Author Archives: huffsantacruz

Lowest Enforcement Priority for Marijuana in Santa Cruz? Don’t Rely on the Measure K Committee

Posted on by
Measure K Committee Craps Out Again–Another Free Ride for the SCPD
by Robert Norse
Monday Oct 6th, 2014 11:06 PM

The Measure K Committee, created by voter initiative in 2006 here in Santa Cruz, in Santa Monica, and in Santa Barbara was supposed to be the first step in holding the local PD and similar agencies accountable and moving to end Marijuana Prohibition. I detailed the agenda and some preliminary concerns about the Committee pro-police bias at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/10/05/18762458.php .   Marijuana enforcement was supposed to become the lowest enforcement priority for adults on private property–whether the marijuana was being used, bought, sold, transported, or simply possessed.  The Measure K Committee was supposed to ensure that police were laying off.  Instead it’s acting as a rubberstamp.

There was no public present for much of the meeting other than me; I was the only speaker. The chair was Deborah Ellston, an organizer in the Santa Cruz Neighbors, the right-wing NIMBY group which elected Lynn Robinson Mayor. There was also no armed officer present. Perhaps that was why my tiny tape recorder was for the first time in six months left unmolested as it sat recording the meeting. (See “Video of the False Arrest at Santa Cruz City Council ” at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/05/03/18755258.php )

TICKETS OUTNUMBER COMPLAINTS 8-1 BUT COMMITTEE NOT INTERESTED IN SEEING THE CITATIONS
None of the Committee was interested in actually looking at the statistic around marijuana arrests. Why were the police doing 8 times more ticketing/arresting for marijuana than there were calls for service around that issue? Member Coral Brune couldn’t get a second for her motion to ask to see the actual fifty marijuana citations and arrest reports. Before rubberstamping the summary and conclusions of Assistant to the Assistant City Manager Scott Collins that the SCPD were “in compliance”. In essence they took the SCPD’s word for it.
However, MC 9.84.060(1)(e) actually reads: “Responsibilities of the committee shall include: submitting written reports semi-annually to the Santa Cruz City Council on the implementation of this ordinance, … These reports shall include but not necessarily be limited to: the number of all arrests, citations, property seizures, and prosecutions for marijuana offenses in the city of Santa Cruz; the breakdown of all marijuana arrests and citations by race, age, specific charge, and classification as infraction, misdemeanor, or felony; the percentage of all arrests in the city of Santa Cruz that are for adult marijuana offenses.”
The only provision that was actually followed was the final section which requires the reports to include “any instances of law enforcement activity that the committee believes violated the lowest law enforcement priority policy”–where everyone took the SCPD’s word that that number was zero.
I couldn’t figure out whether most of the Committee members were being cagey, cowardly or just clueless in willfully ignoring the requirements of the law (passed by the voters after being rejected by City Council back in 2006).  I suspect that exaggerated respect for and/or apprehension of the police played its usual role.

VICTIMS OF POLICE ABUSE CAN CONTACT THE COMMITTEE IN SIX MONTHS
One member afterwards–the only one who actually stopped to talk with me–actually told me that he didn’t want to examine police records unless he received credible reports of violations. When I told him that as a radio broadcaster I’d received such reports of homeless people being ticketed for marijuana on private property (though admittedly outdoors), he suggested they “come to the next meeting” That would be in six months, I told him. No, he insisted, we meet ever three months. I showed him the minutes of the last meeting–since the Committee meets twice yearly. On several occasions the members don’t bother to show up or City Council members left their seats vacant.

THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY
To his credit, at Coral’s request Collins arranged to have a recording of the meeting–something David Terrazas–head of the Public Safety Committee twice refused to do. Terazzas’s committee excreted one anti-homeless law after another last year.
To his discredit, Collins suggested that getting the police to release the 50 marijuana citations from the last six months would be “burdensome” and “costly” and “time-consuming”. The Committee ignored my testimony that I regularly got such information from the police department–which didn’t seem to bankrupt them or prompt wails of dismay.

