Category Archives: Bathrobespierre’s Broadsides Radio Show

Santa Cruz Library Board Votes On Sleeping Ban Tonight

Posted on by
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/03/04/18733085.php

Sleeping Ban Back For All Santa Cruz Libraries: Decision Tonight in Aptos
by Robert Norse ( rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com )
Monday Mar 4th, 2013 9:33 AM

The Library Joint Powers Authorities Board meets tonight (Monday March 4th) at the Aptos Public Library at 7695 Soquel Drive to give another tool to the Homeless Haters.

Item 8F on the Agenda of the Library Joint Powers Authority Board is a deepening and darkening of the Patron Code of Conduct and Suspension Policy Update to reestablish a clear Sleeping Ban in all public libraries in Santa Cruz and the surrounding county.

MORE TOOLS IN SEARCH OF VICTIMS
The Agenda is posted at http://www.santacruzpl.org/media/pdf/ljpb/20130304_agenda.pdf . The relevant pages are 26-28.

There are no complaints on file as far as I can determine in the current monthly update of problems involving people sleeping in the library (pp. 45-48, 54-55). There are two complaints of people sleeping in the library parking lot (presumably the one in the back of the library) with their stuff “spread out”. It seems unclear why there is a need to make rules harsher in what has been one of the few remaining legal public places for homeless people to be unmolested.

A story on an Iowa library banning sleeping (pp. 49-50) has the usual omission of whether city law bans homeless people sleeping in public places generally–which Santa Cruz law does–and whether it has utterly inadequate shelter space (ditto with Santa Cruz).

Recently Berkeley has adopted a similar NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) policy regarding bringing property into the library (necessary for homeless people who have no place to store their stuff and need to bring it with them). See http://www.berkeleyside.com/2013/01/02/has-it-gotten-harder-to-be-homeless-in-berkeley/ and the comments that follow.

Currently if someone is blocking the stacks, or snoring, or impeding traffic through being sprawled out, all these issues can be (and presumably have been) addressed without sending around the “sleep police”. There’s currently a burly First Alarm Security guard who has been patrolling the library and surrounding grounds who creates what some regard as an intimidating presence (in all candor, some don’t).

EXTINGUISHING THE LIBRARY AS A SHADOW OF A SANCTUARY
In an unexpected pushback against the county-wide attack on homeless people (ranging from destruction of campsites to crackdowns on Pacific Avenue), the Board voted 5-4 in early December to specifically delete the Sleeping Ban from library policy. With nasty changes in personnel (MacPherson, Friend, Mathews, to name only a few), the blast of bigotry is chilling.

While the language seems genteel (“Refrain from sleeping in the library”), it is backed by a Draconian Policy of Enforcing Suspension.

That policy, made much harsher late last year, specifies that First Violation results in a reading of the rules, 2nd Violation a 1-day suspension, 3rd Violation a 30-day suspension, and 4th Violation up to 6 months. No formal hearing process for anything under 31-days (appeal to the mercy of Teresa Landers, the woman who pushed these policies). Even more telling, in all cases, a person so charged has only 1-day to file a written request for an appeal, or the appeal will not be considered. (See p. 31 E, 7: “To submit a written appeal, the patron must complete the “Appeal of 30-Day Suspension” document. The patron must return the completed form to the suspending library within one working day from the date the suspension is issued.”).

None of the incident reports are actually included in the Agenda. It took me over a month to get past such reports with a Public Records Act request.

There are no exceptions for children falling asleep. The law provides broad opportunity to be selectively enforced–either based on the desires of the staff to be “dutiful”, but also the prejudices of certain library users who want to “clean up” the library.

This looks like a slamdunk for the Bigot Bunch, but e-mail them anyway:

LINE-UP OF PERPETRATORS

Contact the following Board members

Citizen Dick English
117 Union Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Home: 831-539-3299 rpenglish [at] sbcglobal.net

Citizen Martha Dexter
117 Union Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Home: 831-600-8834 mmdexter [at] gmail.com

Citizen Nancy Gerdt
117 Union Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Home: 831-335-3130 ngerdt45 [at] gmail.com

Councilmember Cynthia Mathews
City of Santa Cruz
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Office: 831-420-5020
Fax: 831-420-5011 cmathews [at] cityofsantacruz.com

Councilmember David Terrazas Chair
City of Santa Cruz
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Office: 831-420-5020
Fax: 831-420-5011 dterrazas [at] cityofsantacruz.com

Councilmember Jim Reed
225 Navigator Drive
Scotts Valley, CA 95066 Home: 831-461-0222 jimreedsv [at] gmail.com

Councilmember Michael Termini
Vice Chair
City of Capitola
420 Capitola Avenue
Capitola, CA 95010 Office: 831-476-6206 michael [at] triadelectric.com

Supervisor Bruce McPherson
County of Santa Cruz
701 Ocean Street, Room 500
Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Office: 831-454-2200
Fax: 831-454-3262 bruce.mcpherson [at] co.santa-cruz.ca.us

Supervisor Zach Friend
701 Ocean Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Office: 831-454-2200
Fax: 831-454-3262 zach.friend [at] co.santa-cruz.ca.us

THE STRUGGLE CONTINUES
More background on this struggle can be found at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/12/29/18729056.php (“Lost in Lander’s Library Labyrinth…” and http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/11/30/18726836.php (“Library to Consider Restrictive New Policies”).

There will be a meeting noon tomorrow at Laurel Park next to Louden Nelson Center (Tuesday March 5th) to discuss a Sanctuary Campground for the homeless. A second meeting on the subject will take place the next day at the Sub Rosa Cafe (703 Pacific) at noon after the HUFF meeting (10 AM to noon).

