Category Archives: Bathrobespierre’s Broadsides Radio Show

ACLU in the Sentinel: The Charade Continues

Posted on by

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/santacruz/ci_24253770/santa-cruz-countys-aclu-chapter-celebrates-50-years

What a laugh. The Santa Cruz ACLU has shown an impressive, persistent, and oppressive indifference to civil and human rights violations in Santa Cruz. This is particularly true around the “liberal” Santa Cruz City Council’s institutionalized abuse of the rights of homeless people.

In the hands of politicians like Mike Rotkin and like-minded constitution-clippers like Chair Peter Gelblum, it’s a no-win game for the poor outside. Even abuses roundly condemned by other ACLU’s like the Sleeping Ban & the Downtown Ordinances receive no public criticism and are buried “for study” when they are brought up.

Rotkin was a frequent advocate of the Sleeping Ban when he was Mayor as well as a supporter of the Sitting Ban (even going to San Francisco to push for its version). That he could be such a power in the local ACLU tells the story.

More of a fund-raising machine for national causes (many of which are worthy if often classist), the local ACLU preens itself while police steal homeless property, destroy homeless camps, and harass homeless people all around the town.

Promising activists like Steve Pleich, once enmeshed in the power structure of the ACLU as he struggles to accumulate offices and titles, become silent and accommodating of bigotry pimps like Councilmember Pamela Comstock and Lynn Robinson.

The ACLU won’t even defend the right of its own petitioners in the parking lot next to Trader Joe’s, who’ve been cited or driven away for giving out literature.

Santa Cruz needs a real civil rights organization.

For more details on the sad story see:

“Earlier E-Mails to the ACLU on Denial of Civil Liberties to the Santa Cruz
Homeless” at http://www.indybay.org/newsite….
“Local ACLU Rides…er…Hides Again” at
https://www.indybay.org/newsit…
“ACLU Chair Closes Monthly Boad of Directors Meeting, Homeless Issues Off
the Agenda” at http://www.indybay.org/newsite…
For Pleich’s own copycat censorship of issues on his website, see “Open Letter to Steve Pleich of Citizens for a Better Santa Cruz” at https://www.indybay.org/newsit…

Court Decisions Uphold the Right to Beg in Flagstaff, AZ

Posted on by

NOTE BY NORSE:

Santa Cruz “homeless get out of sight, get out of town” groups and their fans at City Council  have recently used phony Public Health & Safety pretests to make Santa Cruz a “less welcoming city” for poor, unconventional, and homeless travelers as well as long-time residents.  These have included Take Back Santa Cruz’s “positive loitering” events, pressuring convenience stores to remove payphones, & spending city and county money on a $100,000 + security gate at the Homeless (Lack of) Services Center.

The City’s slimey solution to cracking down on panhandling, once it was ruled constitutional in California by a federal judge in the early 90’s in the Blair decision, was to use “time, place, and manner” restrictions.   The only valid justification for limiting peaceful beggins is if it becomes truly threatening or obstructive of pedestrian (or vehicular) traffic.  Santa Cruz’s “Aggressive Solicitation” ordinance (MC 9.10  See http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaCruz/) is misnamed to cover its real intent–to give police selective enforcement tools to run off any sparechanger they consider unsavory, or to harry that person from place to place.  Panhandling, even silently with a sign, is forbidden entirely at night, on 95% of the downtown sidewalks and on 100$ of sidewalks elsewhere where there are any buildings.  It is akin to creating “protest pens” far from where public officials actually appear (something Santa Cruz officials have also done by establishing curfews around City Hall,  County Building, and the Court Buildings–this by decree rather than legislative vote after public debate).

Recently a disabled woman in a wheelchair (Glenda) was harassed on the sidewalk out near Kosko’s where she had a perfect right to be–even though abiding by the letter of the panhandling prohibitions–with deputies and SCPD thugs colluding to remove her at the request of some anonymous bigot.   This followed threats up at a sidewalk near Safeway on the Westside, even though Glenda reported being in a legal place, okayed previously by police authorities–where police responded to a “get out of town” TBSC-type by falsely demanding she move on, though she was legal right where she was.  The examples of repression are becoming more flagrant & more numerous.  Check my twice-weekly radio show archives at http://www.huffsantacruz.org/brb-descriptions.html for many many instances and specific stories.

The Santa Cruz ordinances have never been taken to court in their entireity.  The only section that was taken to court was thrown out a decade ago as unconstitutional (See “Powdering The Crooked Nose of The City’s Anti-Homeless Panhandling Law ”  at https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/06/19/18281363.php).  Santa Cruz awaits a new generation of citizen legal activists who will take on the abusive law and others that criminalize for the homeless what ordinary housed citizens take for granted (far too complacently considering NDAA, Guantanamo, NSA, and Patriot Act abuses that have become standard in the last decade).

Flagstaff, Arizona, to halt its crackdown on panhandling

The Flagstaff City Council agrees to settle a lawsuit that claimed an Arizona law against panhandling and the city’s aggressive enforcement of it were unconstitutional.

Flagstaff panhandling lawFlagstaff Police Cpl. Mike Rodriguez issues a citation to a homeless man who gave his name as James. The man was cited for camping within the city limits. (Josh Biggs / Arizona Daily Sun)
By Cindy CarcamoSeptember 24, 2013, 10:33 p.m.

FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. — An Arizona city that led the nation in its aggressive stance on panhandling reversed course Tuesday night, setting in motion the apparent demise of a century-old state law that criminalized begging.

The Flagstaff City Council voted to settle a lawsuit launched this summer by the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona on behalf of a 77-year-old woman who had been arrested after asking an undercover police officer for bus fare. The ACLU argued that the state law and Flagstaff’s enforcement of it were unconstitutional.
The council agreed and voted unanimously to stop enforcing the statute, promising that city officials would no longer interfere with a person peacefully begging in public spaces. But the council left the door open to imposing other restrictions.
The ACLU lawsuit challenged a policy Flagstaff adopted six years ago to remove people from downtown areas by jailing them early in the day on suspicion of loitering to beg. The city had invoked an Arizona statute that makes it a crime to beg in public spaces.
Flagstaff police had arrested an estimated 135 people on suspicion of loitering to beg during one year. In some cases, those people were jailed, said Mik Jordahl, a Flagstaff attorney who is serving as ACLU co-counsel in the lawsuit.
A spokeswoman for state Atty. Gen. Tom Horne said Monday he would not contest the ACLU’s effort to have a federal judge declare the law unconstitutional.
The Flagstaff situation mirrors a national trend of localities and states enforcing or creating laws to deter panhandling and control the movements of the homeless, said Heather Maria Johnson, civil rights director at the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, based in Washington.
Some states have passed similar statutes against begging. Others have invoked old laws, but Flagstaff’s efforts were an example of extreme enforcement, Johnson said.
Courts across the country have ruled that laws against aggressive panhandling and harassment are constitutional. But they’ve also ruled that peaceful begging is protected by the Constitution and cannot be outlawed by states or municipalities.
In March, after the ACLU sued Colorado Springs, Colo., the city scrapped nearly every aspect of an anti-panhandling law it had passed four months earlier.
An anti-panhandling law in American Fork, Utah, met a similar fate after a homeless man filed suit. He had been cited several times for holding a sign on public sidewalks. The city agreed to pay him $750 in damages and more than $5,300 in attorney fees and court costs.
Salt Lake City officials took notice and stopped enforcing a statute that made it illegal to sit, stand or loiter on or near a roadway in order to solicit a ride, money, employment or other business. A federal judge later ruled that law unconstitutional.
Jordahl, the ACLU attorney, lauded the outcome in Flagstaff.
“We are pleased that the hundreds of desperately poor persons arrested under this unconstitutional law in the last several years will no longer face arrest and jailing for simply exercising their right to free speech in a peaceful manner,” he said in a statement.
Flagstaff Police Chief Kevin Treadway said the city had opted to enforce the statute in response to hundreds of residents’ complaints about people loitering or begging for money.
“In our city, this is really a prevalent issue,” Treadway said. “We have citizens contacting us on a regular basis who are intimidated.”
Flagstaff is a tourist hub, with shops, restaurants and university students. The city is also a gateway to the Grand Canyon, with several highways intersecting in town.
Tensions tend to peak during hot months, when the homeless population swells with transients who come to the mountain community to escape the sweltering desert heat.
Treadway said city officials were in the process of developing a new ordinance. This time, he said, it would target aggressive panhandlers.
cindy.carcamo@latimes.com

