Monthly Archives: December 2012

Tasty Survival Soup

Posted on by

Chow Down with Tasty Survival Soup

Compliments of Jumbogumbo Joe Schultz of India Joze Restaurant

Tuesday 7 PM December 11th

Outside City Council Chambers 809 Center St.

Last Council Meeting of the Year Ignores Winter Shelter Emergency

Wander inside as the Old City Council pats itself on the back and the New City Council makes speeches and takes office. The Councilthen adjournsto warm beds until January 8th, leaving 90% of the homeless community without shelter and illegal if they make it themselves.

Pamela Comstock, Cynthia Mathews, and Micah Posner take office replacing Katherine Beiers, Tony Madrigal, and Ryan Coonerty during the evening session of City Council.

8-8:30 PM (time uncertain)

Civic Auditorium 307 Church St.

Schmooze with shady politicians & mangling media

Share coffee & snacks across the street in the Civic

Fight the Crackdown, Ticketing, & Property Seizures

Demand A Ceasefire in the Winter War Against the Homeless Community

Demand ACTION to increase shelter this winter, let homeless people legally shelter themselves somewhere, provide legal overnight park-and-sleep places for those in vehicles, and rein in abusive police officers and vigilante attacks.

When the Council takes NO ACTION…

Organize independently for survival and self-defense.

Don’t roll over for brutality and bigotry!

Bring Sleeping Bags, Blankets, Cameras, and Friends.

BRING BACK SANTA CRUZ

Flier by Norse of HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom) 423-4833 www.huffsantacruz.org 309 Cedar PMB #14B S.C. 12-6-12




See also “Taste the Tedium & Terror Tuesday” at




http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/12/07/18727411.php?show_comments=1#18727412

Sarasota’s ACLU claims police target homeless; refer to themselves as ‘Bum hunters’

Posted on by

NOTE FROM NORSE:  Santa Cruz’s Police Chief Kevin Vogel strode around with four stars on his uniform in full regalia at the “Smart Solutions” Homelessness Summit Saturday,   When not dolled up, he presided over six months of intensified crackdown on homeless people’s camps, property, and liberty–in a city that has shelter for less than 5% of its homeless, as well as making 200 people homeless on December 8th last year with a full-scale attack on a homeless campground, for which he offered no substitute.

He has colluded in creating felony prosecutions for homeless activists, reporters, and supporters of the Occupy Santa Cruz movement–some of  whom dared with hundreds of others to walk through a vacant Wells Fargo bank building which was being temporarily occupied to create a Community Center last year.

Also at the “Homeless Summit” was D.A. Bob Lee who has pressed charges against the Santa Cruz Eleven for “aiding and abetting” the occupation there–they face 7 years in prison each (charges against 4 have been dismissed and not yet refiled).

The Santa Cruz ACLU, while criticizing (rather weakly) the SC-11 prosecutions, has said not a word about the crackdown on homeless people, the creation of curfew zones around the courthouse, county building, city hall, library, and police station, the attacks on food server and street performers, and the city wide Sleeping Ban.

Even activist Steve Pleich, who founded (and largely constitutes) the Homeless Legal Assistance Project and sits as vice-chair of the ACLU has not chosen to raise these issues, brought to the ACLU Board of Directors repeatedly by myself and others.

Other ACLU’s in California have undertaken lawsuits against these practices.  Santa Cruz can’t even get its ACLU to make a simple verbal statement.

Sarasota’s ACLU claims police target homeless; refer to themselves as ‘Bum hunters’

6:07 PM, Nov 27, 2012   |

Sarasota, Florida-  The ACLU claims the City of Sarasota is at war with the homeless. ACLU attorney Michael Barfield claims there is a culture of contempt and abuse of Sarasota’s homeless by the police department.

According to attorneys, arrests of homeless individuals sleeping outside are up to 111 between January and September compared to just four last year.

Barfield says, “We ask appointed and elected city leaders to end the city’s war on the homeless.”

From the front lawn of Sarasota City Hall, ACLU representatives say there is a pattern- a culture of harassment of the homeless within the Sarasota Police Department.

“Internal police text messages reveal a practice of targeting the homeless. Some refer to it as ‘bum hunting,” says Barfield.

The ACLU released electronic messages from August where a police officer allegedly text another officer, “I’m the Bum Hunter tonight.”

In September one officer appears to ask another “Can you check Island Park for transients? Cite them city code if found.”

Transcripts also show an officer joking about dressing up like a “bum” with wig and a bottle of rum.

Captain Paul Sutton with the Sarasota Police Department says he had not heard about these texts until today’s press conference.

“It is unacceptable behavior. I can tell you the Sarasota Police Department does not hunt homeless people, in fact we do the opposite. We provide services to homeless people.”

Police officials say since 2004 they’ve helped more than 2,500 homeless- either as crime victims or with provided services for drug abuse, mental health or housing.

City Manager Tom Barwin says these are isolated comments that are being exploited by the ACLU.  Barwin adds the ACLU never notified city officials of the press conference until 10 minutes before it started.

“To set the record straight, for those who don’t know this community raised millions of dollars, 10 million to address homeless needs,” says Barwin.

He listed the Salvation Army where the homeless can get a meal, a place to sleep, a shower and receive substance abuse treatment as an example. He also lists the Resurrection Home that provides laundry and meals.

A few homeless attended the press conference with their own suggestions.

“Why call me a bum unless you try to give me a job,” says James Franklin, Jr.

Cindy Edlund would like to see more services targeting substance abuse. She says, “Let’s work on prevention; there’s been a stalemate.”

Sarasota’s city manager challenges the ACLU to raise half a million dollars to help with the homeless substance abuse problem and come to the table with solutions instead of more litigation.

The ACLU is in the middle of a class action suit against the City for their alleged use of its trespassing ordinance to single out the homeless.

Isabel Mascarenas

HEAR MORE AT http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/article/284302/8/Sarasotas-ACLU-claims-police-target-homeless-

Reflections on “Smart Solutions”

Posted on by

Reflections on “Smart Solutions” link to original post

December 7th, 2012The following was written by a HUFF activist, one of several who went to a Conference organized by Mayor Don Lane and others as described below.   This was originally published on the Occupy Santa Cruz website.

 

After attending Saturday’s big show, “Smart Solutions to Homelessness: A Countywide Community Engagement Summit,” I gathered a smattering of feedback from “Occupy Folks” on how they felt about the event.  Consensus seems to be, “It was not very useful.”  We (tongue-in-cheek, but seriously) KNOW TOO MUCH.
I understand the need for governmental and non-profit entities to communicate with the public regarding their needs.  WE KNOW that volunteers are needed for the befriending, mentoring, and support of people in distress.  WE KNOW that material resources are needed to feed, shelter, and house people who are hungry and have nowhere safe to stay.  WE KNOW that there is no “one size fits all solution to homelessness.”  It is unfortunate that those who design the agendas of large meetings like this one are unable to withstand conflicting viewpoints about public policy priorities.
Here are a few “Smart Solutions” — my public policy priorities:

  1. Decriminalization of “survival behaviors” such as sleeping at night, camping in your car, or using a blanket to keep warm
  2. Legalization of drugs, and, hand-in-hand, helping people to learn ways of coping with the emotional pain that can result in addictive behaviors
  3. Creating safe places to camp
  4. Subsidizing low-cost permanent housing
  5. Providing resources to mutual aid and self-help networks for material and emotional support of all people
  6. Supporting families so there will be fewer children put into foster care
  7. Transforming the economy so that there will be safe, environmentally sustainable, and meaningful work for everyone at a living wage
     I despair over the lack of compassion actually expressed at the meeting, which seemed scant, aside from a “before and after” set of pictures of one homeless man who became permanently housed in Los Angeles. The “problem” that the “smart solutions” seem to be set to solve is “inefficient allocation of public resources.”  So the work being done “to end homelessness” is framed in terms of money to be saved instead of lives to be saved.
          At Saturday’s meeting I summarized a small exchange of perspectives between of five or six persons on the question, “What will the future look like without homelessness?”  I said that there would be personal dignity, care for each other in community, and good feelings about everyone.  I’m afraid that was the wrong question to ask.  My question to you is, “What are you going to do about the reality of homelessness in our community right now?”

2 Responses to “Reflections on “Smart Solutions””

  1. Sylvia on December 7th, 2012 at 1:54 pm #
    I’m glad for the opportunity to exchange about this. My reflections:
    All the people I engaged with wanted to talk, a lot, not particularly about the issue that brought us all together. So I think the high attendance, because of or in spite of the rain, met a need for community, cooperation, acting together. I think the issue was arguably secondary, which doesn’t make the result any less valuable.
    I heard much particularity, and little, maybe no, grand vision five years out. I heard a lot of buzz words and favorite themes, affordable housing, public spaces, safety, services … more of what we know (and what isn’t really working).
    The simplification and harmonization suggested by the successful LA business model is compelling. I began to wonder about the strings that come with federal funding (I’d just learned about ALEC) and the consequences of public/private partnerships and how liberty and privatization mesh.
    Occupy Sandy has done positive things. Here’s an idea for a local positive project – Occupy the Central Branch Public Library. HUFF had a flier about the Dec 3 library board meeting. Saturday I sat next to a Santa Cruz Public Library staff person – there are a lot of people who use the library as a daytime shelter, warmth, bathrooms, … Some of those people have trouble with rules and regulation and the library has hired a security person to patrol and be available. And is considering more limitations on behavior and appearance. I see an opportunity for Occupy Santa Cruz to organize itself, be visible, be available in shifts, reach out, provide personal support, find out what’s lacking in the available supports.