Responding to the Destruction of Homeless Survival Camps in Santa Cruz

Posted on by
“Less is More” Leslie responds to an anti-homeless article from the Boulder Creek Bulletin  titled “Local Environment Gets Impacted by Homeless in SLV [San Lorenzo Valley]; Law Enforcement Sweeps Shanti Towns & Encampments”.

The original article is posted at http://www.mountainbulletin.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Issue_2_Vol_2_BC_Bulletin.pdf  (pp. 1 & 3).

Leslie’s reaction:


What Kind of Community Do We Have?

Perusing the very local newspaper produced in Boulder Creek, my ire was aroused by a top of the page headline on the trash produced by “the homeless” in the community.  I am moved to ask, “What kind of community do we have here in the San Lorenzo Valley?  Does it only care about trash, or does it care about people?”

I want to try to tell my homeless neighbors up in the redwood forest here that they are not alone.  Not everyone wants them to disappear without a trace.  In my small circle of acquaintances in town, one had a family living in a motor home in their back yard, and another was helping his son “get back on his feet” after a car accident by having him live on his property in a small outbuilding.  We have folks who need a little help, and we have compassionate community members helping them by offering them a place to sleep at night.  We have church and community programs helping in organized programs as well.

Providers of homeless services have been promoting a new vision of service for the people that need the most help: permanent supportive housing for those chronic homeless, many of whom have untreated mental health issues or substance dependencies or both.  Many people support this model of providing help, but it is more expensive than another model that homeless advocates are now discussing.  If there were enough community support, either through charities, government, or private entrepreneurship, this community could house people in a campground where trash could be collected, sanitary facilities provided, and a sense of interdependency could be created, with peers helping peers.  Other communities have found that this helps people “get back on their feet.”

Currently, we have many paths leading nowhere.  People sleep in their cars.  People sleep in the woods.  Those who have drawn attention to the problem in creative non-violent political protest have been sent to jail or fined.  A fraction of the homeless population are sheltered at night in the city of Santa Cruz, another fraction in spare bedrooms and backyards all over the county.  The community can do better by coming together, finding those that agree with our project, creating new partnerships amongst those that are already caring for people in need, listening to our critical rivals, and finally by taking action.

Occupy Santa Cruz will be discussing a “Sanctuary Camp” this Saturday in front of the downtown Santa Cruz Post Office.  You may meet at 4 PM for a vegan meal shared by Santa Cruz Food Not Bombs, and stay for the General Assembly at 5:30 PM.  Decisions are made through a consensus process open to all.  I look forward to seeing you there.

NOTE BY NORSE:  A follow-up meeting will be held Tuesday March 5 at noon in Laurel Park next to Louden Nelson Center and another meeting noon Wednesday March 6 at the Sub Rosa Cafe at 703 Pacific Ave.–both locations in downtown Santa Cruz.

HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom) meets 2-6 10 AM to noon at the Sub Rosa as well.

Encampments in Operation–Fresno-style

Posted on by
NOTES FROM NORSE:

The City of Fresno, though also attacking homeless encampments, has also been set back by successful lawsuits.  Plus the sheer volume of homeless people setting up camp in these houseless times because they have to.  In response Mike Rhodes and the Fresno Homeless Alliance has been providing TP and dumpsters as well as servicing to deal with the public health crisis that the City will not.  Santa Cruz activists, contemplating encampments here, might cast an eye Fresno-wise.

To: (lots of folks)
From: MikeRhodes@comcast.net
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 17:01:50 -0800
Subject: [FresnoHomelessAdvocates] We are out of TP

This afternoon I delivered the last 30 rolls of donated toilet paper to the homeless encampments in downtown Fresno.  As you may know, we have seven portable toilets in 4 different encampments and they go through a lot of TP.  I have hired a homeless guy to supply each of the portable toilets with TP each day.  He puts 3 rolls in a locked dispenser and keeps the portable toilets free of clothing and other trash.  It is really working out great, except that now we are completely out of TP. 
If you can help, please drop off packages of TP to my office at the Fresno Center for Nonviolence, 1584 N Van Ness (on the southeast corner of Van Ness and McKinley).  We are open Monday – Friday from 11 a.m. – 3 p.m.  You can also call the center at 237-3223 – Richard Gomez is often there before or after regular hours (and weekends) and can let you in to drop off the TP.
Alternatively, you can send a check to The Eco Village Project of Fresno, C/O Mike Rhodes, 4773 N Arthur Ave, Fresno Ca 93705 and we can buy TP in bulk at wholesale prices.  Either way works, but we need to do something soon.
Also, we have placed a couple of large trash bins at 2 of the homeless encampments and that is helping to keep them a lot cleaner.  Again, I’m hiring homeless people to do the difficult work of clearing the garbage from the encampments and putting it into the dumpsters.  This has been going on for a couple of weeks now and you can see a big difference in the encampments where we have located the trash bins.  You can help support this effort by sending a check to the above address.
Mike Rhodes
Editor
Community Alliance Newspaper
PO Box 5077
Fresno Ca 93755
(559) 978-4502 (cell)
(559) 226-3962 (fax)
editor@fresnoalliance.com
www.fresnoalliance.com

San Jose plans cleanup of homeless encampment that’s grown to 100 residents – San Jose Mercury News

Posted on by

NOTE FROM NORSE:  By “cleanup”, of course, the San Jose Mercury News and the San Jose Police Department mask the darker reality: the destruction of homeless survival camps.  City authorities provide no alternatives, but simply destroy protective structures, confiscate survival gear, and drive people out of a protective community.

Homeless survival is apparently an “eyesore” to some, but that doesn’t amount to a public health or safety problem–which is the real issue.

It’s amazing how baldly brutal the statements by public officials are, candidly talking about “fences” and “keeping them out” and citing the needs of tourists and airport customers to a sunny view on their drive to and from San Jose.

