Category Archives: Bathrobespierre’s Broadsides Radio Show

If you can’t scare ’em out, starve ’em out…

Posted on by

If you can’t scare ’em out, starve ’em out…
To: HUFF yahoo groups <huffsantacruz@yahoogroups.com

>
Cc: GPerry of the SC Weekly <gperry@santacruzweekly.com>

 

NOTES BY NORSE:  Ironically it was during the Xmas season the attacks on homeless food providers in Santa Cruz escalated.  Mass arrests began in January 1989 in a half-year long struggle that ended with the uniformed food filcher’s giving up and (a) ending–for a time–their attacks on those regularly serving food outdoors to homeless people downtown, and (b) setting up a meal at 115 Coral St. (then a vacant lot and a garage behind the  River St. mini-Shelter).
A year later police raided Las Chorales (or “Lost Charlie’s” as some called it–on Front St. near where the Community Credit Union is now because that restaurant was both feeding the homeless and allowing tem to fall asleep–in the month after the earthquake.  At that time Salvation Army and United Way made a nasty distinction between the pre-earthquake homeless and the post-earthquake homeless, cutting off the former and providing aid to the latter.
Keith McHenry’s recent account of attacks on food servers can be hard on the audio file of my streaming radio show at http://huffsantacruz.org/radio/brb/BB%2012-1-13.mp3(1 hour and 47 minutes into the file).  Keith has written about actions against Food Not Bombs chapters recently at http://www.foodnotbombs.net/fnb_resists.html and at http://anarchistcook.wordpress.com/2013/10/24/the-world-series-of-hunger-the-nationwide-campaign-to-hide-hunger-goes-into-extra-innings/.

Restaurant Forced To Stop Feeding The Homeless After Complaints From Nearby Businesses

By Scott Keyes on December 4, 2013 at 10:30 am

“Restaurant Forced To Stop Feeding The Homeless After Complaints From Nearby Businesses”

Homeless SurveyCREDIT: AP

For years, a small restaurant in western Indiana served a free meal to customers every Thursday. Unsurprisingly, it was a big hit, especially among those who struggle to regularly afford a hot meal. And the number of people needing assistance has “exploded” recently; the number of people served at soup kitchens has nearly doubled in the past year, as the Lafayette Journal and Courier noted in its investigation.

But Buttery Shelf Eatery served, instead of serves, free meals because of persistent complaints from some nearby businesses who did not appreciate the presence of poor people in the area and forced the restaurant to end its free lunches.

Despite the large crowd that showed up to Buttery Shelf Eatery — up to 70 people at a time — there have been relatively few incidents between patrons and no one has been arrested or even had to file a police report.

Ravallette, a volunteer who used to receive free lunches and now helps hand them out, liked the sense of community at the gatherings. “What I liked most about it is that a lot of times, when you go into a public place, you don’t see a representative segment of the community.”

Leading the charge against Buttery Shelf Eatery is Jerry Kalal, a former marine who opened K. Dee’s Coffee and Roasting Co. in 2007 and felt that the free lunches were scaring away customers. He estimated he lost between $500-$800 in weekly sales as a result.

Kalal complained to Buttery Shelf owner Cherrie Buckley, telling her, “You do this little soup kitchen, but you’re closing down all the other businesses.”
Buckley refused as long as she could. Serving the needy and homeless has been an important value in her life for decades, opening a food and clothes pantry for the needy back in 1995.

But Kilal was persistent. He regularly contacted the police to complain about Buttery Shelf patrons, but his claims were deemed specious. Others in the area filed complaints as well. In one instance, someone told police that a couple dozen people were doing drugs behind Buttery Shelf. Unknown to the caller, however, was that police already had an officer watching on the scene who noted that the people “were just standing there waiting for the place to open.”

The most serious violation police ever encountered was patrons blocking traffic, due to the long line to receive a meal.

Finally, after enduring what one supporter described as “bullying” for many months, Buckley decided she had to end the free lunch program.

This story — a mensch (or group of mensches) serves the needy, only to be shut down by the local government or nearby businesses that didn’t want the presence of homeless people — has played out in countless communities. In Los Angeles, the city council is considering a proposal to ban distributing food to homeless people in public because of complaints from neighbors. In Raleigh, a charity that for years had served meals to the needy was threatened with arrest if they continued. In Orlando, police arrested people who violated a city ordinance by feeding the homeless in public.
The problem boils down to the Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) syndrome. Nobody wants homeless people to starve, but many segments of society want them to be taken care of elsewhere. Instead of considering poor people a valued part of the community, they’re a “problem” that should be dealt with somewhere out of sight. Of course, everywhere is somebody’s backyard, and so local governments like Columbia end up passing proposals to exile its homeless population as far away from downtown as possible.

For her part, Buckley is distraught over having to cease her bakery’s outreach to the poor. She recently posted on its Facebook page: “We appreciate your support. But it is what it is and most people will not change how they feel. We too hope that one day we will be able to feed the community again.”

(HT: Former ThinkProgress intern Kirsten Gibson.)

MORE COMMENTS AT http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/12/04/3015111/homeless-restaurant-indiana/

 

NOTES BY NORSE:  Ironically it was during the Xmas season the attacks on homeless food providers in Santa Cruz escalated.  Mass arrests began in January 1989 in a half-year long struggle that ended with the uniformed food filcher’s giving up and (a) ending–for a time–their attacks on those regularly serving food outdoors to homeless people downtown, and (b) setting up a meal at 115 Coral St. (then a vacant lot and a garage behind the  River St. mini-Shelter).

                  A year later police raided Las Chorales (or “Lost Charlie’s” as some called it–on Front St. near where the Community Credit Union is now because that restaurant was both feeding the homeless and allowing tem to fall asleep–in the month after the earthquake.  At that time Salvation Army and United Way made a nasty distinction between the pre-earthquake homeless and the post-earthquake homeless, cutting off the former and providing aid to the latter.
Keith McHenry’s recent account of attacks on food servers can be hard on the audio file of my streaming radio show at http://huffsantacruz.org/radio/brb/BB%2012-1-13.mp3(1 hour and 47 minutes into the file).  Keith has written about actions against Food Not Bombs chapters recently at http://www.foodnotbombs.net/fnb_resists.html and at http://anarchistcook.wordpress.com/2013/10/24/the-world-series-of-hunger-the-nationwide-campaign-to-hide-hunger-goes-into-extra-innings/.

Restaurant Forced To Stop Feeding The Homeless After Complaints From Nearby Businesses

By Scott Keyes on December 4, 2013 at 10:30 am

“Restaurant Forced To Stop Feeding The Homeless After Complaints From Nearby Businesses”

Homeless SurveyCREDIT: AP

For years, a small restaurant in western Indiana served a free meal to customers every Thursday. Unsurprisingly, it was a big hit, especially among those who struggle to regularly afford a hot meal. And the number of people needing assistance has “exploded” recently; the number of people served at soup kitchens has nearly doubled in the past year, as the Lafayette Journal and Courier noted in its investigation.

But Buttery Shelf Eatery served, instead of serves, free meals because of persistent complaints from some nearby businesses who did not appreciate the presence of poor people in the area and forced the restaurant to end its free lunches.

Despite the large crowd that showed up to Buttery Shelf Eatery — up to 70 people at a time — there have been relatively few incidents between patrons and no one has been arrested or even had to file a police report.

Ravallette, a volunteer who used to receive free lunches and now helps hand them out, liked the sense of community at the gatherings. “What I liked most about it is that a lot of times, when you go into a public place, you don’t see a representative segment of the community.”

Leading the charge against Buttery Shelf Eatery is Jerry Kalal, a former marine who opened K. Dee’s Coffee and Roasting Co. in 2007 and felt that the free lunches were scaring away customers. He estimated he lost between $500-$800 in weekly sales as a result.

Kalal complained to Buttery Shelf owner Cherrie Buckley, telling her, “You do this little soup kitchen, but you’re closing down all the other businesses.”
Buckley refused as long as she could. Serving the needy and homeless has been an important value in her life for decades, opening a food and clothes pantry for the needy back in 1995.

But Kilal was persistent. He regularly contacted the police to complain about Buttery Shelf patrons, but his claims were deemed specious. Others in the area filed complaints as well. In one instance, someone told police that a couple dozen people were doing drugs behind Buttery Shelf. Unknown to the caller, however, was that police already had an officer watching on the scene who noted that the people “were just standing there waiting for the place to open.”

The most serious violation police ever encountered was patrons blocking traffic, due to the long line to receive a meal.

Finally, after enduring what one supporter described as “bullying” for many months, Buckley decided she had to end the free lunch program.

This story — a mensch (or group of mensches) serves the needy, only to be shut down by the local government or nearby businesses that didn’t want the presence of homeless people — has played out in countless communities. In Los Angeles, the city council is considering a proposal to ban distributing food to homeless people in public because of complaints from neighbors. In Raleigh, a charity that for years had served meals to the needy was threatened with arrest if they continued. In Orlando, police arrested people who violated a city ordinance by feeding the homeless in public.
The problem boils down to the Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) syndrome. Nobody wants homeless people to starve, but many segments of society want them to be taken care of elsewhere. Instead of considering poor people a valued part of the community, they’re a “problem” that should be dealt with somewhere out of sight. Of course, everywhere is somebody’s backyard, and so local governments like Columbia end up passing proposals to exile its homeless population as far away from downtown as possible.

For her part, Buckley is distraught over having to cease her bakery’s outreach to the poor. She recently posted on its Facebook page: “We appreciate your support. But it is what it is and most people will not change how they feel. We too hope that one day we will be able to feed the community again.”

(HT: Former ThinkProgress intern Kirsten Gibson.)

MORE COMMENTS AT http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/12/04/3015111/homeless-restaurant-indiana/

Strike Back at Task Farce Terrorism Tuesday 12-3; PROTEST AT 6:30 PM

Posted on by

The latest chapter in the City’s crackdown on homeless people will be played out Tuesday night at City Hall in the 7 PM Special Session of City Council.


The ratification of the wretched Task Force for Anti-Homeless Hysteria recommendations come up shortly at City Hall (809 Center St.).

Recommendations include increased penalties for life-sustaining behavior, more funding to homeless-harassing police and security, pressure on the courts to “crack down”, a ramp-ed up “War on Drugs”…and more!

