Today: Protest New Anti-Homeless Law and Urban Assault Vehicle

 

PROTEST CITY HALL TODAY TO DEMAND:
No Worsened Banishment Law for the Homeless in Santa Cruz!
Repeal Approval of the Cop’s New Urban Assault Vehicle!
Repeal All Anti-Homeless Laws!

January 13th, 2015
Meet at the Santa Cruz City Council
809 Center Street, Santa Cruz CA

Today’s Protest Schedule

Some people will be gathering at city hall at 2 PM and there will probably be food present.

Around 2:30 people will go into city hall to speak out against new decorum rules being set up by the city council to curtail free speech.

SPEAK OUT:  At 5 PM people are encouraged to enter city council chambers to speak out against the city council’s approval of the new heavily armored BEARCAT urban assault vehicle and against police brutality and anti-homeless laws.
Around 7:30 PM or thereabouts (come earlier to be sure) the city council is scheduled to approve its new banishment law against the homeless.  People are encouraged to get up a speak out against the law in city council chambers.

For a description of issues at stake, see:

Protest Shuts Down City Council, Urban Assault Vehicle Approved, Anti-Homeless Law Delayed
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/12/10/18765377.php

To sign up for the event on Facebook, go to:
https://www.facebook.com/events/377910239000830/

Also see:

Murderous Cops, Liberal Snake Oil, & Revolutionary Solutions
http://boston.indymedia.org/newswire/display/222482/index.php

A Day and Night of Protest at City Hall: January 23rd in Santa Cruz

 

Title: Protests Galore on Another Terrible Tuesday
START DATE: Tuesday January 13
TIME: 2:00 PM – 2:00 AM
Location Details:
809 Center St.
Santa Cruz City Hall
Event Type: Protest
A series of protests is slated for this Tuesday.

2 PM Before City Council opens, folks will gather in front of the chambers to conduct their own speak-out linking up the various issues: militarization of the police, crackdown at City Council, and exponentially heightened harassment of the homeless.

2:45 PM Approximate time for the Dreadful Decorum Dictates to come up on City Council. These are described at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/01/09/18766602.php (“Council Armors Up”). The anti-BEARCAT protest will also begin around 3 PM (See “PROTEST NEW ANTI-HOMELESS LAW AND URBAN ASSAULT VEHICLE” at http://www.facebook.com/events/377910239000830/ & “Free Santa Cruz” at http://www.facebook.com/events/327222137463931/).

4:45 PM Rally before 5 PM Oral Communications where each will be allowed 2-3 minutes, likely to be heavily filled with community members outraged at the Council’s December 9th rubberstamping of the BEARCAT armored personnel ‘rescue’ vehicle.

7:30 PM or thereabouts (come earlier to be sure). The latest terror tactics designed to frighten away homeless people with the threat of jail if they return to park areas after being given infraction tickets for life-sustaining behavior such as sleeping.
See “Stay Away Stupidity…” at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/11/24/18764553.php

The new wording of the ordinance is at http://scsire.cityofsantacruz.com/sirepub/cache/2/e5y2okfjeqxksdpkhmfsya0i/396073312092014110820380.PDF . Or go to http://scsire.cityofsantacruz.com/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=574&doctype=AGENDA and click on item #18.

10 PM (or whenever the Council meeting ends into the evening) Speak out and possible Sleep-out at City Hall. City hall grounds unconstitutionally close to the public at night, so the assembly may happen on the sidewalk.

Bring video, warm blankets and sleeping bags, thermos of coffee, vehicles to stay warm in, tents, and friends and whatever else occurs to you.

The protest will last as long as folks choose to stay.

The homeless right to sleep, rest, stand, sit, and otherwise engage in standard human behaviors in public spaces is under serious assault–both with the Stay-Away orders and the escalation of Sleeping Ban and other harassment citations.

As winter continues, there are no reliable regular warming centers. All we can see is massive increase in abusive policing–even as the nationwide anger against police violence grows.

Silence kills.

Continuing Correspondence With Don Lane on the “Decorum” Rules

 

Thanks Robert
I look forward to hearing your comments at the council meeting.
I have forwarded your PRA request on to Nydia for formal processing– and I can tell you that I have no documents along the lines you requested.  I have this information filed in my own memory: that when you and your proxies have been sitting adjacent to the lectern I have seen many community speakers show very visible concern about people sitting in that spot and on several occasions I have seen people flinch or recoil as you move toward or handle your recording device near the lectern.  I know how committed you are to community participation at council meetings so I hope you will support eliminating one impediment to that participation.
Thanks for considering.
Don

Don Lane
Mayor

City of Santa Cruz

 

Don:

I’m still trying to understand why you support the “unattended audio devices” rule at all.   That was the first question I asked you.