Another bit of hypocritical window-dressing is the 1000 Homes Campaign program (somewhat similar to Santa Cruz’s 180/180 figleaf, which seeks to provide shelter (actually to lessen the financial cost) of a small percentage of the most visible and intractable homeless folks.

Prior “destroy the encampment” programs in other cities at least would make token efforts to provide temporary shelter for the folks they were displacing (usually for a few days).   Authorities apparently feel more shameless these days in the absence of strong protests.

Perhaps CHAM (The San Jose Community Homeless Alliance Ministry) or the Occupy San Jose movement will do  some documenting of this massive attack on poor people.

San Jose plans cleanup of homeless encampment that’s grown to 100 residents

By Carol Rosen, Correspondent
Posted:   02/28/2013 08:01:47 PM PST
Updated:   02/28/2013 08:01:47 PM PST
A homeless encampment on Spring Street near the Mineta San Jose airport has been targeted for a full cleanup during the week of March 4. Cleanup of the site will include removing trash and debris, eliminating all structures and storing all property and belongings for 90 days.

The site has become an eyesore, according to city officials, who report that the camp started with a few tents and tarps but grew to more than 100 residents in about a month. In early January, Caltrans cleaned up a camp on the Guadalupe River north of Coleman Avenue. The people living there joined what at the time was a small homeless camp on Spring Street’s undeveloped parkland, adding tents and tarps, fire pits and other semi-permanent structures.

One of those structures was built on a plastic-covered mattress to keep cold and wet out of the tent, according to a local news program. As more homeless moved in, groups that reach out to the homeless brought them food, clothing and other items to make those living there as comfortable as possible.

The city is concerned not only for the welfare of those living in the encampment, but also because it is visible from passing cars, and by business people and tourists flying into Mineta San Jose airport.

The city in mid-February began notifying the camp’s residents that a cleanup would take place within 30 days.

The city’s housing department, in conjunction with Parks, Recreation and Neighborhood Services,

the police department and environmental services are involved in the cleanup. At the beginning of the week the city will issue a warning, followed 72 hours later by the cleanup, which is estimated will take one or two days. The four departments also will coordinate with outside contractors including the Conservation Corps for trash and debris removal, Santa Clara County household hazardous waste and Tucker Construction to remove the structures.Typically, once a camp has been cleaned up, the homeless drift back, sometimes within hours. This time the housing department plans to keep them out.

“There are a number of possible deterrent options that we’re evaluating at this time,” Ray Branson, homeless encampment project manager, said in an interview.

The police are committed to respond to the site on an as-needed basis, but other options include hiring a security company or using the city’s park rangers to patrol.

While numbers from the 2013 homeless census, taken in January, are not yet available, the census two years ago estimated about 18,000 live on the streets or in encampments, according to Branson. This continual challenge to the San Jose community has resulted in a long-term plan to slowly but eventually get people off the streets.

San Jose’s 1,000 Homes Campaign is working to get the 1,000 most vulnerable homeless into permanent homes. Homeless people will be interviewed as to the length of time they’ve been on the streets, their age, physical illnesses or disabilities and mental health. Those determined to be most vulnerable will be moved into homes and given a case manager to follow their progress.

The city is finding help for the program with Destination Home and local nonprofit groups. “We won’t have an answer that will end homelessness in a month or a year, but in the long run we believe our work will yield positive results,” Branson said.

An encampment in San Jose Council District 9 on the Guadalupe River is on the priority list for the program, according to Branson. While the first step will be Spring Street, other areas will follow. As the camps are cleaned up, deterrents, such as access barriers, fences and an on-site security presence, will be used to keep the homeless out.

“We’re not just picking up trash and letting [the people who were living here] come back; we’re hoping to utilize barriers to keep them out. The goal of our program is to have a long-term impact for the community,” Branson said.
At the same time, the project is working to create housing units so the homeless won’t have to camp out. Options include looking at different methods of developing units, ordinance modifications for existing units, master leasing and developing housing and policy methods to add housing units to the community, Branson added.

“The key issue is for the city to make positive progress. This is a complex problem and there’s no question this is a tragedy that hits everyone.”

Talk Back at Looney Bigotry Showcased as Angry “Activism”

Posted on by
A drumbeat of right-wing vitriol is now being lionized in the media.  Ken “Skin-Dog” Collins has his guts in the right place but his head in a tv show starring citizen cops and homeless villains.

My reaction to the Santa Cruz Weekly article below:

”

Cleaning up trash is one thing, talking trash and treating people like trash is another.




Recognizing politicians ducking issues and holding them to account is one thing, pressing a


violent senseless Drug War is another.



Calling for the resignation of powerful top-salary institutional bureaucrats like Martin Bernal is



one thing, calling for a search-and-destroy policy against homeless people destroying



homeless services and bulldozing homeless camps–is another.



Step back and consider who the real culprits are as the war, surveillance, and bankster


economy crushes us all.

Santa Cruz’s Angriest Man

Big-wave surfer Ken Collins has become a public-safety activist and controversial figure

Ken Collins, a Santa Cruz big-wave surfer turned controversial activist, talks to an officer while cleaning up at Harvey West.