  2. Sylvia on December 8th, 2012 at 9:45 am #
    TBSC members testified at 12/3 Board of Supervisors public comment, emphasizing the needles they found on the tracks and at the beach, and a couple of bodies, and noting they will be at the 12/17 city safety meeting. The group is focusing on drugs and needles. This could lead to demonizing many, painting all deviance with a broad ‘substance abuse’ brush. There are noisy federal initiatives about stopping abuse of prescription drugs, limiting the availability of pain relief medication … It seems a very harsh world, a world insistent on suffering.

Norse comment:

TBSC stands for Take Back Santa Cruz a group co-founded by newly elected Councilmember Pamela Constock, with a focus on community vigilante and police action against “illegal” behavior, particularly public drug use, “sketchy” characters in public places doing things like camping or panhandling, and random violence.

A Matter of Priority: End Homelessness or Buy Christmas Lights?

Posted on by
12.11.12

by Abby Zimet


The federal government has made strides in reducing the ranks of the chronically homeless and of homeless veterans, but the numbers of homeless overall has stayed steady at close to 700,000, the latest annual report from the Department of Housing and Urban Development shows. The thing is: Officials say homelessness in the U.S. could be “effectively eradicated” at an annual cost of about $20 billion – or, ThinkProgress notes, what the country spends each year on Christmas decorations.

Comments

  • cripes • a day ago

    So, it’s not really a “budget” issue after all. Like the rest of the phony budget issues, it’s really a matter of priorities. And the priorities we’ve been following for years have been foreign wars, drug war, war on the poor, endless subsidies to wealthy corporations and wealthy people, guaranteed profits and no risk for billionaires, micromanaging peoples personal and sexual behaviors, etc.
    Providing living wage employment, health care, disaster relief and decent housing just isn’t part of our government’s “job.” I guess we can thank Reagan and the libertarian crowd for that.
    • John Buchanan cripes • a day ago

      The Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP, funded
      through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) was a $1.5
      billion federal effort to prevent a recession-related increase in
      homelessness. The second link..
      It ran out this fall so we can expect it to get worse… unless psychopaths experience spontaneous remission.
      \
      • Justin Smith John Buchanan • 14 hours ago

        In my experience, in Indiana, it ended in June,leaving families that it contracted to help, losing their rent money abruptly and months before they were told that it would end.
        Thank the Republicans!
    • Thomas Jefferson cripes • a day ago

      I’m a Left Libertarian,
      But I gave you an up vote anyway, since I think you hit the nail on the head.
      “A government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take everything you have.”
      That quote attributed to Jefferson is exactly what’s happened. The EPA, the FDA, and FEMA never do their jobs anymore since K street Lobbists always show up showering those federal administrators with goodies. The NRC is always stuffed with Nuke industry executives. The FDA with big junk food, big Ag, Big FrankenFood and Pharma gold diggers. Your tax money, is used instead for endless war and wasteful corporate pork.
      Better to just shut down everything but Social Security and EPA and National Parks and start over imho. If we don’t close down that corrupt political city in D.C., nothing is ever going to change, imho.
      The main Libertarian planks are supposed to be eliminating Foreign Wars, Bailouts, Drug prohibition, Central Banking oppression, sexual interference, Bill of Rights, etc. Right Libertarians (retread Repukes) are not on board those main planks of the Libertarian Party, as far as I can tell. It’s a big problem in America. Libertarians in other parts of the world are not Republicans in costume. Many Libertarians in the USA seem to confuse liberty for individuals with de-regulation of fictitious entities like Wall Street Corporations.
      Ronald Raygun actually grew the government as did both bushes (The blank checks to DOD for black programs, missiles etc caused a lot of that.) This is not consistent with Libertarian ideology, so I don’t think you can lump the two together.
      The Far left always thinks that government functions as advertized, while the Libertarian instinctively distrusts all government, since the very nature of it is misplaced trust and betrayal.
      TJ
      “Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?” – Thomas Jefferson, in his 1801 inaugural address
  • Keith McHenry • 16 hours ago

    If you place “750,000 homeless Americans” in Google News You will see that the number of homeless Americans has stayed the same since1992. I have been sharing food with Americas homeless since 1980 and it is not heard to see that the numbers of people living on the streets has increased far beyond the “official” annually repeated numbers into the millions. www.foodnotbombs.net
  • gardenernorcal • 18 hours ago

    I am not certain why we are focussing on how much is spent on Christmas Decorations. We could just spend a quarter of what was spent on beer in 2010 and cure the problem.

    A total of $101 billion was spent on beer in 2010.

    http://retireby40.org/2012/01/…
    Or we could consider the 12.8 trillion spent to bail out Wall St.. I personally get more out of enjoying other peoples Christmas decorations then I did out of saving Wall St..
    http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-t…
    Even then you’re not going to solve the homeless problem totally if no one is charged with the care of the mentally unstable. Does that 20 billion include that? Or is this the basic think tank figure that averages how much housing would cost for an estimated number?

    • Don Lutz gardenernorcal • 14 hours ago

      I would imagine the issue comes up because it’s Xmas time.
      But your point is well taken.
      How much time, energy and land is wasted to grow, transport and kill 100 million Xmas trees every year?
    • dkshaw gardenernorcal • 14 hours ago

      Anheiser Busch spends $10,000,000,000 (not a misprint, ten billion dollars) a year on ADVERTISING alone.
  • Grant Schreiber • a day ago

    Well hell’s bells. If we wipe out the capital gains dodge, we not only end homelessness, but get FREE Christmas decorations. Let’s do that.
  • Jag_Levak • 13 hours ago

    And out of that 700,000, it would appear one million of them are children:
    http://tinyurl.com/7kkvsjy
    I guess the good news there is that the number of adult homeless isn’t merely zero, but 300,000 less than zero.

for more comments go  to:  http://www.commondreams.org/further/2012/12/11-3

The Proposed California Homeless Bill of Rights and Santa Cruz–Preliminary Thoughts

Posted on by

Robert Norse

The California Homeless Bill of Rights, modeled after the Rhode Island bill which passed this summer, is being heralded as a strong step towards ending selective enforcement, anti-homeless laws, and institutionalized Hate Crime. Since Santa Cruz has been a leader in these fields (that is, in laws the pioneer harassing the homeless), will the Bill of Rights impact homeless people on the ground here. The answer is unclear but activists in other cities are hopeful…

cont. at   http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/12/14/18728066.php

Posted on by
The Proposed California Homeless Bill of Rights and Santa Cruz–Preliminary Thoughts
by Robert Norse
Friday Dec 14th, 2012 7:59 PM

The California Homeless Bill of Rights, modeled after the Rhode Island bill which passed this summer, is being heralded as a strong step towards ending selective enforcement, anti-homeless laws, and institutionalized Hate Crime. Since Santa Cruz has been a leader in these fields (that is, in laws the pioneer harassing the homeless), will the Bill of Rights impact homeless people on the ground here. The answer is unclear but activists in other cities are hopeful.

Some positive activist response to the Bill:

http://www.californiality.com/2012/12/california-homeless-bill-of-rights.html (comments by Sacramento Homeless Organizing Committee activist Paula Lomazzi)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/115086286/California-Homeless-Bill-of-Rights-Press-Release-2012-12-01 (comments by Western Regional Advocacy Project activist Paul Boden)

Boden’s editorial in the S.F. Chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/California-needs-rights-for-homeless-4091545.php

The S.F.Chronicle’s description of the bill: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Tom-Ammiano-backs-homeless-rights-bill-4091599.php

A right-wing attack on the bill believes the it to be more powerful than I think it is:
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/editorials/article/Tom-Ammiano-s-homeless-bill-is-bad-idea-4095005.php

The bill passed in Rhode Island back in June. I haven’t gotten any clear sense of how it has changed police or prosecution activity there, but I’m still in the research stage.

The main problem in nullifying the local anti-homeless laws is that they don’t use the word “homeless” but give the illusion of impacting everyone equally as a justifiable “time, place, and manner” restriction on constitutional liberty. In fact, the Sleeping Ban, the Sitting Ban, the Panhandling Ban–are anything but.

I include two flyers I distributed at the last City Council meeting of the year.

§Selections from the Proposed California Bill of Rights

by Robert Norse Friday Dec 14th, 2012 7:59 PM


§Text of the Two Flyers

by Robert Norse Friday Dec 14th, 2012 8:01 PM
Selections from the Proposed California Homeless Bill of Rights

This bill would enact the Homeless Person’s Bill of Rights and Fairness Act, which would provide that no person’s rights, privileges, or access to public services may be denied or abridged because he or she is homeless, has a low income, or suffers from a mental illness or physical disability. The bill would provide that every person in the state, regardless of actual or perceived housing status, income level, mental illness, or physical disability, shall be free from specified forms of discrimination and shall be entitled to certain basic human rights, including the right to be free from discrimination by law enforcement,…..

The bill would further prohibit discrimination under the above-described existing law provisions on the basis of “housing status,” would define that term to include homelessness, and would make conforming changes to related provisions, ………………………………

SECTION 1. This act shall be known & may be cited as the “Homeless Person’s Bill of Rights and Fairness Act.” SEC. 2. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (a)  In the State of California, there has been a long history of discriminatory laws and ordinances that have disproportionately affected people with low incomes and who are without homes, including, but not limited to, all of the following:

(1)  Jim Crow laws: After the Civil War, many states, especially in the south, passed laws denying African Americans basic human rights. In California, these laws also targeted Chinese immigrants. In San Francisco, Chinese residents were forced to live in one area of the city. The same segregation laws also prohibited interracial marriage between Chinese and non-Chinese persons.

(2)  Ugly laws: In 1867, San Francisco was the first city in the country to pass a law making it illegal for people with “unsightly or disgusting” disabilities to appear in public. In many cities, these laws persisted until the 1970s.