What purpose does it serve?  Can you cite any disruptions caused by my regular recording over the last dozen years?

As you know,  the rule was unenforced for 13 years until a singularly repressive and anti-homeless Mayor took power.  I have been a homeless advocate and strong Council critique for nearly three decades, and I think it’s pretty clear this “rule” targets my radio work.  Do you deny this?

You note some find it uncomfortable to have me sitting near the podium.  I did too. It’s awkward to have to guard my recorder throughout the meeting.  And should be unnecessary, as well.   I wouldn’t have been up there at all, except an armed police officer kept shutting off my “unattended” recorder and outrageously confiscating it. That was after I was falsely arrested on April 1st.

I found it sad that you neither objected to the arrest or the subsequent confiscations, nor took action to stop it when you had the power as acting Mayor.  This kind of behavior by the Council is petty and unnecessary.

It’s also unprecedented.  Can you cite any other local legislative body that requires you to “sit next to your recorder or risk having it confiscated” or requires it to be placed in a special zone?

It seems to me a rather arrogant and pointless assertion of authority for its own sake.

Your proposed “permission zone” for recording devices runs afoul of  the basic First Amendment right of any member of the public, and particularly a reporter, to record–even if they step away from their machine to read an agenda, chat with a friend, use the restroom, or take a break outside.

How does the placement of a small inconspicuous device actually disrupt the meeting?

As I mentioned before, I’d be happy to make any reasonable accommodation.  How about it?

As I advised Mayor Robinson, I’d be happy to be careful not to interfere with others at the podium–as I have been throughout the years–in recording.  Wouldn’t this satisfy your concerns?   In this case no furniture, signs, additional  recorder “attendants” would be necessary.

I know how committed you are to community participation and media access at Council meetings, so I hope you will restore what has been a problem-free arrangement for the last decade or more.

Let me know.   While there are far more important matters we are both concerned about, the issue of media access is an important one to me.

Robert

P.S.  I’m also concerned with your new definition of “disruption” which seems to ignore the court case which the City lost when the 9th Circuit clarified that “disruption” means real disruption not  simply a rule violation.  Has there been some more recent court decision changing this?

Letter & Public Records Act Demand to Santa Cruz Mayor on the Stay-Away Order Law Inbox x

 

Don:

I suggest you withdraw your proposed decorum amendments and simply remove the“unattended audio devices” ‘rule’ entirely. It has never prompted any disruption at City Council other than that evoked by the Mayor.

I also suggest withdrawing the stuff about “obstructing aisles” and “furniture” since those issues would be gone once you remove the “unattended audio devices”. It’s pretty clear that this is a direct attempt to maintain a rule without good reason.

Or perhaps you have a reason for making it a potential crime to leave an “unattended audio device”? I’d be interested in knowing your reasoning.

I also recommend withdrawing your new definition of “disruption” as being “when a mayor insists on imposing a rule and has to stop the meeting to do so”. It flies in the face of the 9th Circuit’s opinion in my case that “disruption” means disruption, not imagined disruption, or the violation of some rule.

Responding to legitimate protest with harsher restrictions is in my view unwise and will ultimately cost the city administration as well as the rest of us. 

Please postpone Council consideration of these changes until you sit down with some of the activists to discuss your specific concerns and how they can be equitably met.

I would hope we could discuss this matter and come up with a solution that meets everyone’s concerns. I think that would save all of us lots of time and trouble.

Robert

P.S. In the meantime please make available any documents that involve complaints, concerns, or documents regarding the new decorum rule changes you’re proposing. This would include any documents referencing obstructing city council aisles, furniture, recording devices in the chamber, and/or concerns about Council “disruption”.