MORE COMMENTS AT:  http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ff-flagstaff-homeless-20130925,0,6561745.story

‘Begging is not a crime,’ ACLU says in suit against Flagstaff

By Cindy CarcamoJune 26, 2013, 6:30 a.m.

 

TUCSON — The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona filed suit Tuesday against the city of Flagstaff, accusing municipal leaders of unconstitutionally driving beggars off the streets and criminalizing peaceful panhandling in public places.

“Begging is not a crime,” Arizona ACLU Legal Director Dan Pochoda said in a statement. “To appease local business interests, Flagstaff has sacrificed the fundamental rights of individuals and is throwing people in jail for simply for asking for a dollar or two for food.”

The complaint challenges a policy adopted by the city six years ago to remove people from downtown areas by jailing them early in the day on suspicion of “loitering to beg.” City officials have used a state statute that makes it a crime to beg in all public spaces.

Flagstaff police made 135 such arrests from June 2012 to May 2013, according to the ACLU.

Flagstaff Police Chief Police Kevin Treadway did not return a call for comment.
City Atty. Michelle D’Andrea said Flagstaff officials could not comment until they had reviewed the lawsuit and drafted a response.

“The city typically does not comment on pending litigation and will file a response to the lawsuit in a timely manner,” D’Andrea said in a statement.

The three plaintiffs named in the suit include Marlene Baldwin, a 77-year-old Hopi woman who ACLU officials said is disabled and losing her eyesight. She was arrested in February on suspicion of loitering to beg after asking an undercover police officer if he could spare $1.25 for bus fare, according to the complaint.

Mik Jordahl, a Flagstaff attorney who is serving as co-counsel in the lawsuit, said that although laws against aggressive panhandling and harassing solicitations have been found to be constitutional, states and cities cannot legally outlaw peaceful begging.

“When the most downtrodden among us are arrested and punished for the peaceful content of their speech, then none of our free speech rights are guaranteed,” Jordahl said.

MORE COMMENTS AT http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-ff-aclu-lawsuit-flagstaff-panhandlers-20130625,0,652527.story

HOMELESS DEPORTATION MASQUERADING AS “SMART COMPASSION”:

Even in Beverly Hills, helping homeless is a struggle

There are fewer homeless people in Beverly Hills than on skid row, but they too are entrenched street dwellers. Helping them takes persistence.

By Steve LopezAugust 20, 2013, 7:24 p.m.

 

Amy lives near a man named Bond, just down the street from Jennifer in a terrific neighborhood in the heart of Beverly Hills, where lollipop palm trees sway in celebration of high-living. But it’s been years since Amy, Bond or Jennifer had a home other than a park bench or a clearing in the manicured shrubbery.

Beverly Hills doesn’t have many homeless people — roughly 30, give or take. But the ones it does have are stubbornly inclined to stay right where they are, living in their own minds and on their own terms, practically in the shadow of multimillion-dollar mansions.
Why?

“It’s safe,” said Jim Latta, the city’s human services administrator, who knows every one of the city’s homeless people by name. People living on the streets don’t have to watch their backs the way they would on skid row or in Venice.
Kevin Conner, an outreach worker, offered another explanation as well.

“The residents of Beverly Hills give to the homeless,” Conner said.

Amy backed him up on that. She lives on a bench in the park that runs along Santa Monica Boulevard, and when I asked how she gets by, she pointed to the nearby church.

“I stand against that wall during Sunday Mass,” said Amy, a senior citizen. When Mass lets out, parishioners — lifted by the spirit — reach into their pockets. Amy said she makes enough to hop on a bus and go to the Farmer’s Market at 3rd and Fairfax, where she does her shopping.

But Conner said that only makes his job harder.

“If a parishioner gives her everything she needs, she doesn’t need me,” he said. Which is why he hands donors a card that says, “Positive Change, Not Spare Change,” and, “Please give to a charity, not a panhandler.”

It’s not as if City Hall doesn’t get complaints about homeless people from merchants and residents. But most of the gripes are about panhandlers, many of whom don’t live in Beverly Hills but drift in to tap locals and tourists.

The city banned so-called aggressive panhandling. But five years ago, it hired Step Up On Second, a Santa Monica nonprofit, to help look after homeless people and try to steer them into services. Only four people have been permanently housed in that effort, but many others have been cared for at least temporarily at People Assisting the Homeless, a Hollywood nonprofit that provides six beds nightly for Beverly Hills’ street dwellers.

That might make it sound as though the goal is to push the homeless beyond the borders of Beverly Hills, and I’m not holding my breath waiting for the city to open a Step Up On Rodeo. But after a day of making the rounds with Latta and the Step Up outreach team — Conner and his partner Annie Boyd — it looked to me as though the goal is to make regular contact with a very sick population, earn some trust and jump on any opportunity to offer life-changing help.

Latta said that when he speaks to local groups about his work, he points out that his subjects are a little harder to help than Nick Nolte‘s lovable vagabond character in the movie “Down and Out in Beverly Hills.” That chap ends up sleeping with the maid of a rich, dysfunctional family and enjoying the city’s fine dining. Latta’s people, meanwhile — like many entrenched street dwellers in any community — are fighting severe mental illness and barely hanging on. Some of them tip a bottle to ward off waves of despair, only to sink further into the depths.

Latta, a career mental health and social worker, keeps a photo of a guy named Al in his office. Al was a steady, benign presence near the Gap store on North Beverly. Though he didn’t ask for money, passersby gave him enough to survive despite mental and physical illness, and he resisted efforts by the outreach team to get him treated and housed. By night, he lived behind a dumpster in an alley with the blessing of a merchant, until he became so physically ill that he finally agreed to go to a hospital. A few days after being admitted, he was dead.

“Many want help but struggle to make a change,” Latta wrote in a letter to the editor at the time of Al’s death. “It took more than two years for our gentleman to decide whether to stay with his miserable but known world or try the alternatives provided by the outreach team.”

When we met up with Amy, who is very sick physically and otherwise, Latta was wrestling with memories of Al and wondering whether — if Amy continues to refuse help — the humane option might be an involuntary commitment.

A few blocks away, we met with a man who finally accepted housing recently, only to land back on the streets. “If I can get the church to come up with the money, I’m going to come by and see if I can take you to an apartment,” Latta told the man, who nodded in approval.

Beverly Jermyn, an L.A. resident, told me that this kind of persistence paid off in the case of her brother. John Jermyn, who was homeless for 30 years and would often dance his days away on Robertson Boulevard, moved into an apartment at Step Up On Vine in April.

