Category Archives: Activist Articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Continue reading →

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The first offense is a warning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the full text of the ordinance:

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

The first offense is a warning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the full text of the ordinance:

 

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

 

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

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

 

__._,_.___

Continue reading →

Candidate Leonie Sherman Responds to the HUFF Questions

Posted on by

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

The Speeches That Never Were

Posted on by

 

HUFF speech prepared by Raven Davis

The following speech was intended to be given at the Association of Faith Communities – Santa Cruz County Conference on Friday, September 5, 2014. Unfortunately, the community discussion was canceled and the AFC never got to hear HUFF’s suggestion.

 

First and foremost, we thank you for all of the work you’re already doing to help homeless people and for holding this conference today, dedicating yourselves to addressing the issues of poverty and homelessness in Santa Cruz County. We understand that trying to solve such a complicated and widespread issue is quite a daunting task. With that said, we’d like to offer you a simpler way to look at the matter.

We often make houselessness into a complex issue by focusing on its toughest aspects. We speak of highly vulnerable populations, such as people with disabilities or untreated mental illnesses who live on the streets; people we don’t know how to support properly. We talk about drug addicts and people who have criminal records sleeping in parks and hiding in bushes; so called “threats” to our community. We make pleas on behalf of single mothers and children without roofs over their heads; as we see our own mothers and children reflected in their eyes. We talk about the Recession and the many people forced to leave their homes in the wake of layoffs and the slow recovery of the economy.

But the truth is, all of these kinds of people exist outside of homelessness. You have members of your congregations with learning disabilities and physical handicaps. You have neighbors who have criminal records or who struggle with addiction. There are single mothers living in houses all over the city. And there are plenty of people stuck at home everyday typing up resumes and trying to find work. The only thing that makes homeless people any different from the general population is that they have no space of their own to return to at night.

Taking this into consideration, we at HUFF believe the best course of action to address homelessness in Santa Cruz is to create simple housing. Simple housing is exactly what it sounds like: a roof over your head, something to sleep on, a 24 hour restroom, and a place to shower. We would love to see the faith community come together to create and support an initiative to make 1,000 simple housing units in Santa Cruz County. Given that the 2013 Homeless Census found over 3,000 homeless people in the county, we believe that it is reasonable for us to try to serve at least a third of that population. Once again, all these people need are the basic things most of us take for granted: a roof over our heads, something to sleep on, 24 hour restroom access, and a place to shower.

We ask you for your help as we cannot do this alone. Poverty and homelessness are community issues. It will take the love and care of all of the community to resolve them. As some of the most loving, caring, and knowledgeable folks in town, we turn to you for allyship and support. If you would like to join us in these efforts and continue this dialogue, please come see me after the community talk-back is over. Once again, thank you for providing this opportunity to discuss these matters as a community. My name is Raven Davis and I’ll be here later if you’d like to talk more about HUFF’s proposal for simple housing. Thank you.

HUFF Flyer Distributed at the Event Intended Also as A Speech

Acts Beyond Words Will Create Simple Housing

Speech to the Association of Faith Communities 9-5-14 by Robert Norse

I’m also a member of HUFF. We’re mostly about restoring rights to homeless folks—rapidly disappearing rights. Rights stolen from the poor outside are ultimately stolen from all of us. We are in the midst of a historical period where one right after another, one sanctuary after another, one bench after another, is being removed in a campaign to target homeless people.

 

Simple housing is the most immediate need. It’s elementary, obvious, and indisputable. Homeless people need simple housing—a place with a roof over the heads a place to sleep, a place to go to the bathroom, and a place to shower. Every night people are harassed and ticketed for falling asleep outside. Their possessions are vulnerable. Their safety, health, and sanity are at risk.

Simple housing isn’t expensive. Not having it is. The City and County give away millions to homeless dispersal programs, for “security” gates and fences, for consultants and developers, for police equipment. Simple housing is what we need. And not tomorrow, but today.