HOW MUCH MONEY IS THE SCPD USING FOR MARIJUANA ENFORCEMENT? DON’T ASK!
Other motions presented by Brune were dismissed as “beyond the purview” of the Committee that “might require an opinion of the City Attorney.” These included  a request to find out what grants or funding sources the SCPD gets that are used for any kind of marijuana enforcement. This is actually explicitly authorized if not required by MC 9.84.050(2) (e) of Measure K which states: “Responsibilities of the committee shall include…the estimated time and money spent by the city on law enforcement and punishment for adult marijuana offenses.”
Another one turned down without a second or a vote was “how much is spent for marijuana arrest and citations?” Another action authorized by the law.

ARRESTING HOMELESS PEOPLE? NOT INTERESTED.
Brune also asked that Collins provide a breakdown of arrests that include marijuana as an additional offense and the number of citations given homeless people in their campers (private property which the SCPD is supposed to give lowest enforcement priority to.
Brune also called for researching the proportion of service calls (i.e. marijuana complaints) to marijuana citations. The latter outnumber the former by a factor of 8 to 1, indicating that the SCPD is doing such citing without a complaint in most of the cases. This was ignored.

A PRIVATE PERSON HAS TO DO WHAT A CITY-FUNDED COMMITTEE REFUSES TO DO
Brune noted she’d filed her own Public Records Act request to get the stats, which I’ll ask her to post publicly so the community can do the job that the Measure K Committee declines to do.
Collins and other Committee members hastily moved to distance themselves from her action–suggesting that any criticism of our armed Drug War Enforcers was just not cricket.

HASSLED IN CONNECTION WITH MARIJUANA ON PRIVATE PROPERTY IF YOU’RE OVER 21?
Please contact me with any instances of harassment for marijuana use, possession, transportation, sales, or purchase on private property. That means on any piece of private property whether open to the public or not, as far as I know. E-mail rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com or call me at 831-423-4833. I will pass on these concerns to the Committee (via Brune) as well as make them public on Free Radio Santa Cruz.
The “Semi-Annual” Report which the Committee approved can be found at http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2014/10/05/semiannualreport_draft_june14_for_october_meetring.pdf

To read further critical background on the Measure K Committee, follow the links at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/10/05/18762458.php

 

Continue reading →

Marijuana Enforcement in Santa Cruz: What’s Going On?

Posted on by
NOTES BY NORSE:  Homeless people are on the front-lines of the “War on Marijuana’ which is actually a war on people, often poor people, who use it for medication and recreation.   Over the last few years marijuana arrests have been increasing nationwide.  It’s not clear what’s happening in Santa Cruz.  But with the hyped up Needlemania that’s the favorite sport and sellingpoint for right-wing politicians and activists, it’s important that those who want to put in a bid for sanity speak up.
                        The local Measure K Commission was created as part of a push to legalize marijuana statewide back in 2006.  It has historically been stacked with pro-police Commissioners or left without a quorum and its reports have essentially been rubberstamps of the police department’s own claims with no closer scrutiny.  It’s not likely tomorrow’s meeting will be much different.
                         However, Commissioner Coral Brune apparently has different ideas. Come tomorrow at 5:30 PM to City Hall and find out.
Title: Measure K Commission Meets
START DATE: Monday October 06
TIME: 5:30 PM – 6:30 PM
Location Details:
809 Center St. in City Council Chambers in Santa Cruz
Event Type: Meeting
Contact Name Robert Norse
Email Address RNORSE3 [at] HOTMAiL.COM
Phone Number 831-423-4833
Address 309 Cedar PMB 14B Santa Cruz CA 95060
The Measure K Commission was created by voter initiative in 2006 to ensure that the Santa Cruz Police Department make Enforcement of the Drug War laws against Marijuana the lowest priority for adults on public property not involved in driving a motor vehicle. 

A dirty deal done by the SCPD and City Attorney’s Office six months after the measure was voted in de-fanged the Measure, but it can still be a sounding board for those fighting to stop Marijuana Prohibition madness. 

Measure K Commissioner Coral Brune has asked members of the public to support her in uncovering more fully how the SCPD has been operating around marijuana enforcement. 

She also would like those who have been harassed, hassled, ticketed, arrested, or otherwise accosted by police around marijuana in the last year to come to the meeting to tell their story to the Commission. 

