Hero or Criminal?

Becky Johnson: One Woman Talking

June 12, 2012

Original Post

 

In this SCPD police photo taken on November 30th, Desiree Foster, age 19, is seen
standing in front of the building around 4:30PM. Rocks placed inside wooden pallets
can be seen weighing down the ends of the banner drop, which were needed due to high winds.

 In a world gone Topsy-turvy, a 19 year old activist who served as a media representative is charged with serious felonies and misdemeanors while a greedy corporate bank which has carelessly left a valuable physical asset boarded up and unused for several years, most likely as a tax write-off, is the “victim” and is prosecuting protesters and whistle blowers while seeking $30,000 in “damages.”

by Becky Johnson
June 12, 2012

Santa Cruz, Ca. — The youngest of the Santa Cruz Eleven, Desiree Foster was arrested as she and her boyfriend were leaving her home on her way to the Santa Cruz County courthouse in an attempt to  quash her arrest warrant by agreeing to appear in court on a date certain. Instead, she spent the next nine hours sitting on plastic seating watching a deputy-controlled television set, having been arrested for two counts of felony conspiracy to trespass and vandalize, and two misdemeanor counts of trespass and vandalism with bail set at $5,000. Her mother, suffering from cancer attempted to raise the $500 to bail out her daughter, when, inexplicably, Desiree was released on her own recognizance.

But the pressure of the felony charges, the financial instability of her family, and the fear and dread that she faced in dealing with her mother’s cancer, proved to be too much. Desiree took an overdose of pills and wound up in Dominican Hospital, treated for a suicide attempt.

Desiree, a passionate and idealistic young woman, had found her voice attending Occupy Santa Cruz general assemblies, and volunteered for many tasks. At home, she and her mother struggled to pay bills.  Desiree is her mother’s primary caregiver, as she undergoes chemotherapy.   Desiree, like many in her generation, knew that something is inherently wrong with our system if she and her mother had to struggle to keep a roof over their heads while her mom was being treated for cancer.  She lived in a world where with or without a college education, young people could not find good jobs.

Without stable and affordable housing, reasonable wages for jobs, and quality health care for all who need it, too many of the 99% who have followed all the rules, worked hard, paid their taxes, are falling through the cracks. Too many still lack health care, are paid inadequate wages, and must pay housing costs that are through the roof.  Wells Fargo is a key player in the housing foreclosure crisis.

On November 30th, 2011, a group of activists and community members entered a long-vacant bank building leased to Wells Fargo, and attempted to turn it into a community center.   During the occupation of that building by 100 to 300 different people, Desiree volunteered for the task of media representative for the ad hoc occupiers.

“I spoke to the Sentinel, KION, Phil Gomez of KSBW, the Mid-County Post and the Santa Cruz Patch,” Desiree told me by phone.  “I spoke to everyone. I told them that we wanted it to be something better than what it is now, just a vacant spot.” She was interviewed on Community Television as well.

While Police Chief Kevin Vogel and DA Bob Lee have characterized Desiree and the Santa Cruz Eleven as “vandals” and “trespassers” who are disrespectful of private property, the truth is something quite different. For the persons who whole-heartedly embraced the temporary and largely symbolic takeover of 75 River Street, which Wells Fargo had all but abandoned, they meant to use it as a focal point to educate the general public about what that building COULD have been used for instead.


SCPD photo of signs left behind at 75 River Street
naming what that building could have been used for.

Most of the occupiers believe that our democratic system has been hijacked by the wealthy. The wealthiest 1% (Wells Fargo) is profiting at the expense of the rest of the 99%.  For business as usual to continue, it means that you and me, the citizenry in Santa Cruz must live and work around Wells Fargo’s ‘dead spot’ –an empty building sitting for four years now, without a single tenant, providing no jobs, no services, and very little tax revenue to the community, but undoubtedly providing a HUGE tax write-off for the ultra-wealthy bankers of Wells Fargo. While public funds are used to evict Wells Fargo’s “trespassers,”  more public funds are used by a DA to conduct a witch hunt against a largely arbitrary list of “felons.”

Truly those courageous and bold activists who gained entry to the dusty and unused interior without damaging the building in any way, did so for a purpose bigger than their own lives. They took considerable personal risk for doing so, and were unlikely to benefit financially from the takeover. Finally, they performed the occupation by using a consensus process, where they formally agreed to refrain from vandalism.