“He had no hope of getting off the street until this wonderful outreach team worked with him,” Beverly Jermyn said.

John Jermyn, who played minor league baseball in the Dodgers‘ farm system 40 years ago, sleeps in his Hollywood apartment by night but still can’t resist Beverly Hills by day. I met him at Will Rogers Memorial Park on Sunset, where he said he couldn’t talk long because he had lots of dancing to do.
I asked what it was like to live indoors after so many years under the stars.
“It has its benefits,” he said, and then he was lost in motion.
steve.lopez@latimes.com

Santa Cruz Task Farce Rides Again–Wednesday 10-2 SCPD Community Room

Posted on by

https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/10/01/18744150.php

View other events for the week of 10/ 2/2013

Title: Public Hysteria Gang “Targets” Other Gangs
START DATE: Wednesday October 02
TIME: 6:00 PM – 9:00 PM
Location Details:
Community Room of the Santa Cruz Police Department at Center and Laurel Streets.
Event Type: Meeting
Contact Name Susan O’Hara (posted by Norse)
Email Address sohara [at] cityofsantacruz.com
Phone Number 831-420-5013
Address 809 Center St., Santa Cruz, CA
The Mayor’s handpicked “scapegoat the homeless” Task Force will be meeting Wednesday, October 2 in its familiar meeting place–the Community Room of the Santa Cruz Police Department.

The audience, as usual, will be gagged (i.e. refused any public comment period and rudely advised to shut up if they dare to raise a question or react to the ongoing show).

The topic will be Gangs–without, of course, any representation from current gang members on police abuse, background on gangs from the gang member’s point of view, and/or suggestions for real solutions rather than throwing more money at police or forming local vigilante Take Back Santa Cruz style counter-gangs..

Prior agendas, staff reports, minutes, and audio of this City-funded Circus can be found at http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/index.aspx?page=1924 where the agenda and staff report for the meeting tomorrow can be found.

The next meeting will be held at Branciforte Middle School on October 9 (see below) and will actually allow the public to speak before resuming “no comment” sessions in a weekly schedule throughout October. This is as distinguished from its bi-weekly schedule previously.

The staff person being paid to do research, record, and organize these meetings is Susie O’Hara, who actually gave me her direct city contact phone after the city offices would not (it’s 420-5013). She can be reached by e-mail at sohara [at] cityofsantacruz.com .

I suggest those who go bring placards silently indicating their opinions (“Stop Scapegoating Street People”) or even a more versatile sign like a double-sided one with ‘half-truth” on one side and “total bullshit” on the other. Signs referencing the new Downtown Ordinance outrage against street culture would also be welcome.

More discussion on the issue at the HUFF meeting tomorrow 11 AM 10-2 at the Sub Rosa Cafe 703 Pacific Ave.

For ease of reference, I include the agenda as PDF.

For some prior indybay articles on the Task Farce and its members see

“Mayor’s Public Safety Task Force Member is “fine with junkies dying”” at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/07/25/18740407.php

“Strongly Biased Public Safety Survey” at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/06/10/18738231.php. and

“Mayor’s Stacked and Packed “Public Safety Task Force” meets” at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/05/28/18737491.php

To be clear, this post is by Robert Norse in its entirety–the information was in part supplied by city staffer Susan O’Hara, whose opinions are not necessarily represented by this article.

Correcting the Record on Analicia Cube’s Take Back Santa Cruz

Posted on by

https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/09/30/18744094.php

Missing from the S.C. Weekly Puff Piece on Take Back Santa Cruz Co-Founder Analicia Cube
by Robert Norse ( rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com )
Monday Sep 30th, 2013 2:11 PM

The Santa Cruz Weekly published a lengthy chitchat boosting the public image of Take Back Santa Cruz’s public face Analicia Cube. Hopeful as I’ve been for Georgiana Perry’s writing, this one has a sweet stench to it and prompted me to write an extensive reply in the on-line comments section. Though it’s not exhaustive, it summarizes some of the major concerns I have about Analicia’s group and those who cater to it and its mythologies. At http://www.santacruz.com/news/2013/09/24/take_back_santa_cruz_leader_pulls_no_punches , there are 35 comments as of this writing, most of them praising Cube, but a number are worth reading. I reprint mine for indybay readers and invite them to share their thoughts.

Analicia Cube is a high-spirited,strong-voiced, effective activist whose TBSC agenda and actions menace poor and homeless people in Santa Cruz and empower the darkest elements of our community.

Missing from G. Perry’s article are some key accomplishments of her Take Back Santa Cruz and allied or infiltrated groups, now grown in power with their leaders in significant government positions.

TBSC accomplishments: They and their needle-rattling allies have closed down the only Needle Exchange in Santa Cruz—doing so without public hearings or evidence of any real problems at the Barson St. site. They have stopped a second marijuana club from opening in the Harvey West in another medieval anti-mariuana move. They’ mobbed a court to keep the innocent Ken Maffei in jail for three weeks (the guy who brought his own flowers to the SCPD memorial and was then falsely accused of stealing posies).

They raised the temperature of anti-homeless sentiment, serving as a forum for those who want to defund the very limited homeless shelter services that currently exist. Their clean-up’s for years have not advised their participants to respect homeless campsites (the only shelter Santa Cruz’s 1500-2000 homeless have).

They have spread the hateful and false broadside that sleeping and camping are crimes (something currently being entrenched in the Public Safety Citizens Task Farce). This has resulted in harassment and assault against homeless people, as documented in the famous (but frequently suppressed) video of Clean Team activists bullying a homeless camper (See http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/05/15/18736901.php ).

They have colluded with and encouraged the most reactionary and dangerous higher-up’s in the SCPD (such as Deputy Chief Steve Clark—notorious for his ceaseless attacks on activists, homeless people, and “liberalism” in Santa Cruz).

Additionally they have driven previously sympathetic critics who disagree with their obsessive and futile Drug War posture from their website. T.J. Magallanes, the founder of The Clean Team website, has repeatedly noted that TBSC activists kidnapped his site and their hostility made his presence in town uncomfortable. (See http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/05/22/18737249.php )

Those who come out for medical rather than police solutions to social problems created by the illegal status of methedrine, cocaine, heroin, and other drugs are reportedly removed from their website and discussions. The futile enforcement of these laws, of course, funds police departments nationwide and gives politicians a boogeyman to intimidate and co-opt politicians. The toll in ruined lives and wasted money is immense here—yet that is one of their main “law and order” selling points.

What’s really depressing is how these clear issues are ignored not only in Perry’s article but in the mainstream media generally. In response liberals like Lane, Posner, and Pleich surf this sick tide and buy into the Public Safety mythology in order to ride the wave of groundless hysteria that Cube’s group and related ones have created.

THE FULL ARTICLE AND FOLLOWING COMMENTS CAN BE FOUND AT http://www.santacruz.com/news/2013/09/24/take_back_santa_cruz_leader_pulls_no_punches  .  The article is also the cover story for the current Santa Cruz Weekly.

Anaheim Moves Against Its Homeless Community

Posted on by

NOTES BY NORSE:   Both Anaheim and Santa Cruz are ramping up their assaults on the homeless, without specifying what they’re doing (why acknowledge unconstitutional and cruel behavior?) or masking it under other labels.  In Santa Cruz it’s “public safety”, “the needle menace”, and “the perception of danger”; in Anaheim, they’re calling it “blight”, “increasing police tools”, etc.

