Court Decisions Uphold the Right to Beg in Flagstaff, AZ

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

Eugene Activists Force City to Act on Homeless Sanctuary Camps

NOTES BY NORSE:  Eugene pioneered the Safe Parking/Camping Zones, in part because of pressure from homeless activists there two decades ago and recently from SLEEPS (Safe Legally Entitled Emergency Places to Sleep) as well as an active leftist and anarchist community.
Meanwhile Santa Cruz drops deeper into paranoia and anti-homeless hysteria with the Take Back Santa Cruz-inspired Needle-Free Zone homeless-aphobiacs.  The repression contagion has spread—now street performers, vendors, artists, and political activists are under attack downtown.
New laws go into effect in Santa Cruz October 24th that will limit performance spaces to a 12′ square area and make traditional assembly and political activity illegal on 95% of the downtown sidewalks.  These laws follow earlier ones that make it illegal to hold up peace signs on city medians (to outlaw panhandling there) and empower park officials to issue 1-day stay away orders prior to trial for “crimes in the park” like “trespass after dark” “smoking” and “sleeping after 11 PM”.   An expansion of the Smoking Ban downtown targets homeless people (in a recent New England Journal of Medicine study, 17% of the general population smoke as distinguished from 75% of the homeless population).
Instead of opening existing bathrooms for 24-hour use, authorities are setting up a fenced off segregated portapotty as well as funding a $100 “Security” gate and fence around the Homeless (Lack of) Services Center.  Activist Brent Adams has put forward a Sanctuary Camp plan disdained by the City Council majority.   Instead Mayor Hillary Bryant’s  band of bumbusters is backing  a “Citizens Public Safety Task Force” which defines homeless survival activity like sleeping outside, camping in parks, and urinating and defecating in the woods as “criminal behavior”.
Though the City has announced multi-million dollar surplus in their budget this year, none of it will be going to fund campgrounds or restrooms or showers for the most needy.  Eugene soars on, while Santa Cruz descends into a darker period.

Eugene Government

City OKs homeless camps

If the first 15-person site works out, others could be added on lots approved by the City Council


Legal camping advocate Alley Valkyrie speaks to the Eugene City Council in support of a proposal to create legal camping sites in Eugene on Monday, September 23, 2013. (Chris Pietsch/The Register-Guard)


By Edward Russo

The Register-Guard

Published: 12:00 a.m., Sept. 24


A proposal that could allow Eugene to establish small homeless camps on yet-to-be-­chosen sites was approved by the City Council on Monday night.


Councilors voted 6-2 to pass an ordinance recommended by City Manager Jon Ruiz that would allow the council to authorize more than one volunteer-­run homeless camp of up to 15 people apiece — if the first camp works well.

Councilor Claire Syrett — who represents a ward that includes the Whiteaker, River Road and Santa Clara areas — said the proposal, which would allow camps to operate until next March, is not a cure for homelessness in Eugene.

But the camps will be better for some of the “hundreds of people” who have been sleeping for years in city parks and other public land, she said.


“It won’t fix all of the problems,” Syrett said. “It won’t fill all of the need, but it’s better than the status quo.”

Joining Syrett in voting for the proposal were councilors Alan Zelenka, Betty Taylor, George Brown, Chris Pryor and Greg Evans. Voting against were Councilors George Poling and Mike Clark.


Under the proposal, volunteers or nonprofit groups would manage the camps, and they would provide garbage service and portable toilets at no cost to the city. The council would control the number and location of camps, with the expectation that there would be little or no other costs to the city.


Potential sites could be located on city-owned parcels in commercial or industrial areas, or those offered by religious institutions, nonprofit groups or a business located on commercial or industrial-zoned property.


Until Monday, the council had been considering a proposal introduced by Zelenka to let the council authorize a single “rest stop” or overnight camp for up to 15 homeless people.


Under that proposal, the first camp would have been tried for 90 days to see how well it worked before other sites could be started. The proposal also would have required campers to pack up their belongings and leave the site each day.