Indeed, police have thus far failed to provide any photographic evidence of this ‘vandalism’ in the hundreds of photos turned over to the defense as part of discovery. Other than some graffiti and an anarchist sticker on the ROOF air conditioning ducts, no other damage has been documented. Yet prosecutors Lee and Assistant DA Rebekah Young used a figure of ” approximately $30,000″ in damage in their indictments in statements written “under penalty of perjury.”  Yet, even in court, Det. Gunter testified that the last time he checked “That number had been lowered to about $22,000.”


SCPD photo of an anarchist sticker on the roof
access hatch at 75 River Street.

The trespassing claim may be questionable as well. For a person to be found guilty of trespassing, they must first be warned, and, upon that warning, fail to leave the premises. None of the eleven defendants fit that description. Police Officer William Winston testified that the first and only verbal warning was given by Sgt. Harms “between 7:30PM and 8PM” and “after dark.” No signage is known to have been posted until the next day at the earliest.

None of the indictment documents include any evidence that Desiree was warned, and after that warning, failed to leave. Now this may be a technicality, the ability and authority for police to remove unauthorized people from private property involves a series of steps to be taken in a certain order. On the night of November 30th, Desiree met with various members of the press and facilitated answering their questions and providing them with interviews, statements, and at points, access.

During the 72-hour occupation, no protester or police officer was injured. Communication was facilitated between three of the protesters and police, public officials, and media. After 72 hours, the group decided to leave peacefully and even spent a few hours cleaning up before going. Their message had been communicated through the media to the public. In the end, the action spoke for itself.  Wells Fargo had been exposed as the thoughtless, land-hoarder that it is.  The public had been made aware of the building’s occupation and the reasons for it.  And no one was hurt.  No confrontation with police occurred. No tasers. No percussion grenades. No tear gas. No batons swinging. Very little vandalism.  And there were no arrests.

So who is the criminal and who is the law-abiding good citizen? The greedy corporation that will use any property under its control to bilk more money for itself; dollars that should rightly have been paid to the government in taxes? Or a 19-year old girl who participated in a largely symbolic occupation to protest against that greed, that misuse of a valuable asset, and to fight against the fundamental inequities in economic justice system rigged by bought Congressmen and Judges to benefit the richest 1%?

Of course, if Desiree and the Santa Cruz Eleven ARE convicted and sent to prison, this is good news for Wells Fargo as well. For Wells Fargo is the biggest investor in the for-profit prison industry.

A BENEFIT DINNER  on SUNDAY JULY 1st to raise money for Desiree Foster’s family will be held at India Joze Restaurant in Santa Cruz between 3PM and 6PM.  The first $500 raised will be designated to help the Foster family.  For more information:  santacruzeleven.org

Election Digest: June 12, 2012

S.C. Sentinel   06/12/2012

SANTA CRUZ

People Power founder to appear for Posner

People Power founder Jim Denevan will be the featured guest at a fundraising dinner for Micah Posner’s campaign for Santa Cruz City Council. Posner has resigned as director of the bicycling advocacy organization to run in the November council contest.

The event is scheduled for 5:30 p.m. June 29 at Fairytale Farm, 728 Riverside Ave. The dinner will feature organic produce grown in the garden behind Posner’s home. There is a suggested donation of $100; volunteers are needed.

Sign up and buy tickets at micahforcouncil.org or call 227-4772.

Denevan, a chef and artist, went on to create Outstanding in the Field, a farm-to-table organization. The farm behind Posner’s house was created when he and wife Akiko Minami established a tenancy-in-common arrangement with neighbors.

Family Net Worth Drops to Level of Early ’90s, Fed Says

By BINYAMIN APPELBAUM
NY Times – June 11, 2012

WASHINGTON — The recent economic crisis left the median American family in 2010 with no more wealth than in the early 1990s, erasing almost two decades of accumulated prosperity, the Federal Reserve said Monday.

Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg News

A house for sale in Washington. Falling home prices accounted for three-quarters of the losses in net worth.

A hypothetical family richer than half the nation’s families and poorer than the other half had a net worth of $77,300 in 2010, compared with $126,400 in 2007, the Fed said. The crash of housing prices directly accounted for three-quarters of the loss.