(3)  Anti-Okie laws: In 1937, California passed an Anti-Okie law that criminalized “bringing or assisting in bringing” extremely poor people into the state. The United States Supreme Court struck down the law in 1941, when it declared that these laws are in violation of the Commerce Clause, and therefore unconstitutional.

(4)  Sundown towns: Town policies and real estate covenants were aimed at preventing minorities and other persons considered to be socially undesirable from remaining within city limits after sunset. Thousands of these towns existed prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1968, which made these ordinances and covenants illegal.

(5)  Vagrancy laws:  Vagrancy laws have been held to be discriminatory on their face because they criminalize a person’s status rather than a behavior. Nevertheless, these laws existed in California until the Legislature revised them in 1961.
(b)  “Quality of life” ordinances, “civil sidewalk” ordinances, and similar initiatives are the modern reincarnations of laws designed to force homeless people to flee local jurisdictions. These local ordinances result in de facto segregation as homeless people are forced out of specific jurisdictions or out of specific neighborhoods within jurisdictions. These discriminatory policies subject municipalities to an increased financial burden of caring for the homeless who have migrated there from their chosen home municipality in relief of the discriminatory legislation.  These practices tend to condemn large groups of inhabitants to dwell in segregated districts or under depressed living conditions that result in crowded, unsanitary, substandard, and unhealthful accommodations. Furthermore, these policies result in criminalization of homeless persons who choose not to migrate………
(c)  Today, in the state many people are denied the following(1)  Housing due to their status of being homeless, living in a shelter, a vehicle, the street, or the public domain. (2)  Housing or shelter due to …… (7)  Access to safe, clean restrooms & hygienic supplies necessary to maintain health, safety, & dignity.
(d)  Homeless persons are unfairly targeted by law enforcement, often resulting in the violation of the homeless persons’ constitutional rights. Lacking the resources necessary to obtain adequate legal representation, homeless persons are often denied relief or damages through the courts……….
(l)  Concordant with this fundamental belief, a person should not be subject to discrimination based on his or her housing status, income level, or mental or physical disability. Therefore, it is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act to ameliorate the adverse effects visited upon individuals and our communities when the residents of this state are homeless.
SEC. 3. Section 51 of the Civil Code is amended to read: 51. (a)  This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Unruh Civil Rights Act….
(b)  All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation, or housing status, are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever….
(3)  “Housing status” means the status of having or not having a fixed or regular residence, including the status of living on the streets, in a vehicle, or in a homeless shelter, or similar temporary residence or elsewhere in the public domain….
(f)  “Homeless” means those individuals or families who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence and who have a primary nighttime residence in a shelter, on the street, in a vehicle, in an enclosure or structure that is not authorized or fit for human habitation, substandard apartments, dwellings, doubled up temporarily with friends or families, or staying in transitional housing programs.  “Homeless” means any person staying in a residential hotel without tenancy rights, and families with children staying in a residential hotel whether or not they have tenancy rights.
(g)  “Housing status” means the status of having or not having a fixed or regular residence, including the status of living on the streets, in a vehicle, or in a homeless shelter, or similar temporary residence or elsewhere in the public domain….
(k)  “Public space” means any space that is predominantly within the public domain or that is held open to the public, including, but not limited to, plazas, courtyards, parking lots, sidewalks, public transportation, public buildings and parks, and may also refer to those places that receive additional services through business improvement districts or other, similar public-private partnerships.

53.2. No person’s rights, privileges, or access to public services may be denied or abridged because he or she is homeless, has a low income, or suffers from a mental illness or physical disability. Such a person shall be granted the same rights and privileges as any other resident of this state. Every person in the state, regardless of actual or perceived housing status, income level, mental illness, or physical disability, shall be free from all of the following:
(a)  Any type of discriminatory treatment by law enforcement, public or private security personnel, business owners, property managers, or BID agents, including, but not limited to, harassment, intimidation, or selective enforcement…..
(e)  Unreasonable searches or seizures of his or her personal property, including property stored in vehicles, tents, grocery carts, bags, or any other carrying or storage device, if the intervention of law enforcement is based upon the actual or perceived housing status, income level, mental illness, or physical disability of the person in possession of the property.

53.3. Every person in the state, regardless of actual or perceived housing status, income level, mental illness, or physical disability, shall have the right to all of the following basic human rights and legal and civil protections:
(a)  The right to use and move freely in public spaces, including, but not limited to, plazas, parking lots, public sidewalks, public parks, public transportation, public streets, and public buildings,
in the same manner as any other person, and without discrimination.
(b)  The right to rest in public spaces without being subject to criminal or civil sanctions, harassment, or arrest by law enforcement, public or private security personnel, or BID agents, as long as such rest does not maliciously or substantially obstruct a passageway.
(c)  The right to own and possess personal property in public spaces without being subject to criminal or civil sanctions, harassment, or arrest by law enforcement, public or private security
personnel, or BID agents, as long as that personal property does not maliciously or substantially obstruct a passageway.
(d)  The right to share, accept, or give food in public spaces without being subject to criminal or civil sanctions, harassment, or arrest by law enforcement, public or private security personnel, or BID agents.
(e)  The right to the same protections that law enforcement agencies afford to all other citizens, including, but not limited to, the right to reasonable protection from domestic violence, sexual assault, hate crimes, or robberies.
(f)  The right to engage in life sustaining activities that must be carried out in public spaces because of homelessness, including, but not limited to, eating, congregating, possessing and storing
personal property, urinating, or collecting and possessing goods for recycling, even if those goods contain alcoholic residue, without being subject to criminal or civil sanctions, harassment, or arrest
by law enforcement, public or private security personnel, or BID agents………
(n)  The right to make his or her own decisions regarding whether or not to enter into a public or private shelter or any other accommodation, including social services programs, for any reason he or she sees  fit, without facing criminal or civil sanctions, harassment, or arrest from law enforcement, public or private\ security personnel, or BID agents.
(o)  The right to occupy vehicles, either to rest or use for the purposes of shelter, for 24 hours a day, seven days a week while legally parked on public property without facing criminal or civil sanctions, harassment, or arrest from law enforcement, public or private security personnel, or BID agents.

Flier by Norse of HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom) 831-423-4833 http://www.huffsantacruz.org 309 Cedar PMB #14B S.C. 12-11-12

Proposed Homeless Bill of Rights May Provide New Legal Protections
Meanwhile: Witness & Document City-Wide Attacks on the Homeless

Assemblyman Tom Ammiano’s AB-5, the Homeless Person’s Bill of Rights and Fairness Act, asks police & municipalities to respect the rights of homeless people:

“No person’s rights, privileges, or access to public services may be denied or abridged because he or she is homeless, has a low income, or suffers from a mental illness or physical disability….Every person in the state, regardless of actual or perceived housing status, income level, mental illness, or physical disability, shall be free from specified forms of discrimination and shall be entitled to certain basic human rights, including the right to be free from discrimination by law enforcement.”

A hopeful but limiting provision of the bill states:

“Every person in the state, regardless of actual or perceived housing status, income level, mental illness, or physical disability, shall be free from all of the following: …Any type of discriminatory treatment by law enforcement, public or private security personnel, business owners, property managers, or BID agents, including, but not limited to, harassment, intimidation, or selective enforcement…..Unreasonable searches or seizures of his or her personal property, including property stored in vehicles, tents, grocery carts, bags, or any other carrying or storage device, if the intervention of law enforcement is based upon the actual or perceived housing status, income level, mental illness, or physical disability of the person in possession of the property.”

** Support Briana Brewer-facing 6 months in jail /$1000 fine for protesting abuse (“disturbing the peace”) by Denise, the “Hospitality” worker, targeting Briana for a service dog and giving away Xmas wreaths for donation downtown. A judge dismissed previous “dog tickets” by Denise, Sgt. Bush, and his officers apparently angering the Pacific Avenue Pooch Patrols.
** Support Brent Adams—facing hundreds of dollars in fines for observing police (“sitting near a building”) engaged in “sitcrime” harassment downtown. Brent is also a member of the SC-11.
** Report Sleeping Tickets; ask the Homeless (Lack of) Services Center for a written form showing you are on their Waiting List if you’ve signed up, or for a statement that their shelters were full on the date you received a ticket. Check in with activists Monday evening 5-7 PM at the Red Church.
** Share info & food with Food Not Bombs Sat Dec. 15 4 PM at the Main Post Office.
** Check http://www.huffsantacruz.org for updates & debates. Check in with HUFF Wed 10 AM-noon Sub Rosa Cafe at 703 Pacific. Free coffee; lots of chatter.
** Phone in reports to Free Radio Santa Cruz at 831-427-3772 or HUFF at 423-4833.
** Act to Restore Regular Use of Public Spaces Arbitrarily Closed to Repress Protest.
** Post Written & Video Reports on Facebook, http://www.indybay.org/santacruz etc.
** Volunteer to fight the Campaign to Scapegoat and Sweep Away the Poor: 423-4833.
** Fill out specific complaints against abusive SCPD, Host, or First Alarm Goonsquads.
** Contact Steve Pleich’s Homeless Legal Assistance Project at 466-6078 with reports of police abuse or confiscated property. New SCPD property pick-up times: Tue/Thur 12:30-2:30 PM
** Support the Santa Cruz Eleven at http://www.santacruzeleven.org Prospective benefit Sunday January 6th. Time TBA Next court date: January 7th 9 AM

COMING UP: 5:30 PM Monday December 17th: Public Safety Committee Scapegoat-arama on “Illegal Campsites”. Drop in on the Bigotocrats at Work at City Council Chambers 809 Center St. Be ready to face Take Back Santa Cruz & other hostile activists.