Ken Collins has been talking nonstop for fifteen minutes. His voice is getting hoarse, and the cold he fought off a day earlier sounds like it’s coming back. “This is a small surf city with big city problems. It should never have gotten this bad,” he says, sitting at a picnic table about thirty yards from the Harvey West Park woods where he played hide-and-seek as a kid. These days, Collins wouldn’t let his children on the playground.
Collins has with him an empty plastic milk carton of cigarette butts and used syringes he found on the ground. When he goes to a city council meeting, he brings the same carton with him, and shakes it like a rattle in between public commenters.
Collins, better known as “Skindog” to the extreme sports world, is one of the world’s premiere big-wave surfers. He competed in the Mavericks Surf Competition last month—and from the looks of it, probably hasn’t smiled since. Collins took up this local cause after a long Tuesday walk in November when he and about 20 others found a bunch of trash on the railroad tracks and stormed into the city council chambers to give the politicians an earful.
Collins isn’t the only person angry about used needles and homeless addicts around Pogonip City Park, the San Lorenzo River and Cowell Beach, which ranked as the worst beach in California last year. But he might be the most

“Santa Cruz is a supermodel with AIDS,” he says. “It’s this beautiful place that’s completely diseased.”
Collins calls the Homeless Services Center a “crack house.” (HSC director Monica Martinez says the shelters have a no-drug policy.) He says the city manager should be fired for failing to address Santa Cruz’s public safety, and accuses city councilmembers of not doing their jobs, even though two of them began their first terms less than two months ago. Collins is a little short on patience.
Volunteers Craig Lambert and Gary Young are working nearby in the Harvey West’s baseball field to build a batting cage. Last season, the two men, both of them fathers, showed up early before little league games to clean trash off the field. They say someone has to do what Collins is doing.
“When I was a kid,” Young says, “we’d play outside until we got hungry and come home for dinner. You can’t let your kids play out until dark anymore. You have to practically drive them everywhere.”
It’s tough to deny that Collins, regardless of what anyone thinks of what he spouts, embodies the frustration that erupted after fellow surfer Dylan Greiner made a YouTube video in November about three tons of trash in the caves near Cowell Beach.
Collins says he’s not just harping on problems, but also has solutions. He suggests the city build public restrooms with surveillance cameras out front, while also hiring a ten-member group to pick up trash and a four-member team of police officers with all-terrain vehicles and horses to “harass” homeless people and chase drug dealers out of town. The city is looking at healthy reserves for the first time in years, and Santa Cruz might hire new cops, but plans like Collins’ would be no small expense for a city.
“There are good homeless people,” Collins says. “I have compassion for the homeless people that are down on their luck and need help, and they’re seeking help. But there are junkies who use the homeless population to hide themselves and camouflage themselves to do their dirty seedy work.”
There’s no evidence that Santa Cruz’s recent high-profile crimes—two shootings, a grocery-store robbery, and a rape at UCSC—were committed by homeless people. But Santa Cruz Police Captain Steve Clark says a “playful attitude” about drug use has plagued Santa Cruz for years, and leads to more crime.
At a recent city council meeting, councilmember Don Lane cautioned against dividing homeless people into different camps.
“Those are all people who are homeless, and they may have different needs, and the community may want to deal with them differently, but we do need to deal with them,” Lane said at the Feb. 12 meeting. “The fact that someone’s homeless and a drug addict does not make them a non-human being in our community. And we need to deal with those folks in a constructive way, too.”
“Skindog” is not backing down. “My approach has been very aggressive. I’m very aggressive,” he says. “I don’t pussyfoot around this. I don’t tread lightly trying to be polite, because that’s not going to work.”

RESPOND TO THIS MISPLACED AGGRESSION WITH YOUR OWN COMMENT AT

Responding to Councilmember Posner on Today’s Council Meeting

Posted on by
To: Rnorse3@hotmail.com
Subject: UCSC Expansion, Cars on the Beach, Needle Exchange, & Public Safety
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 00:08:57 -0800
From: micahposner@cruzio.com

On the agenda: UCSC Expansion, Cars on the Beach, Needle Exchange, & Public Safety
Dear Constituents,
City Council continues to be a fascinating learning experience for me and each agenda item is merely a window into a complex intersection of institutional efficiencies and community priorities.

Cars on the Beach
This week, item number 18 of the 3PM session is a proposal from staff to amend the city’s ordinance governing automobile use on the city’s parks and beaches. The proposal would legalize the expansion of the use of automobiles beyond emergency and maintenance vehicles to “any vehicle under contract with the city”. Those of us who walk and ride the levee path and beaches have noticed a significant increase of automobile traffic in these “car free” places, much of which is comprised of private First Alarm Security Guards patrolling from within their trucks. Now folks have the opportunity to comment on whether or not this is appropriate. If you do or do not want First Alarm and other folks trucking around the parks and beaches, please send the city council an email before Tuesday at 9:00 AM to citycouncil@cityofsantacruz .com or show up at the meeting at 809 Center Street. Number 18 will be heard as early as 3:30PM.
UCSC Expansion
Perhaps the most fascinating thing to be discussed on Tuesday will occur in closed session but the public is still welcome to weigh in on it. At 1:30 PM, on Tuesday, the council will talk about it’s ongoing case with the Habitat and Watershed Caretakers. According to the Santa Cruz Sentinel, this is in regard to the fact that a citizen’s group (Habitat and Watershed Caretakers) recently successfully won a lawsuit against the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that the City filed on behalf of the University to expand city water and sewage ‘sphere of influence’ into the upper campus of UCSC. Should the city continue to spend money and staff time to attempt to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court? Should we redo the EIR to include the alternative that UCSC could expand into upper campus without increasing its overall water use? Or drop the whole thing and risk undermining the part of the settlement agreement with the city requiring the University to house at least 2/3 of their students?
Needle Exchange
What isn’t directly on the agenda is the atmosphere of fear around public safety in our city, fueled by Take Back Santa Cruz. At the last City Council meeting on Feb 12th, the council took action on a series of public safety recommendations, including a conversation on our local needle exchange program, which is run by volunteers. Everyone agrees that this program could use more oversight and support from the county health department, but some people seemed to blame the program itself for the scary proliferation of used needles around town, and were trying to insure that the needle exchange lose its ability to operate in the city.  After a week of intense study, I learned that needle exchanges are, in fact, our best chance of properly disposing of used needles and that the proliferation of needles is more likely caused by drug stores selling needles for 60 cents each without a prescription and having no obvious place to dispose of the dirty ones. At the end of the day (literally), Cynthia Mathews made a motion for the county health services staff to come up with a needle exchange proposal to include operation within the city which passed unanimously. While the Council still has to approve a location for the exchange and is sure to get opposition in doing so, the motion represented a victory of reason and sound policy over fear based perceptions.
Other Thoughts on Public Safety
While we can all appreciate the energy that folks are putting into public safety right now, it is important that we use our best thinking and best research when trying to improve the situation, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts and proposals on how to do so.
PS: There are many excellent events being organized to promote Public Safety at present. One of them is being organized (in part) by my ex-campaign manger Jacqueline Seydel. Below is the information:

March and rally to counteract the acceptance of rape culture.
Noon on March 8th- International Woman’s Day
Meet at the Quarry Plaza at UCSC for speakers, followed by a march to town.