Steve Schnaar’s critique of the recommendations (and links to the recommendations themselves) is at https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/11/26/18746864.php?show_comments=1#18747067  .

My response is at https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/11/30/18747066.php .

Prepare for a long cold winter. 

PROTEST AT CITY HALL WITH JOE SCHULTZ’s  JUMBOGUMBO!  6:30 PM ! 

Public Safety Danger in Santa Cruz: Gunmen Armed with Badges and Attitude

Posted on by

Off-Duty SCPD Cop Draws Gun on Salvation Army Food Seeker

by Robert Norse and Colin Campbell Clyde
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/11/29/18746999.php?show_comments=1#18747000

Friday Nov 29th, 2013 2:44 PM

Several witnesses at the Tuesday Salvation Army Thanksgiving Meal including the mother of the victim reported that Officer Hernandez assaulted Jasmine Byron by knocking a plate of food out of her hand, threatening her with his gun, and subsequently taunting her from his car. Hernandez’s stated objective: to stop Jasmine from trying to take a plate of food out the door after having she said she’d asked permission to do so.

Yesterday on the stream of Free Radio, I interviewed Jasmine Byron and her husband Shade, who witnessed Hernandez’s assault. The first hour of the audio stream (after a silence of 12 minutes or so) at http://radiolibre.org/brb/brb131128.mp3 presents that interview along with commentary from Colin Campbell Clyde. He summarized his understanding of what happened. His account was initially posted on the Citizens for a Positive Santa Cruz, a new website, started to address issues and people banned from Steve Pleich’s Citizens for a Better Santa Cruz site.

COLLIN’S ACCOUNT:
(at http://www.facebook.com/groups/1432099843671366/permalink/1433243453557005/ )

“Officer Hernandez pulled a gun on my friend Jasmine and pointed it at her face at close range while volunteering off-duty at a Salvation Army Thanksgiving meal. Apparently this was super-necessary to prevent her from “stealing” a plate of leftover food, which he also knocked out of her hand, spilling the food all over the floor, the wall, even the ceiling. A few minutes later, Hernandez bragged and gloated about what he’d done. Her whole family is in shock and her mother has been having panic attacks since the incident.

Is this what people had in mind when “We Support Our Police” poster went up all over town when some cops were murdered earlier this year? Why was this man-boy wearing a gun to volunteer at a community event? Is the city or the legal system going to ANYTHING to reign in this loose cannon before he hurts someone again, perhaps more seriously next time? Or do cops get immunity to commit crimes (assault and battery in this case) in Santa Cruz, even when they’re not at work?”

MORE NOTES FROM NORSE
Jasmine and Shade Byron play sweet music on Pacific Avenue and at the Farmer’s Market in a group known as The Dirty Pines. This serious, public, and callous incident of assault and battery followed by harassment–if accurately described by witnesses–is likely to be covered up and rolled past. KSBW did interview Jasmine at the scene, but I’ve not heard that they’ve played it. Police declined to come though they were called.

When Jasmine and her mother went to the police station and reported the crime there, one of the interviewing officers with Officer Vasquez, whose spring sidewalk-smashing of Richard Hardy on video (http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_23092865/homeless-man-injured-during-arrest ) has yet to be concluded–or at least no such announcement has been made.

In the hours and days that followed, Jasmine and her mother also stated they suffered post traumatic stress syndrome symptoms (headaches, panic attacks, inability to sleep, disorientation, irrational [rational?] fear of police, etc.]. A Salvation Army worker who witnessed the event reportedly broke down in tears.

Councilmember Micah Posner was twice advised about the situation but has not replied to my phone calls (831-227-4772) nor has Mayor Robinson, who also received word of the assault at the Thursday Civic Center Thanksgiving Meal (when she served me pumpkin pie). SC Patch police publicist Brad Kava was also informed, but I’ve not seen anything on SC Patch about the issue.

I circulated a flier (now updated and corrected) yesterday which I attach below. There is more discussion of the incident on the Citizens for a Positive Santa Cruz website at http://www.facebook.com/groups/1432099843671366/permalink/1433243453557005/ .

My accounts come from those who were directly impacted by Hernandez’s behavior. I encourage others who witnessed this incident to post or contact me at 831-423-4833.

by Robert Norse

Friday Nov 29th, 2013 2:51 PM

Jasmine said that Hernandez’s stated rationale for slapping the food plate out of her hand and then pulling his gun was the Salvation Army’s “rule” that food was not to be taken outside. She says as someone with a stomach condition that did not allow her to eat much at a meal and with the permission of Salvation Army workers, she was trying to leave with a plate of food, partially covered by her coat.

When Hernandez demanded to search her, she refused–which, she suggests, he regarded as an intolerable threat to his authority, provoking what they describe as his violent behavior, the drawing of the gun, and the subsequent waving it in her face and shoving it in her back.

Jasmine and Shade go into more of these details on the audio file. They also noted that many people had plates of food outside, so even without explicit “permission” and that it was not an uncommon practice.

Return of the Food Wars: L.A. NIMBY’s and Gentrification Lords Move to Starve Out Homeless

Posted on by

NOTES BY NORSE:  Santa Cruz food activists, even once-a-week religious groups like that of Pastor Ron’s on Thursday afternoon in front of Forever Twenty-One on Pacific Avenue, have experienced direct pressure from “ban the bums” bureaucrats like Julie Hendee, the City staff succubus who gave us the anti-performer sidewalk shrinking laws.  On October 24th, she scolded and pressured Ron’s street church to eliminate their weekly meal, complaining that its participants left litter in spite of the clean-up efforts of the group.  Ron replied that the sidewalk was the only location his church-without-a-building had.

               The right to serve free food outside has been a struggle in Santa Cruz, ever since Holy Cross’s Peter Carota’s efforts in the Beach Flats in the early 80’s.   Dozens were arrested in the early 90’s for feeding folks at the Town Clock, though the persistence of groups like SWAP (Soup Without a Permit), SLOP (Soup Lovers Outdoor Picnics), and Food Not Bombs ultimately exhausted authorities who tried arrests, injunctions, prosecutions, and jail terms unsuccessfully.  Direct Action got the goods and kept them.  Homeless activism actually created the twice-daily meals out at 115 Coral St.
Will Mayor Lynn Robinson (when she enters office in December) return to the repression that is scarring other cities in the country?   Already the City Council is moving today to implement a harsher Public Assembly bill, requiring permits for marches, with a longer advance time (5 days)  than the Egyptian military regime has recently proposed (3 days). Moving swiftly to “investigate” the imaginary crime of “homeless scavenging”.   City Council meets today at 2 PM to consider this new series of restrictions on Public Assembly  at City Hall.
Robinson’s Revanchists will soon move to rubberstamp the patently phony “Public Safety” recommendations of outgoing Mayor Hillary Bryant’s hand-picked hoedown of homeless haters which defines people sleeping outside as a “crime wave”.   (See the Sentinel’s front-page smear job at http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/santacruz/ci_24587717/public-safety-task-force-armed-solutions-santa-cruz )
The seminal PeaceCamp2010 protests that provided a homeless encampment for a month in front of the courthouse and then a further 2 month protest  in front of City Hall, prompted City Manager-for-Life Martin Bernal, then-Mayor Coonerty, police Chief Vogel, & Parks and Recreation Czarina Dannettee Shoemaker to impose–with no public discussion or vote–nighttime curfews around the library, city hall, and the police station to deal with the protest/homeless menace.
A year later in  October 2011, the strong Occupy Santa Cruz protests  gave homeless people the shelter and community in the San Lorenzo Encampment that the pathetic Homeless (Lack  of) Services Center could not/  City police responded with military-style violence destroying the encampment on December 8, 2011 and the County with a dusk to dawn (7 PM to 7 AM) curfew around the county building and courthouse with one man given a 2 year sentence for challenging it peacefully with a sign (Gary Johnson–see https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/08/23/18720157.php ).
Food Not Bombs soupslinger Keith McHenry has reported on an upsurge of food fascism throughout the country (seehttp://blog.foodnotbombs.net/effort-to-hide-the-hungry-continues-across-the-united-states/).  Food Not Bombs Santa Cruz continues to provide its weekly spread 4 PM Saturdays in front of the Main Post office in spite of threats from the “Punish-the-Poor” postmaster there.   But Santa Cruz soupsippers need to ready their ladles to ready for a local food fight  as the Take-Back-Santa-Cruz faction entrenches its power in December and moves on with its campaign to rebrand homeless locals, hippie travelers, & visible poor people of all kinds as criminals and sub-humans in an attempt to mobilize community fears against them.

As Homeless Line Up for Food, Los Angeles Weighs Restrictions

NYT  November 25 2013

LOS ANGELES — They began showing up at dusk last week, wandering the streets, slumped in wheelchairs and sitting on sidewalks, paper plates perched on their knees. By 6:30 p.m., more than 100 homeless people had lined up at a barren corner in Hollywood, drawn by free meals handed out from the back of a truck every night by volunteers.

Monica Almeida/The New York Times

The Greater West Hollywood Food Coalition has been serving free meals to the homeless in Los Angeles every night for more than 25 years.

But these days, 27 years after the Greater West Hollywood Food Coalition began feeding people in a county that has one of the worst homeless problems in the nation, the charity is under fire, a flashpoint in the national debate over the homeless and the programs that serve them.

 

Facing an uproar from homeowners, two members of the Los Angeles City Council have called for the city to follow the lead of dozens of other communities and ban the feeding of homeless people in public spaces.

 

“If you give out free food on the street with no other services to deal with the collateral damage, you get hundreds of people beginning to squat,” said Alexander Polinsky, an actor who lives two blocks from the bread line. “They are living in my bushes and they are living in my next door neighbor’s crawl spaces. We have a neighborhood which now seems like a mental ward.”

 

Should Los Angeles enact such an ordinance, it would join a roster of more than 30 cities, including Philadelphia, Raleigh, N.C., Seattle and Orlando, Fla., that have adopted or debated some form of legislation intended to restrict the public feeding of the homeless, according to the National Coalition of the Homeless.

 

“Dozens of cities in recent years,” said Jerry Jones, the coalition’s executive director. “It’s a common but misguided tactic to drive homeless people out of downtown areas.”