But the concept was criticized at previous council meetings by homeless people and activists. Critics said a single site isn’t enough for the many homeless people in Eugene, and that requiring homeless people to pack up their belongings each day is impractical.


Ruiz, the city manager, on Friday made changes to a draft ordinance that could allow the establishment of more than one camp in the near future. He also added flexibility to the ordinance so that, depending on the site, campers wouldn’t necessarily have to pack up their belongings and leave each day.


Poling said he objected to the rest stop proposal being changed so that homeless people could stay on a site all day and night.


“That is no longer a rest stop,” he said. “That is a campground.”


Poling also faulted the proposal because the city would not be helping people to get out of homelessness.

“All we are doing is warehousing them and not working with them to end their homelessness,” he said.

Instead of establishing camps, Clark favored having the city act as a referral service to connect homeless people with property owners who would be willing to let homeless people camp on their property.


The camps proposed by Ruiz would be managed by “hosts” and the areas would be run according to site agreements between the site operators and the city. The camps could be terminated if the agreements are violated.


Previously, when city officials had begun working on the homeless camp idea at the direction of the council, they compiled a list of 19 possible sites that included undeveloped parkland in residential areas. That raised so much concern by nearby residents that the council eliminated potential sites in residential areas or those located close to a school.


On Monday night, several homeless advocates thanked Ruiz for developing his proposal.


Michael Carrigan, of the Community Alliance of Lane County, said people who want to help the homeless “are excited about this proposal and are ready to roll up their sleeves to make this work.”


Alley Valkyrie, a south Eugene resident who has been helping the homeless advocacy group known as SLEEPS, said she was “really stunned” by the city manager’s proposal.


“It’s a huge step in the right direction,” she said.


Valkyrie suggested that a camp be allowed on city land under the Ferry Street Bridge, where several campers have pitched tents. Another camp has been set up on city land at Broadway and Hilyard Street, which Valkyrie said is an excellent site.


The Rev. Dan Bryant, president of Opportunity Village Eugene, a newly formed housing area for homeless on Garfield Street, urged the council to approve the ordinance to get as many of the camps “up and running as quickly as possible, and we will work with you to help make that happen.”

 

 

