Lighthouse Linda Lemaster Trial

Linda Lemaster, chair of the former Homeless Issues Task Force and long-time homeless activist, goes to jury trial on Tuesday, November 6th at 8:30 AM (jury selection begins Monday November 5th at 8:30 AM) in Dept. 1 at 701 Ocean St.  She is charged with PC 647e, an archaic state “anti-lodging” law for sitting on the steps of the courthouse in August 2010 in solidarity with PeaceCamp2010 homeless protesters, peacefully demonstrating against the City’s homeless Sleeping Ban.

Appeals Judge Upholds Anti-Homeless “Lodging” Law Against “Lighthouse” Linda Lemaster – http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/06/11/18715182.php

“Lighthouse” Linda Lemaster’s blog – http://www.hearthbylinda.blogspot.com/

Lemaster Lodging Trial Nears – http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/10/31/18724833.php

Yes, I’m Guilty – http://hearthbylinda.blogspot.com/2012/12/yes-im-guilty-of-unlawful-lodging-647e.html

Sentinal article – Trial date set in case of Santa Cruz Peace Camp protester – http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_21024661/trial-date-set-case-santa-cruz-peace-camp – HUFF Blog post of article with comments here.

Sentinel article – SC County Woman Convicted – http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_22141708/no-jail-time-santa-cruz-county-woman-convicted

SC Weekly article – Activist Lemaster Sentenced For Illegal Lodging – http://huffsantacruz.org/wordpress/activist-lemaster-sentenced-for-illegal-lodging/

Former Santa Cruz mayors stand by ouster of advocate over Nazi salute

J.M. Brown

Santa Cruz Sentinel:   11/01/2012SAN JOSE — Two former Santa Cruz mayors who testified Thursday in a free-speech lawsuit stood by their push to eject a City Council critic who made a Nazi salute.

Tim Fitzmaurice and Christopher Krohn told a federal jury the gesture disrupted a March 2002 meeting because activist Robert Norse, who was arrested after refusing to leave, meant to communicate with the council, however quick and quiet, after a public comment period had ended.

“It’s silence was irrelevant to me,” Fitzmaurice said. “It was an attempt at disrupting the meeting, which is Mr. Norse’s usual activity.”

The former city officials portrayed the 65-year-old advocate for the homeless as a chronic agitator who pushed the boundaries of decorum. Norse’s attorneys tried to show city leaders singled him out, violating his First and Fourth Amendment rights to expression and arrest with probable cause, because they resented his persistent derision.

Norse has said his irritation with Fitzmaurice stemmed from a promise to reform the city’s ban on sleeping in public between 11 p.m. and 8:30 a.m. But Fitzmaurice rebutted that Thursday, “I never said ‘I’m running on softening the laws for homeless people,’ explicitly or directly.”

Norse made the salute after then-Mayor Krohn stopped a woman from speaking. Norse was arrested again in January 2004 after participating in a protest parade around the Council Chamber and refusing to leave after questioning then-Mayor Scott Kennedy’s admonition of him for whispering to a friend.

The cases were consolidated for the proceedings that got under way this week after an appellate panel ordered the long-delayed matter to trial. U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Whyte said jurors will hear during closing arguments next week how much financial compensation Norse will seek from Krohn, Fitzmaurice and the city. Kennedy died in 2011.

CURTAILED ACCESS

After Norse began regularly attending meetings, several other witnesses said the city tightened rules on public participation, including ending a provision that allowed citizens to pull items from the council’s consent agenda for discussion — a tool Norse often used to give unrelated speeches. Citizens must now get a council member to pull an item.

“There was less and less opportunity for Robert to speak, and less and less opportunity for the general public to speak,” said Scott Graham, a frequent attendee who, like others, said the council punished Norse for actions others committed without penalty.

Activist Coral Brune testified she also was warned by Kennedy for taking part in the 2004 parade and sat down in the gallery. She said city staff and others, unlike Norse, were not punished for talking to each other during the meeting.

“I’ve never seen that happen before,” she said.

WHAT IS A DISRUPTION?

Norse’s attorneys tried to show it was the council’s own reactions to Norse that created disruptions.

“Other than you complaining, how did this disrupt the meeting?” attorney David Beauvais asked Fitzmaurice about the salute.

“It did disrupt the meeting because Norse was trying to draw attention to himself,” said Fitzmaurice, who brought the salute to Krohn’s attention.