 

“This is an attempt to make difficult problems disappear,” he said, adding, “It’s both callous and ineffective.”

 

The notion that Los Angeles might join this roster is striking given the breadth of the problem here. Encampments of homeless can be found from downtown to West Hollywood, from the streets of Brentwood to the beaches of Venice. The situation that has stirred no small amount of frustration and embarrassment among civic leaders, now amplified by fears of the hungry and mostly homeless people, who have come to count on these meals.

 

“They are helping human beings,” said Debra Morris, seated in a wheelchair as she ate the evening’s offering of pasta with tomato sauce. “I can barely pay my own rent.”

 

There are now about 53,800 homeless people in Los Angeles County, according to the 2013 Annual Homeless Assessment Report released by the Department of Housing and Urban Development last week, a 27 percent increase over last year. Only New York had a higher homeless population.

 

The problem is particularly severe here because of the temperate climate that makes it easier to live outdoors, cuts in federal spending on the homeless, and a court-ordered effort by California to shrink its prison population, said Mike Arnold, the executive director of the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, an agency created by the city and county in 1993.

 

All told, about $82 million in government funds is spent each year on helping homeless here, Mr. Arnold said.


Tom LaBonge, one of the two City Council members who introduced the resolution (the other, also a Democrat, was Mitch O’Farrell), said food lines should be moved indoors, out of consideration to the homeless and neighborhoods. “There are well-intentioned people on both sides,” Mr. LaBonge said.

 

But, he added: “This has overwhelmed what is a residential neighborhood. When dinner is served, everybody comes and it’s kind of a free-for-all.”

 

Ted Landreth, the founder of the food coalition, said his group had fought back community opposition before — it moved to this corner after being ordered out of Plummer Park in West Hollywood in 1990 because of similar complaints — and would do so again.

“The people who want to get rid of us see dollar signs, property values, ahead of pretty much everything else,” he said.

 

”We have stood our ground,” he added. “We are not breaking any law.”

 

Communities that have sought to implement feeding restriction laws have faced strong resistance. In Philadelphia, advocates for the homeless won an injunction in federal court blocking a law there that would have banned food lines in public parks. Even before the court action, religious groups had moved in and began setting up indoor food lines.

 

In many ways the agonies of the national battle over dealing with homelessness are etched into this four-block-square section of Hollywood, where industrial buildings, including the Cemex cement factory, film production facilities and the stately former headquarters of Howard Hughes’s enterprises, sit two blocks up North Sycamore Avenue away from a middle-class neighborhood of Spanish Mission homes. Construction in the area is bustling, reflecting the gentrification that is taking place across this city.

 

The coalition’s truck, a Grumman Kurbmaster, arrives every night at 6:15, drawing as many as 200 people from across the region.

 

The other night, men and women lined up for firsts and, if desired, seconds. Some were quiet and grateful, and a few were loud and agitated. “You all right?” Mr. Landreth asked one man who was shouting to himself.

Just up the street, 75 people filled a living room, anxiously exchanging stories about what many described as a neighborhood under siege, and demanding help from local officials.

 

“You guys have had your fill here — we know that,” Officer Dave Cordova of the Los Angeles Police Department told them. “And the food coalition doesn’t help. Where do all these guys go after they get something to eat?”

 

Peter Nichols, the founder of the Melrose Action Neighborhood Watch, which helped organize the meeting, said there has been a steady increase in complaints about petty crime, loitering, public defecation and people sleeping on sidewalks.

 

“While it sounds good in concept — I’m going to pull up to a curb, I’m going to feed people, I’m going to clean up and I’m going to leave — well, there are not restrooms,” he said. “Can these people get a place to sleep? To clean up? We want there to be after-care provided every day they do the program. But they don’t and they can’t.”

 

What Mr. Landreth described as the most serious threat in its existence — a powerful combination of opposition from homeowners, businesses and city officials — is stirring deep concern among the people who come here to eat most nights.

 

“I know because of the long lines, a lot of times we have trouble and confusion,” said Emerson Tenner, 46, as he waited for a meal. “But there are people here who really need this. A few people act a little crazy. Don’t mess it up for everyone else.”

 

Aaron Lewis, who said he makes his home on the sidewalk by a 7-Eleven on Sunset Boulevard, chalked up opposition to what he described as rising callousness to people in need.

 

“That’s how it is everywhere,” Mr. Lewis said. “People here — it’s their only way to eat. The community doesn’t help us eat.”

Correction: City Council Meeting is at 2 PM not 3 PM Today

Posted on by

Oops–sorry about the error.  Those who want to speak against the Public Assembly Permit bill need to show at 2 PM rather than 3 PM (though the actual agenda item time is still uncertain).

New Public Assembly Restrictions Up For Initial Vote Tuesday 11-26 at City Council
by Robert Norse
Monday Nov 25th, 2013 10:47 PM

I’ve not had time to look at it carefully, but agenda item #12 rewrites the entire sections on public demonstrations for commercial and non-commercial events. The staff report can be found at http://sire.cityofsantacruz.com/sirepub/cache/2/gm3nxoa24g4uqu55k4gs1zrb/382360111252013053508496.PDF . I hope to take a longer look later, but the one thing I do notice is that the permit requirement has now tightened apparently so that 50 rather than 100 people require a permit. Additionally marching in the street is no longer provided for except through costly street closures, and permit now have to be applied for 5 days rather than 36 hours in advance. –Not that anyone seeks permits for Santa Cruz protests.

I encourage indybay readers to examine this ordinance themselves. Like the Sidewalk Shrinkage ordinance severely reducing space for public performance, political tabling, panhandling, vending, and art display, this ordinance has come with no advance notice and is likely to be rubberstamped at tomorrow’s afternoon session. For the texts of the old and new laws, go to http://sire.cityofsantacruz.com/sirepub/cache/2/gm3nxoa24g4uqu55k4gs1zrb/382360111252013053508496.PDF and look up agenda item #12.

If you value your right to publicly assemble and march in any cause, this ordinance should have a big red warning light attached to it, considering the make-up of the Council, the likely next mayor (Lynn Robinson), and the past record of this Council and the City Manager in cutting back public space, public assembly, and public accessibility.

It also may be overshadowed by the evening’s Water Solutions hearing and next City Council meeting’s Task Force Report consideration as well as the dreaded appointment of Lynn Robinson as Mayor.

The ordinance also needs to be contrasted with the Commercial Events permit.

The parallel with the recent ordinance changes throttling of street performance and art is instructive. The hypocrisy and special interest nature of the “display device” ordinance was obvious then and has become more obvious since. Obstructive commercial signs now litter the Pacific Avenue sidewalks in spite of the alleged “trip and fall” hazard. This “danger” as well as the Robinson-Comstock-Mathews “upscale aesthetics’ concerns prompted the banning of blankets on the sidewalk, the constriction of tabling, vending, and performance space, and the expansion of “forbidden zones” now encroaching on 95% of the sidewalks downtown for non-merchant activity.

But probably many have noticed that almost every performer, vendor, even political tabler down there is in violation of the letter of the law as passed on September 24th. Hosts and police have given out few if any citations. When I visited Pacific Avenue tonight there was a group of 12 traveling musicians and young folks sitting in a circle next to the Cafe Capesino kiosk playing music for donation, taking up 5 to 10 times the amount of allowed space (but, of course, blocking no one).

So may it be with this “Parade Permit” ordinance–last hauled out notoriously to ticket Whitney Wilde, Curtis Reliford, and Wes Modes for “walking in a parade without a permit” on a DIY New Years event 3-4 years ago. I have been in at least several dozen marches down Pacific Avenue in the last few decades, probably more, and none of them had a permit.

However mischievous laws in the hands of Mayor Robionson’s police instructed to be “tough” may take a different course. Police and politicians may move to punish those exercising the traditional freedoms Santa Cruz peaceful protesters have enjoyed.

The ordinance coming up tomorrow on the afternoon agenda empowers them to do so and makes spontaneous protest significantly more difficult.

by Robert Norse

Monday Nov 25th, 2013 10:49 PM

The item is on the afternoon agenda which begins at 3 PM. It is likely to come up between 3 and 4 PM.

Tightening the Noose on Public Assembly: Santa Cruz City Council’s New Law 3 PM 11-26-13

Posted on by

New Public Assembly Restrictions Up For Initial Vote Tuesday 11-26 at City Council

by Robert Norse
Monday Nov 25th, 2013 10:47 PM

I’ve not had time to look at it carefully, but agenda item #12 rewrites the entire sections on public demonstrations for commercial and non-commercial events. The staff report can be found at http://sire.cityofsantacruz.com/sirepub/cache/2/gm3nxoa24g4uqu55k4gs1zrb/382360111252013053508496.PDF . I hope to take a longer look later, but the one thing I do notice is that the permit requirement has now tightened apparently so that 50 rather than 100 people require a permit. Additionally marching in the street is no longer provided for except through costly street closures, and permit now have to be applied for 5 days rather than 36 hours in advance. –Not that anyone seeks permits for Santa Cruz protests.

I encourage indybay readers to examine this ordinance themselves. Like the Sidewalk Shrinkage ordinance severely reducing space for public performance, political tabling, panhandling, vending, and art display, this ordinance has come with no advance notice and is likely to be rubberstamped at tomorrow’s afternoon session. For the texts of the old and new laws, go to http://sire.cityofsantacruz.com/sirepub/cache/2/gm3nxoa24g4uqu55k4gs1zrb/382360111252013053508496.PDF and look up agenda item #12.

If you value your right to publicly assemble and march in any cause, this ordinance should have a big red warning light attached to it, considering the make-up of the Council, the likely next mayor (Lynn Robinson), and the past record of this Council and the City Manager in cutting back public space, public assembly, and public accessibility.

It also may be overshadowed by the evening’s Water Solutions hearing and next City Council meeting’s Task Force Report consideration as well as the dreaded appointment of Lynn Robinson as Mayor.

The ordinance also needs to be contrasted with the Commercial Events permit.