The latest Santa Cruz City Council’s anti-homeless expansion of Smoking, Vending, Tabling, Performing, Art Display, Sparechanging, and Sitting Bans downtown are similarly camouflaged and rationalized as “congestion”, “clarity”, and “clean and tidy” aesthetic concerns.    Today at Santa Cruz City Council at 2:45 PM supporters of a Downtown for All will be gathering to share food, experience, ideas and speak to the Community during the Council meeting (the Council itself isn’t listening) in the brief televised period.  That’s at 809 Center St. across from the Main Library and Civic Auditorium.  Bring instruments and friends.

Another “more respectable” effort is being made by activists supporting a Santa Cruz Sanctuary Camp to the County Board of Supervisors–calling for a small tightly controlled “drug free” Camping Area.  9 AM at 701 Ocean St. on the 5th Floor of the Board of Supervisors.   The supporters led by Brent Adams will be presented a business plan and may have recently gotten the support of Paul Lee, a local author and philanthropist who tried himself unsuccessfully to set up an Eco-Village a decade ago and a Community House a decade before that.  In the 80’s Lee supported activist Calamity Jane Imler’s hunger strikes against the Sleeping Ban, police abuse, and the call for a cold-and-rainy-night Shelter.  Adams has been a target of political repression in the aftermath of the Occupy Movement as one of the Santa Cruz Eleven–when hundreds occupied a vacant Wells Fargo-leased bank at 75 River St.

The Anaheim ordinance’s definition of “camping” (Yuppie-speak for “survival sleeping”) is “Residing in or using any Public Area for living accommodation or lodging purposes with one’s personal property or while storing one’s personal property;  and/or constructing, maintaining, occupying, or inhabiting or using camping facilities and/or constructing, using or maintaining camping paraphernalia.  For the purposes of this section “camping” shall not include merely sleeping outside in a park or the use of a blanket, towel, or mat in a park during the time the park is open to the public.”

Santa Cruz activists have long agitated against Santa Cruz’s Sleeping and Blanket Bans, which defines and criminalizes camping as sleeping after 11 PM at night outside on any public property, on much private property, or in a vehicle, even if legally parked on public property.   It has its own “abandoned property” rule, and in today’s City Council vote will finalize a severe shrinkage of space where homeless people (and to be “fair” this affects any one and everyone) can place their possessions if trying to display art, engage in political activity involving a table, vend anything, or perform music.  This is a social sickness that is spreading everywhere.

The City’s gentrification adovocates are countering traditional toleration and compassion in the community (though not in the police, City Council, or City Manager’s office), right-wing NIMBY’s with the Downtown Association, Santa Cruz Neighbors, Take Back Santa Cruz, and other reactionary groups propaganda and agitation.  These exclusionary Upper Class warriors are making much of the Drug War and a xenophobic “outsiders flooding our community”.  They can be seen in full frightening bloom at the Mayor’s Public Safety Task Force.  The group meets every Wednesday in October usually at the police department’s Community Room on Laurel and Center streets.  The public is generally allowed to watch but not to comment.

Anaheim City Council Now Declaring War on Homeless

By Gabriel San Roman Mon., Sep. 23 2013 at 2:31 PM
lapalmapark_tent.jpg
Josue Rivas
Homeless tent

A week after activist Stephen Baxter held a ‘sleep-in’ protest in downtown Fullerton over the city’s war on the homeless, Anaheim will try to one-up them with a punitive ordinance of its own. The city municipal code already forbids staying in a public park between the hours of 10:30 p.m. and 5 a.m., which has the homeless laying their head elsewhere for the night–but that’s not enough for councilwoman Kris Murray and her crew!

On Tuesday, council members will decide on a proposal aimed at banning camping and storage of personal property on public property at any time.
In a staff report submitted by Director of Community Services Terry Lowe, the ordinance is framed as one that will “serve as a tool in the City’s effort to promote and support safe, clean and accessible neighborhoods and eliminate blight.” Never once are the homeless referenced directly, but it couldn’t be clearer who the intended target is.

If Anaheim’s city council should approve the crackdown–and it almost assuredly will–no homeless person can use a tent for living purposes at any hour in public areas including parks, alleys, parking lots, or any other publicly owned property. Nor could they store personal belongings such as the tents themselves, sleeping bags, bedrolls, cooking equipment, books, money and appliances in addition to other possessions in such spaces.

Public parks are the most visible places where the city’s homeless population set up tents during the day. Since the eviction of a sizable homeless encampment in Fullerton by the shuttered Hunt Library earlier this year, many of those displaced turned up on the east lawn of La Palma Park in Anaheim.

lapalmapark_homeless.jpg
Josue Rivas / OC Weekly
La Palma Park in Anaheim

The belongings of the homeless would be subject to 90-day impounds so long as they are given “proper notice.” Anaheim police can immediately confiscate possessions if they are left after hours at the park or deemed to be contraband, a threat to public health and safety or evidence of crime. Retrieval is allowed when the Chief of Police finds proof of ownership to be “satisfactory.”
If that’s not the case, the city stands poised to make money off of the confiscations, whether through depositing unclaimed money into the general fund or holding auctions.

Enforcement of the ordinance entails fines for infractions. The first violation would cost $100. A second violation within a year is punishable up to $200 with every subsequent infraction in that time span costing $500.

“I would categorize this ordinance as part of the larger ‘criminalization of homelessness’ that many communities fall back on when they choose to be less creative with their problem solving,” says Jennifer Lee-Anderson, Co-Chair of the Anaheim Poverty Task Force and policy planning consultant on homelessness. “The $100 to $500 fines that are noted in the proposed ordinance are part of the reason that many chronically homeless are simply cycled through the criminal justice system repeatedly.”

Near La Palma Park, the city is just weeks into a newly opened storage area and outreach center. The homeless can take advantage of Conex boxes set up to leave their personal belongings during the day. The city-owned parking lot by Glover Stadium is close to where people continue to set up tents. In a heavy-handed way, the ordinance could encourage more homeless to participate in the pilot program but is also a cause for concern and clarification. “There’s no language that exempts the storage area,” adds Lee-Anderson expressing disappointment that she learned about this proposal from the Weekly and not city staff. There is also the issue of other public areas in Anaheim far beyond La Palma Park where homeless persons stay.

For the past six years, Jim Carter has taken students at Servite High School, where he works, to serve meals at La Palma Park every Thursday. “I understand where the city comes from. I understand where the police come from,” says Carter, also a member of the Anaheim Poverty Task Force that has drafted a 15 point plan to address homelessness. “I don’t think [the ordinance] is a good thing. Unless it comes with a long-range plan to help these people move out of this situation, it’s just going to add stress to them. Where are the homeless going to go?”

“What would have been nice is if the city adopted the 15 point plan in full,” Carter mentions, emphasizing the key recommendation of establishing a multi-service center. “If the city is not willing to find a location where we can put a shelter, it’s never going to change.”


Follow Gabriel San Román on Twitter @dpalabraz


Follow OC Weekly on Twitter@ocweekly or on Facebook!

FURTHER COMMENTS AT http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2013/09/anaheim_homeless.php

TEXT OF THE ORDINANCE AT http://www.anaheim.net/docs_agend/questys_pub/MG41822/AS41861/AS41864/AI44292/DO44294/DO_44294.pdf

STAFF REPORT AT http://www.anaheim.net/docs_agend/questys_pub/MG41822/AS41861/AS41864/AI44292/DO44293/DO_44293.pdf

HOMELESS ENCAMPMENT EVICTION STORY AT:  http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2013/06/hunt_library_fullerton.php

YET ANOTHER “NO SHELTER, NO RELIEF” 15-POINT PLAN TO “END HOMELESSNESS” BY FUNDING POVERTY PIMPS:  http://www.anaheimptf.org/plan .