Flier by Norse of HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom) 831-423-4833 http://www.huffsantacruz.org 309 Cedar PMB #14B S.C. 12-11-12

§Another Flyer from Supporters of the Bill

by (posted by) Norse Friday Dec 14th, 2012 8:03 PM

 

Download and distribute

§And this…

by WRAP Friday Dec 14th, 2012 8:05 PM

 

Download and distribute…

§Some Background on Discrimination

by WRAP Friday Dec 14th, 2012 8:06 PM

 

Download and distribute…

Comments  (Hide Comments)

by John E. Colby

Friday Dec 14th, 2012 9:21 PM

This bill of rights is only as good as the judges who would be obligated to enforce it. Notice how the federal bill of rights has been shredded by Congress and the Judiciary.

I don’t trust Santa Cruz judges to ever uphold people’s civil rights, especially the homeless. However their decisions can be appealed to higher courts which might uphold a homeless bill of rights.

Given the discretionary powers, and pattern of abuse in Santa Cruz, California, it is my opinion that the vote for District Attorney is one of the most important votes one can cast. A single person can overrule the will of the people, their representatives, and their judges. A kinder, gentler tyranny, especially when that power is placed in unclean hands.

#FireBobLee

by John E. Colby

Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 3:51 PM

Obviously the local authorities — like the judiciary — aren’t going to correct the civil rights abuses of DA Bob Lee. It’s time to call in the federal government. I ask the Santa Cruz 11 to consider filing complaints with the FBI for Bob Lee abusing his authority under color of law to deprive individuals of civil rights. Refer to the link below.

by Observer

Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 4:30 PM

” Since Santa Cruz has been a leader in these fields (that is, in laws the pioneer harassing the homeless)”

Sorry, but that statement is simply delusional.
Sure, Santa Cruz is mean and terrible to homeless people, which is why they come here from all over the country.

by Watcher

Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 4:46 PM

That’s a remarkably toothless bill. I suppose it plays to the base, though.

One thing, however. Rights must be free. If an amenity costs any manner of resource, be it money or time or what have you, then it is no longer a right. It’s a privilege. That’s not an opinion, and it’s not subject to interpretation. So, things like public showers and toilets, etc., cannot be rights. One can certainly demand that society provide those privileges with money from people who pay taxes, but they still aren’t rights.

Before everyone calls me anti-homeless and Nazi and fascist and whatnot, let me be clear that I would tell the bourgeoisie the same thing about roads and health insurance and whatever else we’ve come to believe are rights, that infact have to be paid for.

Failure to understand and acknowledge this simple fact is why our government is perpetually broke.

by Robert Norse

Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 4:56 PM

Delusional Observer and others who doubt the severity of Santa Cruz’s laws should check out a selection of the Deadly Downtown Ordinances at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/08/29/18657087.php .

It’s accurate to say Santa Cruz pioneered these laws in that it was the first city in California to pass them (the Sitting, Peaceful Sparechanging, Performing, Bans in 1994, the Sleeping Ban in 1978) and has progressively hardened them at the behest of the Downtown Association and Police Department. Hopefully, one way or another, the Bill of Rights may make the city attorney nervous enough to recommend reform or repeal (which is probably the only way, short of an uprising) that such action would happen.

Actually I’m pretty clear the Kennedy-Rotkin Council of 1994 in its historical deal with the merchants was the first to pass the Downtown Ordinances; not quite as sure about the 1978 Sleeping Ban, but I haven’t seen other ordinances in other cities that predate its specific criminalization of “falling asleep after 11 PM”.

by Watcher

Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 5:02 PM

There isn’t going to be an “uprising”, Robert. That sort of language is why Observer calls you delusional.

by John E. Colby

Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 5:02 PM

Here’s the definition of human rights from The Free Dictionary. You can have a right to tangible items that cost money like housing, food and drink. It’s a right if LAWS guarantees it for human beings.

human rights
pl.n.
The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law.

U.S. law and international law guarantee the right to housing, food and drink for example. These are NOT privileges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_housing

http://www.hrea.org/index.php?doc_id=404

by Observing

Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 5:03 PM

-skipped over is the fact that it is now illegal for a homeless and money-less person to urinate or defecate at night, since there are no restrooms open to the public at night, or any other facilities or land or public space

-sounds like rights are being violated to me, and a biological human function necessary to human survival has become a privilege, when a people cannot legally relieve themselves at night, what could be more fascist?

-also, why does Watcher/Observer/Helper/Amazed feel the need to post under so many different handles?

-i smell insincerity

by Watching

Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 5:34 PM

now ‘Watcher’ is talking to ‘Observer’ lol

stop trolling, you are the same person

and since indybay deleted my comment, here’s some more info

this troll is named David Schlesinger

for more info about how he may have profited from his trolling, and from disrupting other social movements, just do a google search for

“david schlesinger troll stalker” or “stone mirror troll stalker”

he’s well known around the web lol

by Amazed

Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 5:35 PM

Oh, so when I use a web dictionary to easily define the word “lodging” in simple, incontrovertible language, your head explodes and all hell breaks loose. And when you use the same dictionary to define “rights”, you’re the cleverest person here, eh?

So, I was being sloppy. Here’s a clearer distinction between natural and legal rights that actually put both of us in the right. Haha. Get it? Right 🙂

“Natural and legal rights are two types of rights theoretically distinct according to philosophers and political scientists. Natural rights are rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable. In contrast, legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by the law of a particular political and legal system, and therefore relative to specific cultures and governments.”

So there. And no, Watcher and Observer aren’t the same person. You silly, paranoid vehicularly housed individual.

by Amazing Watcher

Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 5:38 PM

Mind you, what I’m calling a privilege, and what Robert is demanding, namely, free toilets and showers and toothbrushes for the homeless, are closely associated with legal rights. But tell Robert that they’re anything but inalienable, natural rights and his face will turn purple and he’ll stomp off, inviting the “critics and trolls to in call into my radio show”.

That’s why we’ve never formed a rare and beautiful friendship, Robert and I.

by Observing

Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 5:41 PM

schlesinger, i suspect there are other reasons why you and robert arent friends

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

by John E. Colby

Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 5:51 PM

Arguably human rights are natural rights which become enforceable when enshrined in international and domestic law, but natural rights none the less. They are rights which we possess because we are human beings.

Here’s some reading for you.

by Sum Watcher

Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 5:59 PM

Yeah. Feel free to argue that all you want. But arguing that a legal right becomes a natural right via legislation means that you’re an idiot who can’t read, a natural right that most of us choose not to exercise.

by John E. Colby

Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 6:06 PM

You got it all wrong. Human rights are natural rights. They become enforceable when they are enshrined in law. They are NOT legal rights which become natural rights by being made law.

by RazerRay

Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 6:21 PM

slavery_never_abolished_450px.jpg
slavery_never_abolished_4…

(RazerRay has escaped the cube! Read Alert!)

[…]”Since Santa Cruz has been a leader in these fields (that is, in laws the pioneer harassing the homeless)”

Sorry, but that statement is simply delusional. […]

Absolutely delusional on your part Observer. The gentrification of Santa Cruz was planned along the same lines… with the same plan for ridding themselves of their pesky working class, with a number of other small and large cities nationwide such as Tempe Arizona, in the same size range.

Reference “Street people and the contested realms of public space” in re the gentrification of Tempe by sociologist Randall Amster
http://books.google.com/books/about/Street_people_and_the_contested_realms_o.html?id=JnVHAAAAMAAJ

Even to this day the city of Santa Cruz, Berkeley, and unknown other cities in California have am intercity interdisciplinary working group ‘planning’ their “Homeless Problem”.

The plan APPEARS to be “Run their displaced from town to town to town and back again until there’s attrition…” Which in these days of declining income and job resources seems an endless task destined to continually grease the slimy dollar-driven wheels of Poverty Pimps and police departments statewide.

Funny how that happens…

by FD

Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 6:21 PM

…is meaningless in California. The State constitution and law grants local authorities broad police powers to provide for public safety, unless the state preempts a particular field to be regulated. In addition, charter cities such as Santa Cruz are constitutionally home rule communities and can exempt themselves from many (not all) state laws. I don’t see anything in the bill that says the State intends to fully preempt local authorities in dealing with the homeless.

by Amazing

Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 6:24 PM

“You got it all wrong. Human rights are natural rights. They become enforceable when they are enshrined in law. They are NOT legal rights which become natural rights by being made law.”

This why I called you an idiot who can’t read.

So here’s the UNHCR, without a trace of irony, on the subject, from your hyperlink:

“These rights are human rights. Like other human rights, they contain dual freedoms: freedom from the State and freedom through the State. For example, the right to adequate housing covers a right to be free from forced evictions carried out by State agents (freedom from the State) as well as a right to receive assistance to access adequate housing in certain situations (freedom through the State)”

So the state must first give, and then the state must give more. LOL. Sounds like something written by Steve Argue, doesn’t it?

I hope some day you guys all get to live in this utopia you’re envisioning. That should be fun to watch.

by Idiot

Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 6:29 PM

you call him an idiot because you are a troll and a professional time waster

by Idiot

Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 6:32 PM

a good article about the ‘professional’ troll

http://techrights.org/2010/01/16/alternate-time-lines/

by RazerRay

Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 6:34 PM

Fucking STOP RHYMING!

…”Deadly Downtown Ordinances”

It’s simply foolish and denigrates… allows for disrespect for whatever points you try to make.

Signed,
Deadly Serious

th_RazerRayFriend.jpg
Hey everyone… Meet my dog… Cujo.

by Idiot

Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 6:34 PM

Amazing doesn’t seem solution oriented

you are so skilled, how about you help end homelessness ?

by anon

Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 6:37 PM

Richard Stallman and Bruce Perens Defamed by Troll
http://techrights.org/2010/02/19/defamed-by-access-employee/

by RazerRay

Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 6:41 PM

“FD” suggests: “The State constitution and law grants local authorities broad police powers to provide for public safety,”

MY PUBLIC SAFETY TOO… which IS the point of this issue to RE-Emphasize the fact that displaced workers ARE CITIZENS due PROTECTION under the State Constitution… which the city of Santa Cruz does NOT seem to understand.