New Mayor Responds to Public Outrage With Crackdown Measures

 

Council Armors Up
by Robert Norse
Friday Jan 9th, 2015 8:56 AM

City Council (through Mayor Don Lane) and the City Administration behind it (i.e. the Martin Bernal, the City Manager, and his staff) will be voting on more repressive decorum rules as the first order of business in the afternoon session of the January 13th City Council meeting this Tuesday. This is apparently their response to the public outrage at the December 9th meeting over the SCPD’s sneak rush of the quarter-of-a-million-buck BEARCAT armored personnel “rescue’ vehicle. Lane has also placed the wildly-unconstitutional and explosive Stay-Away law to the end of the evening agenda.

I suspect the decorum change and Stay-Away order scheduling at the end of the meeting  are specifically designed to shrink, cool, and discourage protest.

The staff report and other documents regarding the decorum rule changes are attached and also available on the City’s website at http://scsire.cityofsantacruz.com/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=622&doctype=AGENDA under Item #12.

Scheduled protests:

Stop the Bearcat at 2 PM http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/01/03/18766326.php
Protest New Anti-Homeless Law and Urban Assault Vehicle at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/12/13/18765514.php
A HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom) protest at times to be announced.

The City has also adopted a new, less publicly accessible means, of responding to Public Records Act requests. The SCPD no longer takes such requests directly, but routes them through Nydia Patino at City Hall. More importantly, the requests are being responded to in hard copy letters (usually rejection or restriction) from the City Attorney’s answer.

It has still not responded to my request of weeks ago to see documentation that confirms the exact date and the real deadline for accepting the BEARCAT vehicle.

§The Councilmember’s Handbook as Lane Would Like It

by Robert Norse Friday Jan 9th, 2015 8:56 AM

Lane has given no explanation as to why leaving an “unattended” recording device creates any problem. So if you sit in your seat and want to leave it turned on, that would be cause for Council harassment if no one is “attending” it unless you put it in a special spot.

His new definition of “disruption” is “whenever a rule is broken and a Mayor is ‘forced’ to stop the meeting”. So whenever a Mayor disrupts his own meeting, this becomes the fault of the public. So, if you turn your back on the Council while speaking and there’s a rule against doing so (which there arguably now is–that’s an additional change), you are “disrupting” the meeting. This flies in the face of the 9th Circuit Court ruling that states a “disruption” can only be an actual disruption not a potential one or one created by the Council’s have a “hissy fit”.

§Current Rules

by Robert Norse Friday Jan 9th, 2015 8:56 AM

Bad enough as they are–as folks attending the December 9th meeting saw and experienced.

§Resolution Amending the Current Rules

by Robert Norse Friday Jan 9th, 2015 8:56 AM

The technical resolution that changes the rules, I presume.

§Proposed Escalated Stay-Away Order Law

by Robert Norse Friday Jan 9th, 2015 8:56 AM

Somewhere between 500 and 1500 people have already gotten one-day Stay-Away orders. They will be subject to the week, month, 6 month, and year orders in ever-expanding areas. Careful examination of the infraction tickets given with these orders show they are overwhelming used to punish sleeping, camping, simply being in a closed area, or smoking. It also seems they are overwhelmingly being given to homeless people.

§Current Law

by Robert Norse Friday Jan 9th, 2015 8:56 AM

The current Parks and Recreation laws allow designation of “closed areas” at any time at the whim Parks and Recs Czarina Dannettee Shoemaker. They also prescribe a high penalty for violating the “Stay Away” orders (up to a year in jail and $1000 fine).

Continue reading

SCPD Stonewalling & Cold Weather Callousness at HUFF Meet 11 AM 1-7 Wed Sub Rosa

Downing cups of hot fluid to stay awake and comfy, we’ll be engaging in the usual circular firing squad activity with your suggestions and some of these on the agenda:  Prep for the 2 PM  Cop Corner Protest Demanding an End to Racial and Homeless Profiling in Santa Cruz; Confronting New Stonewalling by the City on Public Records; First Reports on Downtown Performance Pens; Prep for the Upcoming First City Council Meeting of the Year.

Come if you can.  Help from a distance if you can’t.

Back to Cop Corner: Police Abuse Protest Resumes in Santa Cruz 1-7 2 PM

36 of 1,093
Web Clip
The Official Google BlogHallo, hola, olá to the new, more powerful Google Translate app20 hours ago
to HUFF, Kevin, City, Jim

 

Title: “Poor People Matter!”: Round Four at Cop Corner
START DATE: Wednesday January 07
TIME: 2:00 PM – 4:00 PM
Location Details:
Sidewalk outside the Santa Cruz Police Station at Center and Laurel along Laurel St. across from the Louden Nelson Center
Event Type: Protest
For those who have suffered and don’t want to suffer again the experience or the sight of over-policing, racial and class profiling, militarization, abusive threats and use of force downtown and elsewhere in town–

For those who want to show solidarity with the national movement against police brutality generally.