If you can’t make it, leave a message with contact information at 423-4833, and I”ll convey it to Coral. 

Earlier stories on the Measure K Commission’s decline into senility can be found athttp://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/10/08/18452900.php [“Gutted and Depleted Measure K Commission Meets Tonight 6 PM (10/8)] 
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/11/14/18461217.php [“Crippled Measure K (“Lowest Priority Enforcement Marijuana by SCPD”) meets 6 PM today“] 
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/01/19/18564535.php [“Rump Measure K Committee Excludes Public Comment, Loses Audio Tape”] 
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/06/16/18601993.php?show_comments=1#18618768 
[“The Measure K Oversight Committee Meeting of June 15, 2009”] 

Monterey Sitting Ban Denies Homeless The Right to Rest During Business Hours

Posted on by
NORSE’S NOTES:  Following in the pawprints of its elder bigoted brother Santa Cruz to the North, Monterey has reversed itself from a similar proposal a year ago and passed a Sitting Ban that is somewhat less stringent.  In 2013, a big turnout of homeless activists, housed supporters, and social service providers sent a similar Ban back to the staff, from which it has emerged zombie-like to stalk the homeless community.
                    The Monterey law, unlike the Santa Cruz law applies only from 7 AM to 9 PM, mirroring a similar law proposed (but defeated) in Berkeley. Santa Cruz’s Sitting Ban is 24-hours long (MC 9.50.012).  Like the Monterey law, Santa Cruz’s was passed with no stats proving any kind of meaningful business concerns other than the anxieties of post-earthquake Santa Cruz and the special interests of merchants, then lead by Bookshop Santa Cruz owner Neal Coonerty.
                      The sitting ban and the smoking ban are the primarily weapon used by Officer Barnett against homeless people downtown (See “Report from SCPD Corner” and the Barnett ticket citation record at https://www.indybay.org/uploads/2014/09/18/barnett_cites.pdf ).

On Monday in Monterey, sitting on the sidewalk was still OK but by Wednesday, you could be facing a citation from police for doing the same.

“They are interfering with my business,” said Joseph Aiello of people who he says are often sitting around outside his jewelry store.

The idea of a sit-lie ordinance has been a long time coming for Aiello and his business. He says that people loitering outside his shop deters potential customers.

“When they see panhandlers out on the street, they feel uncomfortable and therefore, they walk by real fast to get to where they are going,” said Aiello.

Starting Wednesday, between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m., officers have the authority to tell people to get up from the sidewalk in downtown, Cannery Row and along Fremont Street.

The first offense is a warning.

“For the next 30 days, that warning stays in effect and if you are found doing it again you get a citation,” Monterey police said.

Officers insist they won’t just be targeting homeless individuals.

“If this is something that is applied and and targets a specific group of people, we’re gonna catch a lot of flack for that,” said Monterey Police Chief Phil Penko.  “The application is the key.”

Penko say he hopes his department doesn’t have to write a single ticket even though Aiello says his business, a staple on Alvarado Street for the last 30 years, is in trouble and the loitering isn’t helping.

“The downtown businesses are struggling, struggling to stay in business and it does not help or improve having them always on the street,” said Aiello. “

There are exceptions to this rule -you may sit on the sidewalk if you have a medical emergency, are attending a parade or festival, or you’re in a wheel chair or baby stroller.

Here is the full text of the ordinance:

In response to increased complaints regarding safety concerns created by obstructed sidewalks, the Monterey City Council adopted Monterey City Code §32-6.2. This ordinance, which goes into effect October 1, 2014, prohibits sitting or lying down on the sidewalk in front of property designated on the General Plan map for mixed use areas (see map) between 7:00 a.m.  and 9:00 pm.

The ordinance contains exceptions for people: (1) experiencing a medical emergency, (2) using a wheelchair or other device for mobility; (3) for people sitting on a public bench or bus stop; (4) operating or patronizing a commercial establishment conducted on the public sidewalk pursuant to an encroachment permit (e.g., a sidewalk café); (5) participating in or attending a parade, etc. with an event permit or other applicable permit; and (6) a child seated in a stroller. It also requires that no person will be cited without first being given a warning by a peace officer that he/she is violating this section. One warning given by a peace officer is sufficient for a 30 day period for subsequent violations.