We are living in a time when fear, bigotry, and greed. A time of special privilege. It hides under the labels of “public safety” and “smart solutions”. Those being offered a small amount of temporary housing while billed as “the most vulnerable” are often those who are simply the most visible and the most annoying. The ones who cost the most to businesses seeking tourist dollars. Owners angling for higher property values. Residents anxious for a view unobstructed by a poor family who park their home on a nearby street for a night. Or wait there for a church to open.

The faith community itself and those who seek the small amount of shelter that they are able to provide are under attack Attack from the more privileged and the more fearful. Some in the faith community are reeling under these attacks. The bigots would “end homelessness” by driving homeless people away. A new move to ban nighttime parking around the Circles Church is the latest such attack. When police profile folks near church programs, we sadly see church workers urging the victims not to make waves, not to bring “undue attention” to the churches.

Let’s agree we need immediately 1,000 simple housing units in Santa Cruz County. We obviously need more, but instead of “baby steps” let’s take some real steps. Without unified and determined action, things will only grow worse. Upcoming elections provide gloomy prospects. The real solution—simple housing—is something we must work and fight for. Not just talk about.

Poverty and homelessness are controversial issues that necessarily create tension in the community. We must not flee from that tension or seek to conceal it. Nor beg crumbs from those who condition their funding on denying homeless people basic rights. We need to act.

We must move swiftly to create simple housing: a roof , a bed, a bathroom, & a shower. Make sense? Raise this issue repeatedly with your bodies as well as your voices. Support those who speak up for it and take action to promote it. HUFF meets weekly on Wednesdays 11 to 1 at the Sub Rosa Cafe at 703 Pacific. Or give us a call at 831-423-4833.

This speech is the opinion of Robert Norse and does not necessarily represent that of HUFF.

Continue reading →

Food Not Bombs: Charity Chow or System Smasher? Radio Debate!

Posted on by

 

Title: Food Not Bombs–Charity Dispenser or Justice Seeker: Radio Debatee
START DATE: Sunday August 31
TIME: 9:30 AM – 11:00 AM
Location Details:
101.3 FM….streams at http://audio.str3am.com:5110/listen.pls

Call-in number: 831-469-3119
Event Type: Radio Broadcast
Contact Name Robert Norse
Email Address rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com
Phone Number 831-423-4833
Address 309 Cedar St. #14B Santa Cruz 95060
Food Not Bombs Co-Founder Keith McHenry and long-time socialist, labor and justice activist Earl Gilman will cross swords over the impact of the Food Not Bombs organization: Another Charity or Revolutionary Agency for Change?

If the call-in line isn’t working, e-mail your comments and questions to rnorse3 [at] hotmail.ccom during the show and I’ll read them to the two speakers.


COMMENT AT https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/08/27/18760800.php

Continue reading →

ACLU Board Meeting Tonight (8/25) at Louden Nelson 7 PM

Posted on by
Title: ACLU Board of Directors Meeting
START DATE: Monday August 25
TIME: 7:00 PM – 9:00 PM
Location Details:
Louden Nelson Center at Laurel and Center Streets in Santa Cruz
Event Type: Meeting
The ACLU’s 2-hour long monthly chat-and-fundraise Board meeting features a 10-minute “oral communications” period.

The public may be given a slightly longer speaking period than at City Council. This really seems to depend on the mood of Chair Peter Geldblum and how timid the rest of the Board is feeling in challenging his “rulings”.

Depending again on Geldblum’s mood, if you’re not an ACLU member, you may be excluded from the rest of the proceedings. Joining costs $10, though fees may be waived in some cases, as I understand it.

Vice-Chair Steve Pleich has told me he’ll be informing the Board that he, MHCAN’s Sarah Leonard, and an out-of-town attorney will be working to prep and file a class action lawsuit to stop the seizure of homeless property. Pleich’s “Homeless Legal Assistance Project” is raising this issue.