For those who are tired of the passivity and silence of local organizations who receive complaints, but do nothing.

This is the 4th in a series of public protests demanding radical reform in the Santa Cruz Police Department and calling the community to speak out about the encounters they’ve had with the armed and uniformed “protect and serve”–ers of Santa Cruz.

The SCPD has still not made available the racial ticketing record of Officer Bill Azua, as repeatedly requested under the Public Records Act Though required by law, Azua’s arrest and citation record has been stripped of any information regarding the race of those he cited.

It took months to get the record of Officer Bradly Barnett. When we looked it over, we found he was citing African-Americans at 7 times their rate in the population. (See Barnett’s complete record of Racial Citations at http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2014/10/21/barnett_cites_including_race.pdf )

An earlier protest on December 17 made this same demand along with other long-standing concerns. Like letting the public know which officers have been using tasers, choke-holds (allowed in Santa Cruz, banned in New York City), pain compliance holds, weapon draws, baton strikes, and so forth.
See “Keeping Up the Pressure: Wednesday Protest at Cop Corner ” at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/12/13/18765489.php .

For more info and a peek at the last protest, see “”Homeless People Matter” Protest Gets Honks, Volunteers, at Cop Corner” at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/12/22/18765911.php

SCPD Abuses Under the Microscope in Santa Cruz

55 of 1,093

[huffsantacruz] SCPD Abuses Under the Microscope in Santa Cruz

Inbox
x

Robert rnorse3@hotmail.com [huffsantacruz] <huffsantacruz-noreply@yahoogroups.com>

12/31/14

Santa Cruz Police Department: Political Smears, Unfair Profiling, and Harassment
by via Steve Schnaar
Sunday Dec 28th, 2014 11:54 AM

There are numerous cases in which Santa Cruz Police Department leaders have strayed from their role as law enforcers, instead engaging in political smears and unfair profiling and harassment. This makes it more difficult to trust in their objectivity and commitment to serve everyone, and fosters an adversarial rather than cooperative relationship with many community members.

intelligence-gathering.gif

intelligence-gathering.gif

[ Santa Cruz Police Department spying and infiltration of private planning meetings for the 2005 Last Night DIY Parade were exposed by various community members, including Santa Cruz Indymedia. ]

As outrage erupts across the nation over the perception that police officers are considered to be above the law, it seems appropriate for us to consider issues of police-community relations in our own town. Here as elsewhere, the most successful policing comes through building trusting and respectful relations with the community.

Unfortunately, there are numerous cases in which Santa Cruz Police Department leaders have strayed from their role as law enforcers, instead engaging in political smears and unfair profiling and harassment. This makes it more difficult to trust in their objectivity and commitment to serve everyone, and fosters an adversarial rather than cooperative relationship with many community members.

One recent example was Deputy Chief Steve Clark’s attack on City Council candidate Leonie Sherman, labeling her as an anarchist for participating in non-violent protests like hanging a banner opposing the World Trade Organization, and suggesting that she is a danger to the community and to local businesses. A few weeks later, when an anonymous emailer threatened mass shooting at Santa Cruz High, Clark again strayed from the facts, using the fear of violence to smear unrelated political activists, stating, “These kind of incidents rally the hacktivist crowd.” In both cases it seems clear that Clark was not basing his comments on fact, but rather abusing his position to smear those he perceives as political enemies.

Back in the ‘90s Clark harassed activist John Malkin who was serving on the Citizen Police Review Board, making false statements about him, investigating his political work (without any suspicion of criminal wrongdoing), and later threatening to publicize embarrassing information. A formal complaint on the matter was never investigated. This was after Clark tried to intimidate the City Council into not setting up the Review Board in the first place, stating at a Council meeting, “If you do this, I am going to hold each and every one of you personally responsible.”