Police officers have been actively working to inform people in the designated business districts.

 

On Monday in Monterey, sitting on the sidewalk was still OK but by Wednesday, you could befacing a citation from police for doing the same.

“They are interfering with my business,” said Joseph Aiello of people who he says are often sitting around outside his jewelry store.

The idea of a sit-lie ordinance has been a longtime coming for Aiello and his business. He says that people loitering outside his shop deters potential customers.

“When they see panhandlers out on the street, they feel uncomfortable and therefore, they walk by real fast to get to where they are going,” said Aiello.

Starting Wednesday, between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m., officers have the authority to tell people to get up from the sidewalk in downtown, Cannery Row and along Fremont Street.

The first offense is a warning.

“For the next 30 days, that warning stays in effect and if you are found doing it again you get a citation,” Monterey police said.

Officers insist they won’t just be targeting homeless individuals.

“If this is something that is applied and and targets a specific group of people, we’re gonna catch a lot of flack for that,” said Monterey Police Chief Phil Penko.  “The application is the key.”

Penko say he hopes his department doesn’t have to write a single ticket even though Aiello says his business, a staple on Alvarado Street for the last 30 years, is in trouble and the loitering isn’t helping.

“The downtown businesses are struggling, struggling to stay in business and it does not help or improve having them always on the street,” said Aiello. “

There are exceptions to this rule -you may sit on the sidewalk if you have a medical emergency, are attending a parade or festival, or you’re in a wheel chair or baby stroller.

Here is the full text of the ordinance:

 

In response to increased complaints regarding safety concerns created by obstructed sidewalks, the Monterey City Council adopted Monterey City Code §32-6.2. This ordinance, which goes into effect October 1, 2014, prohibits sitting or lying down on the sidewalk in front of property designated on the General Plan map for mixed use areas (between 7:00 a.m.  and 9:00 pm.

 

The ordinance contains exceptions for people: (1) experiencing a medical emergency, (2) using a wheelchair or other device for mobility; (3) for people sitting on a public bench or bus stop; (4) operating or patronizing a commercial establishment conducted on the public sidewalk pursuant to an encroachment permit (e.g., a sidewalk café); (5) participating in or attending a parade, etc. with an event permit or other applicable permit; and (6) a child seated in a stroller. It also requires that no person will be cited without first being given a warning by a peace officer that he/she is violating this section. One warning given by a peace officer is sufficient for a 30 day period for subsequent violations.

Police officers have been actively working to inform people in the designated business districts.

 

__._,_.___

Continue reading →

Candidate Craig Bush Faces HUFF on FRSC Sunday 10-5 at 9:30 AM

Posted on by

 

Title: Craig Bush–Santa Cruz City Council Candidate on Free Radio Santa Cruz
START DATE: Sunday October 05
TIME: 9:30 AM – 11:00 AM
Location Details:
On the stream of Free Radio Santa Cruz at http://tunein.com/radio/FRSC-s47254/ .

Call-in numbers are 831-427-3772 and 831-469-3119.

The show will archive at http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb141005.mp3 .

Earlier shows can be found at http://radiolibre.org/brb/ . Some of these are described at http://huffsantacruz.org/radio.html .
Event Type: Radio Broadcast
Contact Name Robert Norse
Email Address rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com
Phone Number 831-423-4833
Address 309 Cedar PMB 14B Santa Cruz CA 95060
Craig Bush is running for one of the three vacancies on the Santa Cruz City Council with voting due to start within a week. He is one of seven candidates running and the only one so far who has replied to an invitation to come on Free Radio.

His website is at http://www.bushforsccouncil.comxa.com/mypolitics.html

Bush’s platform extensive and specific. You can find it athttp://www.bushforsccouncil.comxa.com/local.html .

On Social Services, he writes:

Here in Santa Cruz we do not refer to “homeless” but rather those who are environmentally challenged in between places. At any given time there are 8000 people in this area to fit that description. There is no sense in labels to group people. There are no “those” people being referred by our council. Stereotyping, profiling,and prejudice creates an atmosphere of fear that diminishes all of our rights and liberties. It robs us of our human dignity. Everyone has a face, a name and a story. There are homeless teachers here.