Krohn acknowledged he did not see the gesture and was not personally disrupted by it. But he said it created a disruption because Fitzmaurice deemed it out of order.

Fitzmaurice, who at the time served on the American Civil Liberties Union’s local board, said he would not have seen Norse’s salute as out of order if he had made it during public comment.

But he also acknowledged he would not call someone out of order for applauding the council or giving them a thumbs-up outside of the public comment period. He said those actions would not disrupt a meeting.

“It was a fairly specific kind of message to me that (Norse) assumed, because it was so explosive, it would require a response to it,” Fitzmaurice said.

Robert Norse tells federal jury city suppressed critics

J.M. Brown

Santa Cruz Sentinel:   10/31/2012SAN JOSE — Ten years after filing a First Amendment lawsuit against Santa Cruz officials, Robert Norse finally got his day in court Wednesday, testifying that a mock Nazi salute he made during a public meeting did not cause the disruption that led to his arrest.

The longtime Santa Cruz City Council critic and advocate for the homeless told a federal jury he made the gesture during a March 2002 meeting after then-Mayor Christopher Krohn silenced a speaker and closed a public comment period early. Norse refused Krohn’s order to leave and was taken to jail for more than five hours, later released with no charges filed.

The 65-year-old Norse, who has long sought to overturn a city ban on camping in public overnight, said the council had a history of suppressing critics. By leaving the meeting, Norse said he would have made his supporters lose hope.

“If you begin to surrender your rights in those circumstances, where does it stop?” he asked.

George Kovacevich, the city’s lawyer, tried to paint Norse on cross examination as a chronic agitator, noting he had spoken 271 times at council meetings between 1999 and 2005. Norse acknowledged he often walked around during meetings, talking to other people, and once took a pie to the face during a skit designed to criticize council members.

“This is not really a case about a Nazi salute or a case about protesting,” Kovacevich told the jury of four women and four men. “It’s about who controls the meeting. This is a case that will show Mr. Norse can’t stand that he doesn’t have control.”

U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Whyte, who first dismissed the matter a decade ago, was ordered to hold a trial by a rare 11-member panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal, which overturned an earlier ruling backing Whyte’s original decision. The city appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011, but the high court declined a review.

The case is consolidated with a 2004 arrest after Norse participated in a parade around the Council Chamber. After re-entering the room and whispering to someone, then-Mayor Scott Kennedy ordered him to leave after he challenged a request to take the conversation outside.

The city has spent an estimated $150,000 fighting Norse and, if it loses, faces the likelihood of paying him unspecified financial damages and covering his attorney’s fees. Norse had offered to settle if the city reforms rules governing meeting decorum and the camping ban, which bars sleeping outside, in a vehicle, or under a structure from 11 p.m. to 8:30 a.m.

Norse’s testimony revealed that his long-running battle with the city over homelessness created the tense backdrop for his appearances at meetings. Even though the 2002 council was one of the most progressive, Norse was unhappy with progress on reversing measures he views as criminalizing homelessness and panhandling.

During the 2002 meeting, after Krohn asked frequent grandstander Mike Tomassi to leave, a woman approached the podium to speak but was told to sit down. After she relented, Norse told the jury, he raised his arm to say, “You’re acting in a very authoritarian manner. You’re acting like fascists.”

Norse said he is Jewish and does not subscribe to Nazi ideals. He acknowledged he made the gesture with his left arm, not his right, as is Nazi custom.

Then-Councilman Tim Fitzmaurice, who Norse said had failed on a promise to reform the camping ban, noticed the salute, brought it to Krohn’s attention and asked that Norse be removed. Norse’s lawyers argue it was Fitzmaurice who caused the disruption by stopping the meeting.

After Krohn ordered Norse to leave, Norse sat down in defiance and was later arrested by a police officer. A court eventually dismissed he officer from the suit.

Video of the 2002 and 2004 incidents were played for jurors Wednesday. In an effort to establish damages, Norse said the arrest made him scared to attend meetings and caused him to lose sleep and work time.

Steve Hartman, a former conservative radio host, and former Community TV cameraman Mark Halfmoon testified they were at the 2002 meeting and did not believe the salute made a disruption.

Hartman, who now resides in Montana, flew in to testify for just a few moments, saying he was opposed to Norse’s politics but believed his actions were within his First Amendment rights. The city’s lawyer did not cross examine either witness.