Demonstrations Against the Santa Cruz Sidewalk Snatchers Continue Tuesday 3:45 PM

Posted on by

Title: Last Change to Stop the Sidewalk Snatchers
START DATE: Tuesday September 24
TIME: 2:45 PM – 3:45 PM
Location Details:
809 Center Council Chambers at City Hall across from the main library and the Civic Auditorium
Event Type: Protest
Contact Name Robert Norse
Email Address rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com
Phone Number 831-423-4833
Address 309 Cedar PMB #14B Santa Cruz, CA 95060
SUCCESSFUL PROTEST ON SUNDAY
After a rousing demonstration downtown on Sunday (see http://www.facebook.com/events/483912138373592/?context=create) Downtown for All activists will gather to oppose the Bryant-Robinson City Council’s steamroller seizure of the sidewalk beginning at 3 PM.

Neither the Santa Cruz Sentinel (though a reporter was there) nor indybay.org/santacruz chose to cover the protest.

Councilmember Micah Posner put in appearance as the protest was dispersing. I’ll hope to post my own impressions later today.

TUESDAY PROTEST WILL PROVIDE FOOD
Meet earlier and share some hot tasty soup, a strong dose of common sense and citizen outrage, and organizing for future action outside Council chambers.

A special tip of the hat to India Joze’s Jumbogumbo Joe Schultz for providing tasty vegan soup at both the Sunday and Tuesday protests.

THE LAWS
The new Shrink-Sidewalk-Space law changes are described at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/09/09/18742960.php?show_comments=1#18743583 though the latest clarifications are included in the attached flyer.

The text of the proposed ordinances is at http://sire.cityofsantacruz.com/sirepub/cache/2/mgx3p145ppgk5z45tcxxok45/379504109232013080657617.PDF (the extended Smoking Ban) and;

http://sire.cityofsantacruz.com/sirepub/cache/2/mgx3p145ppgk5z45tcxxok45/379504209232013080741906.PDF (the Ban on Street Performing, Street Art, Street Vending, Political Tabling, & Peaceful Sparechanging on 95% of the Pacific Avenue sidealks and entirely in other business districts where sidewalks are adjacent to buildings).

COUNCIL’S RUSH JOB
Neither of the ordinances were vetted before the public in a Council Committee or Commission–as is customary with such changes. Nor were stakeholders in the major groups impacted consulted.

They were proposed with only 72-hour notice 2 weeks ago and passed by City Council 5-2 without only 2 minutes public input allowed per person (instead of the 3 minutes customary in a Public Hearing on a law change). There was no estimate of the amount of city money and police time already being spent enforcing these “don’t sit next to a building”-style ordinances

THE USUAL SUSPECTS
They are being pushed by some merchants in the DTA to sanitize the sidewalks and lure more shoppers in the belief that less vibrant street life is a bigger draw. The pretexts are “congestion”, “trip and fall hazard”, and “upgrading the tacky look”.

The ordinances also seem to be part of a continuing campaign to make Santa Cruz an “unwelcome” area for homeless people, hippies, and poor people generally.

Since it seems unlikely that the Council will disobey its Downtown Association, Santa Cruz Neighbors, and Take Back Santa Cruz masters, this meeting will also be an organizing opportunity to plan the next phase of the resistance.

More protests like Sunday’s street demonstration and the spontaneous Saturday Chalk-In (see http://www.flickr.com/photos/97198640@N08/ http://sfbay.craigslist.org/scz/eve/4078506873.html ) are a likely outcome of this kind of special interest repressive legislation. To challenge the surrender of traditional Santa Cruz street vitality to the prim Victorian standards of the New Puritans.



READ THE TEXT OF THE FLYER AT
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/09/23/18743666.php 

SAVE VIBRANT STREET LIFE DOWNTOWN !

Posted on by

(Text of flyer for Sept. 22, 2013, protest of latest anti-homeless legislation by City Council.)

(Flyer in pdf format at bottom)