Our city council has proposed a registration system for all “indigents” in Santa Cruz. How much would that program cost? Doesn’t the council understand all indigents on social services are already registered? Are we going to require a homeless logo patch to wear on their arm sleeve? What if an indigent comes here planning to commit crime and just decides they’re not going to register first? How are we going to be safer with this program?

This sounds like more fear mongering, hate baiting bigotry to get a politician elected. Ask ourselves, “who is more dangerous to this community”? Is it a homeless old man sitting on a bench on west cliff? Or, a politician planning to build a desal water treatment plant in your backyard?

Single income families no longer qualify for home ownership in CA. They can rent for more but cannot own for less? The same homes my grandfather built here 80 years ago for single income families now 2 incomes are required to own. Two incomes for the same shelter? Our money is not worth as much anymore. For those who bought homes here in the last 8 years the value of their home could be less then when they bought. They are paying taxes on a liability. This is not the American dream. This is an American nightmare. Where would you go if you lost your home?

Regarding the Santa Cruz Eleven, Bush writes:

Our DA decided to pick eleven out of hundreds to prosecute as felons. This is frivolous prosecution for personal gain. The prosecution will cost this community a staggering amount. Fallen sheet rock does not compare to what the banks have done to this community. This heavy hand approach will not crush dissent here.

Compare this prosecution action to the recent bank money laundering trials. Big banks guilty of criminal drug money laundering get off with a ticket or fine. Which in the end the consumer ends up paying. No time served at all for anyone. We have a two-tiered justice system. Where is the real justice in our society?

How did the DA pick the ones chosen for prosecution? Did they hold their hands up to their eyes raising a finger a little and scan the area, picking the ones they saw? In our free society we elect the office of district attorney and our judges. We choose the ones who swear to uphold the constitution and protect our rights. Freedom of speech and right to assemble are important rights. We will not forget.

On Law Enforcement:

In recent years law enforcement has carved out 60% of our budget. It has been historically at 40%. Other cities are asking the questions about the real cost of law enforcement to our society? We must do the same. Some proposals include cost sharing between communities. We do not need overlapping services in every area of law enforcement. The service of Police Chief, SWAT teams, Police Psychology, and specialized detective work can be shared on a regional arrangement. The city saves money. Law enforcement is more efficient.

Ask yourself the question. Why are we paying city police chiefs more money then the president of the United States? How could their service be more valuable then the president? There are prison guards making more on retirement then working teachers. There are new programs that include gps tracking on our license plates. There is money for a new fleet of drones for domestic spying.

A senior was tased not long ago walking his small pooch dog for not having him on the leash. He was in the park in the woods. No one else was around except the county ranger. The senior was hard of hearing and didn’t hear the command to stop. He was tased in the back. If the officer had tased the dog, the officer would have lost their job. It is illegal to tase animals in CA by civilians. It is considered cruel. It might get you a visit from animal control. Who approved this “Frankenstein” technology to be used on American citizens?

More people die in the U.S. from tasers then any other country. We lost a young man by taser here while incarcerated in our jail. There must be a better way to deal with claustrophobic anxiety then a taser? With the use of baton the man would be alive today. The young man had a mom and dad just like you and I. To process the tragedy for them and the officers will be most difficult. We prevent that from happening again by making SC a taser free community.

Bush tells me he has lived in Santa Cruz since the 70’s, so I’ll be asking him some “then and now” questions as well as my usual “what will you do the day after the election results show you’ve lost?”–which I’ve asked of every candidate. I”m more interested in activism all the rest of the days of the year, than election results.

Tune in and call in.

Or e-mail your questions to me at rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com

Once More—HUFFsters Assemble! 11 AM 703 Pacific Wednesday Oct. 1 Sub Rosa

Posted on by

Among the HUFF stuff to be discussed, I’m suggesting

Needlemania—ignore it or confront it?…Circles Church and Red Church restrictions: implications for us?  Clock Ticking on Public Records at

Police Department and City Hall… Greg Bush: the Undiscovered City Council Candidate?…. 10-10 World Homeless Day 10-24 National Anti-

Police Brutality Rally Student Organizing.    Possible Protest/Tabling:  Empty Buildings Are the Crime! …   Organizing for 10-24….   

