Category Archives: HOT ISSUES

Clearing Away Disposable People on Pacific Avenue

Posted on by

For a downloadable pdf version of this flyer with various points highlighted go to:
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/09/09/18742960.php?show_comments=1#18743230

A protest will also be held 9-22 at 1:30 PM in front of “Forever Twenty-One” on Pacific Avenue near Soquel Ave.
See https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/09/09/18742960.php?show_comments=1#18743107

by Robert Norse\  Saturday Sep 14th, 2013 4:20 PM

Shafting Non-Shoppers: Expanding the Destructive Downtown Ordinances
Merchant Monopolization of Public Spaces Marches On

In a disguised attack on the entire non-commercial street scene, City Council voted to restrict still further the very limited public space currently allowed the community downtown. Under the guise of health concerns, reducing congestion, and preventing a “trip-and-fall” hazard (none of which is documented), the reactionary new laws crowd street performers, vendors, homeless people, tablers, local residents, & tourists together & sterilize 95% of the sidewalk as “forbidden zones” for resting, vending, or performing.

This is a merchant/right-wing attack on the street counter-culture. It has nothing to do with “bad behavior.” It’s about “bigot aesthetics”–clearing away visible poverty, traditional Santa Cruz diversity, and political activists. Council staff showed no input from those impacted (other than merchants) and had no info on costs or stats documenting problems.

THE NEW LAWS
The new law changes:
+++ Extends the Smoking Ban to the side streets one block in either direction from Pacific Avenue, including all alleys & side streets and to to all surface parking lots in downtown between Laurel Street and Water St. perhaps private parking lots as well (Julie Hendee, one of the authors of the law wasn’t sure!).
+++ Requires street artists, street vendors, panhandlers, and political activists to provide “freestanding” display devices such as tables or boxes on which to hoist above the sidewalk anything with them. This bans tarps & blankets now used to display jewelry, artwork, political fliers and likely laying objects directly on the sidewalk. This includes panhandler’s cups and caps as well as street performers’ guitar cases and change bowls.
+++ Reduces the total display device space to 16 sq ft now to include all the person’s personal possessions;
+++ Requires a 12′ distance between display devices, isolating community members.
+++ Reduces available space 4/5 to include 95% of the sidewalk by expanding the “forbidden zones” to 14′ from buildings, street corners, intersections, kiosks, drinking fountains, public telephones, public benches, public trash compactors, information/directory signs, sculptures or artwork, ATM-style machines, outside street cafes, vending carts, and fences. This bans sitting on any sidewalk that is narrower than 14′ (stops use of all sidewalks in other business & beachfront districts).
+++ Defines “display devices” as any kind of container “capable of being used for holding…tangible things”—which may include a backpack or sleeping bag, making likely its use against homeless people.

When added to the frequent merchant expansion of their displays onto the sidewalk in front of their shops this exclusion of non-commercial activity will be nearly all-embracing. This, of course, suits those whose objective is to drive away the once-vibrant street scene in Santa Cruz and ‘Capitola-ize” the Avenue.

The resulting congestion will have people competing for the public spaces (when there is actually room for all). It will severely crowd not just those using display devices, but others trying to sit down in the few remaining spots available whether these be elderly residents, homeless locals, visiting travelers, UCSC students, or naive tourists (who will, of course be selectively ignored or courteously directed to pay-cafes). And either drive such people away or produce a hostile response and more conflict downtown.

FIGHT BACK AGAINST THE WEALTH-A-FICATION OF DOWNTOWN SANTA CRUZ
+++ Use your video phone to show authorities harassing the public on the streets downtown. Post on You-Tube and http://www.indybay.org/santacruz . Send them to HUFF (rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com ).
+++ E-mail City Council at citycouncil [at] cityofsantacruz.com .and demand these ordinances be reviewed for cost, effectiveness, impact, and unintended consequences by citizen committees and with public input.
+++ Spread opposition; Write local papers; Use Facebook & Twitter;. Ordinances become final a month after a 2nd vote in two weeks (October 24) Support businesses who oppose, publicize those who don’t.
+++ Post your own accounts of discrimination downtown. The Coffee Roasting Company & Starbucks recently banned large backpacks; CruzioWorks refuses 24-hour service to Dan Madison for his homeless appearance.
+++ Come to City Council 3 PM September 24th to oppose the 2nd Vote on these laws!
This side of the flier by Norse of HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom) 831-423-4833 http://www.huffsantacruz.org 9-14-13

Who’s Watching Us in Santa Cruz?