Fitzmaurice and Krohn are slated to be questioned by Norse’s attorneys Thursday.

Judge Burdick issues sanctions against DA’s office

Becky Johnson: One Woman Talking

October 10, 2012

Original Post

Banner from a rally held by the Brown Berets of Watsonville
in support of the Santa Cruz Eleven. 
Photo by Becky Johnson May 4, 2012

by Becky Johnson
Oct 9 2012

Santa Cruz, Ca. — I went to court this morning. There was much confusion. At my August 20th hearing, I had thought that only Franklin “Angel” Alcantara and Cameron Larendeau were required to be at this hearing. But my lawyer called me yesterday, apologized for not being able to come to the hearing himself, and told me one of the other attorneys had agreed to appear on my behalf.

When I got to court, only Angel and Cameron’s names were on the court docket. Wonderful. Someone screwed up again, I thought. I wonder who.

They call our case “The Occupy Case” which is ironic, considering all the arguments that went back and forth to disassociate the 75 River Street Occupation of a long, empty bank building from Occupy Santa Cruz and its encampment in San Lorenzo Park. In the end, OSC stood up and formed a working group to provide support to the Santa Cruz Eleven as we came to be called.

In my own case, I had a lot to do with the encampment in San Lorenzo Park and very little to do with the 75 River Street building takeover, but this case is not about facts and evidence.

We are now down to seven defendants. Bradley Stuart Allen, Alex Darocy, Grant Wilson, and Ed Rector have all had their charges dismissed due to lack of evidence against them. Judge Burdick had also found the case against Cameron and Angel to be lacking evidence, but ADA Rebekah Young refiled against them.  This hearing had been scheduled by Cameron’s attorney, Briggs, and Angel’s attorney Ruben.  But Ruben wasn’t there. Nor was Briggs. Lisa McCaney, appearing on their behalf asked Young “Where is the additional evidence that you said you had to refile charges against my client?” A photograph referred to in a police report has still not been produced.

Young replied that she had been “confused” as to which motion would be resolved that day. She wasn’t the only one!  Burdick had sharp words for Ms. Young.

“Its my understanding that I’ll be ruling on her motion independent of any discovery violations under discussion. Violations of due process and the procedural morass that has brought us to this point.”
This “point” being ten months into the legal process, eight months after sheriff’s came to my home and arrested me while I was cooking pancakes, and still two more months to go just to get to my preliminary hearing. And I am eager to get to that point too, where I believe I will too be able to dispense with the specious charges against me. You see, the DA has no case against me.

“I apologize. I’m not prepared to argue her motion.” What else is new in this case?

“The people here have a right to a preliminary hearing, not an additional discussion and no new facts,” Burdick told her.

“Your honor, I believed the two sole witnesses at the preliminary hearing to be sufficient.”

“She says she has additional witnesses who can identify Mr. Alcantara and Mr. Larandeau but none have been forthcoming,” McCaney charged.

“Work has been extremely sloppy and we don’t have viable opposition papers.” But then inexplicably he said “I’m going to deny the motion to dismiss.”

Burdick asked if there were any other discovery issues. Attorneys complained about an empty file on one of the disks, but Young insisted that that was how the file came from the SCPD. None of the attorneys mentioned that the videos released many months ago did not have soundtracks, but now, on videos released August 20th, the sound was back but without explanation. Of course this meant the attorneys (and defendants) must now go back and watch over 25 hours of videotape again in order to LISTEN to the dialogue of police engaged in while recording to see if there is more evidence there.

Hackett, appearing on behalf of Norse’s attorney David Beauvais said that Beauvais had repeatedly requested for procedural manuals on instructions for police on crowd control, use of tear gas, and their policy concerning 1st amendment issues.

Young answered that the SCPD “has no first amendment policy.” Burdick seemed puzzled by this. “There must be some manual or procedures for crowd control and the use of chemical agents.”

Should it be achieved by subpoena? one of the defense attorneys quipped.

Burdick ignored this and just instructed Young to “look for those.”

Then Burdick announced that he had contemplated what the appropriate sanctions against the DA’s office should be springing from his statement on August 20th. He ruled that the sanctions would be to bill the DA’s office for additional expenses that out of county attorneys only had when they were required to come to attend additional hearings due to Young’s failures to provide discovery in a timely or forthright manner. There would be no relief for defendants dragged to every hearing on threat of arrest, missing work, school, time with loved ones and incurring costs.  Attorneys are paid, defendants are not.