Such incidents have a long history at the SCPD, and are not limited to Clark. When activists organized a fun, family-friendly New Year’s Parade in 2005, the police spied on them with undercover officers, leading to a small scandal for the department. In 2010, a handful of masked rioters smashed windows downtown. Although no one knows who committed the vandalism, the SCPD used the opportunity to smear the SubRosa Café, with Deputy Chief Rick Martinez claiming that the police had raided SubRosa, including kicking in their door. In fact, no such raid ever happened, nor was SubRosa nor any of its members ever investigated or charged with a crime. Again in 2012, the SCPD used smear tactics against Occupy Santa Cruz, spreading false rumors about ringworm and scabies outbreaks in the camp.

These attacks on political activists have no place in a free society. As with the Red Scares of times past, the SCPD has used false information and association to portray lawful dissenting voices in a bad light. It is especially troubling to know that the person responsible for many of these smears — Steve Clark, the Department’s official spokesperson —is also in charge of the SCPD’s program of mass surveillance: the use of automated license plate readers, which our local ACLU chapter has denounced as an invasion of privacy.

When repeated actions on the part of police managers violate the trust of the community, it undermines faith in law enforcement and government as a whole. For the benefit of the community and the department itself, the city should help rebuild that trust by holding the police accountable. One aspect of that must be disciplining officers who abuse their authority, including Deputy Chief Clark.

Steve Schnaar lives in Santa Cruz.


Some of the Comments at https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/12/28/18766107.php?show_comments=1#18766209  

by G  Monday Dec 29th, 2014 5:38 AM
City Council? When Clark appeared to threatened them with ICE-ish powers, “If you do this, I am going to hold each and every one of you personally responsible.”, Council members failed to act?

SCPD Chief? When Clark appeared to engage in election tampering, the Chief failed to act?

According to broken windows theory, allowing a scofflaw to go unpunished encourages more and greater violations. Who can stop ‘bad apples’ like Clark? Is the entire barrel rotten?

by Razer Ray  Monday Dec 29th, 2014 10:41 AM

a_system_cannot_fail_those.jpg

a_system_cannot_fail_thos…

I’ve had few personal problems in my (more than occasional) dealings with the SCPD over the few years for a very simple reason. They’ve outsourced the harassment and intimidation of their displaced workers to a blackshirt operation called 1st Alarm, coordinated with the SCPD’s Community “Service” officers.

I had to dial 911 a few months ago after being surrounded by three of them while sitting in the side window of the “Ritt” after I told the first one who arrived to tell me I couldn’t sit there that I didn’t agree with his interpretation of the Muni code and neither did most courts hearing cases about public seating.

When the community service officer arrived and I pressed her to write a ticket because “We REALLY need to see a judge about this…” she categorically refused to cite me, with the words “I certainly WILL NOT!” … because quite simply she couldn’t.

You read that right.

I was surrounded by three 1st Alarm Blackshirts for about ten minutes (me sitting in the window ledge and they within arms reach) only to be informed that there would be no citation. They had detained me extralegally, if detained IS the correct word because they HAVE NO RIGHT to detain ANYONE for an infraction.

When the city first hired these thugs I spoke to the council about it requesting TWO SIMPLE THINGS.

1> Get these cretins on the same page as the SCPD about the meaning and intent of the law.

It’s become quite obvious to me the city had no intention of doing so because, simply, 1st Alarm was apparently hired to give extralegal interpretations of laws they know nothing about to targeted people as a harassment-intimidation tactic because the SCPD can not. Once SCPD occifers have been briefed at their musters or meetings by legal staff about legal issues they lose the the ability to apply previously used tactics to dissuade people and convince them to comply with offen illegitimate-under-state-law or otherwise constitutionally forbidden ‘ordinances’. But the 1st Alarm thugs are under no such constraints.

2> CITY OVERSIGHT of their operations. No Blackwater Santa Cruz overseeing itself.

Recently a friend told me she called 1st Alarm to complain about the older thug at the public library, who called her a ‘bitch’. She told me the 1st Alarm staffer she spoke to on the phone offered to retaliate by filing a restraining order preventing her from using the library and was otherwise uncooperative.

Ps. One of these freaks is continuing to stalk and harass me by calling me by name every time I walk by. Seeing me riding my bike and shouting “Be sure to obey the traffic laws (followed by my name) despite the fact I had not violated any traffic law (again, that he has no right to enforce), and otherwise following me as if he expects me to commit some criminal act besides existing as a displaced Santa Cruz worker..

One evening, after observing a friend and I discussing things in front of New Leaf he later walked by my friend and whispered at him as he went by “I love you…” because my friend is perhaps a little effeminate and this freak, 1st Alarm employee Robert Caposio, thought he was Gay.