Please contact me anytime. I work for you.

You are receiving this email because you are a member of Micah for SC City Council. Click here to modify your email subscription options. For other information, please visit our website.


Council member Posner:

Here are a few concerns regarding your e-mail to constituents.

1.  I notice you did not send it to me from the City Council address, yet you are suggesting people respond to that address.  Which do you prefer?  Are e-mails on city business being saved so they can be made accessible to Public Records Act requests?  Will you please request specific information (currently being withheld) on which City Council members are using private accounts to store (and/or delete) correspondence on City Business?

2.  Re: #18 specifically.   Please make a staff request to get information regarding citations, stops, and costs of city-authorized vehicles on the levee in the last two months. How frequently do they patrol?  What specific “public safety hazards” have they found?  Ask for particulars, not general comments about drugs, loitering, camping.   Ask how much property has been confiscated on the levee.  How much thrown away?

3. UCSC expansion:  What are the enforcement provisions for UCSC’s promise to provide 2/3 of the student housing ?  Wasn’t the same promise made several decades ago and then violated without consequence?  What’s your position on the questions you raise?

4. Council’s cave-in in response to Needle Hysteria:  Are you actually suggesting there is any credibility to the Drug War Prohibitionist claim that needle exchange needs “more oversight”? If so, what particular acts or omissions of the last four years require that?   

5.  I renew my request that you ask for police stats around the Barson St. site during needle exchange times for the last three months to indicate (a) whether any reports of needles were found there, (b) whether there was any increase in actual crimes there, and (c) how many needle-stick reports have been made to the SCPD and other agencies in the last 5 years.

6/ Please also ask whether city authorities have a specific needle clean-up program, how often it operates, how much funding it gets, and whether that funding has increased or diminished in the last decade. 

It continues to enrage me that you and other Council members responded to a panic attack by creating a public safety hazard with the shut down of the Barson St. needle exchange.  This was done behind-closed-doors with no public input in a decision you have neither publicly renounced or even criticized.  (If you have done so since in any public statements, please advise me.)

    I believe obtaining the information requested above may be helpful to assess the accuracy of the picture Take Back Santa Cruz, the Clean Team, and their right-wing allies on the Council painted in the last few months.  It may in some small measure ameliorate the damage City Council has done through the City Attorney.

    Thanks for this your constituent letter and for  trying to broaden your public outreach.

Where can the “restore needle exchange in the City” petition can be accessed in hard copy?  I’d suggest you also put out that information to constituents (as well as on-line info) if you are serious about restoring needle exchange in accessible areas and reversing the public health threat the Council has unleashed. 

Robert Norse
(831-423-4833)

Local Civil Liberties Issues

Posted on by
Councilmember Posner:

At the HUFF meeting, members asked you numerous questions.  This is a follow-up to those questions and to my previous e-mails and phone calls as well as your responses.  If you find the number of specific questions daunting–please indicate which of these you will  prioritize.  I believe they are all important and actually only don’t require extensive work on your part.


1  Have any new insulting “Imagine Real Change” meters been set up in the last year?  How much money has actually been generated by these meters since they were put in?   How often were they vandalized and repaired?


2.  What is the response of the City Attorney to your question about whether the SCPD is being advised to respect the White v. City of Sparks decision protecting artists and writers selling their work downtown?  
3.  Please request a staff report on police policies around homeless sweeps–i.e. whether homeless people who they accost  in the middle of the night are given a legal place to go sleep.  Ask for the specific instructions given to beat officers, any written documents or reports around this practice, and how much money and police time is being spent on this.
     Additionally please request a report on property confiscation:  what the policy is, whether survival material found at camps left vacant during the day are stored or destroyed (the latter is what is being reported to me),  how much property is currently in police impound or storage, and how many trucks full of homeless property have been taken to the dump for destruction–by what agency, how frequently, and at what cost?

4.  I’d also like to see a report on the “addresses” of those cited in the downtown core around such ordinances as the Sitting Ban, the Panhandling Ban, and the Performing/Tabling Ban  (where ‘Ban” means severe restriction).  This would go a distance towards indicating whether the chief targets of these laws are homeless or disabled people.   The City, of course, faces legal vulnerability here, which would be a good motivator to halt such practices.

5.  What is the status of your public support for Ammiano’s Homeless Bill of Rights?

6.  Please ask to see the direction given SCPD officers in the downtown core regarding enforcement on MC 5.43.020 (“Move-Along Every Hour if you’re a political tabler, panhandler, artist, or performer”) &  MC 9.50.012 (Sitting Ban).

7..  Are any bikes being delivered to non-profits from the SCPD, either via the Bike Dojo, the Bike Church, or any other mechanism?  The response that this issue is “under discussion”–which has been the City’s line for the last year while poor people via non-profits are being denied bikes is not a helpful one.  Please provide specifics regarding how many bikes have been delivered in the last six months and then passed on as was previously the case at the Bike Church.