The remaining defendants face a preliminary hearing on January 7th at 9AM in Dept 6. A readiness hearing is scheduled for January 4th also at 9AM.

LINDA LEMASTER TRIAL TO BEGIN WEDNESDAY

In other cases, Linda Lemaster’s 647 ( e) “lodging” trial launches October 15th at 9AM in Dept 1 before Judge Rebecca Connolly. A pre-trial hearing is scheduled for 8:30AM in Dept 1 Oct 10th. Both cases will be heard at Santa Cruz Superior Court, 701 Ocean St. Santa Cruz, Ca. 95060

City’s War on Musicians has one less tool

Becky Johnson: One Woman Talking

October 7, 2012

Original Post

Robert “Blindbear” Facer, an Amish street minister, is issued a $445 citation for “unreasonably disturbing noise” when he kept a 31-year old nearby resident from napping. Jan 6, 2010 Photo by Becky Johnson

NOTE TO READER:  Can u imagine? The LAW that I was convicted under for singing a few songs in the middle of the afternoon in my unamplified singing voice in the FREE SPEECH ZONE no less!! has been found by a Judge OUTSIDE Santa Cruz County to be “unconstitutional”? Surprise. Surprise. Surprise. What’s next? Will the City seek the courts to expunge my conviction? Will they refund the $250 of community service I performed? An apology? Or will they just find another way to drive activists and musicians off of Pacific Ave.? —Becky Johnson, ed.

Judge tosses out part of Santa Cruz noise rule as too vague to meet ‘constitutional muster’

Posted:   10/01/2012 04:57:23 PM PDT
SANTA CRUZ — A federal judge has thrown out a portion of Santa Cruz’s noise ordinance and ordered the city to stop enforcing it.

U.S. District Court Judge Ronald M. Whyte ruled Friday in favor of an Alameda County man arrested in May 2010 after ignoring requests from a police officer to stop preaching loudly downtown. William Hampsmire was cited under the city’s “unreasonably disturbing noise” rule, though the District Attorney’s Office eventually declined to prosecute.

The judge found the ordinance — which bans noise that is “unreasonably disturbing or physically annoying” or “not necessary” to participate in lawful activities — is vague and “fails to pass constitutional muster.” The judge said determining what level of noise is necessary is subjective.
Hampsmire filed suit in the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, in May.

“I certainly think the city should have a noise ordinance, but the ordinance needs to be clear and measurable,” said Mike Millen, a Los Gatos attorney who brought the claim and said he has represented Hampsmire when officers elsewhere have asked him to quiet down.

The judge denied Hampsmire’s claim that his free-speech rights were violated and found no evidence that the arresting officer acted out of an objection to the man’s religious speech.
The case will go to trial unless the parties settle. Millen said he will seek payment from the city for his legal fees, which he estimated at $40,000.

City Attorney John Barisone said the ordinance has been upheld a number of times in state courts, adding, “This is really the first time a judge has had a problem with the language in our law.” He said he will work with the City Council to amend the ordinance for clarity.

The judge’s order does not affect other parts of the city’s noise ordinance, including barring loud noises from 10 p.m. to 8 a.m. Deputy Police Chief Steve Clark said the ruling also does not affect the ability of officers to cite or arrest people whom they believe are using noise to disturb the peace.

Hampsmire was preaching on the sidewalk on Pacific Avenue at Cooper Street about 6 p.m. on a Sunday when a man in an office about 70 feet away complained to police about the loud noise, saying Hampsmire had been speaking for about an hour, according to a court record. Officer Patrick Bayani responded and determined Hampsmire did not need to be so loud, even to be heard across the street, and asked him to move or reduce the noise.

The officer said Hampsmire refused and told him “You’re going to have to arrest me for preaching … for my freedom of religion,” according to the record. The man began preaching even louder after handing his belongings to a woman who was videotaping the incident.

Hampsmire was booked into jail for disturbing the peace and later released, the record said.

The city used the ordinance in 2010 to prosecute advocates for the homeless who sang in protest outside Bookshop Santa Cruz, which is owned by the family of Councilman Ryan Coonerty, a vocal critic of aggressive panhandling and other social problems downtown. The city attorney said Friday’s ruling can’t be applied to previous cases.

Police have issued 121 citations using the rule since 2011, according to city records.