Families’ income also continued to decline, a trend that predated the crisis but accelerated over the same period. Median family income fell to $45,800 in 2010 from $49,600 in 2007. All figures were adjusted for inflation.

The new data comes from the Fed’s much-anticipated release on Monday of its Survey of Consumer Finances, a report issued every three years that is one of the broadest and deepest sources of information about the financial health of American families.

While the numbers are already 18 months old, the survey illuminates problems that continue to slow the pace of the economic recovery. The Fed found that middle-class families had sustained the largest percentage losses in both wealth and income during the crisis, limiting their ability and willingness to spend.

“It fills in details to a picture that we already knew was quite ugly, and these details very much underscore that,” said Jared Bernstein, an economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities who served as an adviser to Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. “It makes clear how devastating this has been for the middle class.”

Given the scale of those losses, consumer spending has remained surprisingly resilient. The survey also illuminates where the money is coming from: American families saved less and only slowly repaid debts.

The share of families saving anything over the previous year fell to 52 percent in 2010 from 56.4 percent in 2007. Other government statistics show that total savings have increased since 2007, suggesting that a smaller group of families is saving more money, while a growing number manage to save nothing.

The survey also found a shift in the reasons that families set aside money, underscoring the lack of confidence that is weighing on the economy. More families said they were saving money as a precautionary measure, to make sure they had enough liquidity to meet short-term needs. Fewer said they were saving for retirement, or for education, or for a down payment on a home.

The report underscored the limited progress that households had made in reducing the amounts that they owed to lenders. The share of households reporting any debt declined by 2.1 percentage points over the last three years, but 74.9 percent of households still owed something, and the median amount did not change.

The decline in reported incomes could have increased the weight of those debts, tying up a larger share of families’ take-home pay. But one of the rare benefits of the crisis, historically lower interest rates, has helped to offset that effect. Families also have been able to reduce debt payments by refinancing into mortgages with longer terms and deferring repayment of student loans and other obligations.

The survey also confirmed that Americans are shifting the kinds of debts they carry. The share of families with credit card debt declined by 6.7 percentage points to 39.4 percent, and the median balance fell 16.1 percent to $2,600.

Families also reduced the number of credit cards that they carried, and 32 percent of families said they had no cards, up from 27 percent in 2007.

Conversely, the share of families with education-related debt rose to 19.2 percent in 2010 from 15.2 percent in 2007. The Fed noted that education loans made up a larger share of the average family’s obligations than loans to buy automobiles for the first time in the history of the survey.

The cumulative statistics concealed large disparities in the impact of the crisis.

Families with incomes in the middle 60 percent of the population lost a larger share of their wealth over the three-year period than the wealthiest and poorest families.

One basic reason for this disproportion is that the wealth of the middle class is mostly in housing, and the median amount of home equity dropped to $75,000 in 2010 from $110,000 in 2007. And while other forms of wealth have recovered much of the value lost in the crisis, housing prices have hardly budged.

Those middle-income families also lost a larger share of their income. The earnings of the median family in the bottom 20 percent of the income distribution actually increased from 2007 to 2010, in part because of the expansion of government aid programs during the recession. Wealthier families, which derive more income from investments, were also cushioned against the recession.

The data does provide the latest indication, however, that the recession reduced income inequality in the United States, at least temporarily. The average income of the wealthiest families fell much more sharply than the median, indicating that some of those at the very top of the ladder slipped down at least a few rungs.

Ranking American families by income, the top 10 percent of households still earned an average of $349,000 in 2010.

The average net worth of the same families was $2.9 million.

Santa Cruz Eleven case stalled

Becky Johnson: One Woman Talking

June 2, 2012

Original Post

 Endless hearings ordered to appear before Judges where nothing of substance

happens is part of the problem, and part of the abuse

by Becky Johnson
June 2, 2012

Santa Cruz, Ca. — In what has become a long series of dreary court hearings where almost nothing happens, Judge Sillman did not fail to disappoint. Friday, the June 1st hearing was ostensibly to install defendant, Brent Adams’ public defender, to consider whether DA Rebekah Young had finally turned over sufficient discovery, and to set a new, NEW date for a preliminary hearing (This will be my THIRD date for a preliminary hearing).  In all of these hearings, should any defendant not appear in the proper court at the proper time, a warrant is issued for their arrest.