Pps. Last night I was outside a downtown parking garage on Front street smoking a cigarette and observed 2 hoodied Chicano guys in their 20s TOTALLY tag up a 1st Alarm truck sitting unattended next to the Palomar Arcade’s wall by Front.

I’d go to jail before I’d ID those guys…. even if I could.

by furlough them all  Monday Dec 29th, 2014 2:14 PM
a council majority can fire the city manager and replace him with someone who will cut the pigs weekly hours. it is extremely difficult to actually fire a pig.
but can we trust a new council and city manager to do that?
i doubt it.
judges and juries are usually pig lovers, so lawsuits rarely pay off.
breaking windows leads to more pigs not less, as we saw in 2010.
ballot initiatives with binding terms that automatically discipline outlaw officers like clark might work – if you can get the votes.
in the meantime, the best thing we can all do to protect our community from the pigs is to video them in copwatch actions, they hate that.

by Robert Norse  Wednesday Dec 31st, 2014 6:17 AM
Smirkin’ Steve Clark has a nasty history of hardball abuse against the homeless and using his police position for pushing a political agenda.

See “Police Officer’s Confrontational History With Homeless People In S.C” at http://www.huffsantacruz.org/StreetSpiritSantaCruz/232.Assaulted%20And%20Arrested%20For%20Speaking%20Out%20At%20City%20Hall=7-2005.pdf
> > & http://www.huffsantacruz.org/StreetSpiritSantaCruz/233.Assaulted%20And%20Arrested%28cont.%29=7-2005.jpg

In my long history of critical writing & public protest about the SCPD, Steve Clark is the only officer who has ever used physical violence against me personally (as outlined in the above article).

Becky Johnson described some of Clark’s record at http://www.huffsantacruz.org/StreetSpiritSantaCruz/234.Police%20Officer%27s%20Confrontational%20History%20With%20Homeless%20People%20In%20S.C.=7-2005.pdf

The SCPD’s own racist and homeless-targeting record is beginning to be documented as the police–under public pressure–slowly begin to release the records. See “”Homeless People Matter” Protest Gets Honks, Volunteers, at Cop Corner” at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/12/22/18765911.php .

My thanks to Steve Schnaar for having the courage to name names. We are dealing with armed and powerful officials in a time when it’s clear police power in different cities has suborned murder and gotten away with it.

Protests and publicity have impact. Across the country in the last half year we have seen the most continuous series of local and national protests against police in decades. See http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/28/ferguson-spokesman-on-leave-after-calling-memorial-trash/20976367/ And they aren’t over: http://fergusonresponse.tumblr.com/ .

The corrupt leadership of the SCPD is important to expose.

Equally important is to end its policies creating unaccountable militarized and massive overpolicing. See “SCPD No Disclosure of When People were PepperSprayed, Choked, Tasered, Gun-Bullied or Shot” at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/12/04/18765028.php and “Make Cops Accountable” at http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2014/12/13/flyer__for__12-17.pdf .

Continue reading

Shaming Out the Old Year, Dancing in the New: HUFF back at Sub Rosa 11 AM December 31st

HUFF –unapologetic in its disdain for holiday breaks–will be back at its old meeting place Wednesday morning with the usual bubbling pot of reports, recriminations, and restlessness.  Upcoming:  Prep for the DIY New Year’s parade Wednesday night (at 5 PM or so), Disability Two-Step at the City Attorney’s?,  Zapping Officer Bill Azua:  Scanning his Many Citations for Evidence of Bias; Strategies for De-Militarizing the SCPD–the January 13th Council meeting and the Bearcat Acquisition;  Warming Center Worries; and whatever winter winds blow in…  We got coffee; you bring what you got.

San Jose Runs Its Homeless Off; Santa Cruz Does the Same

 

NORSE’S NOTES:  The series of comments following this article at www.alternet.org/comments/some-sort-hell-how-one-wealthiest-cities-america-treats-its-homeless#disqus_thread is unusually homeless-positive.  The posters–at least the first bunch–highly critical of authorities and supportive of the despoiled rights poor people outside.  In Santa Cruz, San Jose’s bedroom community, we find even more intense hypocrisy and anti-homeless removal/criminalization policies.