You are here: Home / 2013 / May / 08 / CITY COUNCIL UNANIMOUSLY INSTRUCTS STAFF TO MOVE FORWARD WITH SLEEPING ORDINANCE

CITY COUNCIL UNANIMOUSLY INSTRUCTS STAFF TO MOVE FORWARD WITH SLEEPING ORDINANCE

4.25.2013 Eugene, OR The Eugene City Council, which had dawdled unmercifully in coming to the table to discuss Safe Legally Entitled Emergency Places to SLEEP for those who are unhoused, arrived at the April 22 Council Work Session table with unprecedented determination to take immediate and purposeful action.  The Councilors were brought to the table by Councilor Greg Evan’s leadership in calling for an official Council Work Session. Councilor Evans called the session following ongoing testimony from both housed and unhoused people affiliated with SLEEPS, CALC, Occupy, Interfaith Occupy, CLDC, Nightengale, ACT and other groups, stating that the testimony led him to believe that Eugene’s current policies were, at best, “counterintuitive”.
In a surprisingly bold move, in the early minutes of the session, Councilor Alan Zelenka made a motion to authorize city staff to draft an ordinance to designate temporary safe and legal place to sleep from 9PM to 7AM on non-park, city owned land.  The motion passed unanimously, with Councilor George Poling absent.  The Council also directed staff to call a special Work Session on the first date at which all Councilors can be present to review and approve an ordinance.  Once approved, a Public Hearing will be held and the newly authorized “Rest Areas” can become a proud part of Eugene’s dramatically changing policies addressing issues surrounding those who are unhoused.  The Council backed up their voiced support of finding creative, financially feasible and effective new solutions with a clear sense of enthusiasm and commitment….and action.  At the next Session the Council will also seek to approve some of the four options proposed by city staff, most involving relationships between the city, religious, not for profit and private land owners.  The Council indicated agreement that a whole continuum of small, partial and temporary solutions are needed to meet the emergency needs and buy time to find longer term answers.
The Rest Areas, as proposed by Councilor Zelenka, will be on several selected, specially designated, city owned non-park land parcels.  They will offer a safe place to sleep from 9PM to 7AM, toilet access, garbage collection and lockers so that individuals can secure their items during the day, facilitating their ability to find work, housing, keep health appointments and conduct other personal business.
A major benefit of the Rest Areas is that they will draw people who now sleep downtown or in public parks away from those areas and into areas that are especially designed to meet the basic safety and sanitation needs of those who sleep in the areas.  Insufficient bathrooms, especially at night, has been a major health hazard to all citizens in Eugene’s downtown and public parks and the new Rest Stops will improve the public health of all citizens.  It establishes a new, more realistic and businesslike approach that will better meet the needs of the downtown and parks as well as the needs of those who need a place to sleep.  The City’s long term failure to address the problem has put those needs unnecessarily in conflict.
Another major business benefit is that the Rest Areas should save a great deal of the current $300,000 per year the Eugene city government is spending to clean up deserted camps, often vacated as individuals flee under police orders.  It will be far cheaper to take this preventive approach:  placing toilets and garbage/recycling resources in the Rest Areas so that people can clean up after themselves.  Not only has the City’s previous approach been a poor choice from a business perspectivie, it has posed health hazards for all and failed to meet the goal of chasing the unhoused out of Eugene.
Activists who have long been trying to persuade the Council to provide better solutions than in the past were impressed with the Mayor and Council’s obvious determination to do something substantive and to do it now.  “It took a long time to encourage them to actually TALK about this really gnarly problem….but once they decided to take it on, they took it on with gusto.  It us up to the rest of us, both housed and unhoused, to be certain that we give the Council the support they deserve for having the courage to admit that what we’re doing isn’t working and to start proving out better solutions”, said one activist.

 

Eugene council OKs small homeless camps operated by nonprofit groups outside neighborhoods

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
September 24, 2013 – 4:36 pm EDT

EUGENE, Oregon — The Eugene City Council has given the go-ahead for homeless camps for no more than 15 people each on land owned by the city, churches or nonprofit groups in commercial or industrial areas.


The sites haven’t been designated. Activists have been demonstrating for months in favor of allowing homeless people to camp on city property.


The Council’s action Monday expands the proposal it had been considering, which would have been limited to one camp. Campers would have had to pack up their belongings and leave every day.
Instead, more than one camp will be allowed if the first one works, and some camps could allow residents to remain during the day.


City Manager Jon Ruiz said they would be managed by “hosts” and run according to site agreements between the site operators and the city.


Volunteers or nonprofit groups would provide garbage service and portable toilets at no cost to the city.


The Council would control the number and location of camps, with the expectation that there would be little or no other costs to the city.


The camps could be terminated if the agreements are violated, Ruiz said.


Alley Valkyrie, a south Eugene resident who has been speaking for the homeless advocacy group known as SLEEPS, said she was stunned.


“It’s a huge step in the right direction,” she said.


Demonstrations for homeless camps have been marked by arrests in recent months and a legal dispute over a free speech area outside the county courthouse.

Eugene Homeless Camp Broken Up In Free Speech Plaza

AP | Sept. 05, 2013 7:56 a.m. | Eugene, Oregon

Share
1
AP

A three-week-old camp-in protest at the Wayne Morse Free Speech Plaza in downtown Eugene was broken up Wednesday after Lane County commissioners enacted an emergency closure of the plaza.


The Eugene Register-Guard reports the Board of Commissioners voted 4-1 on the emergency closure. Protesters were given until Wednesday afternoon to clear out the camp. Four individuals later refused to leave and were cited for trespassing by Eugene police.


Officials say the closure will be used to clean all of the areas and work on further restrictions.