End of the line for Caltrain encampment

SF Chronicle – Thursday, September 27, 2012

Up to 50 homeless people who live in a makeshift tent encampment on Caltrain station property at Fourth and King streets will be moved in a few weeks, according to homeless advocates and city officials.

But that’s about all they agree on.

To Jennifer Friedenbach, director of the Coalition on Homelessness, Caltrain’s request for bids to erect iron fencing around the property is unnecessary. She said school kids, people with disabilities and others will be needlessly displaced since the camp is working just fine with no reported hygiene or health problems.

The campers have even managed to grow a beautiful garden on the property, Friedenbach said.

“From our perspective, these people have nowhere to go so they’re basically displacing people who are in an emergency situation to the streets and forcing them to experience further crises,” she said.

But Bevan Dufty, the point person on homelessness for Mayor Ed Lee, said the fact that there are juveniles living there is proof the encampment “is concerning.” He said a homeless outreach team will begin visiting campers Tuesday and will make regular visits to convince people to return to their hometowns, accept a shelter bed or move into supportive housing. He said the fence will likely go up in about a month.

“We’re going to say, ‘This change is coming and you need to think about what you want to do and can we help you figure that out,'” Dufty said. “The worst that could happen would be for 50 people to be kicked out onto the streets of SoMa which is what we don’t want.”

He said it’s totally understandable that Caltrain has made this decision and that the agency has kept city officials in the loop.

“It’s their property, and they have every right to do it,” he said. “There have been complaints and concerns about it.”

– Heather Knight

Analyzing Homeless Trash

Becky Johnson: One Woman Talking

September 23, 2012

Original Post

SENTINEL photo by photographer Dan Coyro shows two park rangers approaching a very messy campsite as part of the sweeps which began on July 9th, 2012. Such images are used to villify homeless people and portray the worst case scenario as the norm.

Do Homeless People “trash” the Environment?

What do the number say?
 
 by Becky Johnson
September 23, 2012
Santa Cruz, Ca.  — After a recent beach/inland waterway clean-up by Save Our Shores, the following formula was proffered: Litter Produced = (2.4 oz to 12.9lbs) per volunteer hour x hours worked. Using this standard, we can try to assess how dirty the areas where homeless encampments have been found were/are.
Unifying terms into decimals, we find a range of (0.17 lbs – 12.9 lbs) per volunteer hour collected with an average being 6.4 lbs on Monterey and Santa Cruz County area beaches and inland waterways
SOURCE: Classes of Trash, Monterey County Weekly Sept 20, 2012.
“At the extremes: Carmel River State Beach yielded an average of 2.4 ounces of trash, and Elkhorn Slough produced 12.9 pounds, per volunteer-hour.”  — Laura Kasa, Save Our ShoresSept 20 2012

 A homeless woman is rousted from a large encampment by the Santa Cruz Police Department on December 8, 2011 from San Lorenzo Park. Photo by Chip Scheuer
With this formula in hand, we can work backwards and determine how “trashy” an area was at the time of the clean-up. Since homeless encampments are found primarily in the inland waterway areas, those are the statistics we are most interested in.
Save Our Shoresreports that 550 volunteers picked up 850 lbs of trash (pollution) in 3 hours. So the average person picked up 4.6 lbs of trash at a rate of 1.54 lbs per volunteer hour.

  Photo of Occupy Santa Cruz encampment in San Lorenzo Park Nov 1 2011 Photo courtesy santacruz.com
The San Lorenzo River Clean-up produced 315 lbs of trash by 130 volunteers in 3 hours or 2.4 lbs of trash per person at a rate of 0.8 lbs per volunteer hour. While not as clean as Carmel River State Beach, 0.8lbs per volunteer hour is squeaky clean. Especially compared to the average found throughout the region during the entire beach/waterways cleanup.
Perhaps homeless people are cleaning up more trash than they are leaving?
Or these are areas where Public Works, Caltrans, and Boy Scout groups clean up regularly?
 In any case, groups like Take Back Santa Cruz and editorials by Don Miller in the SENTINEL can’t really claim that the  sweeps are justified because of a clear environmental danger.
City Council candidates Cynthia Mathews, Richelle Noroyan, and Pamela Comstock don’t have any evidence of an “environmental” reason for supporting the homeless sweeps. And Mayor Don Lane‘s silence on the sweeps is deafening.