Encampment Protection Now!–Raising a Ruckus Against the Repression…  Safe Spaces for Homeless Dialogue ….   

BRING YOUR OWN PLANS, IDEAS, SCHEMES, SIGNS, AND ASSOCIATES!   DRINK, DEBATE…THEN DO! 

 

 

HUFF preps for possible protest: 11-1 PM Sub Rosa Cafe 703 Pacific

Posted on by

HUFF Meeting at 9-24-14

In the wake of last Wednesday’s small but successful “Cop Corner” demo (See https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/09/17/18761766.php ), some HUFFsters are hoping for a renewed effort tomorrow while simultaneously (or previously) viewing stats on race classifications of the citations Barnett has given out downtown.  Other concerns: the new possible class action lawsuit by Bary, Leonard, and Pleich against homeless property theft by police and other groups, defense of the Circles Church against Permit Parking, a 2nd look at the City’s last minute attack on the Mime Troupe last month, city stonewalling on its “we dismiss citations if you’re on the Waiting List” law (MC 636.055), World Homelessness Day confab on October 10th…and more!   No need to bring cups or coffee, perhaps even cream will be available!

PLEASE E-MAIL US YOUR THOUGHTS ON WHETHER YOU ARE AVAILABLE TO PROTEST ON WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON 2-4 AT LAUREL AND PACIFIC….AND…IF YOU THINK THIS KIND OF PROTEST IS SOMETHING YOU BELIEVE HUFF SHOULD BE DOING.
Thanks,  Robert Norse

Rooting Out Police Racism and Homeless Bashing: Demo 2 PM Wednesday at SCPD HQ !

Posted on by

FIGHT BACK AGAINST POLICE & VIGILANTE ABUSE OF THE POOR !

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 172 PMLaurel & Center outside SCPD HQ

following the weekly 11 AM-1 PM HUFF meeting at the Sub Rosa Cafe

Stop Racial and Class Profiling in Santa Cruz

Campsite Raided? Property Impounded or Tossed? Harassed on the Street?

Treated like a Criminal because you’re Poor and Outside? Vehicle threatened?

Security Guards Barking at You in the Parks? Hassled for Your Dog? “Moved Along”?

“Eat ’em Don’t Shoot ’em” Brownies & HUFF Cafe Coffee

No Ferguson in Santa Cruz! End Harassment by Officers Azua, Barnett & Others

Stop Military Style Attacks on the Poor Downtown and Around Town

Volunteer forCampsite Protection Movement & Copwatch

Flyer by HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom) 831-423-4833 www.huffsantacruz.org 309 Cedar PMB #14B Santa Cruz

Berkeley Bash Back Rally: September 13

Posted on by

 

In the last half year in the south campus area of Berkeley there have been hundreds ofarrests banishments and stay away orders. The Telegraph Avenue Merchants Association has taken the landlords contributions hired a ambassador force that acts and do a lot of the work of the police. They have stopped our communication by wiping out all venues that we in the past have communicated through. They have wiped out all of the community on Telegraph Avenue. This is a rally is open to everyone to speak to overcome this repression by the police, landlords, business and corporations.

FIGHT BACK CONCERT & EVENT IN THE PARK  Saturday, September 13th, 1-5PM    Musicians, Poets and Speakers

 PEOPLES PARK-           BERKELEY

  PUSH BACK

      POLICE & BUSINESS REPRESSION

 