The group behind the makeshift campsite, Safe Legally Entitled Emergency Places to Sleep, or SLEEPS, is protesting the lack of legal camping areas for homeless people in Eugene.
___
Information from: The Register-Guard, http://www.registerguard.com

Homeless camps dot Central Oregon

In this Sept. 5, 2013 photo, Mike Miller, of Bend, Ore., poses for a photo at a transient campsite, where he once spent several nights at during a year of living and camping outside. “This is survival for some people. I know it was for me,” Miller said. (AP Photo/The Bulletin, Joe Kline)

BEND, Ore. (AP) — Mike Miller had hit bottom.

Roughly eight years ago, he and a brother from San Jose, Calif., moved to a house in Bend for work. About two years later, Miller lost his job and took up drinking. His brother left for Nevada, and Miller was left alone.

Before he knew it, he was scouting secluded places to put up a tent to replace his lost home.

“I didn’t want to camp out,” Miller said. “It’s a part of my life I didn’t think I would go through. But, the things I was doing and the choices I made brought me here.”

Usually unseen or overlooked, homeless camps around Bend provide a temporary home for scores of homeless people. The camps may appear, be vacated and be re-established in a matter of days, according to Miller and others who’ve worked with or policed the homeless. Or they may quietly persist for months. They range from one person in one tent to several people in upward of 10 tents, according to Bend Police spokesman Lt. Chris Carney.

Nearly 2,200 people are experiencing homelessness in Central Oregon, according to the annual point-in-time count conducted in January by the Homeless Leadership Coalition. Of those 2,200 people, Miller feels most are down on their luck, just as he was.

But he knows that’s not everybody. Some choose to live that way, he said. “I was never threatened. But I know it does happen out there. I had one guy who watched my back as I watched his. It’s about surviving.”

Carney said the department deals with homeless camps all around Bend. For example, at least six camps lie within a five-mile radius of The Bethlehem Inn, a homeless shelter on U.S. Highway 97 in north Bend, according to managing director Chris Clouart. Most campers keep to themselves and hide from view, but sometimes events propel them into the forefront of public attention.

Saturday, Bend Police reported an attempted rape at a transient camp on Northeast Fourth Street. An alleged witness at the camp, Don Wichmann, performed a rare act and reported the incident to police. As a result, Jacob Schoenborn was held in Deschutes County jail on suspicion of first-degree rape, fourth-degree assault and two counts of first-degree sexual abuse.

“Most of the time, these people are camping because they want to be left alone,” said Carney. “Getting them to report incidents is always a tough thing to do.”

Crimes at these camps are not infrequent, Carney said. But they aren’t everything the camps are about. A fire in July that charred 4 acres in east Bend started with a homeless campfire. Two people — a mother and daughter — were cited in that incident. In addition, Carney said, stabbings and a shooting have occurred at homeless camps around the city within the past five years.

“It’s difficult to distinguish between the types of people who are out there,” he said. “Most of the people in these camps are people down on their luck — they can’t afford housing or something. But there are the others who choose that lifestyle and can sometimes cause problems.”

Residential camping in city limits is illegal, according to Bend affordable housing manager Jim Long. His department attempts to work with local nonprofits and businesses to find affordable housing for those whose income was diminished or demolished after the recession.

“Most people are one or two paychecks from tragedy anyway,” Long said. “If there’s 100 homeless people, there are 100 different stories. I don’t have rose-colored glasses — they aren’t all saints. But they aren’t all evil, either.”

He said the city attempts to move homeless camps as humanely as possible. Before calling the police, Long said, he would call the Central Oregon Veterans Organization or the Deschutes County Mental Health division in order to give the affected homeless a warning. If COVO and Deschutes County are unsuccessful, the police are called in.

“As a police department, we just go in there and tell them they have to camp outside of the city,” Carney said. “They typically pick up and move to a new spot. It’s about all we can do; we don’t have the time or resources to go out and force these people to move.”

Clouart said community calls to clean up homeless camps are routine following violent incidents like the one Saturday.