Please clarify  when and to whom you have made these information requests and send me a copy in writing of such communications.
Thanks,
Robert Norse

831-423-4833

Clean Needle and Syringe Distribution is a Necessity not a Menace

Posted on by
Penelope Jernberg, a former intern with Santa Cruz needle exchange, is independent of that group now and speaks as a free agent.   She is currently working to decriminalize syrine possession to start operating syringe services in Nevada. I received the following letter from her on Sunday February 17th.

Hi Robert,
First, I would like to address the confusion about “best practices” for syringe access and public health recommendations.  The current recommendations for syringe access are to provide as many unused syringes as possible.  The reason for this is that for each injection a person should be using a new syringe, for every time.  That means if a person injects 4 times a day, they need 4 needles a day, not reusing one.  The health concern for this is that reusing makes the syringe dull, this can tear skin more than needed.  The more pressing reason is that reusing a syringe exposes the syringe to many bacteria, that bacteria is then injected straight into blood or tissue which frequently causes or puts them at higher risk of other health problems such as MRSA (drug resistant staph), necrotizing fasciitis (flesh eating bacteria), and a host of other disease.
This is not even including sharing syringes.  As I’m sure you know sharing syringes is the number one cause of Hepatitis C in our country, which estimates that over 70% of IDU’s (injection drug users) contract it.  This is what fuels me.  I’m not sure at what point any person should be condemned to a slow death of liver failure due to their own preferences.  Some drugs are legal and some are not.  People are prescribed serious opiates by doctors and those that can not get them use heroin, which in its pure form is actually safer and better for your health than fentanyl, morphene, and oxycontin.
To not have access to syringes is the primary reason that people share theirs with others while using drugs. this is not just the first cause of transmission for HCV it is also the third cause of HIV transmission in our country. Another life long and deadly disease.
 The current CDC recommendations are that an IDU use a new syringe for every injection.  That implies they would need as many as they use personally.  To have a one for one policy restricts the amount that an individual has access to at any given time.  If they only have one and the exchange is not open for another two days and they inject five times a day…that’s only simple arithmetic to know they do not have enough to inject safely every time.  The previous exchange at the drop in center had a one for one policy.  I urge those that are against it to think about the repercussions of not giving enough syringes. On a human note, without regards to literature it just makes sense.  I recall on one such occasion working at the drop in center when an individual was trying to get just one needle and I could not give it to him because he did not have one.  He told me he was on his way to the metro to fish one out of the biohazards, likely to contract some disease. Why would we do this to someone just because we don’t agree with a policy?  We as a community condemned him to that because we couldn’t accept a one for one plus program.  This occasion and the many others that were similar broke my heart, and they push me every day to do more research, to try harder, to help those that can not help them selves.
To go back to resources and policy.  There are numerous federally funded studies that prove with significance that one for one is not an effective policy.  The Surgeon General endorses syringe access and the federal government has such loose language for oversight or recommendations that you could throw unused needles out of a window and that would follow federal guidelines.  So when anyone says it does not follow guidelines, I’m curious which ones?  There are none.  http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/guidelines/PDF/SSP-guidanceacc.pdf (a copy of the most up to date federal guidelines) Syringe access has been passed on to state and local governments as a policy, way too large of a policy for a small government to regulate.  When the Santa Cruz City Council first claimed SOS did not have the correct paperwork to operate a syringe access program I can address that: There is NO paperwork, there are no permits, there are very few to no regulations discerning what a syringe access program can and can not do.
Several years ago when I was more involved and helped to establish the exchange we filed an MOU with the HSA that recognized us as a viable program, to this day they support us completely, including following a one for one plus model. During this time I tried to connect with the police department to establish some agreement with them.  What happened was appalling at best.  I tried to have a conversation with Steve Clark who immediately cut me off and suddenly was yelling at me over the phone, thank goodness I did not try to go in there.  I was and still am offended.  This man clearly should not be in a public position as I experienced him loosing his temper in a matter of minutes.  He then went on to say he did not and would not support our program because we did not follow federal guidelines.   Obviously I tried to address the fact that there are NO federal guidelines. He used his same tactic, and barely let me talk.  So, we never established anything with the police department, but boy we tried.
The only grounds that the City Council legitimately has on SOS is that they were operating without consent of the laundromat owner, we also tried to contact him when we first took over, I do not even know who he or she is.
To address discarded syringes: the primary reason people improperly discard their syringes is police harassment.  It is currently legal to posses up to 30 unused syringes and any amount that are containerized.  This has not changed with law enforcement practices.  People are going to jail for possession of paraphernalia laws that no longer exist! For fear of arrest they are throwing them where they can (in general). As my previous anecdote states, I’m sure police practice won’t change since Dick Clark er, Steve Clark won’t even talk about needles without yelling.  I for one hope never to talk to him again.
Finally, to address the current laws, they are both current and correct.  Let me specify a few points of them both.  Pharmacists are allowed to provide up to 30 syringes without a prescription.  http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/aids/Pages/OASAOverview.aspx (law here)
The downsides to this law:
  • Sale is at the discretion of the pharmacist, if you look dirty they probably won’t sell to you
  • The pharmacy has to opt in to selling this to start with
  • syringes cost money, if you need money to get your fix or food more money is hard to get
  • you can only get 30, what if you are exchanging for multiple people and inject frequently.
  • the pharmacist does not provide other works which by sharing also lead to infection
  • the pharmacist does not provide referrals to other services (shelter, food, medical services)
  • the pharmacist most likely does not know health complications specific to IDUs
  • in general, listening and being a non judgmental advocate as SOS volunteers are, is lost in this process

This law is definitely a step in the right direction, but it is no solution.  There are still many limitations to this law.