Posted on by

NOTES BY NORSE: 

Deputy Chief Steve Clark presented his usual smarmy defense of this system, noting the upsurge in car thefts. I was the only one questioning this agenda item when it came up at City Council two days ago with Clark and Chief Vogel standing by to push it through.

They needn’t have bothered. No Council member sought to require any anti-surveillance protections, clarification of which records were retained, etc. One can understand the crypto-fascist majority of Bryant, Terrazas, and Mathews supporting this. Or the unapologetically fascist Robinson and Comstock.

But the psuedo-progressives Posner and Lane following along?   Well, ask yourselves what police expansions these two have ever opposed?

Community members should demand to know what kind of records are currently being kept on innocent people by the SCPD and what surveillance devices are currently being funded and/or accessed by police agencies. Just demanding public records as to where the surveillance cameras are placed could be helpful.

If anyone has information about where Santa Cruz surveillance cameras are placed, please pass it on to HUFF.

Santa Cruz Police to Add Cameras That Can Track Every Driver in the City

Some think the system which monitors every license plate on a road could be a ‘1984’-like invasion of privacy.

Posted by Brad Kava (Editor) , September 11, 2013 at 04:20 AM
patch

With little debate or discussion, the Santa Cruz City Council Tuesday approved the purchase of $38,000 of cameras that can photograph and keep indefinitely the license plates of every car entering or leaving the city.

Called Automated License Plate Readers, the technology has been controversial in other cities, with freedom advocates claiming it is a step toward a 1984 surveillance system. The ones proposed by local police are mobile and can be kept in an officer’s car and set up when needed. They can read thousands of license plates per minute.

The money comes from a federal grant to help local agencies buy equipment. Police across the country have used them for cameras and other paramilitary equipment. The sheriff’s department will share in the funds.

Santa Cruz Deputy Chief Steve Clark told the council the technology would greatly help in retrieving stolen cars, and could have helped in a number of unsolved cases, such as the disappearance of antique dealer Deanna Brooks, who went missing 13 months ago and has never been found.

He said it could have possibly helped in the shooting of a UCSC student who survived a gunshot wound to the head at a bus station last year and has remained unsolved.

The city will purchase eight mobile units that can track traffic at major entry points, Clark said. Milpitas has used similar technology.

At issue in some cities is the question of how the technology can be used. The American Civil Liberties Union has issued a 26,000 page report on the monitoring, calling it an invasion of privacy and raising poignant questions, none of which were asked by the city council.

For example, do police have a right to monitor and keep information on drivers not suspected of a crime?  Are the records public, and if so, could a citizen subpoena them, for example, in a divorce case to check on a cheating spouse? Can an insurance company get ahold of them to determine who was driving a car or how well they were driving?

Under what restrictions would the police use the information and for how long would they keep it?

The ACLU says of the “ALRP” technology on its homepage:

“The documents paint a startling picture of a technology deployed with too few rules that is becoming a tool for mass routine location tracking and surveillance. License plate readers can serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose when they alert police to the location of a car associated with a criminal investigation. But such instances account for a tiny fraction of license plate scans, and too many police departments are storing millions of records about innocent drivers.”

A report by the International Chiefs of Police Association listed some concerns about personal liberties and the readers:

“Recording driving habits could implicate First Amendment concerns. Specifically, LPR systems have the ability to record vehicles’ attendance at locations or events that, although lawful and public, may be considered private. For example, mobile LPR units could read and collect the license plate numbers of vehicles parked at addiction counseling meetings, doctors’ offices, health clinics, or even staging areas for political protests.”

Civil rights groups sued the Los Angeles Police Department over use of the cameras.