He spoke at last Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors hearing (See “ACLU Santa Cruz Brings Statement of Principle to Board of Supervisors” at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/08/19/18760282.php

He’s also interested in a presentation to City Council in September to suspend all sleeping and camping laws at night.
As well as a press conference to announce the ACLU’s active interest in pressing this issue. (See “CLU Santa Cruz County Adopts Landmark Statement of Principle” at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/08/06/18759670.php)

He tells me the Northern California chapter of the ACLU–the regional chapter (far more active and liberal than the Santa Cruz local) has vigorously supported the ACLU’s recent “don’t bust homeless sleepers” resolution.

Pleich can be reached at 831-466-6078 for more details. He also can be found buttering bagels at the Red Church (Calvary Episcopal) at Cedar and Lincoln 6 PM-6:45 PM on Monday nights. As can many homeless people–who have plenty of concerns for the ACLU, if they take the time to listen and muster the energy to act.

 

Continue reading →

More Barnstorming for D.A. Bob Lee’s BigTop Attack on the Occupy Movement: Hearings Resume August 13 and 27

Posted on by

 

D.A. Bob Lee failed to disqualify Judge Paul Burdick for bias in a motion filed this last spring in the case of the Santa Cruz Eleven. [See “Assistant D.A. Files Motion to Recuse Judge Burdick–Again” at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/03/04/18751905.php & “A Week Later The Sentinel Does Drive-By Coverage of the Santa Cruz Eleven” at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/06/10/18757167.php?show_comments=1#18757189 & “Santa Cruz Eleven Trial Postponed Indefinitely” at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/03/01/18751723.php?show_comments=1#18751906. defense lawyers for the Final Four of SC-11 have responded with a motion to disqualify Bob Lee. Hopefully this will avert a felony trial that will cost taxpayers $100,000 or more and write an end to a political prosecution that has cooked up felony charges against activist reporters and local leftists.

 

Attorney Alexis Briggs has informed me of the following:

On Wednesday August 13th at 8:15 AM in Dept. 6 she will be appearing with her client Cameron Laurendeau to discuss whether Wells Fargo and/or Bob Lee are producing documents regarding their financial relationship. Wells Fargo reportedly contributed a substantial sum of money to Lee’s re-election campaign–as did former Mayor Katherine Beiers (who admitted being in the building but was never charged).

On Wednesday August 27th at 8:15 AM in Dept 6, all four attorneys and the Final Four of the Santa Cruz Eleven will appear for a judgment on the earlier motion by all four that D.A. Bob Lee be removed from the case because of his financial interest or the appearance of impropriety (as I understand the issue). If he is, the matter willl be referred to the state attorney general to see if they chose to prosecute. Judge Burdick will decide that day or issue a ruling later.

Additioonally Jesse Rubin, Frank “Angel” Alcantara’s attorney will argue other motions–which I’m still trying to secure a copy of.

In a videoed exchange from two years ago, Lee acknowledged he wanted the Santa Cruz Eleven to “pay back” the money that Wells Fargo claimed that other (uncharged and unnamed) activists created by “vandalism” in the bank. [See “Impromptu Conversation Between DA Bob Lee and Two of the Santa Cruz Eleven” at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/07/18/18717774.php .] “Vandalism” is in quotes because while the bank was grafittied and some furniture damaged, the padding of the “costs” was rather obvious as was the political nature of the vandalism. In addition the disproportionate destruction wrought by Wells Fargo both locally and nationally was ignored.

TO VIEW THE RECUSAL MOTION AND EXXHIBITS, GO TO https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/08/10/18759840.php . Continue reading →

Santa Cruz Mayor Stonewalls Transparency Demands

Posted on by

NOTE BY NORSE:   The demand for a Mayor’s meeting with lobbyists is an important part of knowing who she’s being influenced by.  Her public appearance calender provides critics and supporters alike to meet with her in public places and petition for a redress of grievances, if such is needed.  Robinson is probably the most explicitly anti-homeless Mayor in some years.  A lot of rhetorically pro-homeless Councilmembers steep themselves in pro-homeless rhetoric like former Mayor Don Lane, but then decline to take obvious measures to support homeless people

[https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/02/05/18706677.php?show_comments=1#18706748] .