I call it punishment prior to conviction.  DA Bob Lee and his henchwoman, Rebekah Young have been hanging up the lives of 11 citizen activists, overcharging them with duel felonies and misdemeanors, and smeared them as “vandals” and “trespassers” who “don’t respect private property.” His attack on alternative media journalists is naked and self-serving. How can one journalist covering the event be ignored and another charged with felonies for the same actions? But this is the essence of the charges against nearly half of the defendants. One hundred to three-hundred people went into the building in 3 days time, but only these 11 have been charged.

In court on Friday, June 1st, Sillman curtly announced that the attorney he had appointed for Brent Adams the previous week “was not available” and that he was in the process of locating whether Attorney Charlie Stevens was in the building and could be appointed. Adams, who has been appearing pro per since his former PD, Ryan Murphy, discharged himself a week ago, told Sillman ” I’ve already spoken with a Public Defender and he’s agreed to represent me.”

“Who is that?” Sillman asked.

“Jonathan Gettleman,” Brent replied.
“We are not in the process of reaching that particular name,” Sillman replied and ordered all defendants back in court ANOTHER week later at 8:15AM rather than appoint Gettleman on the spot. That means all 5 defendants, their 5 attorneys, press, and supporters must yet again rearrange their schedules, find transportation, parking, and appear under threat of arrest AGAIN because Sillman refused to appoint a PD that the defendant wanted and would be satisfied with.

For me, it’s deja vu all over again.  Judge Ariadne Symons took five hearings to appoint me a public defender, when she could have appointed the attorney I wanted on day one. She accused me of having “other income” and challenged  that since I own a 15 year old car that I had recently purchased for $1,500,  as “proof” that I was income-eligible for the services of a public defender.

We all saw the results of failing to appear at one of Sillman’s hearings. When DA Rebekah Young refiled charges on two defendants whose charges had previously been dismissed by Judge Paul Burdick, she ordered defendants Cameron Larendau and Franklin “Angel” Alcantara to be present in court at 8:30AM. When neither defendant nor either of their attorneys appeared, Sillman ordered a warrant issued for each of them. But supporters murmured that it was highly unlikely that all four people had blown off the hearing. A far more likely scenario was that DA Rebekah Young had made yet another misstep and failed to notify anyone properly.

This judicial merry-go round is getting me queasy.  The next surreal act is scheduled for June 8th at 8:15AM in Dept. 6.  Meanwhile, “victim” Wells Fargo Bank has not rented 75 River Street yet, and with an asking rental of $35, 231.34 per month, it’s going to be a cold day in hell before anyone rents that building. And if the 11 (now 7) defendants wind up in prison with felony convictions, well, Wells Fargo wins. You see, Wells Fargo is the biggest investor in the for-profit prison industry in the United States. Not only do they tell the police and DA to do their bidding at public expense, but they profit from anyone jailed, whether justly or not.

They are a bank. It is all about numbers for them. They charge 11 people with “trespass” and “vandalism” and attempt to extort a phony “$31,000” in damages from the defendants. Later, while under oath, Det. Gunter of the SCPD testified that when he checked “The damages were not as severe as we first thought.”  Now the damages are “$21,000”. The only “proof” of any damages were police photos of graffiti on the air conditioning ducts on the ROOF of the building! It is doubtful it cost $21,000 in spray paint to restore the ducts to their original…beauty.

I suspect the ACTUAL damage to the building to be in the hundreds, NOT thousands of dollars range. Perhaps DA Bob Lee should investigate Wells Fargo for putting up such outrageous claims of damages that it amounts to fraud.

I’ve been thinking about Rosa Parks lately.  I compared Rosa Parks to the people who occupied 75 River Street– a vacant bank building–and tried to turn it into a community center.  It was a noble idea. To turn a blighted building, hoarded by a greedy and heartless bank purely for tax benefits, into a vibrant building serving the public good. I’d long eyed that building as a perfect homeless shelter, since it sat empty year after year employing no one, sheltering no one,  and taking up useful space uselessly.  In 2010, while 75 River Street sat empty, four homeless people died of exposure out of doors in Santa Cruz.

Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of that bus, and she was arrested.  She broke the law intentionally, but did so for the greater good. The people who occupied 75 River Street were like Rosa Parks. They intentionally broke the law, but did so for the greater good.  Now let me make one thing clear:  I am no Rosa Parks. In this scenario, I would have been the person who stayed at the bus stop and never got on that bus in the first place. I’d be like the person who SAW Rosa Parks’ brave act and cheered her on from the sidelines.  You see, I never went into the building. I’m a big chicken.

Yet the toll for the defendants is piling up. “Angel” Alcantara was able to make it to court that day and quash the warrant. But Cameron Larendau could not. He lives in Oakland, CA., doesn’t own a car, and it takes him 3 and a half hours by public transportation to come to each court appearance. Desiree Foster, the youngest defendant at 19 years of age, is taking care of her mother who is undergoing chemotherapy for cancer. When Desiree was arrested, her mom bailed her out of jail, but they really couldn’t afford the $500. Shortly after that, Desiree attempted suicide and was hospitalized. In my own case, I was handcuffed at my home, carted to jail, and spent the night locked up in “G” Dorm.

The costs to our 1st amendment rights are harder to calculate. Who has been too chilled to join a march since the prosecutions were announced? Who no longer wants to associate with the 11 activists charged lest they be next, or with anyone involved in Occupy Santa Cruz?  And what photographer, journalist or blogger isn’t chilled when the CONTENT of their reporting is being charged as “aiding” and “abetting” criminal activity? Yet “the people” as represented by DA Bob Lee march forward, entirely at public expense, and push forward Bob’s dirty little dog and pony show, where our rights to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, our rights to peaceably assemble, and our rights to seek redress of government grievances are severely challenged and truncated just to promote the interests of Wells Fargo and the status quo.  Where is State Attorney General Kamela Harris on this? Does SHE approve of what DA Bob Lee is doing?

California State Senate Rejects Lower Penalty For Drug Possession

Associated Press

June 1, 2012

State senators have rejected a bid to make California the 14th state to end felony penalties for those convicted of possessing small amounts of drugs for personal use.

Sen. Mark Leno, a Democrat from San Francisco, proposed reducing drug possession to a misdemeanor.

Those convicted would have served up to a year in county jail instead of the three-year maximum sentence under current law.

Leno argued that SB1506 would save counties and the state millions of dollars annually and help reduce jail crowding.

Just 11 Democratic senators supported the bill Thursday. Twenty-four senators of both political parties were opposed, and several other Democrats did not cast votes.

Sen. Ted Gaines, a Republican from Roseville, noted that law enforcement groups are opposed. He calls drug possession a gateway to other crimes.

Santa Cruz Patients Collective suddenly shuts its doors

Jason HoppinSanta Cruz Sentinel:   05/31/2012

SANTA CRUZ – The number of Santa Cruz medical marijuana dispensaries was halved last weekend when the Santa Cruz Patients Collective suddenly closed its doors.

No reasons were given for the closure, and owner Ken Sampson could not be reached to comment. Speculation on why it closed ran the gamut from Sampson simply tiring of running the business to the landlord growing concerned about a recent federal crackdown on the state’s cannabis industry.

“His heart was in the right place,” said Ben Rice, a local attorney who works with medical marijuana clubs. “He was one of the first guys to really insist on the quality of the medicine. He was very determined to make sure the patients were not getting an adulterated product.”

If the crackdown, which has directly and indirectly claimed numerous dispensaries statewide, contributed to the collective’s closure, it could be the second one to shut it doors after California’s four U.S. attorneys joined forces to enforce federal prohibitions of the marijuana trade.

Earlier, Live Oak’s Crème de Canna closed, partly due to legal uncertainties that emerged after the federal enforcement effort began. One of those uncertainties has to do with building owners where dispensaries are housed, with the federal government warning some landlords that they could lose their buildings.

Marijuana advocates also say dozens of Californians involved in providing medical marijuana are now facing federal charges.

At the Patients Collective, formerly located at 115 Limekiln St., a lone remaining sign refers patients to Santa Cruz’ only other permitted pot club. Numerous other clubs operate outside city limits.

“If their patients want to come over here, they’re welcome,” said Calvin Maynor, who works at the Greenway Compassionate Relief in Santa Cruz, located blocks from the Patients Collective.

Open since 2006, the collective quickly won over skeptical neighbors in the Harvey West area.

“He turned all those people around,” Rice said.