For further comment go to:  http://santacruz.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/santa-cruz-police-to-add-cameras-that-can-track-every-driver-in-the-city?ncid=newsltuspatc00000001&evar4=picks-2-post&newsRef=true

Santa Cruz Street Performers Crushed In Under New Ordinances

Posted on by

https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/09/09/18742960.php?show_comments=1#18743077

by Robert Norse

Wednesday Sep 11th, 2013 9:46 AM

Street performers will be severely impacted.

Their allowable performance area will be reduced from the current standard–having an 18 sq ft table and being able to have other items outside that area–to 16 sq ft and having to have all their personal possessions (including musical instrument cases) inside that area.

They will be required to provide stand-up tables or boxes on which to perch their stuff (actually creating more of a trip-and-fall hazard–one of the laughable undocumented excuses used to sugarcoat this attack on the street scene). In effect they’ll be required to store their personal goods inside these devices

How many poor people can actually afford to purchase such devices? How many homeless people can store them at night?.

They will be required to be 12′ away from each other—limiting still further the total available space (under the second phony pretext—also asserted without proof or documentation–that there were “conflicts”).

But most important, the 10′ “forbidden zones” have been increased to 14′–something specifically rejected by extensive hearings in 2002 and 2003 when several committees and the City Council itself in repeated sessions debated the issue. Street performers then vocally and accurately pointed out that the expanded zones (which were at that time designed to corral and deter homeless and poor people panhandling and sitting) would severely impact the performers. The Downtown Commission as well as a Joint Council-Commission Task Force recommended and got the Council to limit the damage to 10′.

This new expansion “no man’s land” (the forbidden zones bans on tabling, sitting, sparechanging, vending, etc. essentially only consumer access to stores) cuts available performance space down to about 1/5th of what it was.

How so? Rough estimates in 2002 were that the sitting and panhandling ban (which were increased from 6′ to 14′) eliminated 95% of the sidewalk for “legal behavior”. The 10′ forbidden zones finally settled on after extensive research and public debate eliminated 75% of the sidewalk for “display devices”. Street performers will now be in the same position as sitters and sparechangers have been for the last decade—legal on only 5% of the street (as distinguished from the previous 25% (and that was a generous assessment).

Since then, additional forbidden zone creators like “public art”, directory signs, trash compactors, and other items have been added to the landscape. Additional bike racks have been put in creating less space for traditional Santa Cruz street activity.

The new ordinance now proclaims that any street musician who performs with a cup or open guitar case (a “display device”, to quote the ordinance, “anything capable of holding tangible things”) will be illegal within 14′ of a forbidden zone indicator.

The forbidden zones extend within 14′ of:
buildings,
street corners,
intersections,
kiosks,
drinking fountains,
public telephones,
public benches,
public trash compactors,
information/directory signs,
sculptures or artwork,
ATM-style machines,
outside street cafes,
vending carts,
and fences.
(See http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaCruz/?SantaCruzNT.html under MC 5.43.020).

The Council’s claim that it wants to “avoid confusion” and “make things consistent” disguises the fact that this kind of consistency punitively sucks up the public space. Comments by City Council members (Robinson, Comstock, Mathews, Terrazas) seemed to indicate “aesthetics” (i.e. Get rid of the indications of visible poverty) and merchant sensibilities (more space for us and our customers) were the major indicators.

No concrete evidence of “trip and fall”, congestion, ongoing conflict problem, or any other real public safety concern was presented.

But, of course, this ties in nicely with the City’s redefinition of “Public Safety” as “Homeless Removal”.

Real public safety concerns might be aesthetically and economically “desirable” alcohol abusers lured by the city’s nightlife, but hey–they pay good money for their raucous behaviors and “contribute to the economy of the city”.

The real issue is how to restore and reclaim the public spaces that the Downtown Association and Take Back Santa Cruz–operating through the City Council–have stolen…again. Perhaps a kazoo brigade? Perhaps chairs distributed to homeless people to sit (sitting in a chair anywhere on Pacific Ave sidewalks is legal if you’re not blocking the sidewalk)? Perhaps link-ups with Palo Alto attorneys who have already committed themselves to challenging anti-homeless laws there?

The law comes up for a second reading on September 24th.

I’ll be hoping to write more about this infuriating situation if I can find the steam.