The parallel with the recent ordinance changes throttling of street performance and art is instructive. The hypocrisy and special interest nature of the “display device” ordinance was obvious then and has become more obvious since. Obstructive commercial signs now litter the Pacific Avenue sidewalks in spite of the alleged “trip and fall” hazard. This “danger” as well as the Robinson-Comstock-Mathews “upscale aesthetics’ concerns prompted the banning of blankets on the sidewalk, the constriction of tabling, vending, and performance space, and the expansion of “forbidden zones” now encroaching on 95% of the sidewalks downtown for non-merchant activity.

But probably many have noticed that almost every performer, vendor, even political tabler down there is in violation of the letter of the law as passed on September 24th. Hosts and police have given out few if any citations. When I visited Pacific Avenue tonight there was a group of 12 traveling musicians and young folks sitting in a circle next to the Cafe Capesino kiosk playing music for donation, taking up 5 to 10 times the amount of allowed space (but, of course, blocking no one).

So may it be with this “Parade Permit” ordinance–last hauled out notoriously to ticket Whitney Wilde, Curtis Reliford, and Wes Modes for “walking in a parade without a permit” on a DIY New Years event 3-4 years ago. I have been in at least several dozen marches down Pacific Avenue in the last few decades, probably more, and none of them had a permit.

However mischievous laws in the hands of Mayor Robionson’s police instructed to be “tough” may take a different course. Police and politicians may move to punish those exercising the traditional freedoms Santa Cruz peaceful protesters have enjoyed.

The ordinance coming up tomorrow on the afternoon agenda empowers them to do so and makes spontaneous protest significantly more difficult.

by Robert Norse

Monday Nov 25th, 2013 10:49 PM

The item is on the afternoon agenda which begins at 3 PM. It is likely to come up between 3 and 4 PM.

Hope and Despair in Palo Alto

Posted on by

NOTES BY NORSE:  Activists are proceeding on several fronts to defend the rights of vehicularly housed folks up there.  Chuck Jagoda yesterday described on the stream of Free Radio Santa Cruz how Palo Alto activists invited and funded a Santa Barbara social worker involved in the government-run park-and-sleep program down there in hopes of replicating it in Palo Alto.  Attorneys, as can be seen from the press release below, are not waiting for the city to start ticketing homeless people peacefully and harmlessly sleeping in their vehicles, but have llaunched a pre-emptive strike with a demand letter to be followed by a letter.

Jagoda’s account is at
http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb131124.mp3.towards the end of the audio file.

Meanwhile Santa Cruz’s “Smear the Poor” Sentinel’s headlines for yesterday scream out the fraudulent “Task Force on Public Safety” pre-constructed agenda redefining homeless survival campers as public safety threats. (See http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/santacruz/ci_24587717/public-safety-task-force-armed-solutions-santa-cruz   ).  Strangely enough, the usually toxic stream of comments following the story has some defenders of basic human rights and common sense.  Jump on and provide your own perspective.


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, NOVEMBER 17, 2013
COALITION OF PRO BONO LAWYERS TO FILE SUIT TO STOP PALO ALTO FROM
ARRESTING THE HOMELESS FOR LIVING IN VEHICLES: CALLS PALO ALTO LAW “INCREDIBLY HARSH.”

A group pro-bono lawyers from Palo Alto, California has notified the City of Palo Alto that they intend to file suit to prevent enforcement of a new ordinance that they say effectively bans all homeless people from within the city limits. According to the letter, sent by Palo Alto-based attorney Carrie LeRoy, along with co-counsel William Abrams and Paul Johnson, of the Silicon
Valley law firm of King & Spalding, and Stanford Law School professors Juliet Brodie and Michele Dauber, the law criminalizes the homeless in their daily lives and activities and is unconstitutional. The letter also contends that Palo Alto’s ordinance discriminates against the disabled homeless.
The lawyers represent several clients who stand to be arrested and imprisoned if the law goes into effect, according to Abrams. “James and Suzan Russaw are elderly grandparents who need to stay in the area to be near their granddaughter and grandchildren. Mr. Russaw is receiving regular kidney dialysis and needs to be able to drive to his medical appointments. Fred Smith is an elderly man and long-time resident of Palo Alto who, since he lost his job a few years ago, has been unable to afford conventional housing. Since Mr. Smith’s wife passed away and is buried in Palo Alto, where the two resided for most of their lives, he hopes that he will not be forced to leave the city. Mr Smith also needs to sleep in his vehicle rather than outdoors in order to avoid exacerbation of health issues. The Russaws and Mr. Smith are on every affordable housing and shelter bed waiting list in the area, but there is simply insufficient shelter in Palo Alto and Santa Clara County for Palo Alto’s vehicle dwellers.”
The lawyers are contesting the legality of Palo Alto’s Vehicle Habitation Ordinance, which was passed by the City Council on August 5, 2013. The ordinance is one of the broadest bans of its kind, banning all eating, sleeping, and resting in any car within the city limits. “This law is overly broad, and effectively means that the homeless who happen to rent or own a vehicle must leave Palo Alto or risk arrest. They cannot even stop here to eat a sandwich or read a book. This is needlessly draconian,” said Abrams, who noted that a violation of the law carries a possible fine of $1000 and six months in jail. “This is incredibly harsh,” he said.
The pro bono lawyers are working without pay in order to stop the law from being enforced.
“Our clients have done nothing wrong, are not criminals, and do not belong in jail,” said LeRoy. “They need housing, not criminal prosecution.” LeRoy was quick to point out that Palo Alto has no available shelter beds for the homeless. The local Opportunity Center which provides some housing for the homeless currently has a 20 year waiting list. “Santa Clara county in general and Palo Alto in particular have a dramatic shortage of available housing,” according to LeRoy. “It is the height of cruelty to tell people that it is criminal to sleep in your car, but that we have nowhere else for you to go within the entire county.”
The city has also banned overnight use of all city and public parks and facilities. “Palo Alto has been uniquely inhospitable to the homeless and poor,” noted LeRoy.

According to the city, the VHO was passed in order to prevent the homeless from congregating at Cubberley Community Center, a city recreational facility. However, according to LeRoy, there was no need to ban vehicle dwelling everywhere and at anytime in the city. “What about commercial and industrial areas as is permitted in Menlo Park and Mountain View? What is the basis for banning sleeping in areas where there are no homes, parks, or other people at night?” For LeRoy, who grew up in Palo Alto, the question is about the character and values of the city itself. “To me, the question is what kind of town do we want to be? I grew up in this city and have always thought of it as a compassionate, creative, resourceful and inclusive one. It would be one thing for the city to ban vehicle dwelling where it could point to readily-available, conventional housing alternatives. It is wrong, offensive and contrary to the spirit and values of Palo Alto to pass a law that, if enforced, will serve only to punish and injure Palo Alto’s poorest and most vulnerable residents—that is the criminalization of poverty.”

Attachments: Letter to Palo Alto City Attorney Molly Stump; City Staff Report 8-5-13 (Excerpt)
Contact:

William F. Abrams (650) 590-0703  BAbrams@KSlaw.com
Carrie LeRoy, (650) 470-3144 carrie.leroy@skadden.com

Palo Alto Homeless Update - Despondent Husband Found Dead At Don Barr's $25 million dollar Homeless Asylum

---------------------------------------------------- Decaying body found at shelter by Angela Ruggiero, Palo Alto Daily Post Staff Writer Mon Nov 25 2013 The decomposed body of a man who lived at a Palo Alto homeless center was found in his room, and may have been there for weeks. Lonnie Gullett, 63, was a resident of the Opportunity Center at 33 Encina Ave., where homeless people are provided rooms and services.  The Santa Clara County Medical Examiner-Coroner was called at noon Friday for his body.  The office said his death appears to be from natural causes. Friend and neighbor Lorin Krogh said he had not seen Gullette for several weeks and believes he was dead in his room for a long time. Mila Zelkha, director of strategic relations for the InnVision Shelter Network, which runs the Opportunity Center, said that employees had noticed Gullette had not been around for some time.  Employees decided to check his room on Friday, and found his body. Krogh said that Gullette had been through some bad luck recently after his longtime girlfriend Vivian “Venus” Sarmago, was attacked.  She had been beaten at the center and suffered a traumatic brain injury that nearly killed her.  Michael Rowe Guilford, 46, of San Jose, was arrested in connection with the attack on suspicion of battery and being drunk in public. Gullette spoke to the Post at the time, and said that at first, Venus seemed OK, but was later in a coma after she wouldn't wake up one day.  She was  left Stanford Hospital paralyzed and is currently in a nursing home. Victim once owned his own business Krogh told the Post yesterday that he had known Gullette for at least 10 years.  Gullette had hired Krogh to work with him on a street team to help get homeless people off the street.  Before, Gullette had been a general contractor and owned his own business in Sacramento for 15 years.  After being hospitalized he became seriously ill, and went on disability. “He was a really good guy,” Krough said. “and he was really bummed out about Venus.” Krogh said Gullette had told him “I don't know what to do,” after Venus was left in a vegetative state. Chronic health problems Krogh said that he and Gullette used to drink together years ago, before they turned sober.  Gullette had chronic health problems and used a wheelchair and Krogh said he thinks the cause of his death was natural. Gullette made Post headlines on April 4 when he fell down the embankment of San Fransquito Creek.  Gullette, who used a wheelchair to go long distances,, was able to stand.  He said he had gotten up to relieve himself, but lost his balance and tumbled 39 feet down the side of the creek bed.  Firefighters had to lift him out of the creek, but he was not badly injured. As the firemen began to pack up and leave the creek that day, Gullette pointed to the crown of first responders and said, “That's your tax dollars at work.  Those guys don't get paid enough.”

Palo Alto: Opposition Produces Results–Legal Fightback against Anti-Homeless Bigotry

Posted on by

NOTES BY NORSE:  Attorneys in Palo Alto previously stepped up to the microphone when the ban was being debated several months ago and warned the city they would take every case, challenge every arrest, and fight the ban.   Since then, activists in Santa Cruz and Palo Alto have urged attorneys to preemptively seek an injunction and not wait until police actually wrote tickets.

The suit is gratifying news to those interested in an immediate and pre-emptive strike to stop the further criminalization of the homeless.  No evidence was presented of car-camper problems except in one area (the Cubberly Community Center) where the city had failed to provide adequate oversight and there the problems were hugely inflated by NIMBY community members concerned with disappearing homeless people from their neighborhood as an aesthetic problem and “perceptual” threat (i.e. no indication of serious crimes but a fear of such).The arguments used supporting the Ban are similar to those used in Santa Cruz before the rise of the “homeless are criminals and a Public Safety menace” Big Lie.  “Why don’t those who support homeless rights, simply provide private space for them?”
“The homeless aren’t parking in front of their homes!”  “Banning the right to sleep is perfectly legal.”   “City Council knows best.”  etc.