Santa Cruz planner Mike Ferry said the city has never received complaints about Sampson’s operation. But how the city fills the now-vacant permit – potentially extremely valuable, even amid the federal crackdown – appears to be an open question.

Ferry, who has not been contacted by Sampson, said the business would have to stay dark for six months before a permit is reissued. But he did not know how the city would choose a second licensee if more than one potential operator stepped forward.

“That’s an interesting question,” Ferry said.

California voters not hot for legalizing pot

May 31, 2012

Associated Press

LOS ANGELES –  Legalizing marijuana is gaining traction in many places but apparently not in California, the state where the idea first took root.

Half of California voters surveyed say they oppose broad legalization, while 46 support it, according to a University of Southern California Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll (http://lat.ms/MZfhMp ) released Thursday. The survey found opinions have not measurably changed since 2010, when California voters defeated Proposition 19 that would have allowed recreational use of the drug.

A national Gallup poll recently showed support for legalizing pot had reached an all-time high of 50 percent. Behind such momentum, marijuana advocates have succeeded in getting initiatives qualified for the upcoming November ballot in Colorado and Washington.

The USC/LA Times poll found California voters overwhelmingly support doctor-recommended use of marijuana for the severely ill, with about 80 percent in favor of medical marijuana for the terminally ill and severely disabled.

The San Francisco Bay Area was the only region in the state where a majority — 55 percent — favors legalization. That compares with 41 percent in Southern California.

Those against marijuana use were more adamant in their position, with 42 percent feeling “strongly” about it compared with 33 percent for proponents.

Twenty-eight percent of Republicans and 50 percent of Democrats polled liked the idea of marijuana legalization. Sixty-eight percent of Independents favor it.

Age also was a factor. Fifty-eight percent of those in their late teens and 20s support legal recreational use while just 28 percent of those older than 64 approve general use.

While California allows medical marijuana, it leaves the regulation of dispensaries where the drug is dispersed to local communities. In some places, the proliferation of dispensaries has angered citizens and prompted federal authorities to shut down some. The U.S. government does not allow legal use of medical marijuana.

The poll numbers suggest Californians are concerned about implementation of the Compassionate Use Act, the medical marijuana law passed by voters in 1996, according to Dan Schnur, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at USC.

“They like the idea of providing marijuana for medical use, but they’re worried that the law is being abused,” he said.

Dale Gieringer, coordinator of the state chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, said California needs to better regulate medical pot distribution before the public will embrace general use.

“Voters are hesitant to liberalize the marijuana laws any further until the chaos of the current system is worked out,” he said.

The statewide telephone poll of 1,002 registered voters was conducted May 17-21. The margin of error is 3.5 percentage points.

Linda Ellen Lemaster and Steve Pleich: Homeless must not be scapegoated

Becky Johnson: One Woman Talking

May 27, 2012

Original Post

 Steve Pleich attending a Take Back Santa Cruz
“positive loitering” event, Jan 21, 2011 -photo
by Becky Johnson
SENTINEL OP-ED
May 27, 2012

 

No words can describe the depth of sadness we feel as a community over the recent and shocking murder of Shannon Collins, which took place midday in a Santa Cruz neighborhood. How can we best — while sharing our grief and despite our differences — respond to such a senseless tragedy in ways that reflect the true measure of our community? In solidarity with our neighbors, we are speaking from our heartfelt concern about a generally anti-homeless policy package that now would attach itself to our grief, to our collective fears and to our rightful rage.

At this time when our community is most in need of strong, creative, compassionate leadership, an ad hoc committee of three Santa Cruz City Council members presents a slate of new policies and regulations that echo the fear and anger many in our community share. Taken together, their package affords none of the depth of reason and cooperation we sorely need in this dark hour. These proposals would prove, by turns, to be harmful, impractical and arguably unlawful.

Let’s not make already dicey tensions morph into a greater conflict. Rather, let’s work more closely with our neighbors, all: housed, homeless, transitioning, students, even our guests. Restoring and creating a better community can include every one of us, and we can develop policies that could actually generate greater safety and human dignity — we all, including homeless human beings, deserve this.