Fighting Back Against City Council’s “Crowd and Crush Street Vendors and Performers Ordinances”

Posted on by

https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/09/09/18742960.php?show_comments=1#18743107

by HUFF (posted by Norse)

Wednesday Sep 11th, 2013 11:24 PM

HUFF voted to call a protest with food, possibly music, and speakers on Sunday September 22nd at 1:30 PM in front of Forever 21 near Soquel and Pacific Avenues in anticipation of the final vote on the ordinances the afternoon of September 24th at City Hall.

A preliminary organizational meeting will be held Saturday September 14th at 5 PM on the steps of the main post office after the Food Not Bombs meal.

We encourage folks to pass the word to street performers, street vendors, homeless people being targeted by police, rangers, and security thugs, as well as political activists–all of whom will be severely impacted by these downtown ordinances that reduce tabling, sparechanging, vending, and performing space by 4/5.

RECENT REPORTS OF POLICE AND MERCHANT HARASSMENT AND DISCRIMINATION
Reports are coming in of mass harassment at the Red Church driving away sleepers on Tuesday morning and of mass ticketing of sleepers up near the railroad tracks a few days earlier. Travelers newly arrived are getting camping tickets, but not being informed that such tickets are subject to dismissal if the victim gets on the waiting list of the Homeless (Lack of ) Services Center. Trespass tickets are being used as a substitute for camping tickets in order to avoid the mandatory dismissal required by MC 6.36.055.

The downtown Coffee Roasting Company, according to its staff, is now refusing service to homeless people with large backpacks. Brent Adams reports that a family of three (mother, father, and child) bought coffee last night, and then were told to leave after the father brought in a laptop computer. If you are a regular customer or simply concerned about this kind of hateful attitude, please speak to the management and let them now how you feel. Also please post any more recent accounts of such repulsive behavior.

Sean Deluge created the flyer.

Shafting Non-Shoppers: Expanding the Destructive Downtown Ordinances

Posted on by

https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/09/09/18742960.php

Shafting Non-Shoppers: Expanding the Destructive Downtown Ordinances
by Robert Norse ( rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com )
Monday Sep 9th, 2013 11:33 AM

In a disguised attack on the entire non-commercial street scene, tomorrow’s afternoon City Council meeting will rubberstamp restricting Continue reading →

“Big Top” Bob Panhandles the Public in Santa Cruz!

Posted on by

NOTES BY NORSE:

Lee’s shortage of funds is not surprising and seems to be of his own making.

His office has already received a rare sanction for stalling and failing to deliver evidence in the Santa Cruz Eleven case.   Lee is appealing the $500 fine iimposed by Judge Burdick last January at a cost of thousands of dollars in a 49-page brief.

At a recent court hearing, Burdick urged him to spare the taxpayers the tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars that a 2-3 week long felony trial for the remaining four of the SC-11 would cost the taxpayers.

The Santa Cruz Eleven were a publicity stunt by Lee in his “Shut Down Occupy Santa Cruz” prosecutions of 2012.  He  targeted peaceful protesters & falsely blamed them for vandalism at the (still)vacant Wells Fargo-lased bank structure at 75 River St.  With no evidence–instead using subsequently discredited “conspiracy” charges and now a tortured “aid-and-abet” theory based on the act that the four were supposedly in the bank, even if they couldn’t have been shown to do anything else.

Since there’s no evidence that any of the remaining four individuals still being hounded actually vandalized anything, this costly trial (now postposted until March 2014) needs to be dropped, obviously, in favor of real public safety concerns.
See https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/08/28/18742256.php and http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/08/27/18742198.php for a more lengthy update and background.

Santa Cruz reactionaries, however, have been successful in diverting attention from the pile-up of real violent crimes that remain unaddressed.  Instead they have focused on their own special scapegoat agenda  to spotlight political protesters and homeless survival campers (raising the old Drug War red herrings with “needlemania”).

This kind of toxic hysteria now has official cover with Mayor Bryant’s “Citizens Task Force on Public Safety” which gathers “testimony” from like-minded bigots every other Wednesday to confirm its obsession with “enabling the homeless menace”.