 LANDLORD & CORPORATE REPRESSION

Candidate Leonie Sherman Responds to the HUFF Questions

Posted on by

> Hi Robert and Huff folks,
>
> Sorry it took me a little less than a week to get these responses back to
> you. Thanks for your interest in this process.
>
> Thanks for the opportunity to engage in dialogue about these issues.
> Leonie
>
> ➊ Will You demand an end to the after-dark curfews in Santa Cruz?
> To make parks and greenbelt areas inhospitable to homeless people with no
> other places to sleep at night, NIMBY lawmakers have made all parks, the
> levee, and Cowell’s Beach “forbidden zones.” In response to peaceful
> protest, being on the City Hall or library grounds was also made a
> “trespass” crime. Using Drug War “needlemania” hysteria & inflated police
> stats that label camping a crime, a costly and phony “Public Safety” scare
> campaign has increased fear and hatred of the poor.
>
> I will not demand changes when I serve on City Council, I will work
> carefully with other Council members to achieve the majority needed to
> bring about meaningful change. While I recognize the need for a safe and
> secure sleeping place, I do not support widespread camping in our
> greenbelts areas. I have seen too much damage to fragile ecosystems and
> too much garbage in our parks. I support changes which address the
> underlying causes of homelessness.
>
> ➋ Will You support a moratorium on laws that punish sleeping
> outside or in vehicles at night as proposed by the Santa Cruz American
> Civil Liberties Union?
> Instead of acknowledging the emergency need for shelter, sleeping space,
> or housing for several thousand homeless outside, media mudslingers have
> turned facts on their head redefining survival sleeping as a crime.
>
> Insofar as a moratorium on laws that punish sleeping outside has any
> chance of gaining traction and enactment in the City of Santa Cruz I will
> work towards that. Again, let me stress that my goal in dealing with our
> chronic problem of homelessness in Santa Cruz is to address the underlying
> causes and bring an end to homelessness. Last year several people died of
> exposure sleeping outside; that should never happen in our City. We need
> to work towards getting people safe and secure places to sleep at night.
> Sleeping outside, as I have learned from many of my students, is not safe,
> particularly for women.
>
> ➌ Will You act to defend the few possessions homeless people have
> in their makeshift campsites at night and on their persons during the day?
> Cities like Fresno have been the successful target of lawsuits against
> their police for seizing and destroying homeless property—something that
> is routinely done here targeting blankets, bedding and other survival
> gear.
>
> If elected I will work with police officers to make sure they are not
> targeting homeless people and their possessions. I do not support the
> establishment of camp-sites in our greenbelt areas as they degrade the
> natural environment that people have worked so hard to preserve.
>
>
>
> ➍ Will You restore the public space to the community by eliminating
> “forbidden zones” &“move-along” laws downtown and elsewhere ?
> The City Council last year eliminated all but 1% of the downtown sidewalks
> for traditional Free Speech activities such as vending, performing,
> sitting, sparechanging, & political tabling with police the new judges.
>
> If elected to City Council I will work to change the downtown ordinances
> that restrict street artists downtown.
>
> ➎ Will You help reestablish police priorities to focus on real
> crime instead of having the act as a quasi-military auxiliary with intense
> focus on “crimes” such as “sitting”, “sleeping”, and “smoking”?
> Police, security guards, and yellow-jacketed “hosts” now patrol Pacific
> Avenue in record numbers, swarming to mob “undesirable” poor people in a
> concerted effort to effect economic anti-homeless “cleansing” downtown.
>
> If elected to City Council I will work with police to ensure they
> prioritize the most dangerous violent criminals and property theft.
>
> ➏ Will You support immediate renter protection, stabilization,
> and/or rent control laws as well as penalties for vacant property
> speculation here?
> Rent profiteering against residents and businesses alike has become second
> nature in Santa Cruz. Living here has become prohibitive for those who
> work here. For the poor, affordable housing is a vehicle—which is illegal.
>
> If I am elected to City Council I will work hard to establish affordable
> and low income housing options in town.
>
> ➐ Will You take time out of your day to document police overkill
> and support regular community street presence to stop Ferguson-style
> police barbarity here?
> Community control of police is an ever more important issue as police
> departments across the country, including ours become more militarized and
> insulated from public input and transparency.
>
> If I am elected I will work hard to ensure that Police are accountable to
> citizens.
>
> ➑ Will You stand up for unpopular positions and be a whistleblower
> even at the cost of alienating the established political and economic
> powers?
> The political structure resists real change. In the end it’s principled
> individuals in the community & dissenters inside the power structure like
> Snowden, Assange and Manning that provide the passion and tools for
> change. Those hoping to “infiltrate” the power structure usually find it
> infiltrates them.
>
> My goal an an elected official will be to bring the voice of the people to
> the people in power. I will listen carefully to a wide range of people and
> work towards finding solutions that benefit the wider community.
> Continue reading →