In regards to the other, yes California legally permits Syringe Access Programs.  This law allows specific counties or jurisdictions to allow Syringe Access Programs in their community when they see fit.  It is still not an oversight law or regulation though, the county or area has to allow it.  Santa Cruz allowed it decades ago, and I do not know the specifics of that. It is my understanding that an MOU is sufficient to allow an SAP to function.
I know this was long, but I have a lot to say about Syringe Access. It is from my experience that what is preventing these programs from functioning to their fullest across the nation is stigma of IDUs and drug use (primarily), a lack of understanding public health, and a lack of better regulation.  There is a lot to overcome before we can rest at night knowing we are preventing HIV or HCV to the best of our abilities.
Robert, thank you for your interest in syringe access and the Santa Cruz program, and for being an advocate. I hope I addressed your questions, please let me know if you have any further questions.  I would like to add that I write this as an individual and with no representation, perhaps only as a student at this point.
Thank You,
Penelope Jernberg
University of Nevada, Reno
MPH Graduate Assistant

From: Robert Norse <rnorse3@hotmail.com>
To: Steve Pleich <spleich@gmail.com>
Cc: David Silva <greensurfer1@netzero.net>; Penelope Jernberg <pjernberg@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 7:21 AM
Subject: Needle Exchange Question

A story in the L.A. Times about the Fresno Needle Exchange attracted my attention after I read this comment on your post at indybay:

Steve…

by Observed

Wednesday Feb 13th, 2013 6:02 PM

…first of all I support needle exchange!

That means a 1 for 1 policy.

Obviously that was the policy of the SC exchange when you were involved. But equally obvious is the fact 1 for 1 is no longer the policy. That has created unintended consequences. Until the exchange is more manageable things need to be put on hold.

Fresno’s experience was that it was not a great idea to operate in or very near homes. Being in a regional park had its problems when used needles started turning up in a children’s play area. While it was likely NOT the fault of the exchange, it was still blamed for the problem. [emphasis mine]

 To its credit, the Fresno took positive steps and so prevented a shutdown. Given its illegal status at the time it would’ve been very easy to justify closing it down completely. The county supervisors were very hostile towards the concept and the city simply looked the other way. The county had prosecuted volunteers in the late 1990s when the exchange operated in the Tower District.

When the used needles turned up, the exchange moved out of the park to a nearby commercial area. That relieved the community concerns and things kept on trucking.

Hopefully the SC exchange can resolve the problems it now faces. It better. Otherwise it may go away completely. That would be likely very unfortunate.

My questions is whether you have heard this was a problem (neighborhood needle exchange resulting in the unsafe disposal of needles nearby) here, in Fresno, or elsewhere ?

I then accessed the following story about Fresno from the L.A. Times

Needle exchange proudly flouts the law

at http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/19/local/la-me-fresno-needles-20110920.

The story includes the following info:

Two bills now on Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk could supersede Fresno’s prohibition on needle exchange. One would let doctors, pharmacists and workers at approved programs provide a limited number of syringes without a prescription. The other would direct the state Department of Public Health to sanction needle exchange when they believe there is a public health risk.

Did these bills pass?

Thanks,

R

Latest Update in the Corrspondence Around the Rights of Street Artists with City Attorney Barisone

Posted on by

NOTE TO ALL:  I’ve just renewed my request to City Attorney John Barisone to clarify what I was told he clarified several years ago when he advised a street artist.  That artist brought him a copy of the White v. City of Sparks decision protecting the right of artists to sell their art on the street without permits, and Barisone reportedly agreed, stopping a potential lawsuit.
However, as mentioned in the earlier e-mail below, police have ramped up their campaign against performers and artists (or those they choose to disfavor), and a clear quick response has become more important.
Please let  me now if you’ve experienced or heard any problems with police/host/security guard harassment downtown for political, cultural, artistic, or musical activity in public spaces.  Give as many specifics as possible (time, date, cops names, conversation involved, citation (if any), place, etc. etc.).

Thanks,

Robert Norse

From: rnorse3@hotmail.com
To: rnorse3@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: City of Sparks v. White
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 11:09:29 -0800

John:   I just received word from the street artist who got the bogus panhandling citation that he wasn’t going to fight it, but would do community service.  However, he also intends to put price tags on his work, given the White v. City of Sparks decision.

Please let me know what your thoughts are before he gets another ticket.

Thanks,

Robert

From: rnorse3@hotmail.com
To: jbarisone@abc-law.com
Subject: RE: City of Sparks v. White
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 08:39:52 -0800

Thanks, John.

From: JBarisone@abc-law.com
To: rnorse3@hotmail.com
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 07:01:01 -0800
Subject: RE: City of Sparks v. White

I haven’t gotten to this yet.

 

From: Robert Norse [mailto:rnorse3@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 7:51 PM
To: John Barisone
Cc: Robin the rightsfinder; Jonathan (!) Gettleman; David Beauvais; lioness@got.net; Ed Frey; J.M. Brown; Alexis of Pier 5; Ricardo Lopez; Joe the strummer; Tom Noddy; Brent Adams; Coral (!!!) Brune; Free; John Malkin
Subject: RE: City of Sparks v. White

 

John:  Did you receive this e-mail?

If so, can you advise me of whether the SCPD current acknowledges and follows the City of Sparks v. White exemption of artists from permits and their right to display price tags on their work.

It’s been nearly a week.  I’m concerned you may have mislaid my e-mail.