Palo Alto activists, lawyers, and attorneys, however, are fighting back unlike Santa Cruz–which sinks more deeply into paranoia, repression, and bigotry.  See the infamous Task Farce for Public Hysteria (aka the Task Force on Public Safety)’s proposed recommendations at http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/index.aspx?page=1924 ).

Mon, Nov 18, 2013, 4:39 pm

Suit threatened over city’s car-camping ban

Coalition of pro bono attorneys argues that Palo Alto’s new ordinance is cruel, unconstitutional

by Gennady Sheyner / Palo Alto Weekly

A group of Palo Alto attorneys is threatening to sue the city over a recently adopted ban on vehicle habitation, a law that they claim effectively criminalizes homelessness and that is far more draconian than car-dwelling restrictions in other jurisdiction. The coalition, led by local attorney Carrie LeRoy, is working pro bono and is representing several homeless residents who will lose the right to live in their cars when the car ban takes effect on Jan. 6. The plaintiffs include James and Suzan Russaw, a couple who the attorneys say wish to stay in the area to be close to their grandchildren. James Russaw, 84, is also receiving regular kidney dialysis and needs to be able to get to his medical appointments, the attorneys said in a letter to City Attorney Molly Stump.

[The text of the letter can be found at http://www.paloaltoonline.com/media/reports/1384880185.pdf ]

Fred Smith, a homeless man who had spoken publicly against the ban, is also a client. At the Aug. 5 meeting, shortly before the council voted 7-2 – with Karen Holman and Marc Berman dissenting – to approve the ban, Smith urged the council to reconsider.
“I recently lost my job, my wife and my house. I now live in an RV in a commercial zone. Please don’t criminalize me,” Smith said, drawing an applause.

LeRoy said in an interview Monday that the list of people represented by the group may further expand as she and her colleagues in the effort proceed with their legal opposition to the ban. Other attorneys involved in challenging the ban are William Abrams and Paul Johnson, both of the firm King & Spalding, Stanford University professors Juliet Brodie and Michele Dauber, Menlo Park-based attorney Jeff Koppelmaa, criminal attorney William Safford and Nick Selby. The group contends that the city’s new ban is far too broad and that staff has misrepresented other cities’ ordinances to the City Council before the vote.
“There were an number of attorneys who expressed real concerns and had deep reservations over whether this was actually a

constitutional ordinance,” LaRoy said.

Abrams, a partner at King & Spalding with a long history of pro bono work and high-profile cases involving civil rights intellectual property, called Palo Alto’s new ordinance “overbroad.” The effect of the law, he said, will be to force homeless individuals who own or lease vehicles to leave Palo Alto or risk arrest. It will target the city’s “invisible” population, he said, people who don’t have any other options for shelter.

In their letter, the attorneys request a meeting with Stump by Dec. 5. Unless the request is met, the letter states, “We will proceed with filing a complaint in court against Defendants on behalf of the Plaintiffs.” The defendants in this case would be the City of Palo Alto, the Palo Alto Police Department and Police Chief Dennis Burns.

The attorneys are challenging an ordinance that the council adopted on Aug. 5 after nearly two years of community meetings, outreach efforts and persistent criticism from the homeless community. The ordinance makes it illegal for individuals to use “a vehicle for a dwelling place” (it makes exception for mobile-home parks and for guests of city residents). The council adopted it largely in response to a growing encampment of homeless residents at the Cubberley Community Center and the resulting increase of police complaints about what city officials dubbed a “de facto homeless shelter.”

According to police data, the number of complaints about Cubberley dwellers had risen from 10 in 2010, to 16 in 2011 and to 39 in 2012. An August staff report noted that in some cases, vehicle dwelling has resulted in “nuisances or more serious disturbance to residents and businesses.” The passed ordinance states that vehicle habitation causes the city to “incur increased costs for policing, maintenance, sanitation, garbage removal and animal control” and that it “creates a risk to the health, safety, and welfare of those persons in the vehicles, as well as the public at large.”

Abrams rejected this argument. The city, he said, already has plenty of ordinances in places for addressing incidents in which people disturb the peace, engage in violent conduct or engage in public drug or alcohol use.

“This is directed toward getting rid of homeless people in Palo Alto,” Abrams told the Weekly.

At the Aug. 5 meeting, Stump told the council that violation of the car-dwelling ordinance would in most cases result in an infraction, though it could be turned into a misdemeanor at the city attorney’s discretion. Staff noted that enforcement would be largely based on complaints. The most severe penalty would be a fine of $1,000, Stump told the council.

Critics contend that this proposed punishment is not only draconian but illegal. In her letter, LeRoy argues that the new ordinance will “cause the poorest and most vulnerable among us to lose the only protection that they have from exposure to the elements and to ensure some measure of personal safety.”

“It cannot be disputed that sleeping in a vehicle affords better protection for homeless persons’ health and safety than living or sleeping outdoors on streets, sidewalks, benches, or the ground,” LeRoy wrote. “Enforcement of VHO (vehicle habitation ordinance) will exacerbate serious health issues and disabilities prevalent among Plaintiffs, who will be forced out of their vehicles or Palo Alto altogether to avoid criminal liability.”

In recommending the vehicle-ban ordinance, staff from the planning department from the city attorneys office cited similar bans in other neighboring jurisdictions and noted that 92 percent of the cities in Santa Clara County (all except Monte Serreno) have restrictions of some sort in place. In San Mateo County, all cities except for Colma, East Palo Alto and Portola Valley regulate vehicle habitation, a report from city staff states. Not having such an ordinance makes Palo Alto a “magnet” for vehicle dwellers, proponents of the ban argued.

Before voting for the ordinance on Aug. 5, Councilman Larry Klein talked about the city’s “obligation to protect our neighborhoods.” He told his colleagues that he had seen dozens of homeless campers during two recent tours of Cubberley.
“The dramatic increase in homeless in Cubberley sleeping in their vehicles shows that we have inadvertently become a magnet,” Klein said. “That has to come to an end.”

The attorneys contend that this argument — other cities have such ordinances and so should Palo Alto – is a misrepresentation. While most cities do indeed have restrictions, Palo Alto’s new law is both broader and more punitive than those elsewhere, LeRoy said. In Mountain View and Menlo Park, for instance, vehicle bans are limited to residential areas (in Menlo Park, this includes 300 feet within a residential zone). In Los Altos, it is illegal to “stop, stand or park a vehicle” for longer than 30 minutes between 2 and 6 a.m., when a notice is posted on the block. Palo Alto’s law, meanwhile, applies to all streets, all the time.
Furthermore, punishment for violating this ordinance in other cities is a parking citation. In Palo Alto, it could potentially be incarceration, LeRoy said. The difference between a parking ticket and possible jail time, is huge, she said. Palo Alto’s ordinance, she argued, effectively makes homelessness a crime.

“Cities across our nation have come up with restrictions that may be directed at homeless residents, but include exceptions so as to avoid punishing homeless residents for involuntary acts necessary to human survival, such as the acts of resting or sleeping,” her letter stated. “The VHO, on the other hand, is one of the most punitive ordinances in the area and it has the effect of criminalizing the status of homelessness.”

In addition to the vehicle-habitation ordinance, the council adopted a separate law on Aug. 19, mandating that all community centers, including Cubberley, be closed between 10:30 p.m. and sunrise.

LeRoy noted in an interview that the council’s ban on overnight parking at Cubberley and other community centers already addressed the major problem that the city was trying to solve in banning vehicle habitation. Given the new restriction on community-center hours, the broader ban on vehicle dwelling wasn’t tailored to address any legitimate concerns, she said.
“If vehicle dwellers can’t be here at night during normal sleeping hours, do you still need to ban vehicle habitation throughout the city?” she asked.

She contended that if the City Council knew that the proposed ordinance goes far beyond those of neighboring cities, it may have been less likely to support the proposed vehicle-habitation ban. She couldn’t say Monday what an acceptable alternative ordinance would be, noting that this might be the subject of settlement discussions.

“I think the effort now is to repeal the vehicle ordinance,” LeRoy said.

Though Stump said on Aug. 5 that violations would only be prosecuted as misdemeanors as a “last resort,” Abrams said the assurance is insufficient. The attorneys may be open at a future date to discuss alternative ordinances, but that’s a “different conversation.” The goal now is to get the recently passed ordinance off the books.

“Now, we have an ordinance that is illegal, that is unconstitutional and that needs to be stricken down,” Abrams said.


Many Posted Comments at http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2013/11/18/suit-threatened-over-citys-car-camping-ban

 

A sample:

Posted by Phil, a resident of Downtown North on Nov 18, 2013 at 5:10 pm
No worries. Law suit away if you’d like. San Francisco, Berkeley, and Santa Cruz are three of the most open and liberal cities in the country. They have all have overnight camping/parking bans which have all been tested and successfully defended in a civil court. Like I said, no worries. It also leaves me to think how quick one of these attorneys crying foul would be the first to call the police if someone was sleeping in a car in front of their house every night. A perfect example of compassionate and open when convenient. If they’re that concerned, then these attorneys and advocates should open up their personal driveways and homes to give these folks somewhere to sleep.