SAVE VIBRANT STREET LIFE DOWNTOWN !
PROTEST, CHOW-DOWN, AND SPEAKOUT !
SUNDAY SEPTEMBER 22nd 1:30 PM
on Pacific Avenue in front of Forever Twenty-One
SING BACK AT CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 24th 3 PM
Council Chambers 809 Center St.
In a disguised attack on the entire non-commercial street scene, City Council will vote to restrict still further
the very limited public space currently allowed the community downtown. Under the guise of health concerns,
reducing congestion, and preventing a “trip-and-fall” hazard (none of which is documented), the reactionary new laws
crowd street performers, vendors, homeless people, tablers, local residents, & tourists together. This will classify
95% of the sidewalk as sterile “forbidden zones” with no resting, vending, or performing. This attack on street
counter-culture has nothing to do with “bad behavior.” It’s about “bigot aesthetics”-& homeless cleansing
clearing away visible poverty, traditional Santa Cruz diversity, and political activism. Council staff took no input
from those targeted. They provided no info on the costs of current selective enforcement, nor stats of real
problems. This merchant monopolization of sidewalk space is part of a broader “drive the homeless away” agenda.
THE NEW LAWS AS AMENDED
+++ Extends the Smoking Ban to the side streets one block in either direction from Pacific Avenue, including all
alleys & side streets & to to all surface parking lots between Laurel Street & Water St. perhaps private parking lots as
well. Ignores that current law already bans smoking 25′ from a door or window in the side streets.
+++ Bans tarps & blankets now used to display jewelry, artwork, political fliers, etc. and requires all devices
on the sidewalk to be “free-standing”. This okays guitar cases and cups, but arguably makes backpacks and
anything placed perpendicular to the sidewalk “display devices” requiring a 12′ distance from the next “device”.
+++ Reduces total allowed space to 12 sq ft area [3 “squares”] which now includes table, instruments, chair,
people & possessions—virtually requiring special permits. The ill-defined space requires a tape measure.
+++ Requires 12′ distance between display devices, isolating performers and forcing away other vendors.
+++ Reduces total available space 4/5 to exclude 95% of the sidewalk by expanding the “forbidden zones” to
14′ from buildings, street corners, intersections, kiosks, drinking fountains, public telephones, public benches, public trash containers,
information/directory signs, sculptures or artwork, ATM-style machines, outside street cafes, vending carts, and fences. This bans
sitting on any sidewalk that is narrower than 14′ (no sidewalk use in other business districts at all if buildings adjoin).
+++ In conjunction with Santa Cruz’s unique “Move Along Every Hour” law, police can then ban
individuals from any one spot for 24 hours & require them to move 100′–further reducing “legal” spots.
When added to the frequent merchant expansion of their displays onto the sidewalk in front of their shops this
exclusion of non-commercial activity will be nearly all-embracing. This, of course, suits those whose real
objective is to drive away the once-vibrant street scene in Santa Cruz and ‘Capitola-ize” the Avenue.
The resulting congestion will have people competing for the public spaces (when there is actually room for
all). It will severely crowd not just those using display devices, but others trying to sit down in the few
remaining spots available whether these be elderly residents, homeless locals, visiting travelers, UCSC
students, or naive tourists (who will, of course be selectively ignored or courteously directed to pay-cafes). And
either drive such people away or produce a hostile response and more conflict downtown. Police will be
given greater power to drive away a significant number of people currently using the sidewalk.
Flier by Norse of HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom) 831-423-4833 www.huffsantacruz.org 9-22-13
DOWNTOWN FOR ALL ! NOT JUST THE RICH, CONSERVATIVE, & FEARFUL
+++ Use your video phone to capture evidence of authorities harassing the public on the streets downtown. Post on
You-Tube and www.indybay.org/santacruz . Send them to HUFF (rnorse3@hotmail.com ); pass on links.
+++ E-mail City Council at citycouncil [at] cityofsantacruz.com .and demand these ordinances be reviewed for cost,
effectiveness, impact, and unintended consequences. Send them back to citizen committees for public input.
+++ Spread opposition; Write local papers; Use Facebook & Twitter;. Ordinances become final a month after a
2nd vote in two weeks (October 24) Support businesses who oppose, publicize those who don’t.
+++ Post your own accounts of discrimination downtown. The Coffee Roasting Company, Verve, & Starbucks
refused service to homeless people with backpacks; CruzioWorks refused 24-hour service to homeless Dan Madison.
+++ Come to City Council 3 PM September 24th to oppose the 2nd Vote on these laws!
+++ Witness & support other street performers & streetfolk when they face harassment from authorities.
+++ Get familiar with the Downtown Ordinances, often misquoted by police and hosts. Copies available
through HUFF (Wednesdays 11 AM, Sub Rosa Cafe 703 Pacific) & soon at the Sub Rosa Cafe (703 Pacific).
+++ Prepare to sustain a long struggle by documenting police and merchant behavior regularly, organizing
solidarity between vendors, activists, and others seeking to use the public space. Report harassment accurately.
Flier by Norse of HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom) 831-423-4833 www.huffsantacruz.org 9-19-13
DOWNTOWN FOR ALL ! NOT JUST THE RICH, CONSERVATIVE, & FEARFUL
+++ Use your video phone to capture evidence of authorities harassing the public on the streets downtown. Post on
You-Tube and www.indybay.org/santacruz . Send them to HUFF (rnorse3@hotmail.com ); pass on links.
+++ E-mail City Council at citycouncil [at] cityofsantacruz.com .and demand these ordinances be reviewed for cost,
effectiveness, impact, and unintended consequences. Send them back to citizen committees for public input.
+++ Spread opposition; Write local papers; Use Facebook & Twitter;. Ordinances become final a month after a
2nd vote in two weeks (October 24) Support businesses who oppose, publicize those who don’t.
+++ Post your own accounts of discrimination downtown. The Coffee Roasting Company, Verve, & Starbucks
refused service to homeless people with backpacks; CruzioWorks refused 24-hour service to homeless Dan Madison.
+++ Come to City Council 3 PM September 24th to oppose the 2nd Vote on these laws!
+++ Witness & support other street performers & streetfolk when they face harassment from authorities.
+++ Get familiar with the Downtown Ordinances, often misquoted by police and hosts. Copies available
through HUFF (Wednesdays 11 AM, Sub Rosa Cafe 703 Pacific) & soon at the Sub Rosa Cafe (703 Pacific).
+++ Prepare to sustain a long struggle by documenting police and merchant behavior regularly, organizing
solidarity between vendors, activists, and others seeking to use the public space. Report harassment accurately.
Flier by Norse of HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom) 831-423-4833 www.huffsantacruz.org 9-19-13
DOWNTOWN FOR ALL ! NOT JUST THE RICH, CONSERVATIVE, & FEARFUL
+++ Use your video phone to capture evidence of authorities harassing the public on the streets downtown. Post on
You-Tube and www.indybay.org/santacruz . Send them to HUFF (rnorse3@hotmail.com ); pass on links.
+++ E-mail City Council at citycouncil [at] cityofsantacruz.com .and demand these ordinances be reviewed for cost,
effectiveness, impact, and unintended consequences. Send them back to citizen committees for public input.
+++ Spread opposition; Write local papers; Use Facebook & Twitter;. Ordinances become final a month after a
2nd vote in two weeks (October 24) Support businesses who oppose, publicize those who don’t.
+++ Post your own accounts of discrimination downtown. The Coffee Roasting Company, Verve, & Starbucks
refused service to homeless people with backpacks; CruzioWorks refused 24-hour service to homeless Dan Madison.
+++ Come to City Council 3 PM September 24th to oppose the 2nd Vote on these laws!
+++ Witness & support other street performers & streetfolk when they face harassment from authorities.
+++ Get familiar with the Downtown Ordinances, often misquoted by police and hosts. Copies available
through HUFF (Wednesdays 11 AM, Sub Rosa Cafe 703 Pacific) & soon at the Sub Rosa Cafe (703 Pacific).
+++ Prepare to sustain a long struggle by documenting police and merchant behavior regularly, organizing
solidarity between vendors, activists, and others seeking to use the public space. Report harassment accurately.
Flier by Norse of HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom) 831-423-4833 www.huffsantacruz.org 9-19-13

Flyer in pdf – Flyer for 9-14, revised 9-22.pdf

Fiddling With the Sidewalk Snatchers in Berkeley

Posted on by
NOTES BY NORSE:   Carol Denney has been puncturing pompous panjandrums up in Berkeley monthly for nearly two decades with her Pepper Spray Times (which comes out monthly in the Berkeley Daily Planet on-line) as well as her work with the satirical Jolly Roger Comedy Troupe, which I occasionally play on the stream of Free Radio Santa Cruz ( (http://tunein.com/radio/FRSC-s47254/ )  down here.
Unlike Santa Cruz, Berkeley activists mounted a successful campaign against a Sitting Ban last year.  The last significant successes Santa Cruz has had were to overturn the original 1994 total sidewalk Sitting Ban, passed in the spring of that year by the Rotkin-Kennedy Council.  It resulted in a nearly-unprecedented local court victory when Judges Salazar and Barton both ruled the ordinance unconstitutional.    This was prompted by scores of arrests when hundreds of people flooded downtown to protest by sitting down at eating food with Food Not Bombs at Cathcart and Pacific.
Undeterred, the Council quickly passed a more limited Sitting Ban (6′ from buildings).
Essentially rubbberstamping and ratifying illegal police behavior that selectively enforced and arbitrarily expanded the Ban, the Council gradually expanding it in 2002 (14′ from buildings) to include all manner of other objects that created “No Sitting” zones  (buildings, street corners, intersections, kiosks, drinking fountains, public telephones, public benches, public trash compactors, information/directory signs, sculptures or artwork, ATM-style machines, outside street cafes, vending carts, and fences).
This reduced real Sitting space to less than 5% of the Pacific Avenue sidewalk and constitutes a total ban in other business districts where there are buildings adjoining with a sidewalk less than 10′ wide.
In a successful attempt to split street performers from the homeless people and peaceful panhandlers that were true targets of these laws, the Council agreed to limit “forbidden zones” to 10′ distances from all those objects.
At 3 PM on Tuesday September 24th, City Council (809 Center St.) will broaden its attack to include street performers, street artists, political tablers, & street vendors by expanding the forbidden zones to 14′ and  requiring an additional 12′ distance between all of these.   In addition all “non-free standing” display devices such as blankets and tarps will be banned as an aesthetically unappealing “trip and fall” hazard  (and far too easy to use)
This second reading of the Ordinance if passed will make it law on October 24th.
Perhaps Carol Denney will come down to Santa Cruz to do a little fiddling here.
More info at:  https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/09/12/18743122.php?show_comments=1#18743584 .