                    I’m extremely ambivalent about the utility of attending City Council meetings (even before I was arrested for audio recording) since the deck is so stacked there.   The most pro-homeless activist Pat Colby has dropped out of the Council race, as has the rhetoric-heavy Steve Pleich.  City Council meetings have largely been a stage or an occasional platform to broadcast to the broader community the machinations of the 1%-dependent politicians.   Requiring the Mayor to keep the public advised of who she’s meeting with and when she’s appearing in public opens up other opportunities to raise issues that can be squelched by “decorum” demands and staff-dominated process at Council meetings.

Mayor Robinson Still Refuses Transparency, Won’t Reveal Appointments, Public Appearances
by Robert Norse
Tuesday Aug 5th, 2014 11:14 PM

Santa Cruz Mayor Lynn Robinson refuses to reveal the history of her meetings with lobbyists, her appointment book, or announcements of her upcoming public appearances. This is not unusual, however contrary to the public interest, as most mayors have done the same (with the exception of former Mayor Don Lane). Robinson was initially asked to come clean and public last March, but declined to respond. Three days after the request I was arrested at City Council for “unattended” audio recording (see “Video of the False Arrest…” at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/05/03/18755258.php).

The following is the e-mail record of the requests for the documents:

From: rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com
To: lrobinson [at] cityofsantacruz.com
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:50:07 -0800

Lynn: Thanks for your reply.

Requiring an individual to “attend” a recording device clearly limits their ability to speak with others, participate at City Council, and otherwise engage in traditional and constitutionally protected activity. It also particularly hampers independent media, who like to circulate among the audience and speak with them–often outside to avoid disrupting city council business.

I’m sure you intend no such thing, but have some good and sufficient reasons for changing city council practice. For the past decade or more mayors have had no difficulty with my inconspicuous use of a tape recorder to capture segments of the Council meeting for subsequent air broadcast.

I’ve requested all documents relating to complaints and problems with the traditional practice from the City Clerk. However, since I was advised that you personally are creating a new policy, please advise me of any actual problems and complaints you have that might justify such a fundamental and restrictive shift.

I’m including prior correspondence on this issue for your reference.

Thanks, Robert (423-4833)

P.S. When will you be available for an audio interview?

On Saturday, March 29, 2014 4:25 AM, Robert wrote:

Lynn:

Last December, as an addendum to our correspondence regarding audio recording at City Council under the decorum rules, I requested the traditional interview I do with the new Mayor. When will you be available for that?

I include a copy of the earlier correspondence below.

Additionally, previous mayors (though not all of them) have opened up their calendars to the public, noting in advance scheduled public appearances as well as contacts with lobbyists. When will you be doing so? I enclose below an e-mail demonstrating how Don Lane did so in this regard.

Thanks, Robert

From: rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com
To: lrobinson [at] cityofsantacruz.com
Subject: Public Records Act Request for Appointment Calendar as well as Scheduled Public Appearances
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 13:09:54 -0700

Lynn:

Please make available for viewing (preferably in e-format) your appointment calendar since you became Mayor in 2013 detailing whom you met with, where, and for how long.

Please also make available similarly any documents announcing future public meetings at which you will be present during the rest of your tenure. Former Mayor Don Lane’s calendar is included as an attachment (and hopefully a good example and an inspiration).

I’d have preferred you do this out of respect for transparency and accountability in Santa Cruz government, but since you’ve declined to even respond to such requests in the past, this is a Public Records Act request which requires a timely response.

I include below prior requests for this information as well as for an interview with Free Radio, which virtually all over Mayors have not been afraid to do.

Thanks, Robert Norse

[For former Mayor Lane’s response, see “Mayor Lane Releases History of Community Contacts” at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/02/22/18707952.php

Additional Note: Robinson’s arrest of me for audio recording on April may also have been a response to an e-mail I wrote her three days before asking her to clarify for the community that walking away from one’s tape recorder would not be the basis for her sergeant at arms seizing the recorder or punishing the reporter using it.   See “Robinson’s Revenge” at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/05/03/18755258.php?show_comments=1#18759616 .