We can lead with compassion and hang onto the notion that every human being deserves dignity. We are offering community engagement rather than a widened divide. Civic safety must include everyone. Make no mistake about who we are calling homeless. We have learned through careful studies, professional surveys every other year, and one-to-one interviews, that 67 percent of the people who are homeless on our streets either grew up here, or were formerly established residents in Santa Cruz. Nationally, adult homeless men, both by personal choice and by exclusive policies, are dying 25-35 years prematurely. Working together, we can help change this grim picture, at least locally.

If the city of Santa Cruz needs to suppress needed emergency sheltering for which it shares responsibility, or to divert city funding to manipulate trafficking of homeless people through our city as if they were of a subclass, or even a subspecies, it behooves everyone, including the city attorney, to create a less reactive and way more inclusive approach beforehand.

We feel the agenda of this ad hoc group promises limited safety while ensuring greater fear, an expanded underground economy that will touch us all, and increased criminalization of uprooted folks that will waste even more court, jail and other staffing resources. Collaborating with the county’s mental health resources is already legally required of the city and focused civic leadership is long overdue, as is restoring funds for an existing homeless resource officer within the Santa Cruz Police Department.

“We all know that there are problems with the system, that there is a large transient population in our city, and that Santa Cruz has its issues,” shared Ken Vinson in a courageous public statement right after his wife and best friend was suddenly, tragically, killed. “But I want to be very clear about one thing: none of these things caused this horrific crime. A single individual did. …
“This crime could have occurred in any city in any state across our union. It is an utter, unfathomable tragedy that it occurred here, and to such a beautiful, young woman. But I implore you: Do not blame the system. Do not blame an entire population. And most of all, do not blame Santa Cruz.”
We agree. If we permit our civic leaders to promote greater bigotry and to further scapegoat homeless people, we will again see increased “troll busting.” There are better solutions, many already in the works, more needing community collaborators; community-based solutions which protect everyone’s human dignity and don’t further trample human and civil rights.

Steve Pleich is director of Homeless Persons Legal Assistance Project and Linda Ellen Lemaster facilitates Housing NOW! in Santa Cruz. Both are active in community groups engaged with ending or easing homelessness, including the Interfaith network and Homeless Action Partnership.

Lending a Hand: Housing Authority gets funds to help first-time buyers

Peter Boutell

SC Sentinel:   05/26/2012

Every year the Housing Authority of Santa Cruz County has received funds to help out first time homebuyers with the Mortgage Credit Certificate MCC program. I believe that this is the best program for homebuyers because it puts money back into the hands of homeowners.

This program is offered throughout Santa Cruz County as well as other counties in the state. For as long as I can remember, the Housing Authority here has been offering funds each year to promote homeownership and does a wonderful job at managing the demand for this program. This week the Housing Authority announced a new allocation of funds for 2012.

This is the only first time homebuyer program that actually puts money back in the homebuyers’ pockets each month and here is how it works: The home owner gets a tax credit not just a deduction! of up to 20 per cent of the interest portion of his mortgage payment each month. For example, on a $400,000 loan used to buy a home, the monthly principal and interest payment will be $1,910 for a 30 year fixed rate loan at an interest rate of 4.00 percent. The MCC program will allow the owner to deduct up to $3,100 from his federal income tax bill in the first 12 months of home ownership. That is a savings of more than $280 per month!

The savings will continue throughout the life of the loan as long as the home remains owner occupied and the MCC paperwork is filed each year with the homeowner’s federal tax returns. The cash benefit of this program will decrease each year as the loan balance decreases.

It should be noted that since interest paid on a mortgage for the purchase of a principal residence is a tax deductible expense, the remaining 80 per cent of the mortgage interest paid becomes tax deductible and will represent an additional monthly savings.

There also is the added advantage that since the effective house payment will be reduced by the amount of the MCC tax credit, lenders are able to qualify home buyers for a larger mortgage loan, which translates to a higher sales price.

To receive the credit on a monthly basis, borrowers can adjust their W-4 with their employer i.e. claim more dependents so that they will have less deducted out of their paycheck each month for their federal income tax withholding. Alternatively, if the borrowers choose to receive the credit annually, the credit will come back as a refund at tax time of the following year. Be sure to consult with your tax preparer.

Who qualifies? First of all, you have to be a first time home buyer, which is defined as someone who has not owned the home that they have lived in during the past three years it is OK to own or have owned a rental or investment property. For the property to qualify this year, the house or condo must be purchased for $591,098 or less Last year that was set at $573,881. The annual income of the persons that is buying the home must be less than $87,000 for a family of one or two or less than $100,050 for a family of three or more.