“It won’t solve anything,” Clouart said. “You’re just moving them from one place to another. To fix it, we need to become a society and a culture that doesn’t judge these people.”

Organizations around Bend attempt to keep judgment out of rehabilitation. The Shepherd’s House, a homeless men’s support shelter, offers a bed, food and shelter to applicants who are clean and sober. In emergency situations, it offers the same services to men for seven days. For those who need camping supplies, the shelter may provide them as well.

The Bethlehem Inn is open to men and women, offering the same “get back on your feet” services. COVO started a homeless outreach program, donating camping and survival supplies to ex-military men in need. “Feed the Hungry” hosts a breakfast and lunch at Bend’s Community Center every Sunday, and the center is getting ready to hand out survival gear to the “Keep Them Warm” program again.

Miller said he got so comfortable with camping that he was able to fashion a shower in his tent so he didn’t have to interact with people at camp showers. He said he notices others have taken up residence at the sites where he once camped.

“Some people just stay in that mindset of camping,” he said. “Some don’t want to stop doing that. I just realized that life wasn’t for me, and I was ready for a change.”

Miller, now 27 months free of alcohol, has lived at The Shepherd’s House for almost a year. He’s getting ready to move to Portland soon for an internship with a religious homeless-assistance organization and hopes to go to school later for addiction studies. Miller said he hopes to use his future education to help others in his former position, paying forward the help he received.

But no matter what, he won’t forget his time in the tent.

“You just learn how to blend in,” he said. “In fact, at one point, you get comfortable blending in. Once you get that comfortable, you don’t have a desire to stop blending in. And, by then, you’ve run out of options to get out.”

___

Information from: The Bulletin, http://www.bendbulletin.com

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press

The Latest Street Menace–Chess

NOTES BY NORSE:  The suppression of sidewalk chess in San Francisco is a mirror example of what is being done in Santa Cruz–removal by edict of public assembly on the sidewalks though the behavior is innocent (indeed positive), traditional, and serves not only “homeless” people but the community as well.  The only people complaining (and its not clear whether any real presentation of complaints versus commendations has been made) are some merchants.
Ditto with Santa Cruz.   Performers, vendors, artists, political tablers–indeed anyone who wants to sit down on the broad Santa Cruz sidewalks (and don’t even  mention anyone who wants to peaceful, even silently sparechange)–already face an absurdly contracted space, high fines for sitting outside the designated areas, and huge fines for doing so (not to mention the threat of ail for repeated offenses).   The aggressors here are the same group of self-entitled gentrification maestros and economically-anxious merchants who are attempting to sanitize business districts throughout the country.
Liberal on the outside, homeless-ophobic and streetlife-hostile underneath, places like New Leaf Market, Coffee Roasting Company, Verve–to mention only a few–are banning backpacks and homeless-looking people inside and (in New Leaf’s case) supporting their removal even from the public sidewalks outside.  Streetlife is considered to be a “draw” or–in the current crypto-fascist language–“an enabling” or “welcoming” aspect to the sidewalk and so needs to be either regimented or removed entirely.  Ironically this “clean up” campaign threatens the vibrancy and color that actually draws tourists to the overpriced Pacific Avenue with its skyrocketing rents & knickknack shops.
Simply wailing the business blues isn’t enough in Santa Cruz (and SF), so merchants, cops, cranky conservatives, and paranoid residents hook up to generate the mythical “Public Safety” menace.  In Santa Cruz this takes the virulent and retrograde Drug War shape with politically resurgent groups like Take Back Santa Cruz, the Green Team, and the new Needle-Free Zone fear-mongers beating the drums for attacks on anyone who looks homeless (See https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/09/29/18744023.php ).  Deny them services; deny them space; criminalize them with absurd laws, and then use that criminal status to drive them away.
In Santa Cruz it will also become difficult if not impossible to play chess on the sidewalk without a permit.  Try and do it in 12 square feet and see.   Protests continue against these spirit-suppressing laws next Sunday (See https://www.indybay.org/uploads/2013/09/29/festival_of_fun_flyer__for_10-6.pdf and related articles at www.indybay.org/santacruz ).