Personally, I prefer a Jones-like decision as resolution to this issue and a state or federal judicial watchdog assigned as Santa Cruz seems unwilling to comply with a good portion of it’s citizen’s rights to public safety… A SELECTIVE portion. It’s a problem, and a potential MASSIVE liability to Santa Cruz taxpayers in the form of lawsuit expenses.

by Custodiet

Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 6:55 PM

“…a potential MASSIVE liability to Santa Cruz taxpayers in the form of lawsuit expenses…”

Yeah. Here’s another classic Norse straw-man. The old MASSIVE LAWSUIT that we’ve been hearing for the past 30 years is about to happen.

Any day now. Really. Im serious. Okay, no. Now I’m serious. Really…

by money

Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 6:58 PM

how much did norse cost the city of santa cruz in legal fees ?

a lot

if you deny us our rights, we will come for you in the courts

by RazerRay

Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 7:10 PM

Haha… He’s not a troll… At least that’s not how *I* know him.

A friend of mine did 5 years in a British prison because of this dude.

I hadn’t seen him for at least ten years. I had word that he was living in Berkely, then he showed up shortly after OccupySantaCruz began and attempted to disrupt it by “Charisma-enabled sidetracking” of people along with their labor and and resources, much like Western Service Workers Association, a LaRouche related org, attempts with other organizations and cohorts of people.

This Pseudo-“union” that seems almost legit to the outside uniformed observer made an attempt to compromise the selfsame OSC by repeatedly cajoling and haranguing the OSC GA to get involved in a letter writing campaign ostensibly on behalf of Chicano in-home health workers in Watsonville and Pajaro, while taking food and blankets from those generally impoverished people and offering them to mostly middle class OSC as a “donation”.

By their works ye shall know them… Someone said that a long time ago, and it’s still good advice.

But I digress… About Dave…

Many of the Norse-related prog-libs who hung around occupy were quite fond of Dave at the time and refused to heed my warning about his snitchjacket. I’ve also mentioned him to anyone I’ve known who came in contact with him at that time.

PDF Attachment: Rats – Your guide to protecting yourself against snitches, informers, informants, agents provocateurs, narcs, finks, and similar vermin.

by RazerRay

Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 7:19 PM

The Jones decision was a CLASS ACTION suit, and not comparable in any way to Norse’s self-serving “Nazi Salute” case which despite his bleatings has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of displaced workers or the so-called homeless.

FWIW, and indicative of my ‘philosophical’ and tactical differences with him, the people he ‘saluted’ I’d just as soon see hung from lamp posts about town as a reminder that Fascists aren’t welcome in civil society

Add something intelligible or gtfo troll. “Norse baiting” REALLY REALLY bores me.

There should be a “Godwins Law” about invoking his name here for no good reason.

by The Elephant’s child

Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 7:56 PM

Maybe you shoulda signed up for the 401K at Seagate. Or joined the Teamster’s union.

Then maybe you wouldn’t be outdoors and unemployable.

But that’s somebody else’s fault, right???

so it MUST be time to “Smash the State”!!!

P.S. Thanks for being so amusing and entertaining!!!!

by RazerRay

Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 8:11 PM

There is no way he could be David Schlesinger. David is a complete political rube and was not anywhere around when BJ sued LA.

Caveats and disclaimers:
Unless ofc he’s directly a fed with too much time to do research or has a ‘mole’ who has known her for a long time (which IS possible as I pointed out earlier many of BJ’s HUFF friends were quite fond of him and could have told him historical info about her)

Indeed, the whole SC11 indictment scam is an attempt to see if Facebook-like social web (network) tracking works just as well in real life as it does in the virtual one, which is why it seems the indictments were “popularity based” on how much of a social butterfly the indicted was, not reality based on evidence (BJ as prime example was never in the building or even on the lawn after the no trespass signs went up hence not only is she un-indictable, she’s just milking her non-involvement for notoriety a la RN), so I wouldn’t COMPLETELY rule that possibility out, but it seems really really unlikely as the troll in question isn’t bright enough to run an op like that, and when I knew him, was basically a “spun hon”, scribbling rather intricate Koh-I-Noor penned designs, while constantly seated at Java House (Pono Grill now) or sitting in his Faraday shielded (REALLY!) windowless white van outside the coffee shop.

In other words he’s a slightly charismatic wordy ex-acid head who doesn’t really have a political bone in his body afaik, and he’s paranoid, and OCD’d illustrated by the fact that during his stint hanging around Java House was quite a maven of hand sanitizers, which he insisted contain Nonoxynol-9.

by RazerRay

Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 8:18 PM

i_sleep_in_my_car.jpg
i_sleep_in_my_car.jpg

The truth is Teamsters, like LOCAL SURFERS, often sleep in their trucks, and wake up in the neighborhood of their choice… IOW, we’re ALL kind of “Street People”

And you’re a troll.

by RazerRay

Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 8:54 PM

This is my last response to “Elephant Chid”, who is one of two people. One of whom was/is a snitch for the government as discussed up-page or a former employer, Ken Bothello, Caffe’ Bene’, Libertarian scum, who attempted to blackmail me by purloining my personal property requiring police intervention when I quit his shitty job a few years ago.

They would be the only two people aware of that short segment of my 30+ years history as a well-respected worker in Santa Cruz when I worked for Seagate and a local trucking company where I trained truck drivers until an upper back injury forced my retirement a year later.

The only other person MIGHT BE a disgruntled GF, or my Ex, but it’s unlikely as I’d recognize the writing style of the former immediately, and my ex… Well lets just say last I knew she was barely able to string a complete sentence together due to the years of her methampetamine use post-marriage.

Either way Dave or Ken, consider yourself outed.

..and BTW, I never have felt the need to keep my identity in re my nicks vis a vis my real name secret.

Troll.

by G

Sunday Dec 16th, 2012 7:34 AM

It seems to popular with republicans libertarians tea partians Kochians, um, what is their new and improved brand name?

As for the identity of the hand waver, well, who cares, even if it’s a transplant.

by Observer

Sunday Dec 16th, 2012 10:58 AM

Per John Colby
“U.S. law and international law guarantee the right to housing, food and drink for example. These are NOT privileges. ”

Really? What type of housing, food and drink am I guaranteed? If I go into a bar, am I guaranteed to be given a beer (for free) because some supposed law guarantees me ‘food and drink’? If I’m going to get the beer, I might as well order up the bangers and mash. Then again, if it’s guaranteed, why not just get the steak and lob with a nice Cinnabar cabernet?

And to those above, no I am not ‘watcher’. I’d use my real name, but I’ve seen how Robert, et. al. harrass those who disagree with them.

by John E. Colby

Sunday Dec 16th, 2012 2:51 PM

Compassionate communities provide these natural rights for their members as much as possible. Do we live in a compassionate society or a jungle? Watcher/Observer desires a free for all society where no man is responsible for the well-being of his brother. European societies rejected this view because it brought them two world wars in the last century.

Watcher/Observer buys into the competition meme. Successful societies — much more successful than ours — are also compassionate ones where human rights are considered natural rights.

Clearly, as the last five years show, Watcher/Observer’s meme is a bust. Our society must become more compassionate, providing for human rights, if we are to survive and address the great challenges of our time.

“come to the table in a spirit of compromise”

You and yours first, blamer of victims. Don’t start nothin’, won’t be nothin’.

When the persecution ceases, when people are ‘allowed’ to exist without oppression, when the petty avarice driving the criminalization of basic survival needs comes to an end, then such a statement will cease to be laced with lopsided cruelty and ignorance.

I suggest you make haste in bringing an end to such tyranny, before it is ended for you.

by John E. Colby

Sunday Dec 16th, 2012 4:00 PM

You wrote:

“So here’s the UNHCR, without a trace of irony, on the subject, from your hyperlink:

“These rights are human rights. Like other human rights, they contain dual freedoms: freedom from the State and freedom through the State. For example, the right to adequate housing covers a right to be free from forced evictions carried out by State agents (freedom from the State) as well as a right to receive assistance to access adequate housing in certain situations (freedom through the State)””

This isn’t double dipping as you describe. It describes the nature of freedoms inherent in human rights. One is free from state intrusion which violates your human rights and receives assistance from the state in certain situations, which is freedom through the State.

Your exaggerations belie the weakness of your meme. The fact is we have a failed society. Our nation has more than enough money to provide for human rights and still be economically successful. If we shifted out priorities from war to peace, and from the 1% to the 99%, we could meet all these needs with extra money left over. Europe has done this without as big an economy as ours. Naysayers like you are hyper individualists who buy into the corporate capitalist propaganda.

People like you are bringing our nation, in fact our world, down the path to ruin.

by Listener

Sunday Dec 16th, 2012 4:27 PM

By the way, one compromises with hate filled tyranny the same way one compromises with jackass-inspired tomfoolery and with people who play games with the meaning of the word “lodge” to weasel out of responsibility for their actions.

You come to the table, shake hands and find common ground from which to start. Then, at the sound of the starting pistol, you’re off to the races!

“people who play games with the meaning of the word “lodge” to weasel out of responsibility for their actions”

That is an apt description of the way the District Attorney and the Santa Cruz bench has behaved.