Sitting on a Chair Playing the Fiddle: A Crime? The PRC Hearing

Sitting on a Chair Playing the Fiddle

Carol Denney
Sitting on a Chair Playing the Fiddle

Berkeley’s last election had a contest between anti-sitting law proponents and those who opposed making simply sitting down a crime. “Measure S”, the anti-sitting law, was defeated at the ballot. It was considered a civil rights victory. But who really won?

It was the most expensive campaign in Berkeley history. It was funded by well-heeled real estate interests and supported by merchant associations, most of the Berkeley City Council, and the Chamber of Commerce. Criminalizing the simple act of sitting down was described by otherwise intelligent people as a humane response to human need, since living on the streets was so hard.

So can you sit on the street and watch a cloud go by? The results are still not in.

I worked on the campaign opposing the anti-sitting law. A large part of our work was simply educational. Misleading pro-anti-sitting law materials in expensive, shiny colors were everywhere. But once people found out the extremity of the anti-sitting law, they generally opposed it. Most people realized that the law would most probably be used against some people but not others; it’s hard to ignore the Cheeseboard pizza eaters sitting undisturbed by the “Don’t Sit on the Median” signs on Shattuck in North Berkeley.

Two days before the election on Sunday, November 4, 2012, I put poetry opposed to the anti-sitting law from poets all over the Bay Area up on the fence near the corner of Haste and Telegraph and sat down with some musicians to play. We were trying to illustrate that simply sitting on a chair playing music, perfectly legal behavior under the law, would become a crime in two days if Measure S were to pass.
I got a ticket.

Artists were inside the fence perimeter touching up the mural facing Haste Street. People trickled by, enjoying a sunny day. We sat close to the fence, so there was seven feet of unobstructed nine-foot wide sidewalk in front of each of us, more than enough space for two wheelchairs to pass without issue. Our instrument cases were beside or under us, out of the way.

A few people stopped and asked about the “This Is Legal” sign and its significance, but our demonstration was pretty unobtrusive until Berkeley Police Officer Heather Cole rode up on her bicycle. She accused us of obstructing an empty sidewalk, and since I had carefully researched both the ordinance and the best place on Telegraph to make sure to cause no hardship for merchants or passersby, I found it pretty funny.

This wasn’t civil disobedience. This was carefully planned obedience to illustrate the absurd overreach of the proposed anti-sitting proposal. I had checked the law, checked with attorneys, planned every aspect of the demonstration so that no one and no one’s instruments would be jeopardized.
Officer Cole continued to threaten us, arguing that we were in the way despite there being no complaining party. The muralists were amazed. News that someone was getting a ticket for sitting on a chair playing the fiddle traveled fast up and down Telegraph. A reporter snapped pictures for the local paper. A Channel Two news crew began filming.

Officer Cole kept insisting that other people had no right to be on the sidewalk, either. She moved a nearby plein air painter to the curbside and hassled a guy about twenty feet away collecting signatures.

I had heard about this police harassment from friends on the street and people who worked at the Homeless Action Center and the East Bay Community Law Center, but it never occurred to me that an obviously political demonstration would be targeted, especially with Channel Two News cameras running.

We kept playing. Officer Heather Cole kept shouting “I’ll take you to jail if you don’t stop playing,” while we played Soldier’s Joy, a moment which made the news that night. But it was turning into a strange scene. People were shouting at the cops. Two attorneys showed up who tried to explain to Officer Cole that she was misapplying the law. Officer Cole’s supervisor showed up and argued with them. I finally said, fine; give me a ticket, hoping to get back to playing.

But our effort to illustrate legal behavior was in ruins. I still don’t know what Officer Cole’s problem was that day. Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O’Malley dropped the case against me after a couple of court dates.

I filed a complaint with the Police Review Commission which was not sustained. Can you sit on the sidewalk? The law is pretty clear about it, but no one else seems to be. A couple of the police review commissioners asked questions which implied that someone could be accused of obstructing the space one occupies with one’s body, a patent absurdity which, if true, would put us all in jail.

You can’t accidentally block a sidewalk under Berkeley’s law as written and clarified by former Police Chief Meisner’s memos. People can’t be accused of blocking a sidewalk for just being there, or for having a backpack or other personal items beside them, the law makes clear. But the police either don’t realize that or realize it and don’t care what the law actually says or what it was intended to do. The Police Review Commission, the Police Department, the City Council all look the other way as people continue to get these absurd tickets which at some point, if unaddressed, turn into jail time and court costs for which the public picks up the bill.

My ticket cost me at least three days of work, about ten cumulative hours of police officers’ time both in and out of court, court time for several pre-trial dates, and baffled a boatload of reporters, students, and Channel Two News watchers who are probably as confused as I am about why Berkeley would conduct the most expensive campaign in its history against sitting down if it is already against the law.

Is sitting down against the law? Maybe it depends on who you are. The Cheeseboard pizza eaters obviously get a pass. Maybe it depends on whether or not you are demonstrating against something like Measure S, a kind of content-based provision. Or maybe Officer Heather Cole hates traditional old-time music, a kind of fiddle-based objection.

It’s an Alice in Wonderland world up there on Telegraph. The hookah smoking caterpillar can’t figure it out, and neither can I. The muralists painted me into the mural after that day, for which, I suppose, I should thank Officer Heather Cole.

Say No to Stupid Laws Sunday 1:30 PM Downtown Santa Cruz at Pacific near Soquel [1 Attachment]

Posted on by

CUT AND PASTE VERSION OF THE LATEST FLYER:

SAVE VIBRANT STREET LIFE DOWNTOWN !

PROTEST, CHOW-DOWN, AND SPEAKOUT !

SUNDAY SEPTEMBER 22nd 1:30 PM

on Pacific Avenue in front of Forever Twenty-One

SING BACK AT CITY COUNCIL

TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 24th 3 PM

Council Chambers 809 Center St.

In a disguised attack on the entire non-commercial street scene, City Council will vote to restrict still further the very limited public space currently allowed the community downtown. Under the guise of health concerns, reducing congestion, and preventing a “trip-and-fall” hazard (none of which is documented), the reactionary new laws crowd street performers, vendors, homeless people,tablers, local residents, & tourists together. This willclassify95% of the sidewalk as sterile “forbidden zones” with no resting, vending, or performing. This attack on street counter-culture has nothing to do with “bad behavior.” It’s about “bigot aesthetics”-& homeless cleansing clearing away visible poverty, traditional Santa Cruz diversity, and political activism. Council staff tookno input from those targeted. They provided no info on the costs of current selective enforcement, nor stats of real problems.This merchant monopolization of sidewalk space is part of a broader “drive the homeless away” agenda.

THE NEW LAWS AS AMENDED
+++ Extends the Smoking Ban to the side streets one block in either direction from Pacific Avenue, including all alleys & side streets & to to all surface parking lots between Laurel Street & Water St. perhaps private parking lots as well. Ignores that current law already bans smoking 25′ from a door or window in the side streets.
+++Bans tarps & blankets now used to display jewelry, artwork, political fliers, etc. and requires all devices on the sidewalk to be “free-standing”. This okays guitar cases and cups, but arguably makes backpacks and anything placed perpendicular to the sidewalk “display devices” requiring a 12′ distance from the next “device”.
+++ Reducestotal allowed space to 4′ X 4′ area which now includestable, musical instruments, chair,people & personal possessions—making playing without a special permit difficult if not impossible.
+++ Requires 12′ distance between display devices, isolating performers and forcing away other vendors.