SFPD Shuts Down Sidewalk Chess Games

sf-sidewalk-chess.jpg
Photo: goosmurf/Flickr
Well, this is a pathetic development in the War on Fun: The SFPD has confiscated all the game tables, chairs, and chess boards that have been used for at least three decades for sidewalk chess games on Market Street near Fifth. The claim is that “illegal activity” has spiked in the last six months, but this kind of sounds like bullshit given that we used to live in this neighborhood, and the entire five-block radius around those chess games has basically never not been a hotbed of illegal activity.
Says police Capt. Michael Redmond to the Chron, “It’s turned into a big public nuisance. I think maybe it’s a disguise for some other things that are going on.”
Oh, for god’s sake. It’s just a bunch of elderly, mostly homeless dudes playing chess!! Whatever else is going on around them, or whatever pills they may be taking on their non-chess-playing time, has little or nothing to do with the fact that they’re all just out their passing the time in a perfectly peaceful way, sacrificing pawns and taking bishops and rooks and shit!!
Sidebar: We gather that women passing by the daily games were frequently subjected to harassment, but that is another matter.
Our guess is that the row of chess-playing dudes runs counter to the image that the upcoming new tenants across the street, in what will become Market Street Place, the vertical mall formerly called CityPlace. And even though that is only barely under construction and not near opening, they want to get a head start on spiffing things up for the neighboring businesses that will reap the benefits of the retail gentrification to come.
They have their work cut out for them on Sixth Street. Baby steps.

Endgame: S.F. police shut down sidewalk chess

Neal J. Riley Updated 11:32 pm, Tuesday, September 17, 2013
      Marvin Boykins, sitting on Market Street between Fifth and Sixth, is the last sign of street chess in downtown San Francisco. Boykins, 57, learned to play chess when he was 7 years old. Photo: Lacy Atkins, The Chronicle

 

Street chess, that institution of young, old, rich and poor mentally duking it out over a checkered board in the open air, thrives downtown in nearly every big city of America – except, now, San Francisco.

For more than 30 years, chess games have been a staple near Fifth and Market streets, but earlier this month, the San Francisco Police Department confiscated the playing equipment, chairs and tables from where dozens of people, mostly homeless, would gather every day to play.
Police said that regular chess players weren’t the problem but that the area had become a hotbed for illegal gambling and drug use.
“It’s turned into a big public nuisance,” said Capt. Michael Redmond, contending that complaints from nearby businesses and arrests for sale and possession of narcotics have increased over the past six months. “I think maybe it’s a disguise for some other things that are going on.”
On Tuesday afternoon, the only sign of street chess was at the feet of Marvin Boykins, 57. Across from his latex chessboard, a friend moved chess pieces at the command of a smartphone computer game set at the grandmaster level, which Boykins refused to listen to after it warned him that he’d made a bad move.
“I’ve been playing since I was 7 or 8 years old,” said Boykins, who has been playing at the spot for decades. “Chess is a true San Francisco tradition.”
His friend, Hector Torres Jr., said chess saved him from a gambling addiction when he moved to San Francisco from Las Vegas more than 20 years ago. He said the chess games are a discrimination-free zone that has welcomed everyone including San Francisco Giants players, millionaires and people who have been in prison for decades.
“They’re being mean for no reason,” Torres Jr., 42, said about the police. “To me, it’s a scapegoat.”

Decades of history

Pinpointing exactly how the games began on Mid-Market is difficult, but what is clear is that they have been a fixture since at least the early 1980s.
The people supplying the tables, and the rules for play, changed periodically, but the basic premise was always the same: A steady core of chess devotees, many of them homeless, sat at the tables all day, and pretty much anyone who wanted to play could take a seat.
Sometimes the winner won $1, other times it was just a straight fee to play. At one time in the early 2000s the players who ran the tables charged 50 cents for three games. Boykins charges $2 for people to rent one of his boards.
The tables were sometimes supplied by avid players with homes and sometimes by homeless people – one penniless man in the mid-2000s dragged them there every morning from his storage place south of Market Street.
San Francisco resident Vivian Imperiale, walking down Market Street on Tuesday, said she saw police officers telling chess players a few weeks ago to get rid of their equipment.