Deputies clear illegal camps near Hwy. 9, Pogonip

By Stephen Baxter – Santa Cruz Sentinel – 09/14/2012

 

Sheriff’s deputy Damon Hancock posts a notice to vacate in an illegal… (Dan Coyro/Sentinel)

SANTA CRUZ — After a Santa Cruz police project to clear out trash and illegal campsites this summer, sheriff’s deputies have started similar work along Highway 9 and other county areas.

In the past four weeks, deputies have focused on an area next to Highway 9 that includes private property and the edge of the Pogonip. More than a dozen campsites have been identified off its dirt trails. Deputies have worked with Santa Cruz police and park rangers because Pogonip is within Santa Cruz city limits.

After deputies posted notices to vacate the camps and pack their trash, nearly all the campers left. Friday, deputies posted notices at a few remaining active campsites and talked about the problem.

“This is encouraging. These are all people that have been warned and (their sites) are empty. But they’ve abandoned all their stuff,” said Sgt. Mitch Medina.

Some of the transients cleaned up their own mess by piling more than 25 trash bags under a train trestle at Highway 9, deputies said.

At perhaps a dozen other sites, there were strewn fast-food wrappers, dirty clothes, shoes and all kinds of other garbage.

Authorities said they wanted the property owner to pay for some of the trash removal. Deputies also were hammering out an agreement with Roaring Camp Railroads to haul some of it out by train. Train tracks run next to some of the sites near Highway 9.

As did Santa Cruz police, deputies who encountered the homeless have handed out business cards with information about shelters and other services. Also similar to police, deputies acknowledged that dismantling the camps was not a long-term solution to homeless problems in the county. Many of the campers they encountered had been kicked out of Santa Cruz, deputies said.

Still, they said the project was valuable because it protected residents’ property, reduced fire risks and cleaned up the environment.

“If we did nothing, the problem would just grow,” said deputy Daren Kerr, who has been working on the project.

The risk of wildfires is real, added Heather Reiter, chief ranger for the Santa Cruz Parks and Recreation Department.

About a month ago, a transient camped along the train tracks near Highway 9 told authorities that he accidentally started a fire. The blaze destroyed his camp but was contained quickly by firefighters.

“He said it originated in his cooking area,” Reiter said.

A separate fire that started at the base of a tree in the Pogonip in May was traced to a transient, Santa Cruz firefighters reported.

Deputies said they planned to continue the project for at least the next few months.

“We’re hoping with the help of the press, we’ll identify more sites,” said deputy April Skalland.

She asked residents who spot illegal campsites call 454-2440 and leave a message describing the location.

Earlier in the summer, deputies said they cleaned out a creek bed behind Emeline Street and Emeline Avenue. Working with County Jail inmates, authorities collected two Dumpsters worth of garbage, Kerr said.

One man also was arrested for two outstanding warrants and on suspicion of drug paraphernalia possession after he was caught with 30 uncapped syringes, said Kerr.

Friday, deputies did not cite or arrest anyone at the site near Highway 9. But they warned a 42-year-old woman to clear out her campsite near the trestle.

She had a tent pitched and a pit bull tied to a tree. Deputies told her she had 72 hours to leave or she would be ticketed for illegal lodging without the property owner’s permission.

The woman said she probably would stay with her mother, but she could not go to a shelter because she was taking care of the dog — which is not allowed in the Homeless Services Center in Santa Cruz.

Like some of the other transients that deputies encountered, she said she did not want to stay at a shelter.

“You gotta be in by 7, you can’t watch TV. I might as well be out here where I’m free,” she said.

She said she was particularly vulnerable as a homeless woman, and asked not to be named because she feared an ex-boyfriend. Once, while she slept, another man tried to stab her with a heroin-loaded syringe. She now carries a knife for protection.

“I wish I had some money and some food,” she said. “I’m stuck here.”

Letter to the Board of Supervisors on Sweeps of Homeless Encampments

Becky Johnson: One Woman Talking

September 12, 2012

Original Post

Police photo of the destruction of the encampment in San Lorenzo Park on
December 8, 2011 by Santa Cruz Police, Santa Cruz County Sheriffs,  Scotts Valley Police, Capitola Police, UCSC police, Parks & Rec Rangers and First Alarm Security Services. An estimated 160 people were displaced.