I look forward to their apologies, forced or not.

by Doer

Sunday Dec 16th, 2012 4:47 PM

Not likely those apologies are going to be forthcoming very soon, G. Perhaps after you guys are all convicted and the last vestiges of your phony sandbox activism have been stamped out by policemen in hobnailed boots, then maybe, just maybe, Bob Lee will come outside, look at you, shake his head in lieu of just smirking at you, and offer his apologies for thrashing y’all so badly, before heading back inside to yuck it up about you guys with his underlings behind closed doors.

by G

Sunday Dec 16th, 2012 5:02 PM

“stamped out by policemen in hobnailed boots”

Careful, your true colors are showing.

“with his underlings behind closed doors”

As is your taste in governance.

by Thinker

Sunday Dec 16th, 2012 5:28 PM

That’s why I obey the law (most of the time) and thus stay free. Considering that you’re the one who pawned yourself for Roberts shenanigans, and spent time behind bars for it, I’d suggest that you’re the one who hates liberty. Not I.

by John E. Colby

Sunday Dec 16th, 2012 5:49 PM

All of your posts (many which have been removed because they were inappropriate) add up to:

“I hate liberty”.

You are confusing obedience to tyranny with seeking redress.

Perhaps someday, after studying the legal system you have so blindly consented to, you will understand our actions.

I suspect that understanding will take longer than our appeals. I suspect your expressed opinions will lack accountability, if higher courts rule in our favor. I suspect your anger will grow, as your guilt grows. I hope I am wrong about that. I hope you are blessed with an awakening, and you embrace it. I hope you repent, before it is too late.

by Robert Norse

Sunday Dec 16th, 2012 7:06 PM

Perhaps Observer can name some of the folks that have been harassed because they’ve come out from behind their psuedonyms?
I can’t think of one.

Public Safety Committee of the City Council meets tomorrow in Council chambers at 5 PM. Under discussion: the “needles and feces” concerns and more probable anti-homeless hysteria.

by RazerRay

Sunday Dec 16th, 2012 7:24 PM

I for one am well known to the police and all it would take would be simple comparison of my public words with my words here by SCPD’s ‘moles’ on these threads. Because my analysis IS known to most SCPD officers who have ‘checked me’ or spoken with me. I’m not shy.

Also note the officer investigating my incident ask to see the weapon I used to shove the stupid drunk kid off me before his thug older ‘buddy’ kicked and punched at me. I handed it to him, he looked at that steel spike, shrugged and gave it back to me.

by Observer

Monday Dec 17th, 2012 12:16 AM

Norse:
“Perhaps Observer can name some of the folks that have been harassed because they’ve come out from behind their psuedonyms?
I can’t think of one.”

Analicia Cube is the first that comes to mind. You’ve leveled all manner of vitriol at her. And your minion Becky went so far as to ask for a boycott of a business who she assumed was owned by one poster. Let’s not even get into Bunny’s, whose ‘crime’ was not wanting people to break into their property. Yes, that’s harrassment.

by G

Monday Dec 17th, 2012 4:40 AM

As there is someone that clearly stated they were trolling (and enjoyed it), before the comments were censored, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that their intellectual dishonesty trumps their claims of intellectual discourse.

In other words, they seem to hate real life people simply trying to exist, yet act so ugly on IndyBay.

That speaks volumes about their character, in my opinion.

by anon

Monday Dec 17th, 2012 6:07 AM

Observer, analicia cube is the co-founder of ‘take back santa cruz’

if criticism cant be directed towards her, I dont know towards whom it could be.

Norse is polite towards her, and comparing your behavior to his is silly; you and your other aliases who are posting here have been anything but civil.

analicia cube has never been harassed here or anywhere else by Norse

by RazerRay

Monday Dec 17th, 2012 8:24 AM

Copy the following to embed the movie into another web page:

 download video:

_eternal_fascism__fourteen_ways_of_looking_at_a_blackshirt__by_umberto_eco.mp4 (19.9MB)

Video: “Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt” By Umberto Eco”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn-5qG_ZR9I

Short form article: http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html

Pay attention to Point #6

Analicia Cube?

No DEXTER CUBE, if I remember correctly two time financial frauder. Felony convictions. That’s public information,. This freak is someone who needs to be outed continually at least as the moral and ethical underpinning of what’s called Take Back Santa Cruz.

Why not? These freaks believe stupid unscientific shit like “once a junkie always a junkie”… I think the whole basis for the organization is somehow related to FINANCIAL FRAUD. Once a fraud always a fraud.

As far as the rest of the TBSC org. It’ like American Express you know? They look HUGE but have about 500 employees worldwide, TBSC has a tiny core group INCLUDING Analicia Cube as ‘spokesperson’, whom I consider along with the rest to be NOT PUBLIC SPIRITED, as in “ALL OF THE PUBLIC” in their pursuit of an alleged ‘clean and sane’ middle class (and the middle class being friggin sociopaths are able to define sane?) Santa Cruz. The majority of their alleged 5000 members live elsewhere around the planet and “Like” their FB page. A CLOSED FB page where they want to view your profile before allowing you to ‘join’

They ARE a Fascist front organization with a ‘puffed-up’ shell of a following, created by a convicted felon, and apparently with the help current city council person Pamela Comstock.

Which means elements of the city government consorts with Fascists .

Hanging from lamp posts around town as a reminder that Fascism is unacceptable in a civil society would be too fitting a fate for these scumbuckets (The founders and core organizers of TBSC, and perhaps a city councilmember or two)

by RazerRay

Monday Dec 17th, 2012 9:08 AM

For those ‘too busy’ to watch the video or look at the article:

One of the things to be noted when “Looking for Blackshirts”:

6. Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration.

That is why one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups. In our time, when the old “proletarians” are becoming petty bourgeois (and the lumpen are largely excluded from the political scene), the fascism of tomorrow will find its audience in this new majority.

I do believe that about sums up the sick psychology behind TBSC.

Hitler Youth picked up trash and ‘helped old ladies across the street’ too. But that didn’t preclude their being Fascists.

Clipped from a conversation at another site with Linda Lemaster who said (spelling cleaned):

“…under the impression the group was just a Beaver-driven political party for Real Estate Equity and neighbor opportunism? I didn’t object when they became a “local force” because aesthetically they had the guts to pick up trash left from the broken systems they’re/we’re still paying for while we watch it break from exhaustion and neglect. I’m FOR the people who are willing to take some “in hand” responsibility for their world, even when the specific aesthetic differs from mine…”

The ‘neighbors’ are being misdirected.

Is a mattress in the woods REALLY more of an environmental nightmare than an underused golf course that strips so much of the city’s available water, and due to the fact that many of the ‘neighbors’ work multiple jobs just to maintain their lifestyle most of the ‘neighbors’ could never use the facilities… even IF they WERE golfers, because they just don’t have the time.

TBSC sells all that frustration to their members too. Instead of being concerned their members HAVE TO work three jobs to afford to live here and affordable housing with a wide variety of jobs and housing to match whatever income a worker earns would leave their members having less frustrated lives AND more leisure time

So… What’s the the big ecodisaster of MAYBE 10 mattresses spread out over literally hundreds of square miles of forest?

While ticky tacky condos being built en masse on Graham hill road without adequate water supply in the area isn’t an ecodisaster according to TBSC’s way of thinking. Or for that matter their followers… for whom a few of them MAY have seminal thoughts like that. TBSC would suppress that thought.

On the part of the core organizers, most of the ‘leadership’ passed on to their followers, their neighbors, is intentional misdirection.

Dexter Cube was/is a scam artist who ended up convicted of 2 SEC felonies. TBSC is a scam too. with other parties besides the Core or the Neighbors being the primary beneficiaries of the scam, but the neighbors, AKA ‘rubes’ aren’t aware of that while the TBSC leadership parlays their benefits as ‘political gains’, but it’s STILL a scam, and the sociopaths at the top use the rubes to achieve THEIR interests.

I acknowledge that in some cases, using a psuedonym, can be a wise choice, however it detracts from your credibility.

It is also false to suggest that I have “harassed” those who came out from behind a false name, nor that my criticism of Take Back Santa Cruz is a form of “harassment”.

Analicia Cube (co-founder of Take Back Santa Cruz) and I have strongly divergent views and have challenged each other publicly. I’m not aware she was writing under psuedonyms, was “outed”, and then “suffered harassment”. I think she expects that those of strongly different views will criticize her and she has the courage of her (mistaken) convictions.

Ed Natol has criticized me repeatedly in public, called my show and done so there, and doesn’t hide behind psuedonyms as some on this thread do.

Bunny’s was part of a group of merchants that supported banning a homeless couple from downtown, the main complaint about them being that they slept on public property (and yes, in the private breezeway between Pacific and Front Sts. in the wee hours of the morning when no one was there) When repeatedly harassed by police, they vigorously and vocally objected–and this was their real “crime”. In response City Attorney Barisone used a costly rights-be-damned civil procedure to encourage police to intensify their harassment. (See “Final Decision Expands ‘Go to Sleep, Go to Jail’ Persecution of Two Homeless Musicians” at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/11/08/18663560.php?show_comments=1#18665687)

Bunny’s and other businesses who lent themselves to this “short circuit the constitution” approach were named, criticized, and (by some) boycotted. That’s not “harassment” but rather constitutionally-protected protest that seeks to expose abuse of the legal process and targeting of vulnerable homeless people.

Lito (Miguel de Leon) is now the paranoia-poster child for the hysteria-heavy War on Drugs. Instead of acknowledging this is a medical problem, NIMBYs use meth use to drum up abusive activity against homeless people for survival sleeping and presence in public spaces–such as the library. See

Any recent reports on how the main library–and our favorite First Alarm “guard” John–is treating the more raggedy folks there?

Still no response from Landry, the head librarian, regarding the Public Records Act made on December 4th (see http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/11/30/18726836.php?show_comments=1#18727166).

A real homeless bill of rights wouldn’t be such a bad thing for sure.