Posted by boscoli, a resident of Old Palo Alto 22 hours ago
They way I see it, as long as financial institutions are still allowed to sell and trade junk mortgages, as long as not one Wall Street conman has gone to prison, car-camping should not be criminalized. Once the big criminals are punished, I’d be willing to deal with car-camping. Speaking of double standards, how interesting that the already existing leaf-blower ban ordinance isn’t enforced, unrelated of course to the pressure by the manufacturers and landscape contractors, who promised demonstrations and hunger strikes in front of city hall if the ordinance is enforced.
Posted by Very Simple, a resident of Midtown 22 hours ago
If all of these attorneys and others are so concerned, they can open up their own personal property and have the homeless live there. We don’t have that many homeless in Palo Alto that they couldn’t all be accommodated in this easily by a small subset of ban opponents. That’s what real generosity is– giving of yourself to the less fortunate. Not morally preening and harassing the overwhelming majority of residents who don’t want our city turned into an open-air homeless encampment, don’t want the “San Franciscoization” of Palo Alto and are concerned about the safety of say, their kids (as mine do) going to preschool right next to a site of a homeless encampment.
Posted by Retired Teacher, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis 20 hours ago
I applaud Carrie Leroy and her coalition for challenging this ordinance. This incredibly well-off community with its sky-high home prices and outrageous rents should find ways to help people on the margins, not threaten them with fines and jail. Many of the so-called affordable housing projects are well out of the reach of the homeless–we need more places like 801 Alma. Meanwhile, we should find more humane ways to manage the problems that do often accompany homelessness.
The suggestion that anyone who is concerned about the homeless should take them into their own homes or let them camp out in front of their homes is clearly an attempt to confuse the issue. Taking care of the less fortunate is not just the job for a few concerned people. It’s the responsibility of our entire society, and right now, we’re doing a lousy job of it.
Posted by Enough!, a resident of Greenmeadow 19 hours ago
I’ve had people living in front of my house. It was especially unsettling when my daughter was 2 years old and I couldn’t let her play outside and had to keep the drapes closed because the guy would watch us. More unsettling when we would jugs of undefined liquid on the ground, some knocked over, between his vehicle and the curb. Totally unsettling when we came home once to find the guy having a seizure on our front door steps, with paramedics attending. Disgusting when I had to go out and clean up after both the medics and the homeless person, gloves, needles and booze bottles.
I wouldn’t object if an area with a sort of rest stop with shower and toilets and cameras were to be established.
Meanwhile, the attorney’s who brought the suit are welcome to offer their driveways to anybody they please!
Posted by Concerned Retiree, a resident of Midtown 18 hours ago
Homeless means that these people do not have a home, place to live. Therefore, they are NOT “residents” of Palo Alto and are not entitled to the same rights residents are. They are also not entitled to be a nuisance or a danger to said residents. If these lawyers bringing the suit feel so strongly about the plight of the homeless, they should work with non-profits — the churches for example — which pay no taxes because of their supposed public benefits and services and get them to cooperate in finding a solution.  I do not want a homeless family or persons living on my street and I am glad that the City Council has finally done something to see that this does not happen.
Posted by Elizabeth, a resident of Midtown 18 hours ago
Palo Alto is generally a well-educated community, however there seems to be a significant lack of compassion in evidence. Perhaps it’s time to offer some free classes (open to all ages) on the subject.
All of those who think this ban is fair and wise really need to open their hearts. Sending a check off to some distant place to help others doesn’t buy you freedom from concern for those closer to home.
Get a heart!

Posted by JoAnn, a resident of Ventura 17 hours ago
Another basic human need is elimination. If porta potties were installed in a few commercial (non-residential) areas, the cars would go there. I agree it doesn’t solve the drug/alcohol problems though. A lot of these people were Palo Alto residents until skunked out of their homes by the banksters or just going broke due to divorce, layoffs, etc. They shouldn’t have to skulk away from their home town, too. What I hear about shelters is they are dangerous and people get robbed there. Would all night security help? It might be cheaper to fund. Of course, those with cars would still need a place to park them. I don’t see that the RV’s parked along Park Blvd. hurt anyone. I’ve ridden my scooter there many times and never seen an actual person, nor jugs of urine left at the curb.
Posted by Sensible, a resident of Crescent Park 17 hours ago
A real issue is simply taking a persons shelter, in this case a car, and depriving them of no other option for freedom from harm. If a city blankets a wholesale requirement then it should be at the forefront to provide an equal and opposite opportunity to balance the deprivation of a constitutional right. Even in a government shutdown when employees are deprived of their right to work and pay, they are latter paid what they are entitled to. Now I know that is a horrible example of entitlement for many who don’t like that sort of thing, but this is one of the reasons people all over the world come to enjoy the rights Americans still have…

Updates from Albany and Palo Alto

Posted on by

NOTES FROM NORSE: In Palo Alto, activist attorney are supporting homeless struggles to retain basic rights.  In Santa Cruz night before last, reportedly a dozen tickets for survival camping were issued–though there is no legal place for the overwhelming majority of the 1500-2000 unhoused in the City.  One angry victim reported that he has been told that future citations will be misdemeanors for sleeping–even though that was specifically banned in 1999 when the Sleeping and Blanket bans were softened to allow only infraction prosecution.

Meanwhile the NIMBY Task Farce for Anti-Homeless Hysteria (deceptively termed the Citizens Task Force on Public Safety) is shitting out its final recommendations that likely include: getting the District Attorney to prosecute Sleeping Ban citations (rather than the City Attorney as is currently the case), pressuring judges to deal harshly with “repeat offenders” (i.e. survival sleepers), driving needle exchange (already banned in the City) even further away, implementing a non-“best practices” model for that exchange (while simultaneously claiming to be implementing safe practices).

Casual destruction of homeless bedding and property by Cal Tran authorities and other agencies continues to be reported by cold and gloomy homeless elders.

Where are the Santa Cruz attorneys?

Updates from the Palo Alto Daily Post

> 1. Daily Post update – HOMELESS EVICTION: A federal judge in San Francisco yesterday turned down a bid by 10 homeless people to block the city of Albany’s plan to evict them and others living on a bayside landfill known as the “Bulb.” Judge Charles Breyer said that the homeless people and a nonprofit group that joined them in the case had “failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits” of their lawsuit, which was filed last week.
>
> 2. NEWS – Car camping ban draws legal threat:  lawyer says new law goes too far
by Breena Kerr Daily Post Staff Writer

>
> A group of attorneys are warning the city of Palo Alto that they will sue on behalf of homeless people who have been prohibited from camping in their cars under a new city law.
>
> In a letter sent to City Attorney Molly Stump, lead attorney Carrie LeRoy says that the car camping ban essentially prohibits people who live in their cars from entering the city for fear of being cited.
>
> No Citations Yet
>
> Although Palo Alto police say they do not intend issuing citations for car camping until early next year, the fine can run up to $1000 or six months in jail
>
> LeRoy, a Palo Alto-based attorney, said she represents car campers James Russaw, Suzan Russaw, Fred Smith and others. She indicated that she thinks Palo Alto should modify its policy and enact parking restrictions that are punishable by a ticket rather than misdemeanor charges, or make the ban only applicable to residential areas, as the cities of Mountain View and menlo Park do.
>
> LeRoy said in an email to the Post that she had two people with her as co-counsel, William Abrams and Paul Johnson, both of whom are professors at Stanford Law School.
>
> “Enforcement of the (ban) will cause the poorest and most vulnerable among us to los the only protection that they have from exposure to the elements and to ensure some measure of personal safety,” the letter said. “…Sleeping in a vehicle affords better protection for homeless persons’ health and safety than living or sleeping outdoors on streets, sidewalks, benches, or the ground.”
>
> LeRoy said that the disabled, chronically ill or elderly are especially vulnerable under the new law.
>
> Forced out?
>
> “Enforcement of the (ban) will exacerbate serious health issues and disabilities among plaintiffs, who will be forced out of theier vehicles or Palo Alto altogether to avoid criminal liability,” LeRoy’s letter states.
>
> “The (ban) criminalizes the homeless in their daily lives and activities and is unconstitutional,” LeRoy wrote in her letter.

Questions for a Councilmember

Posted on by

Micah (Posner):   Following up on the HUFF meeting of several weeks ago, I’ll attempt to briefly summarize what I’m now seeking–either clarification or action–from you on the issues raised there and earlier.  Please do it briefly and in writing.  If you feel unable to do so because of “tactical” or other concerns, please contact me by phone.  I also include some of the prior e-mail for reference.  Again, short answers are fine.  And I’d be happy to meet with you if you need clarification or elaboration.

1.  Forward to Vogel a request for an update on Vasquez’s sidewalk smash of Richard Hardy (http://www.santacruz.com/news/2013/04/30/police_video_goes_viralwith the video itself referenced in the comments that follow).  If you’ve done this, when did you do it?  If you won’t do it, why not?2.   As I understand it, at the HUFF meeting 3 weeks ago, you committed yourself to making sure that any member of the public got 2 minutes to speak on each individual Consent Agenda item–whether by pulling it yourself or some other means.  Am I correct here?  Our previous dialogue:    Is it still your position that 2 minutes is adequate public comment time for 6-30 items on the Consent Agenda that are supposed to receive a Public Hearing at the request of the public or city council?  Your response:  I think that the public should be able to speak ONCE for two minutes on each consent item that they are concerned with. I believe that this is how Mayor Bryant has been holding the meeting.   BUT THAT IS NOT THE POSITION OF THE MAYOR OR YOU AT THE LAST FEW COUNCIL MEETINGS.  RATHER YOU CAN TALK FOR TWO MINUTES ON A TOTAL OF ALL THE ITEMS AS A GROUP NOT ON EACH ONE.  AND YOU MUST COMBINE THAT WITH YOUR EXPLANATION OF WHY YOU WANT ANY OF THESE ITEMS PULLED  AND YOU MUST BE CAREFUL NOT TO SAY ANYTHING OF SUBSTANCE ON THE ITEM THAT ACTUALLY DOES GET PULLED OR YOU WON’T BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK AT THE PUBLIC HEARING–AS GUARANTEED BY THE BROWN ACT.   ARE YOU CLEAR ON THIS? Do you still support Bryant’s position claiming that you will still not be able to speak on any particular item even if you’ve successfully coaxed a council member to remove it from the agenda because you’ll then “have had your comment time?”  What if you want to speak on several Consent agenda items?  Then the time you’ve spent “persuading” a Council member to “allow” a Public Hearing on one item will leave little time to address any other item essentially violating the spirit if not the letter of the Open Meetings (Brown) Act?  I THINK YOU’VE AGREED THAT 2 MINUTES IS NOT ENOUGH TO SPEAK ON 15 ITEMS (OR EVEN A SUBSET OF THEM).  WHAT ARE YOU WILLING TO DO TO BACK UP THIS UNDERSTANDING?