In order to be one of the lucky families who receives a Mortgage Credit Certificate this year in Santa Cruz County, you will need to be prepared.

That means that you must take action now to be preapproved for a loan. The first step toward preapproval is to meet with a participating lender and submit 3 years of federal tax returns, W-2s, 30 days of current paystubs, and two months of bank statements for each one of your savings, checking, stock and retirement accounts.

You also need to start actively looking at homes. To actually apply for one of these precious MCC certificates there is enough money for perhaps just eight this year, you must be in contract to purchase the home. There is a $250 application fee that goes to the Housing Authority; it should be noted that some lenders will fill out the paperwork for you.

In order to take advantage of these tax credits, you or your accountant must fill out IRS form No. 8396 along with your federal tax returns each year. Although there is a recapture provision that could trigger a partial repayment of these benefits if the home is sold within nine years, it is not likely to kick in. Ask your mortgage consultant to explain the details.

Not all lenders participate in this program, so be sure to ask!

Marijuana and Autism Survey – NORML and UF4A Collaboration

by Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director

The Connection Magazine “News From The Net” – May 26, 2012

Over the last five years there
have been numerous media reports
about the anecdotal use of cannabis
to help autistic children. Two brave
women, one on the east coast the other
the west, have been at the forefront of
this effort to help scientifically explain
why cannabis appears to be so helpful.
Marie Myung-Ok Lee wrote about her
experience in Rhode Island, a state with
medical cannabis laws, in 2009. Soon
after, inspired by Marie’s writings,
Mieko Perez Hester and her son had
a similarly positive experience with
treating his autism in California. Mieko,
soon after going public about their ex-
perience, was invited onto ABC’s Good
Morning America.
The reply from parents around the
country to these charter members of the
NORML Women Alliance experience
as parents using cannabis as a therapy
for their autistic children has been
overwhelming and inspired the need
to perform proper scientific research
to possibly develop cannabinoid-based
treatments for autism in both children
and adults.
To help accomplish this Mieko es-
tablished The Unconventional Founda-
tion for Autism (UF4A), which is asking
the NORML community of hundreds
of thousands of cannabis consumers
and patients to help with a scientific
survey today.
The NORML community has
joined UF4A in this remarkable journey
and fight, and has offered to help solicit
feedback through the survey.
Target: Persons on the autism
spectrum currently using or interested
in using cannabis as a safe and effective
medication to treat autism.
With more than 1 in 88 children
affected, autism is the fastest growing
developmental disability in the United
States. Currently, there is no medical
detection or cure for autism; however,
there are pharmaceutical and therapeutic
treatments that have proven to be effec-
tive in treating the condition. Among
the safest and most remarkable is the
therapeutic use of medical cannabis.
Amidst a highly controversial
setting, one California mother is shar-
ing her autistic son’s triumphant and
life-saving journey with the world.
Single mother of three, Mieko Hester
Perez was watching her young son,
Joey, succumb to various combinations
of 13 different prescription drugs that
ravaged his body and internal organs.
Joey weighed only 46 pounds, and was
in a battle for his life. (Read more:
www.uf4a.org.)
In 2009, The Unconventional
Foundation for Autism (UF4A) was
formed. UF4A is lighting a path in hopes
that others may benefit from alternative
therapies that may be available to other
families on the Autism Spectrum. Mieko
helped create a survey to help solidify
and amplify her results and the level of
help the Foundation can provide.
At UF4A, we believe providing
the most accurate information to medi-
cal professionals for research purposes
will pave the way for clinical trials for
unconventional treatments.
We seek to solidify and further the
fundamental understanding we have in
regards to the effectiveness of cannabis
alleviating symptoms along the Autism
Spectrum. The information collected
in the survey will be used to further
guide families, new patients, doctors
and lawmakers in making informed and
proper decisions for themselves and our
community.
SURVEY LINK: If this survey
applicable to you or a loved one, we
invite you or them to fill out the form
UF4A Treatment of Persons on the
Spectrum with Cannabis. To fill out
the survey, go to https://spreadsheets.
google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?for
mkey=dG9wYmVjaVhQdXpXWVV
YbUtjaDR0UGc6MQ.