Continue reading →

Copwatchers in Santa Cruz Go to the Chief—Racial Profiling on Pacific Avenue?

Posted on by
Selective Enforcement of Smoking Ban, Obstruction of Video Reporting–Report to the Chief!
by John Colby (posted by Norse) ( rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com )
Saturday Aug 2nd, 2014 10:00 AM

Yesterday I received a phone call from advocate John Colby reporting his account of an incident of harassment downtown at Laurel and Pacific in the early afternoon. Colby noted he’d videoed some of the incident. He forwarded me his complaint and demand for public records addressed to SCPD Police Chief Kevin Vogel. His account seems to be newsworthy and instructive though I cannot vouch for its veracity. It does seem specific and credible if backed up by video and witness accounts. It also involves Officer Azua, who has never been held to account for prior reported violence, against a woman traveler Synthia Kennedy. We’ll see how Chief Vogel fields this one.

Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 20:45:34 -0700
Subject: What is the SCPD’s policy about “cop-watching”?
From: john.roncohen.colby [at] gmail.com
To: kvogel [at] cityofsantacruz.com
CC: rmartinez [at] cityofsantacruz.com; SClark [at] cityofsantacruz.com; lrobinson [at] cityofsantacruz.com;….

Kevin Vogel, Chief of Police
155 Center Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

Dear Chief Vogel:

I am writing to serve you notice that the Santa Cruz Police Department (SCPD) harasses “cop-watchers” protecting the civil rights of people in protected classes like people of color which has been witnessed by my sister and I — but today we were able to video record this harassment. To the point:

This afternoon around 1:30 PM SCPD Officer Bill Azua illegally cited an African American man — grouped with other African Americans — in downtown Santa Cruz for smoking while my sister and I observed that this man had not been smoking.

Officer Azua took this man aside and ran him for priors — also illegally — while he was citing him for smoking. I approached Officer Azua while he was detaining this African American man with my video camera. Officer Azua not only refused to identify himself, but also demanded that I move back. I asked Azua how far I needed to move back. Azua responded that I must move so that “I [he] couldn’t see me.”

Clearly this would prevent me from video recording the incident. I moved back five feet then asked Azua is that was far enough. Azua replied, “No.” I moved back five more feet. Again I asked Azua if I was far back enough. He refused to answer. Another officer came to Azua’s side and also refused to identify himself. This incident lasted for several minutes as captured on digital video. As the officers left I video recorded them. The unidentified officer pointed a video camera at me.

The African American men walked away. Azua followed them in his car to Laurel Street fronting the Taco Bell. He was then accompanied by SCPD Officer Ahlers from the Gang and Drug Task force. Azua and Ahlers took an imposing stance watching these men. I asked Officer Ahlers to identify himself. He ignored me. I asked Officer Azua to identify himself. He refused. Azua accused me of harassing them. I asked him if asking for identification constituted harassment. He replied that me talking to police officers when they didn’t want to speak with me constituted harassment.

A Pacific Ave, Taco Bell employee walked past Azua while smoking a cigarette. Azua did nothing. After I began video recording this employee, she became angry and began speaking with Azua while she had a burning cigarette in her hand. Azua did not cite her for smoking a cigarette — she was Caucasian. The manager of the Taco Bell demanded that I stop video recording his employees from the public sidewalk. I informed him this was legal. He implied that he would have Officer Azua take action against me if I continued to video record.

Minutes later my sister was on the telephone with SCPD Sergeant Jones. this sergeant defended Azua’s demand that I move out of sight while video recording. In response to my question about how far “cop-watchers” should be from SCPD officers while video recording, Jones replied 40-50 feet. I responded that this was too far, that it would prevent any audio recording. I asked Jones what statute or policy supported this. He said it was his “opinion”.