3.   Have you followed up on your commitment to attend an ACLU meeting and/or letter them specifically urging them to publicly oppose the cutbacks on space for street performers, vendors, and artists recently passed by City Council over your and Lane’s objections?  Will you be doing so?  (It’s actually probably equally if not more important to request a statement supporting homeless survival rights and opposing police sweeps when there is no alternate shelter being offered–are you willing to do this?).  My previous comment is still apt:  If you are really interested in putting some energy into public education here, I believe it would ultimately encourage allies and challenge the level of hatred (and merchant discrimination) against homeless people.   I’d suggest public statements as well as public appearances at the ACLU Board and other organizations, seeking to enlist their aid and buck up their spaghetti  spines.   Useless as these groups have generally been locally, they seem like political animals who perk up at the appearance of a public official.  It also might make up in some degree (in their eyes) for your sell-out on the Cowell Beach issue  (I believe the harsh term is accurate).  Your response: That’s a great idea but is a better role for activists then elected. That’s partly what I learned by encouraging the ACLU prior to the Council Meeting.   TO REPEAT–THE CLOWNS AT THE ACLU BOARD, SCCCPL, NAACP, DON’T RESPOND TO ACTIVISTS.  BUT POLITICAL CLIMBERS AND POWER-WORSHIPERS THAT THEY ARE, THEY DO RESPOND TO VISITS FROM POLITICIANS. YOUR PROPOSAL TO SEND THE SIDEWALK-SHRINKAGE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO THE ARTS COMMISSION IS A NICE TACTIC; USE IT IF YOU NEED TO REASSURE YOURSELF YOU CAN RAISE THE ISSUE PERSONALLY AND PUBLICLY WITH THE ACLU & OTHER GROUPS, BUT GO IN PERSON OR SEND WRITTEN LETTERS.

4.   I appreciate the additional info about the segregated costly Levee portapotty (i.e. potential plumbing).  I’d still like some insight into who is pushing this in the staff rather than the much more reasonable and dignified alternatie of keeping open the San Lorenzo Park bathroom, say?  Hence my request about who you talked to, when, their responses, any written communications, etc.  Hence my inquiry to you in late October:  “THE STAFF” IS NOT A HELPFUL REPLY.  ACCOUNTABILITY IS THE QUESTION HERE.  WHY WAS THE OBVIOUS KEEPING BATHROOMS THAT ALREADY EXIST OPEN AT NIGHT REJECTED?  WAS IT EVEN CONSIDERED?  I REPEAT THE QUESTION BECAUSE YOU HAVEN’T ANSWERED IT.

5.   What’s the follow-up on your request to Barisone re:  Sparks v. White?  Specifically–has Barisone responded–in writing?  If not, please renew the request–it’s likely to be helpful in court and in dealing with cops on the street.   It is my feeling that his vindictive response to finding street art and culture constitutionally protected from the “no price tags” nonsense being pushed by the police were these bogus time-place-manner restrictions that essentially constrict-to-death street performing, vending, art, and tabling downtown.  Do you have any indication around this either way?
        You replied:  I will follow up, however, the issue doesn’t seem very timely to me.
FOR ANY ARTIST TRYING TO DISPLAY HIS WORK IN A 3 1/2′ x 3 1/2′ SPACE IT’S OBVIOUSLY VERY IMPORTANT.  THEY CAN PRESENT THAT OPINION IN COURT WHEN THEY’RE HARASSED.   When did you follow-up on the Barisone request?6.   You may ignore the internal conservative pressures  that  shut down the 5 Krohn Krappers a decade ago, but I suspect we’ll hear the same crap soon about your costly portapotty “solution”.   Or we’ll find the same two-tier “homeless get surveilled; middle-class people get privacy” that is now the case in the Locust St. Parking Structure.   I suggest you head this off by getting the real records of real police concerns.   Otherwise you may find yourself swept up in a Council response to mob myths fearprompted by TBSC et. al.   This is a repeated request.   Please review  the requests in bold below and forward those questions to staff.  They are currently claiming to “have no records”.  Which frankly strikes me as steaming horseshit without benefit of portapotty.
You replied:  I don’t see what happened in the past is relevant. We will soon open the bathroom and I will be very careful about reported “problems”.  With regard to privacy issue, these didn’t seem very important to the homeless at a well attended HUFF meeting several months ago.   HOW WILL YOUR “CARE” WITH PROBLEMS MANIFEST ITSELF?    IF THE PORTAPOTTIES WERE CLOSED IN THE PAST BY AESTHETIC PRIMADONNAS LIKE MATHEWS & ROBINSON OR THEIR STAFF ALLIES, THEN IT’S LIKELY TO HAPPEN AGAIN.  ALL THIS IS USUALLY DONE WITHOUT POLICE STATS (AS THE ORDINANCES WERE PASSED–NOR DID YOU OR ANY OTHER COUNCIL MEMBER DEMAND THEM).  IT’S NOT A “BATHROOM”, BUT A PORTAPOTTY, BY THE WAY, SO LET’S NOT TRY TO SELL SHIT BY ANOTHER LABEL.

7.  Dan Madison reports being banned from Verve for backpacks/homeless appearance.  Similar stories are coming out of New Leaf and Lulu Carpenter’s as well as the  Coffee Roasting Company.  What’s the result of your inquiry to the Roasting Company?
      You replied:  I’m having a hard time getting ahold of the owner of the Roasting Company. It changed hands several years ago from a well known local to some guy in Watsonville and the staff gave me a bum phone number for him. Could a HUFFster work on finding the contact info for the owner? If not, I will keep it on my long to do list.   A LETTER TO THE DOWNTOWN ASSOCIATION WOULD BE HELPFUL HERE ASKING THEM TO CLARIFY THEY DON’T SUPPORT POLICIES THAT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE HOMELESS.  Yes?8. The request you ignored seeking specific written response from P & R and the SCPD regarding the requirements, advance notice time, specific limits, costs, & appeal processes regarding Special Permits and Amplified Sound permits.  You responded:  I’ll work on this.   I did  the work and the “info” such as it is, is at  https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/11/09/18746169.php?show_comments=1#18746356    PLEASE KEEP A RECORD OF REQUESTS TO STAFF, TO WHOM THEY WERE SENT, WHEN, AND THE REPLIES RECEIVED–SINCE STAFF ARE THE REAL RULERS OF THE CITY UNDER KING BERNAL.  WE WILL AT LEAST THEN HAVE A PAPER RECORD OF WHAT’S (NOT) HAPPENING. I REMIND YOU THAT YOU HAVE AN INTERN THROUGH WHICH MANY OF THESE ACTIONS CAN BE FUNNELED.

9. What is the status of the police-napped bikes?  Are they still being held hostage by city staff and the SCPD (with the help of the Bike Dojo)?  I don’t want to hear you’re “working on it”, please.   We’ve heard that for a year and a half now.   Please specify recent meetings, timetables, claims, and responsible parties.   You replied: I’m looking into this.   AGAIN…MEANING WHAT?  SPECIFICALLY?  PLEASE SEND ME A SUMMARY OF THE NUMBER OF TIMES YOU’VE MET WITH THE BIKENAPPERS AND THEIR STAFF PALS, WHEN THESE MEETINGS HAPPENED, WHAT PROMISES WERE MADE, AND WHETHER THE PROMISES WERE FULFILLED. REMEMBER–YOU’RE THERE TO SERVE THE COMMUNITY, NOT TO GREASE THE SOFT PARTS OF THE STAFF.   POOR PEOPLE ARE GOING WITHOUT BIKES BECAUSE OF YOUR “CONCERN” FOR STAFF SENSIBILITIES.  STAFF STONEWALLING ON THIS BIKE BULLSHIT  WE’VE PUT UP WITH FOR NEARLY TWO YEARS NOW.   LET US KNOW THE DATE SENT AND THE PERSON TO WHOM THE MEMO WAS SENT.  PLEASE PROVIDE A LIST OF ALL COMMUNICATIONS TO AND FROM STAFF ON THIS ISSUE IN THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF, AND PARTICULARLY IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS.


10.  You might want to consider that your complaissance with staff (the constant strokings you do as they mendaciously remove everyone’s rights using the phony Public Safety mythology are embarrassing and repugnant).  I refer to the earlier issues the Parks and Recreation blank check 24-hour stay-away-or-face-a-year-in-jail ordinance, the median law, Cowell’s Beach closure, the bucks-for-baloney “Security” gate out at the H(LO)SC.  You replied:   I consider it all the time.   AND YOU ARE TO BE COMMENDED FOR ACTUALLY RAISING THE ISSUE SHARPLY FOR THE FIRST TIME–IN THE CONTEXT OF THE LATEST SCAVENGING “INVESTIGATION” SCAM AT LAST COUNCIL MEETING.  EVERY TIME YOU CHALLENGE THIS MYTHOLOGY WITH A REQUEST/DEMAND FOR STATS, THE MORE SHAKY THEIR HOUSE OF CARDS BECOMES.  SEE ITEM xxX BELOW.

11.  I have no written response from you on CruzioWorks discrimination against Dan Madison and his son Gryphon, which I requested you seek info from.  Didn’t you agree to look into that–as a private party if not as a Council person?  What have you learned?  You replied: I’m not at all convinced that Cruzio was discriminating against the Madisons based on their housing status and don’t intend to get involved.   YOU BASE THIS ON WHAT?  YESTERDAY AT CAFE BRASIL I SPOKE WITH A CRUZIO CLIENT WHO WORKED NEXT TO MADISON FOR SEVERAL HOURS AFTER HE’D PAID HIS $300; THIS GUY WAS BAFFLED WHEN THE MANAGEMENT CAME IN AND BOOTED MADISON OUT WITHOUT EXPLANATION.  WHAT HAS LED YOU TO ABANDON THIS ISSUE?
12.  Any sign of restored Needle Exchange in the City?  Please forward me a map of where Sharps Containers are available.  You replied:  Staff is working on a Sharps Container in the new bathroom. This is a good effort as it gets them in the business of figuring out how to do Sharps Containers and could be used for other locations. With regard to Needle Exchange, the Council here’s a lot more about getting rid of needle exchange at Emeline rather than the converse.   I REPEAT PLEASE FORWARD ME A MAP OF WHERE SHAPRS CONTAINERS HAVE BEEN PLACED OR DETERMINE THAT THEY DON’T EXIST.12.  When will you appoint a real activist (or anybody, for that matter)  to  the Measure K Commission?  Craig Canada might still be interested if you approach him.  The Commission is a joke, but having a strong voice there would still be helpful in exposing the rising marijuana bust rate here (and the freeze and cutback in dispensaries within the city).  What really needs doing, of course, is public statements regarding legalization and medicalization–something to talk back to the poisonous nonsense being spread by Comstock and Robinson and their TBSC friends.