+++ Reducestotal available space 4/5 to exclude 95% of the sidewalk by expanding the “forbidden zones” to 14′ from buildings, street corners, intersections, kiosks, drinking fountains, public telephones, public benches, public trash containers, information/directory signs, sculptures or artwork, ATM-style machines, outside street cafes, vending carts, and fences. This bans sitting on any sidewalk that is narrower than 14′ (no sidewalk use in other business districts at all if buildings adjoin).

+++ In conjunction with Santa Cruz’s unique “Move Along Every Hour” law, police can then ban individuals from any one spot for 24 hours & require them to move 100′–further reducing “legal” spots.

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

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

DOWNTOWN FOR ALL ! NOT JUST THE RICH, CONSERVATIVE, & FEARFUL
+++ Use your video phone to capture evidence of authorities harassing the public on the streets downtown. Post on You-Tube and www.indybay.org/santacruz . Send them to HUFF (rnorse3@hotmail.com ); pass on links.

+++ E-mail City Council at citycouncil [at] cityofsantacruz.com .and demand these ordinances be reviewed for cost, effectiveness, impact, and unintended consequences. Send them back to citizen committees for public input.
+++ Spread opposition; Write local papers; Use Facebook & Twitter;. Ordinances become final a month after a 2nd vote in two weeks (October 24)Support businesses who oppose, publicize those who don’t.
+++ Post your own accounts of discrimination downtown. The Coffee Roasting Company, Verve, & Starbucksrefused service tohomelesspeople with backpacks;CruzioWorksrefused 24-hour service tohomeless Dan Madison.
+++ Come to City Council 3 PM September 24th to oppose the 2nd Vote on these laws!
+++ Witness & support other street performers & streetfolk when they face harassment from authorities.
+++ Get familiar with the Downtown Ordinances, often misquoted by police and hosts. Copies available through HUFF (Wednesdays 11 AM, Sub Rosa Cafe 703 Pacific) & soon at the Sub Rosa Cafe (703 Pacific).
+++ Prepare to sustain a long struggle by documenting police and merchant behavior regularly, organizing solidarity between vendors, activists, and others seeking to use the public space. Report harassment accurately.

 

Flier by Norse of HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom) 831-423-4833 www.huffsantacruz.org9-19-13

Attachment(s) from Robert Norse

1 of 1 File(s)

Playing Pattycake with Crime Stats in Santa Cruz

Posted on by

NOTE BY NORSE:  My comments are below.

Ramping up hysteria against “the crime wave” seems to be SC Patch’s Brad Kava’s favorite dish.

I see this kind of hysteria being turned to target homeless people–who are far more often victims of crime.

Even worse  is te offiicially-sanctioned and funded criminal practices such as destruction of homeless property, abusive ticketing for life-sustaining activity, and discriminatory treatment in coffee shops (Coffee Roasting Company, Starbucks, Verve), grocieries (New Leaf Market), other businesses (CruzioWorks), and public facilities (parks, the library, City Hall) not to mention exclusion from the Boardwalk for appearance.

Santa Cruz Crime is Worst in the County

Check the comparison to other county cities here.

Posted by Brad Kava (Editor) , September 18, 2013 at 06:53 PM
patch

Property crimes in Santa Cruz took a big bite in 2012, according to recent FBI statistics for the year. There were 59 cases of theft or burglary for every 1,000 people in the city of 61,000 people.

There were three murders in the city; 433 violent crimes; 34 rapes; 83 robberies; 313 assaults; and 3,585 property crimes.

For comparison in 2012 Watsonville had a violent crime rate of 4.8 known offenses per 1,000 residents. Santa Cruz reported a higher violent crime rate: 7.1. Capitola’s violent crime rate was similar to Watsonville’s, at 4.6 known offenses per 1,000 people.

The FBI releases annual reports here every year. See current Santa Cruz crimes here.

For Brad Kava’s “Crime Chart” go to http://santacruz.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/santa-cruz-crime-is-up-watsonville-is-lower?ncid=newsltuspatc00000010 .

Robert Norse September 19, 2013 at 11:38 AM
As with the hysteria roused by Take Back Santa Cruz and The Clean Team in their destructive and agenda-heavy Needle-Shaking before City Council, this comparison ignores a more crucial analysis as to whether crime has increased from a decade or two ago.

When I spoke with Chief Kevin Vogel at City Council a few months back, he denied this. Now, there may be a certain cosmetic or defensive element involved there, but I’ve not seen stats indicating a rise in crime in Santa Cruz.

Which gos to whether this is all a “crisis”–the claim of the Comstock-Robinson majority on City Council. This mythology justifies the escalating scapegoating attacks on homeless people, the paranoid police state mentality and the absurd and misnamed “Public Safety Task Force”.

The Task Force seems designed to lay the groundwork for the favorite NIMBY/Downtown Association mythology–that Santa Cruz is too welcoming to hippies, travelers, and homeless people. The crime scare mythology (pushed regularly by the Sentinel) seems designed to create the rationale for further (futile and abusive) crackdowns on homeless people.

I’m sorry Brad and SC Patch have bought on to this calculated b.s., which is the kind of right-wing nonsense that feeds a crypto-fascist populist agenda.

It is, of course, the criminal behavior of the rich and the powerful (we can see this most clearly at the national level) that needs to be fought not economic fall-out like survival sleeping bt poor Santa Cruzans driven to the edge.

Brad Kava (Editor) September 19, 2013 at 08:55 PM
Robert…Don’t the numbers speak for themselves? And if you break them down further, you’ll find this isn’t happening to everyone in town, but a lot of the same people are causing the problems, many of them transients. Simple numbers show this. No opinion or spin needed.
Brad Kava (Editor) September 19, 2013 at 08:55 PM
Plus, for all the heat Watsonville gets, it’s numbers are considerably lower than those in Santa Cruz.
Brad Kava (Editor) September 19, 2013 at 08:56 PM
As for paragraphs..requested and waiting. Need to think in short bites.
Andi Sanchez September 19, 2013 at 10:36 PM
It’s beyond “just numbers” and “city council propaganda”. It’s CLEAR that transient crime has increased. We can all still have immense sympathy for the homeless while being incredibly angry at crime. Robert Norse, whose work I admire except when his blinders are on, is misguided here. And “right wing” just because we are concerned about the significant and measurable increase in violent and personal property crime? Robert, that is just so lame. You lost me.
Perhaps Brad can provide us with property crime stats. And not just comparisons with other cities, but with Santa Cruz at points in the past.

It’s true and infuriating that bike theft has increased. And as for “homeless crime”, it, of course, depends on your definition.

If you’re a member of the ludicrous “Task Force on Public Safety”, it looks like sleeping, camping, drug possession, trespass, violating the Downtown Ordinances, etc. are the kind of “crime” you’re interested in using as a pretext to drive homeless people away.

If you have sympathy for the homeless, then look at real crime not defining the homeless as criminals because of their real needs. I notice the property stats are missing even in comparison with other cities.

Also, none of those cities have two college campuses, a massive Beach Boardwalk, and a status as County Seat to contend with. Minor details, of course. We don’t want to interrupt the “War on Crime” narrative, now do we?

My sarcasm is directed at Brad Kava not at Andi Sanchez, incidentally. Kava’s been playing police PR sock puppet for some time. Sorry, Brad, but it’s true.