In the last two years, City Council as passed a variety of homeless-removal measures masquerading as “public safety” actions, relabeling life-sustaining behaviors like sleeping as crimes needing more intensive police pressure.
Citations and stay-aways (still the one-day kind) for being a “closed area” (i.e. a park after dark), “camping”, and smoking have escalated substantially.  And target those who are homeless or traveling.

National outrage at exposed police  violence and its rubberstamping by authorities local, state, and national may give us new hope for some changes if Santa Cruz can move from symbolic protest to meaningful and locally-focused direct action.  The new “performance pens” outlined by the “dots for dodos” on Pacific Avenue are an example of the liberal sell Mayor Lane and Councilmember Comstock that criminalizes  98% of the downtown sidewalks  for vending,  tabling,  speaking, performing, and displaying artwork.   It is packaged as “reform” because it doubles the previous 1% available.   Meanwhile huge swaths of the sidewalk have been leased to private businesses,  with another 14′ penumbra around those “sidewalk cafes” made illegal  for  non-commercial street activity.  All the while illegal free-standing merchant signs occupy public spaces that human beings are barred from sitting or tabling at.

Do-It-Yourself New Year’s Parade is coming up on December 31st–usually around 5  p.m. in the Saturn Cafe parking lot.  And an angry protest against the Council’s BEARCAT Xmas gift to the SCPD of a militarized “Rescue” vehicle on January 13th is also focused on the anti-homeless “we don’t need no stinkin’ courts to get rid of you, just a ‘stay-away’ order from a cop or ranger” law.    On January 24th,  Sin Barras and other groups will protest the deaths of prisoners locally  (see www.http://sinbarras.org/ ).   And HUFF is still shining a strong light on the local SCPD to assess Officer Bill Azua’s alleged racial targeting and the department’s use of force policies.

Happy New Year–here comes 2015.

‘Some Sort of Hell’: How One of the Wealthiest Cities in America Treats Its Homeless


The city refuses to provide affordable housing, yet won’t tolerate people living outdoors.

December 25, 2014  |  
 

SAN JOSE, Calif.—When San Jose dismantled the “Jungle,” the nation’s largest homeless encampment, many of its residents with nowhere to go scattered. They found hiding places in the scores of small, less visible encampments within the city, where more than 5,000 people sleep unsheltered on a given night.


But one group of about three dozen evictees gathered what they could salvage in backpacks and trash bags, and crossed a bridge to a spot about a mile away. They found a clean patch of grass near Coyote Creek, the same creek that the Jungle abutted. There, they pitched tents donated by some concerned citizens, assigned themselves chores and hoped for the best.  


Instead, they got marching orders. After weathering the hardest rains to fall in these parts in a decade, the campers found 72-hour eviction notices on their tents. Once again, a little more than a week after their forced flight from the Jungle, they had no idea where they might live.


“This is some sort of hell,” said Raul, 57 (who didn’t want his last name used), a life-long resident of San Jose who had lived in the Jungle for nearly eight years. He had nothing left of the home he had created, just a knapsack, his chihuahua Pepe, and a new pup tent. He was so depressed, he could barely lift his head.


To an outside observer, the eviction was predictable. The state’s threat to sue Santa Clara County over the pollution in Coyote Creek caused by camping spurred the closing of the Jungle, a winding, 68-acre shantytown under an overpass with upwards of 300 people. With the state’s environmental agencies—and the public—watching, San Jose could not allow another Jungle to spring up.


But the city could offer no viable alternative to the people it was expelling for the second time in a week. San Jose, the self-described capital of Silicon Valley, the largest wealth generator in the United States, lacked the resources.


The Jungle had become a symbol of the growing divide between the nation’s rich and poor. But its December 4 dismantling—a spectacle of crying residents struggling with shopping carts, Hazmat-suited cleanup crews tossing furniture into dump trucks and hordes of police and reporters standing watch—only underscored the problem, since so many Jungle residents were literally left out in the cold.


Residents of the neighborhood in Central San Jose that abutted the Jungle were glad to see the encampment go. But dismantling the Jungle is already creating new problems. Just days after the Jungle was torn apart, San Jose police and other city departments began fielding calls from people in different neighborhoods complaining of former Jungle residents setting up camps near them. Some ended up in a Walmart parking lot before being booted. Others were congregating near the airport, also under threat of eviction. At least one hospital reported an upsurge of emergency room visits from former residents of the Jungle, sick from weathering the elements, having misplaced medications in the eviction.