Lee apparently feels he can do no wrong (even when a judge rules otherwise).  He also seems to think the Board of Supervisors and the taxpayers will roll over every time he screams “crime!”.

Time to spend money addressing real crime instead of backing the bigoted agenda of those who want to criminalize the poor or inflate their own political profile.

This kind of pernicious panhandling is far more deadly and far more expensive than the sparechanging that shocks the merchants and rouses Take Back Santa Cruz to self-righteous fury.

Santa Cruz County’s top prosecutor declares emergency personnel need

By Calvin Men

Santa Cruz Sentinel

Posted:   08/30/2013 06:26:05 PM PDT

SANTA CRUZ — In response to an unusually high number of serious violent crimes set for trial within the next two months, Santa Cruz County District Attorney Bob Lee declared a personnel emergency for his office Friday.

In a letter to County Administrative Officer Susan Mauriello, Lee notified her of the need to add attorneys to his staff because of the abundance of serious criminal cases headed to trial.

At least eight homicide trials are slated for September and October, an unprecedented number that is expected to put a strain on his staff, Lee said.

“Unfortunately, it’s just not stopping and it’s going to reach that conclusion where it’s thin ice,” Lee said in an interview. “If we take more steps without additional support, a case may fall through. Our ability to be successful, to get justice and hold people accountable would be compromised.”

By considering an emergency measure allowed under civil service rules, Lee is permitted to hire extra personnel without approval from the county Board of Supervisors for a period of 60 days — long enough to cover the upcoming trials, Lee said.

After 60 days, Lee will have to defer to the board for approving the extra personnel.

He said funding for the extra attorneys will likely come out of the county’s general fund. But he couldn’t say how many more attorneys will be hired, though there is already a list of candidates.

Each homicide case requires two attorneys dedicated to that case only, making them unavailable for other cases, Lee said.

His office has 33 budgeted positions but many of the attorneys would be largely unavailable because of the eight homicide trials, which include a gang-related homicide of a 14-year-old boy in 2011 and a 2009 murder of a homeless man on the river levee, both in Watsonville. There are also five sexual assault and attempted murder cases during the next two months.
Lee said the high rate of jury trials is due largely to suspects deciding not to settle cases.

After the 60-day period, Lee said he isn’t sure what will happen with extra personnel. He is expected to meet with the board to discuss future budgetary matters in January.
 

Follow Sentinel reporter Calvin Men at Twitter.com/calvinmenatwork

MORE COMMENTS AT http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/santacruz/ci_23986539/santa-cruz-countys-top-prosecutor-declares-emergency-personnel?

Picket CruzioWorks Friday August 16 at 1 PM in Santa Cruz

Posted on by

PICKET LINE AT CRUZIOWORKS

Homeless people are rousted where they sleep or sit, verbally abused in public places, stolen from by police, & officially criminalized by Mayor Bryant bogus “Public Safety” Task Force.

Now CruzioWorks, pandering to the bigoted fears of another Cruzio tenant, cuts off service for a 24 hour workspace,to Dan Madison, a paying peaceful homeless person.

1 PM FRIDAY AUGUST 16

CEDAR & CHURCH STREETS

Music Poetry Sweets Petitions Strong Words Stout Hearts

Speak Out Say No to the Fog of Fear Suffocating Santa Cruz

More Information; https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/08/08/18741236.php

COMMENTS

From: Brent Adams

This is a very unacceptable situation that Dan Madison has experienced.
I wonder if picketing is the best first step here.

Have you considered visiting Cruzio to facilitate a mediated conversation about what happened,  what went wrong and how to

fix the situation and create understanding?
This “picket” will only make “wrong” a company of longstanding in the community.  I assert that nothing good will come of this
picket for the general needs of homeless people and the community in general.   A protest like this would be a consideration following
the failed attempts at finding a workable understanding of what happened and ensure access to Mr. Madison and all others.
I encourage HUFF faciltate a conversation with Cruzio to get to the bottom of what happened and to see if understanding
can be created before an attack on this business happens.  I’d hate to see another homeless person be used by Robert Norse and HUFF
to attack a local business,  the community at large and all hopes of grassroots activism around homeless issues.
Brent Adams