Officer Azua and another Police Officer in another car continued to circle around the area, following these African American men, apparently to harass them

To clarify the demands and opinions of Azua and Jones, I am making a request under the California Public Records Act (CPRA). I ask for: the most current documents which describe the SCPD’s policies about citizens (video) recording SCPD personnel. If these records are available electronically, then I ask that they be made available to me electronically. I am willing to pay a fee of up to $5 for this request. Thank you for providing me records which will shed light on what happened today.

Sincerely yours,

John E. Colby, Ph.D.
email: john.roncohen.colby [at] gmail.com

NOTE BY NORSE: Officer Azua has been accused in the past of excessive force. Synthia Kennedy reported a frightening experience in 2010 on Free Radio Santa Cruz. Go to,http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb100429.mp3 [1 hour and 3 minutes into the audio file] as well as http://radiolibre.org/brb/brb100415.mp3 [41 minutes into the audio file] to hear her account. When approached subsequently for his comments, Azua simply laughed.

Continue reading →

Metro Station Guards Try to Shut Down Video

Posted on by
Cops Claim Metro Bus Center “Private Property” To Shut Down Disabled Advocate with Video

by Robert Norse
Thursday Jul 31st, 2014 2:51 PM

I received a report yesterday from disability advocate John Colby. Colby observed SCPD Officer Scott Freeman and two First Alarm Security guards at the Metro Transit Center taking an intoxicated man to a squad car. Colby became concerned, having seen the video of last year’s “face first drop to the sidewalk” of Richard Hardy by Officer Vasquez (“SCPD Officer Vasquez Slams Drunk Man’s Face On Pavement” at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/04/23/18735710.php). To document the incident, Colby pulled out his video device. He reports being denounced by a female supervisor who refused to give any ID. She and the guards booth insisted he stop recording because the Public Transit Center was “private property”. SCPD Officer Freeman made no attempt to protect Colby’s rights.

Colby noted that the incident began around 5:30 p.m. near the central “coffee shop” area the Transit Center where he was waiting for his bus. When he pointed his video device at the incident, a supervisor indignantly demanded what his business was in the Center and then advised him that videoing was not allowed. Colby asked what law was involved, upsetting her. After storming off, she returned with another security guard in tow. John explained to them that he was in an area open to the public and that it was public property. She then pulled out a smart phone, said “I’m going to take a picture of you”. John replied “go ahead” and smiled and waved into the camera.

Colby also expressed some concern that the one of the First Alarm Security guards began riffling through the man’s pockets and wondered if that wasn’t beyond the legitimate powers of private security. The angry supervisor and several security guards, he noted, continued to confer and gesture at him, gathering near the bus that he normally took home. “I felt intimidated,” he said, “I wondered if she was seeking more information or trying to make trouble for me with the drivers.

Out of fear of further harassment and delay, John put away his recorder under pressure from the security guard.

As well he might. But I’m glad Colby spoke up for everyone’s right to be at the Metro and document police behavior there. I’ve suffered arrest and conviction for doing the same in the past (See “Ticketing for Standing and Talking at the Metro Bus Stop Sunday” at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/11/04/18548934.php /. However in spite of a false conviction, I have not altered my treatment of the Metro as a public space. Several weeks after I got my citation 6 years ago, I led a protest at the Metro which freely assembled and videoed. (See “Rotkin Claims: No Flyering Allowed at the Metro Center” at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/11/25/18552885.php )

Later at home, Colby said he followed up by calling the police numerous times to request an informational report from Freeman to document any further misinformation to the public about “illegality”. After four hours and numerous calls, Colby eventually got a response from Sgt. Christian Le Moss Le Moss, Colby reports, was polite and agreed that he had the right to record, as did the other officer. Le Moss agreed to “educate” security guards on the issue to avoid future such attacks. Colby requested a copy of a report of the incident to document that promise.

One wonders why Officer Freeman didn’t advise the Security Guards and the Supervisor that Colby had the right to record, and to leave him alone. Or at least not to misinform him. Damage control later by Le Moss, however politely given, doesn’t mean Metro authorities won’t pull this nonsense at the next journalist or passing pedestrian who wants to capture a questionable incident on video or audio.

 

Continue reading →