Hall" http://www.thestreetspirit.org/July2005/arrested.htm ] You continue to support rules that muzzle the public from discussing Consent Agenda items and The 2005 arrest showed your inclination is to back up repressive policy with force.

At the ACLU 2007 public meeting you tried to first block me and then arrest me for entering the meeting with a sign drawing the ACLU's position to its silence on the anti-homeless Sleeping Ban law ["Activists ask ACLU to help end sleeping ban" http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/08/26/18443532.php?show_ . This year, it must be acknowledged, the ACLU didn't try to call the police on us at their annual meeting, but still remains a deafening silence on the Sleeping Ban, unlike sister ACLUs in Los Angeles and elsewhere.

Now at the Metro your Board apparently has not made public guidelines for the security guards. It has not provided the public with any “duly adopted written rules or regulations” and allows the police to cite people under a more expansive code section without the same protections.

The collusion of city police in this kind of activity, if done regularly, is surely a matter for the Public Safety Committee to oversee and correct. Please advise me when you will be investigating this issue, getting the requisite records to determine if it is an ongoing pattern, and taking the necessary corrective legislative steps.


[Norse]

Thanks for meeting with all of us at such short notice. And thanks in advance for your answers to these questions, which may seem like many, but focus around key and important issues.


Robert
(423-4833)

Mike Rotkin is listed in the phone book and is one of the more accessible Council members. He has appeared on Free Radio Santa Cruz.