Hold your nose and go to the comments at http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_22125587/library-board-votes-down-sleeping-ban .

This is the kind of bigotry that calls out for civil rights protection.

by RazerRay

Tuesday Dec 18th, 2012 11:01 AM

I walked up on the first attempt to have a meeting about the Bill last summer near the county building (which ofc was sidetracked and re-purposed when a celebrity SC11 DA showed up) to one of the HUFFers saying (in jest… I know the person)

“A real homeless person to lend us some legitimacy!”

There’s NOTHING I can do to ‘lend legitimacy’ to HUFF.

Robert Norse is OCD’d and anal enough to be a good researcher, but beyond that there isn’t much there except showman. He’s the PT Barnum of homeless ‘politics’ Shouting “Looky Here!” which is something he also does well. But afaict he has no solutions.

He thinks more beds at their dysfunctional shelter or it’s multiple doppelgangers, the “Interfaith Satellite Shelters”, is a ‘solution’. Even as a temporary thing, there’s NO SOLUTION THERE.

Just another codependent-go-round for the do-gooders to get their feel-goods on, and to affiliate, and get used to, cooperating with INSTITUTIONAL POVERTY PIMPS.

Activist Lemaster Sentenced for Illegal Lodging

Posted on by

“For more extensive information and commentary on this case, go to http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/12/02/18726953.php .” – R. Norse.

 

Georgia Perry

SC Weekly: Dec 11, 2012

Linda Lemaster says she’ll appeal her conviction stemming from Peace Camp 2010. (Photo by Chip Scheuer)

Despite being shut down over two years ago, the loose threads of Peace Camp 2010 are still dangling in the county court system. After Dec. 6’s sentencing for Linda Lemaster, who received a misdemeanor for illegal lodging at Peace Camp and faces community service plus probation, the longtime homeless advocate and her attorneys have their sights set on an appeal they hope will take them all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

While Peace Camp 2010 was a protest against the camping ban in the city of Santa Cruz, the citations Lemaster and several other protesters received for sleeping on the county courthouse steps were not camping ban violations. They were misdemeanors for violating state Penal Code §647e, which prohibits “illegal lodging”—a citation that falls under the umbrella of “disturbing the peace,” including such acts as public intoxication and prostitution.

“What basically happened is [police officers] went looking for a law that they could use as a tool to break up this protest,” argues Lemaster’s attorney, Jonathan Gettleman. “But ‘lodge’ is a very vague term. To say, ‘to lodge in a public place without the permission of the county’ sounds a whole lot like, ‘if we don’t like what you’re saying then we can just tell you you’re lodged there and if you don’t leave we can arrest you.’”

How Tolerant?

Assistant District Attorney Alex Byers prosecuted Lemaster and, at the sentencing, made his position clear: “We’re not here because of homeless problems. We’re here because of the rule of law…This is a very tolerant town. But tolerance has limits.

“You don’t get to break the law because you disagree with it,” he continued, adding that Peace Camp 2010 was a public health issue that interfered with courthouse employees’ ability to get to work. “Everyone saw the deterioration of what was happening out there…And if there’s a lesson to be learned it’s to at least attempt to work within the system, not outside the system.”

Lemaster argues that she rarely spent the night at Peace Camp and, in fact, worked to make the event safer. “What I was doing there was a lot of cleanup and caregiving,” she said.

Nonetheless, Judge Rebecca Connolly sentenced Lemaster to community service and six months of probation. “You wanted to highlight issues of homelessness,” Connolly told Lemaster in court, “and by doing that committed civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is making a conscious decision to break a law.”

Connolly granted Lemaster a stay on her sentence because Gettleman plans to appeal her case. He says he plans to challenge the constitutionality of §647e altogether and argue that the officers on the scene violated Lemaster’s First Amendment right to free speech.

“In the 24 years that Lt. Plageman had been a county sheriff’s officer he had never before used [§647e],” says Gettleman, who worries that if Lemaster loses the appeal it will give county law enforcement free reign to use the law more liberally in the future to break up protests.

 

Restricted Areas

Local attorney and homeless advocate Ed Frey, who received the same citation as Lemaster at Peace Camp 2010, says he is not hopeful for her in the appeals process. He says he and five other protestors who underwent trial for illegal lodging in 2011 already tried to argue against it on constitutional grounds, to no avail.

Local homeless advocates see Lemaster’s situation as representative of what they say is a conspiracy against the local homeless population and the citizens’ rights to freedom of expression.

Some argue that even city planners are in on it.  Attorney Kate Wells, who has also been volunteering to help defend Lemaster, argued at a recent CTV panel that the city’s downtown sidewalk kiosks are, in fact, “barriers to make it impossible to have any sort of meeting area.”

“In Santa Cruz, all of our rights are subject to time, place and manner restrictions,” she said.

Taste the Tedium and Terror Tuesday at City Council’s Coronations and Chowdown

Posted on by
Title: Taste the Tedium and Terror Tuesday at City Council’s Coronations and Chowdown
START DATE: Tuesday December 11
TIME: 7:00 PM – 7:00 PM
Location Details:
Outside City Council Chambers 809 Center St.
Event Type: Protest
City Council’s last meeting of the year traditionally features a series of speeches by outgoing Councilmembers and a second series by incoming ones. After that, the Council in the past has retired across the street to sample deserts and drinks. They have to invite the public because the Brown Act requires that when a majority of the Council gathers, the public needs to be there as well. In order to provide more dietary backbone to the frilly deserts usually offered at the Civic afterwards (also free traditionally), Jumbogumbo Joe Schultz has generously agreed to provide some hot sustaining soup.

The “Oral Communications” doghouse period will be at or near 5 PM, though presumably there’ll be opportunities to buttonhole Councilmembers while they munch at the Civic after the speeches sometime between 7:30 and 8:30. The flyer attached describes some of the issues the Council is ignoring throughout the winter while its police dutifully continue their Homeless Cleansing Campaign downtown.

Additional Note: Consent Agenda Item #15 Locust Parking Garage Restroom Improvement plan intends to transform the current public restrooms there to semi-open ones similar to those at the Soquel Parking Garage across from New Leaf. Does anyone like the”police peep while you pee” bathrooms better? I sure don’t. This item is on the 3 PM Agenda for those interested. See the staff report at http://www3.cityofsantacruz.com/sirepub/cache/2/etwy1a55ylysjamcluwvj145/36691731207201208164690.PDF .

Added to the calendar on Friday Dec 7th, 2012 8:18 AM

iCal Import this event into your personal calendar.

§Text of the Flyer

by Robert Norse Friday Dec 7th, 2012 8:20 AM
Chow Down with Tasty Survival Soup
Compliments of Jumbogumbo Joe Schultz of India Joze Restaurant

Tuesday 7 PM December 11th
Outside City Council Chambers 809 Center St.

Last Council Meeting of the Year Ignores Winter Shelter Emergency
Wander inside as the Old City Council pats itself on the back and the New City Council makes speeches and takes office. The Council then adjourns to warm beds until January 8th, leaving 90% of the homeless community without shelter and illegal if they make it themselves.
Pamela Comstock, Cynthia Mathews, and Micah Posner take office replacing Katherine Beiers, Tony Madrigal, and Ryan Coonerty during the evening session of City Council.

8-8:30 PM (time uncertain)
Civic Auditorium 307 Church St.
Schmooze with shady politicians & mangling media
Share coffee & snacks across the street in the Civic

Fight the Crackdown, Ticketing, & Property Seizures
Demand A Ceasefire in the Winter War Against the Homeless Community

Demand ACTION to increase shelter this winter, let homeless people legally shelter themselves somewhere, provide legal overnight park-and-sleep places for those in vehicles, and rein in abusive police officers and vigilante attacks.

When the Council takes NO ACTION…
Organize independently for survival and self-defense.
Don’t roll over for brutality and bigotry!
Bring Sleeping Bags, Blankets, Cameras, and Friends.

BRING BACK SANTA CRUZ
Flier by Norse of HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom) 423-4833 http://www.huffsantacruz.org 309 Cedar PMB #14B S.C. 12-6-12

Comments  (Hide Comments)

by Gemma Wolf

Sunday Dec 9th, 2012 4:07 PM

This sounds unbelievably boring. Are you really going to it? Are you really going to stage a protest? Sounds like a crazy waste of time, but good luck. Hopefully, you’ll have more than two attendees to support you and carry signs, so you don’t look like the lone silly lunatic in the place.

by Robert Norse

Monday Dec 10th, 2012 11:43 AM

Folks on Pacific Avenue, the levee, and in the Pogonip have been suffering from property seizures, move-alongs, harassment tickets, and “get out of town” style bullying, according to reports I’m getting

I’m planning to bring complaint forms to document the harassment and create at least paper consequences for some of the cops involved (and indirectly for the policies).

I’m also suggesting people use the time to speak out to each other, share contact information, and organize.

No guarantees anything will happen—but at least there’ll be food. It’s not really about the City Council at all, except it’s also true it’s their last meeting of the year, and they’re doing nothing, other than maintaining the same bad laws, policies, and personnel they’ve always had.

Plus, of course, the (outgoing) Mayor (Lane) had a “smart solution Summit” that made no mention of immediate emergency shelter, campgrounds, or safe parking spaces nor a let-up in the criminalization of the homeless for the overwhelming majority of homeless people in Santa Cruz. And there’ll be a 5 PM Public Safety (sic) Committee meeting on Monday the 17th to consider further harassment of the homeless in response to the needles-and-feces crowd. Oh, and the incoming Mayor (Bryant) hasn’t moved to press for any restoration of the SCPD discarded bikes being given to the Bike Church instead of the more upscale Bryant-spouse connected for-profit Bike Dojo. Or so I am reliably informed. (Bryant still refuses to make her Council e-mails public).