“What the city is saying is that it refuses to provide affordable housing, but it does not tolerate people living outside,” said Sandy Perry, an organizer at the Affordable Housing Network of Santa Clara County, who has worked with San Jose’s homeless population since 1991. “This is a willful, wholesale violation of human rights.”
 

San Jose, by all accounts, is experiencing a crisis in homelessness. Even with dedicated non-profits working to stem the tide, the city’s homeless problem, like that of other booming cities—New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco, to name a few—has grown markedly worse in recent years. San Jose is the nation’s 10th largest city (with one million residents) but the San Jose/Santa Clara County area, home to 34 billionaires, has the nation’s fifth largest homeless population, after New York, Los Angeles, Seattle and San Diego.


San Jose/Santa Clara County also has the nation’s highest percentage of homeless people living on the streets. More than 75 percent, upwards of 7,600, are unsheltered, according to the 2014 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress, compared to five percent of the homeless people in New York City.


Ray Bramson, San Jose’s homeless response team manager, said the city did all it could for the Jungle. It earmarked $4 million and spent 18 months, with contracted non-profit organizations, to find housing for 144 Jungle residents, using housing vouchers that expire in two years. But another 60 residents, vouchers in hand, could not find apartments, even with social workers working on their behalf. By the end, just weeks before the dismantling, the population of the Jungle was still between 200 and 300 people, according to housing advocates and volunteers who worked with jungle residents. That’s because every time a resident of the Jungle moved out, another person, or more, took their place.


Critics of the way the city dismantled the Jungle, both professional advocates for the homeless and citizens registering their opinions on social media, have decried the city for creating a two-year voucher program that inadequately served the population.


“When a city decides to built a park, it doesn’t build until it has the funding to finish it,” said Anthony King, a volunteer outreach worker who was homeless for more than 10 years. “So why did the city decide to undergo a program that addressed the needs of only some of the people in the Jungle?”


The city said it was forced to close the camp for its environmental risks and hazardous conditions. But Bramson himself has said that there are many other homeless camps along the waterways. In fact, the Jungle was part of a string of 247 tent cities along Santa Clara County’s waterways that contain 1,230 people, according to a recent county census.


Chris Herring, a Ph.D candidate in sociology at the University of California at Berkeley who has extensively researched homeless encampments on the west coast, said the eviction “will not mitigate the ongoing environmental damage to Coyote Creek by homeless habitation”—only move it around.”


In an essay in Beyond Chron.org, Herring also said the eviction “will exacerbate rather than improve unsanitary conditions faced by the evicted, pushing them further from clean water, recycling centers and toilets.”


Residents of the Jungle, well aware of the growing trash and sanitary problems caused by so many incoming residents, had appealed to the city for help. In November, they waged a protest for better sanitary services. The city had provided three port-a-potties, eight hours a day, for the Jungle’s 300 residents, and handed out portable sanitary bags for them to use the rest of the time—bags of human waste that competed with all the other trash in the Jungle for a spot in the few trash bins on site.


In the few days that former residents of the Jungle spent in their second location before receiving eviction notices, they began organizing.


“We’re creating a community,” one woman said. People were assigned to clean up trash, run errands and the like. The group wanted to stay together, monitor activities so the site could stay clean and not generate complaints.


“I just know that if we keep a place clean, have the bags for the trash, and stay away from the public, they won’t bother us,” said Raul, the former Jungle resident. Living in the Jungle was a hard life, he said, but it was stable. He had his shack, he knew everyone, had friends and support. Like most homeless people, Raul said he preferred to be with other people he knew, rather than fend for himself.


His sister, who had a housing voucher but couldn’t find an apartment, was staying with her three dogs in a tent next to Raul’s. Almost everyone at the encampment had at least one small dog, often several.


The city came at the crack of dawn the day the new camp was evicted. Workers began taking their possessions before residents had even woken up, according to a report by ABC7 news. It quoted Bramson, who did not return requests for an interview for this story, saying, “There are services available. There is support available.”


But the only support was a limited number of shelter beds the residents could try to get into—if they gave up their dogs.


A day after their expulsion, most of the group had moved en masse to a new location, far from the public eye. But it was still near Coyote Creek. It wouldn’t take long, they said, for the city to find them again.



Evelyn Nieves is a senior contributing writer and editor at AlterNet, living in San Francisco. She has been a reporter for both the New York Times and the Washington Post.

Continue reading