Thanks,

R

From: rnorse3@hotmail.com
To: jbarisone@abc-law.com
CC: circulation999now@yahoo.com; jonathangettleman@yahoo.com; davebeau@pacbell.net; lioness@got.net; edwinfrey@hotmail.com; jammbrow@gmail.com; alexis@pier5law.com; riclopez35@yahoo.com; talljar@gmail.com; tnoddy@aol.com; compassionman@hotmail.com; coralbrune@hotmail.com; overthrowproperty@yahoo.com; jsmalkin@hotmail.com
Subject: City of Sparks v. White
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 11:05:27 -0800

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)

Destruction of Local Homeless Survival Camps in Felton: Another Disgraceful Episode

Posted on by

Norse’s Notes:  Instead of ordering that the campsites be cleaned up, the real motivation of the vigilantes and sheriffs seems to be to drive away any and all homeless survival campers.
Too bad no one documented the three truckloads of “trash” with video.  When that was done in Fresno, the City lost a two million dollar lawsuit, and actually had to start at least giving token acknowledgment of state law regarding seized property.
More to the point would be establishing emergency campgrounds for folks who need to be outdoors (95% of whom have no legal shelter).  Even more addressing the underlying conditions that create this crisis.
If folks were serious about clean-up’s, the county would provide portapotties, dumpsters, trashbags, and legalization of clean camps.  If they were serious about ending unsafe needle disposal, they’d take local initiatives to end the insane Drug Prohibition war and at the very least expand (rather than contract) harm-reduction programs like needle exchange.
While it’s always encouraging to see community members getting together to clean-up areas that the city and county decline to address, that must not involve scapegoating a whole class of people.  T.J. Magallanes, who created The Clean Team website, has said and written this repeatedly.  But “Take Back Santa Cruz” type hardliners prefer to use the homeless as a political football here and blame them as a means of attacking a power structure (that deserves to be attacked, incidentally).
Screaming about “tolerance for drugs” and “illegal” homeless camps (when virtually all survival camping is illegal) is just blind bigotry and the kind of desperation that ensues when folks fail to identify the real enemies who run the show.
The KSBW news brief on this suggests the sweeps are “controversial” only in that they “aren’t effective” and folks seem to keep coming back.  Sort of reminds me of the homeless = vermin approach, used to describe insurgents, terrorists, 1930’s Jews, etc.  Dehumanizing people is a nice way of covering your fascist ass.
It’s also a pity that the “service providers” in the area didn’t speak out against this destruction of homeless survival camps.  Maintaining the illusion that there are shelter alternatives when there are not.  The sheriffs don’t even pretend there are.  And won’t be even if the pretty-pretty 180-180 program gets fully funded.
There are thousands of homeless in the county.  Is the plan to drive them all out into the rain and make them internal refugees?
I wrote more in the comments that follow this article, which is primarily window-dressing for the sheriffs and demonization of the campers, though as of yet those comments haven’t appeared (other than one brief sentence).  See http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/rss/ci_22545061?source=rss for more comments and to make your own.  Or comment on this article on the HUFF blog at http://huffsantacruz.org/wordpress/ .

Three truckloads of trash hauled from Felton campsites

By Stephen Baxter

Santa Cruz Sentinel

Posted:   02/07/2013 07:05:45 PM PST

 

FELTON — Three deputies and four Santa Cruz County Jail inmates hauled out three truckloads of trash from illegal campsites near Zayante Creek and the San Lorenzo River on Thursday.

Responding to some residents’ complaints and a pile of garbage and human waste at the Graham Hill Road Bridge over the San Lorenzo River, deputies posted notices to vacate the campsites in January.
Since then, much of the debris was removed or swept down the river with last month’s rain, sheriff’s Sgt. John Habermehl said.
Thursday, they hauled out dirty clothing, alcohol bottles, bicycle parts and a broken kayak, among other items.
“It’s not so much that somebody decided to pitch a tent,” Habermehl said. “We try to address the criminal behavior — the illegal dumping, the drug and alcohol issues, and the waste in our rivers.”
He added that the cleanups are a matter of maintenance rather than a long-term solution: “If we don’t do something about what’s out there, it’s just going to get worse.”
The action follows similar Sheriff’s Office sweeps near Highway 9 in September and by Santa Cruz police during the fall and summer of 2012.
No one was cited and no syringes or other drug paraphernalia were found on Thursday, deputies said. The inmates who participated volunteered from the Rountree Detention Center, a medium-security facility.

At a second cleanup site under the Conference Drive Bridge at Zayante Creek, deputies were

surprised to find a relatively clean area with several trash bags left by campers.

Light rain fell on the crew as it loaded food wrappers and dirty clothing into a Santa Cruz County flatbed pickup and a truck loaned by the Mount Hermon Christian Conference Center.

Don Cox, a homeless 53-year-old Air Force veteran, watched the crew work in the rain. He said he camped in the Felton area for years and noticed new people who came from Santa Cruz because of recent cleanups in that city.

“A bunch of them who’ve come down here are drug addicts and thieves,” Cox said.

Having been a mechanic and tow truck driver, he said he is trying to attend job-training classes at Cabrillo College and find a place to live with his veteran benefits.

“It’s not like I’ve chosen to be out here and be a bum,” he said. “I’m too old to be on the streets.”

“They’re really kind of picking on us,” he said of Thursday’s cleanup.

Another woman, Amanda Livingston, 22, saw the deputies and inmates work under the Graham Hill Bridge.

She said one of the men went to Santa Cruz to collect a check Thursday morning, so she scrambled to round up his gear and a bag of prescription drugs before it was removed.

“I’ve been telling him that they’re going to clear the camp,” she said. “He didn’t believe me.”

Originally from Michigan, Livingston said the bridge offered her some shelter during the rain storms earlier in the winter. She and others cooked, drank and tried to stay dry, she said.

Above the bridge, some employees at nearby businesses said they appreciated the cleanup.

“I think it’s definitely necessary but it’s pretty lame that it has to be done in the first place,” said 21-year-old Adam Pomianowski, who works at Budget Truck Rental at 6440 Graham Hill Road. “This is a river running through our little town. I’m glad someone’s paying attention.”

MORE COMMENTS at:  http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/rss/ci_22545061?source=rss