 

From: Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom
309 Cedar St. PMB#14 B — Santa Cruz, Ca. 95060
(831) 423-HUFF or (831) 423-4833
to: Board of Supervisors, County of Santa Cruz
701 Ocean St. Santa Cruz, Ca. 95060
Chair: John Leopold Members: Mark Stone, Neil Coonerty, Ellen Pirie, Greg Caput
cc: Phil Wowak, Sheriff, County of Santa Cruz
cc: Dana McRae, County Counsel, County of Santa Cruz
cc: Susan Mauriello, CAO County of Santa Cruz
re: sweeps of homeless encampments in Santa Cruz
September 12, 2012
Dear Chairman Leopold, and members of the Board of Supervisors for Santa Cruz County,
As you know, the City and County of Santa Cruz have inadequate affordable housing available for poor and homeless people. While many public and private shelter options are available and have openings at any one time, they could, in no way, meet the sheer number of those who have no financial resources to purchase legal shelter. So it is with surprise, concern, and dismay that we read weekly accounts of a joint effort between the Parks and Recreation Department, Public Works, and the Santa Cruz Police Department quantifying efforts to sweep areas commonly used for illegal camping. As these campsites are being “abated,” press releases have been issued announcing the number of camps destroyed, citations issued and arrests made.
A related concern exists in County government with the recent sentencing of Gary Johnson and his attorney, Ed Frey to jail for 2 ½ years in Gary’s case and six months in jail for Ed for the “crime” of lodging. PC 647 (e) draws its origins from a tattered history of Black Codes, Jim Crow, and civil war racism which we had thought had been purged from our justice system during reconstruction. This misdemeanor statute, the statewide anti-lodging code has been mis-interpreted by our courts as outlawing sleeping, when a clear reading of the law says nothing of the kind.
We urge you to use your resources to free both Gary Johnson from captivity and to defer any further punishment of Gary or Ed indefinitely. We ask also, that you review whether it is either legal or advisable to use PC 647 (e) at all.
What these events and policies represent are peoples’ lives being uprooted, their meager possessions seized or destroyed, and the persons involved moved along, cited, or arrested.
Let me remind you, two of the three shelters in Watsonville closed recently. This Saturday, Page Smith Community House closes for 5 months, and will be moving its entire population into the Paul Lee Loft. This will leave only the 30 spaces at the River Street Shelter for emergency housing.
In the City, the current City Council are only willing to fund a bus ticket out of town despite critical needs for legal shelter.
With completely insufficient shelter available, homeless people are left to mill around, unable to sit down, lie down, or sleep whether it is daytime or night. Their overall health suffers, sleep deprivation occurs, and many who tend to self-medicate do so more. Even worse for local merchants, is that when these camps are raided and destroyed, their occupants have nowhere to go but into City parks and downtown business areas where they are not wanted at all.
Police raids, and Sheriff’s citations for illegal “lodging” conducted during an obvious shelter emergency, are unproductive, a waste of public resources, and in light of the lack of legal shelter available to these people, inhumane. HUFF has already called for the SCPD, Parks&Rec, and Public Works to CEASE AND DESIST massive abatement practices when no alternative shelter can be offered.
Now we are asking you, our elected representatives, to act to enact policy whereby PC 647 (e) citations will be suspended until the shelter crisis recedes.
“Housing” homeless people in jail for the “crimes” of “living” “sleeping” “lodging” or “camping” represent institutional abuse of persons whose economic circumstances forbid their ability to purchase legal shelter. Those who knowingly continue such practices will ultimately be held accountable for the human misery they are fomenting.
I thank you for your personal consideration of these issues and invite further dialogue. HUFF holds weekly meetings and I would invite all or any of you to attend our next meeting to explain your policy and practices using civil dialogue and an open process.
Sincerely,
Becky Johnson of HUFF

Aptos Safeway pretends to care

SC Sentinel – As you see it – 9-04-2012

To read of the Aptos Safeway meeting on Aug. 22 where residents voiced opposition to the Safeway developers’ massive plans, I conjured up the image of an idling D9 Dozer impatiently waiting for the token community nonsense to end so it may drop the blade and lay track.

After the meeting concluded, I could see the Safeway reps smiling, shaking their heads and saying, “We gotta seem like we care, don’t we?” This “caring” was so eloquently spoken by Safeway architect Robert Lyman: “I’m trying to capture what Aptos is all about.”

Utter compatibility, no?

Sort of how the out-of-town developers in 1974 wanted to capture what Lighthouse Field was all about with their massive conference center proposal.

THEODORE E. MEYER III, Santa Cruz