These are all matters than be discussed face-to-face with the Council gang as they munch out at the Civic.

I’ve confirmed with Lane that the feed in the Civic will be happening; incoming Councilman Micah Posner has extended a hearty welcome to homeless people and anyone else who wants to come.

by Robert Norse

Monday Dec 10th, 2012 2:50 PM

To file an Internal Affairs Complaint (or at least get the form to do so), go to http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=9334 . You then download it, fill it out, and go into the copshop M-Th 9 AM – 4 PM. I’d advise asking for a stamped dated copy to prove you’ve filed it. I’m not clear if they require ID.

I don’t advise people to file these complaints with any expectation of having one sustained. Rather they establish a record of what has happened (not available to the public unless you publicize your copy) and are available to defense attorneys in court cases that challenge the credibility or violence of officers. Last I heard, they remain in the files for 5 years.

Property owners for securing property seized by police have been expanded, according to Sara at 420-5800 X3. The hours are now Tuesdays and Thursdays 12:30 PM – 2:30 PM.

by Robert Norse

Wednesday Dec 12th, 2012 10:51 PM

Tomorrow on Free Radio Santa Cruz, I’ll be playing a bit of audio, including an angry interview with the owner of the Bike Dojo between 6 and 6:30 PM at 101.3 FM, streams at http://tunein.com/radio/FRSC-s47254/. To catch archives of the show (and others) go to http://www.huffsantacruz.org and look under “Bathrobespierre’s Broadsides”. Call in at 427-3772 if you have any thoughts.

No jail time for Santa Cruz County woman convicted of unlawfully lodging during Peace Camp 2010 demonstration – ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Posted on by

Jessica M. Pasko

Santa Cruz Sentinel:   12/06/2012SANTA CRUZ — An advocate for the homeless convicted last month of illegal lodging won’t serve jail time, a Santa Cruz County judge ruled Thursday.

Linda Lemaster could have faced up to six months in County Jail for her conviction of one count of unlawful lodging, a misdemeanor. Judge Rebecca Connolly chose to sentence her to six months on a conditional sentence and ordered her to pay $590 in fines and fees, which she said could be paid through community service hours instead. A conditional sentence is essentially like probation except through the court rather than the county’s probation department.

Jurors found Lemaster had violated the law by staying outside the county courthouse on Aug. 10, 2010 along with people participating in the Peace Camp demonstration, which was aimed at protesting the city’s anti-camping ban. At trial, Lemaster testified that she hadn’t been sleeping outside that night and that she had no intention of doing so.

She and her attorneys maintained that she stayed at the courthouse that night to look after a demonstrator who was ill. Because of her chronic back problems, she said, she was at least partially lying down when deputies arrived and someone had placed a blanket over her.

Prosecutor Alex Byers on Thursday acknowledged Lemaster’s work on behalf of the homeless, but said “we’re not here today because of homeless problems.”

“It’s sad, anyone with a heart considers that,” Byers said, but added, “It’s about the law. Santa Cruz is a very tolerant place but that tolerance has limits.”

The tolerance doesn’t extend to situations where the right to demonstrate infringes upon the rights of others, he said, explaining that the three-month long demonstration brought health risks, property damage and limited access to the county offices for the public. It also cost taxpayers for cleanup and security costs, he said.

“You don’t get to break the law because you don’t agree with it,” the prosecutor said.

Under state law, a person “who lodges in any building, structure, vehicle or place, whether public or private, without the permission of the owner or person entitled to the possession or in control of it,” can be found guilty of a misdemeanor.

Byers did not ask for jail time, instead proposing Connolly sentence Lemaster to 40 hours of community service and a three-year conditional sentence.

Lemaster told the court she thought her trial had focused too much on the entire Peace Camp 2010 demonstration rather than on her individual actions. She said that while she accepts the consequences of her actions, she believes the ultimate responsibility lies with the government, which has failed to take care of its people and presented the need for such demonstrations.

Lemaster’s supporters filled the courtroom for the Thursday afternoon sentencing hearing.

“The principles on which this case stood are clearly very important to the community,” defense attorney Jonathan Gettleman said.

Gettleman said the idea of community service as a sentence for Lemaster was “ironic” given that his client’s life revolves around providing services to the community and working for society’s most vulnerable.

Connolly acknowledged the real issues involved with homelessness, but said that Lemaster’s act of civil disobedience was her choice and it carries consequences.

“I do appreciate the efforts made … it served as a vehicle to challenge the constitutionality of the law,” she said.

Gettleman said he plans to appeal the conviction.

COMMENTS

by Becky Johnson

Showing how capricious and arbitrary the District Attorney’s office has become, in May 2011, a different judge sentenced 2 men convicted of the same “lodging” charge with 400 hours community service. When they refused, the Judge threw them both into jail for 6 months on the spot.

by Roy McAlister

Hey Becky, here’s the politically incorrect reality you’re overlooking….
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/men-women-prison-sentence-length-gender-gap_n_1874742.html

by Robert Norse · Top Commenter · 65 years old

Wild exaggerations about PC2010’s “damaging” activities were irrelevant and prejudicial, but apparently welcomed by Judge Connolly whose many biased decisions allowing prosecution material in after deadline, refusing to allow the defense to add the full context of Linda’s blog, and other errors will be addressed on appeal.
Meanwhile it was clear that the smear job the prosecution put on had nothing to do with Linda’s presence there but attempted to confuse the jury with the longer protest (which itself received no littering or vandalism citations, much less prosecutions).
The Sentinel writer might have noted that Linda testified under oath that she tried unsuccessfully to get clarity from the deputy who told her to leave whether she could still be there as a protester without “occupying” as presumably is guaranteed by the Constitution (and was allowed for others).
This trial was an ex post facto rubberstamping of deputy behavior in getting rid of a political protest without using a legitimate process or finding any real crime. Kind of familiar these days.

Library board votes down sleeping ban

Posted on by

J.M. BROWN

Santa Cruz Sentinel:   12/04/2012

SANTA CRUZ — Trustees have narrowly defeated a measure that would have explicitly outlawed using the library as a place to sleep.

Monday’s 5-4 vote of the Santa Cruz Public Libraries Joint Powers Authority Board denied an attempt by staff to add sleeping to a list of banned behaviors.

Library Director Teresa Landers said staff had sought the specific right to remove people who are lying down in the stacks or placing their heads on tables and sleeping for hours at a time, not people who fall asleep briefly while reading. She said people are seen sleeping for extended periods a couple of times per day, mostly at the downtown branch.

But board President Sam Storey, a Capitola City Council member, was joined by Santa Cruz Councilwoman Katherine Beiers, county Supervisor John Leopold and citizen members Nancy Gerdt and Dick English in voting no.

“I think it would be very difficult to enforce and identify who is guilty and who is not,” Storey said. “In my heart of hearts, we all knew who this was going to impact the greatest, and a certain group of people would be disproportionately affected. It brings up a lot of social issues, like how we handle our homeless population.”

County Supervisor Ellen Pirie, who joined Santa Cruz Councilman David Terrazas, Scotts Valley Councilman Jim Reed and citizen member Leigh Poitinger in supporting the measure, said staff should have the ability to handle what has become “a big problem.”

“We’re a library not a dormitory,” Pirie said.

Landers said library workers still will be able to ask sleepers to leave if they are impeding the ability of others to use materials and equipment. The proposed sleeping ban was part of other changes in the library’s conduct policy that the board otherwise approved.

Managers will now be able to seize unattended backpacks and other items and suspend patrons for up to a year for multiple violations of any conduct rule. Previously, staff could only seek a 30-day suspension, after which a temporary restraining order would have to be sought.

Landers said hiring First Alarm security guards around the downtown branch this year has had a positive impact on people loitering outside. However, problems remain inside, including Sunday when a woman was arrested for punching someone and a man wielded a hammer at someone but fled before police arrived.

Also as part of the new safety measures, the board instructed Landers to further study a policy on emotional support animals, those not protected under disability laws, such as dogs and miniature horses. Landers said staff, who want to be able to ask what kind of support the animal offers specific to use of the library, want to ensure patrons are treated fairly.

“This whole conduct in a nutshell is about making the library a welcoming place for everyone,” Landers said.

COMMENTS

by Robert Norse

All the paranoia and prejudice of the comments here aside, how about restoring the benches outside the library, eliminating the “War on the Poor” curfew on standing outside the library after 9:30 p.m. on public property,as well as dumping the “unattended property” pretext for harassing homeless people in the library? If the library is concerned about homeless property there, how about some lockers?
Meanwhile at the state level, Ammiano has introduced the California version of the Rhode Island Homeless Bill of Rights. It’s not clear to me whether this bill is more than window-dressing, but , but here’s activist Paul Boden’s call for supporting a state-wide measure: http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/California-needs-rights-for-homeless-4091545.php

by Richelle Noroyan

The library’s purpose is not to provide a space for long naps regardless of one’s housing status nor should the library be seen as a solution for homeless people needing sleep. This proposal would have done nothing to lessen library services to the homeless. What a ridiculous decision.

by Becky Johnson

I use the downtown library frequently and I have never smelled pee there. Ever since Ronald Reagan took office, homelessness has been a growing problem. Across the nation, libraries have become the de facto day shelters for homeless people. I know many of you posting think the solution is to drive homeless people away with increasingly restrictive and punitive laws and measures. I assert that you will never solve “the problem” this way, and that what you propose cannot be justified in a democratic society. You are basically arguing that libraries should be reserved for housed people only. Congrats to Beiers and Storey for showing moral courage. As for David Terrazas…we have to talk.

For a frightening barage of bigoted comments, see Sentinel story – http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_22125587/library-board-votes-down-sleeping-ban