You replied: I appreciate your suggestion. I think I did reach out to Craig at some point and he wasn’t interested. Feel free to refer him to me. It’s hard for me to recommend this position to someone given that the Commission is a joke. I don’t like to waste people’s time.   GIVEN THAT THE PUBLIC SAFETY TASK FARCE IS CONSIDERING ELIMINATING MEASURE K, LIMITING OR SHUTTING DOWN HEAD SHOPS, AND USING THE DRUG WAR AS PROTECTIVE COVER ON THEIR WAR ON THE HOMELESS, I THINK HAVING A STRONG VOICE THERE–EVEN ONE THAT CAN’T WIN VOTES IS IMPORTANT.   I’LL PASS THIS ON TO CRAIG.  DO I UNDERSTAND YOU’LL AGREE TO APPOINT AN ADVOCATE, IF ONE COMES FORWARD (I CAN’T VOUCH FOR CRAIG).

Sorry for the backlog, but these issues don’t go away.   Though the tone and extent of these questions may put you off, please try to respond however briefly.  That is your job.

Thanks again for getting back to the basics by attacking the Public Safety mythology as far as you did.  You need to talk to Vogel and get his specifics–since it’s my understanding from a conversation this summer that there has been no increase in crime subtantially in Santa Cruz in the last 20 years–all the comparisons with other cities of its same size aside.  Not that Vogel is the most disinterested source, of course.

Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:32:44 -0700
From: micahposner@cruzio.com
To: rnorse3@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Reiterating some requests and questions

Dear Robert,Sorry to miss the HUFF meeting.

With regard to the shitter questions. I don’t find them pertinent/ am not interested in them. I was directed by HUFF (a couple months ago) to get a 24 hour bathroom, “any bathroom”. That’s what I’m trying to do. The one we are going to open is not the most efficient or obvious or “best” use of funds. It’s the easiest one for me to get. Welcome to government.

I’ll forward your question to Barisone.

I would be very happy to talk to the owner of the Cofee Company about backpacks. Then I’ll get back to you.

Micah

Micah:Thanks for the heads-up on the latest attack on street vendors.

Please quickly request an opinion from Barisone–who continues to stonewall me–on the City of Sparks v. White decision’s applicability here (i.e. the constitutionality of banning street artists from showing price tags for their artwork).  I’d have thought you’d have done that back in February actually,  or several weeks ago.

On the shitter front, regarding item #9 is it correct to assume that the former public bathroom in the Locust Street garage  is now gone?    I believe I’ve also pointed out to you both the wasteful and discriminatory aspect of spending $15,000 to set up what is essentially a segregated portapotty on the leevee instead of using that money to open the San Lorenzo Park and/or Soquel/Front bathrooms all night.  Your response? 

Also what’s the status of the most-expensive-portapotty ever?  How does its cost compare with the cost of the 5 portapotties set up in 1999 under the Krohn Krapper Kommission?

I have not been able to secure police data  in spite of a Public Records Act request regarding the removal of those portapotties in terms of actual crime or vandalism then.  Please seek this directly from the SCPD or via the City Manager.

You should also be advised that certain cafes are now banning people from bringing their backpacks in the store (the Coffee Roasting Company for one)–which means, unless an individual wants to risk losing her or his stuff by setting it outside (and being ticketed too boot for “abandoned property”), they can’t access that public service.   Are you willing to publicly step up to mediate problems so that cafes have another alternative to expressing their bigotry than banning homeless-looking people with backpacks (or without–Brent Adams noted a family of three turned away earlier this week from the same Coffee Roasting Company).

 

.

Subject: Re: City of Sparks v. White and letter to City Attorney
From: micahposner@cruzio.com
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 22:07:26 -0700
To: rnorse3@hotmail.com

Dear Robert,
I hope you are aware of further efforts by 3 councilmembers to reduce selling art. It is on Tuesday’s agenda.
MicahSent from my iPad

On Sep 3, 2013, at 9:58 PM, Robert Norse <rnorse3@hotmail.com> wrote:
John:  While I appreciate this fairly boilerplate answer, I do know that in the interests of both fairness and saving the City money, you have clarified the status of certain practices and rights in Santa Cruz in the past.  Robin told me that he conferred with you several years ago after the City of Sparks decision came out, and got your agreement to encourage the SCPD to lay off (to put it gently).   Was I misinformed?
Are you saying that you’ll answer a question for a Council member but not a member of the public about this issue?
Hopefully not.
Since police are still variously misinforming artists on Pacific Avenue that they can’t display prices on their artwork (when they’re not harassing them for other things), I’d again encourage you to simply do what you did before when approached by an artist trying to stop this practice, which unnecessarily lays the city open to litigation.
It is my understanding that the decision is still valid law (one of the attorneys involved actually practices in this area), so please, step out from behind the template and be direct here.
I am also requesting Chief Vogel and the Council contact you for your “advice” here, so I’m not ignoring your suggestion either.Thanks,

Robert

From: JBarisone@abc-law.com
To: rnorse3@hotmail.com
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:43:58 -0800
Subject: RE: City of Sparks v. White and letter to City Attorney

Robert, I passed your concern along to the Police Department and if it has questions I will do the necessary research and answer them for the department. As you are aware I work for the City Council and the various City departments. I don’t take instructions from, perform work for, or provide opinions to members of the public; nor do I publicly divulge my advice and communications to my clients unless the clients make such  a request. I would suggest that in the future, if you have a complaint or concern concerning a City employee or practice, you contact the responsible City department head. If that department head seeks my advice in connection with your issue, I will be happy to assist him or her. Thanks, JGB

 

From: Robert Norse [mailto:rnorse3@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 9:19 AM
To: John Barisone
Cc: Robin the rightsfinder; Ricardo Lopez; Brent Adams; Tom Noddy; Becky Johnson
Subject: RE: City of Sparks v. White and letter to City Attorney

 

John:  On 2-7, as you probably remember, I sent you an inquiry regarding City of Sparks v. White.  On 2-13, you advised me you hadn’t got to it yet.It’s now a week later and street performers will be attending the HUFF meeting today at the Sub Rosa.

I’d like to be able to advise them if they are acting legally, based on your understanding of the law and the police enforcement policy.

If I don’t hear from you in the next few hours, perhaps later today you can let me know–and I can them contact the performers by e-mail.

Thanks,

Robert
(423-4833)

— On Thu, 2/7/13, Robert Norse <rnorse3@hotmail.com> wrote:
From: Robert Norse <rnorse3@hotmail.com>
Subject: City of Sparks v. White
To: “John Barisone” <jbarisone@abc-law.com>
Cc: “Robin the rightsfinder” <circulation999now@yahoo.com>, “Jonathan (!) Gettleman” <jonathangettleman@yahoo.com>, “David Beauvais” <davebeau@pacbell.net>, “lioness@got.net” <lioness@got.net>, “Ed Frey” <edwinfrey@hotmail.com>, “J.M. Brown” <jammbrow@gmail.com>, “Alexis of Pier 5” <alexis@pier5law.com>, “Ricardo Lopez” <riclopez35@yahoo.com>, “Joe the strummer” <talljar@gmail.com>, “Tom Noddy” <tnoddy@aol.com>, “Brent Adams” <compassionman@hotmail.com>, “Coral (!!!) Brune” <coralbrune@hotmail.com>, “Free” <overthrowproperty@yahoo.com>, “John Malkin” <jsmalkin@hotmail.com>
Date: Thursday, February 7, 2013, 11:05 AM

John:

You may remember Robin coming in to secure an agreement from you that he could resume displaying his artwork on the sidewalk without a permit and without harassment from the SCPD even though he attached price tags.  This was several years ago in response to the City of Sparks v. White (http://seattletrademarklawyer.com/storage/White%20v.%20City%20of%20Sparks%20-%209th%20Cir.%20Opinion.pdf) decision.  He told me that you and he made such an agreement.

Several artists have told me that “Hosts” and SCPD officers have been telling them they’ll be cited if they do what you apparently oked for Robin.  I know Robin also requested an explicit change in the law and to my knowledge and his you never recommended or created it.

I want to know if you’ve change your position here and now regard art work as not First Amendment-protected (as far as explicit pricing goes).  What is the current policy and direction to the SCPD?

This clarification is particularly important because some police officers are not merely banning explicit pricing, but also claiming that showing artwork without a business license is “panhandling” even if it’s done for donation in accord with the explicit exemption of MC 9.10.010(a)  which states “A person is not soliciting for purposes of this chapter when he or she passively displays a sign or places a collection container on the sidewalk pursuant to which he or she receives monetary offerings in appreciation for his or her original artwork or for entertainment or a street performance he or she provides.”

Please let me know what the status of the White decision is regarding city policy as well as assurance that MC 9.10.010(a) is still active law.

Hope you are well.

Robert
(831-423-4833)

 

From: rnorse3@hotmail.com
To: mposner@cityofsantacruz.com
CC: micahposner@cruzio.com; seandeluge@gmail.com; becky_johnson222@hotmail.com; lemasterhearth@hotmail.com; spleich@gmail.com; jeanpiraino@gmail.com; deetler@gmail.com; sschnaar@riseup.net
Subject: Questions
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 07:53:15 -0700

Micah:

Included for diversion:  http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Disguises-for-portable-toilets-with-something-to-4780198.php

What’s the status of the $15,000 portapotty slated to be installed near the Levy?  Why aren’t you proposing that that money be spent instead to open up the Soquel garage bathroom or the San Lorenzo restroom at night?  It would probably be cheaper, more durable, less segregated, and more sensible.

Have you e-mailed your Cruzio server to ask them why the discrimination against homeless client Dan Madison and his son Gryphon?   (See https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/08/14/18741605.php ).  I include Dan’s e-mail (he does a Free Radio show under the name “Sean Deluge”) in case you wish to speak with him directly.

Robert