Businesses relieved

“I was walking out here and I was thinking ‘how charming,’ although I think there’s money involved – it’s probably not all squeaky clean,” she said. “It seemed innocent.”
But employees at several nearby businesses said they were relieved the tables are gone.
“It’s an excuse for illegal activity – period,” said Dimitri Madrid, manager at Beauty Supply and Hair Salon, which has sent four letters to Mayor Ed Lee complaining about drug and alcohol use, violence and barbecuing that has taken place by the tables.
Now that the tables and crowds are gone, Madrid says he no longer sees people walking by with their purses clutched tightly in their arms, or just crossing to the other side of the street.
“It’s like night and day,” he said. “Sales have been up.”
At CeX, an electronic entertainment exchange, people have come in and asked where the chess went, said Ryan K., a store manager who didn’t want to give his last name.
“Since it’s been gone, it’s been a lot quieter,” he said, adding that he thought that was an improvement.

Not the last move

Ryan said police had reached out to businesses, asking if the chess tables were creating problems. He said drug use was commonplace and customers were calling to say they weren’t coming back to the store.
“They said, ‘We didn’t want to come here because it’s too dangerous,’ ” Ryan said.
Jennifer Friedenbach, executive director of the Coalition on Homelessness, said the police were wrong to take chess away.
“Having activities for folks to do is a positive thing,” she said. “We have elderly people who are very isolated, and this is a great way for them to be out in the community.”
Redmond said the players’ property will eventually be released back to them and he hopes to work out a plan for chess in the future – but that may involve persuading a business to pay for a permit so games can be played on the sidewalk.
“I’m optimistic that something is going to work out,” Boykins said.
Neal J. Riley is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: nriley@sfchronicle.com Twitter @realdealneal

Anaheim Moves Against Its Homeless Community

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 .

Fiddling With the Sidewalk Snatchers in Berkeley

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.

Playing Pattycake with Crime Stats in Santa Cruz

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.

A Lawsuit Against the Homeless (Lack of) Services Center

NOTE BY NORSE:  It’s ironic that it would be a Security Guard with a racial angle who exposes some of the abuses at the Homeless (Lack of) Services Center, which is currently  under heavy attack (for generally the wrong reasons) by right-wing Take Back Santa Cruz NIMBY’s.  Attempts to get fair policies for dealing with disabled people last year via then-Mayor and former HLOSC Board of Directors member Don Lane and Executive Director Monica Martinez failed to get a real hearing much less a solution.
Martinez and her bunch out there have provided testimony that helped convict homeless activists who protested the Sleeping Ban in 2010 (by falsely claiming there was “room” at the Paul Lee Loft and the River St. Shelter when the waiting list was weeks long).  They’ve resisted providing documentation that homeless people are on the Waiting List so they can present such evidence to the police to encourage no ticketing (though police then use other laws in their relentless drive to “end homelessness in Santa Cruz” (by driving homeless people out of the city and county).
Still the upchuck of vitriol and venom in the comments section following is an example of the toxic fuel that’s firing up hatred in town.  See
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/santacruz/ci_24132950/security-guard-alleges-harassment-at-homeless-services-center?source=rss where I also leave a long comment.

Security guard alleges harassment at Homeless Services Center in Santa Cruz

By Stephen Baxter

Santa Cruz Sentinel

Posted:   09/19/2013 12:25:34 PM PDT
Click photo to enlarge

Jeremy Miller is suing the Homeless Services Center for mistreatment while he… ( Shmuel Thaler )

SANTA CRUZ — A former security guard at the Santa Cruz Homeless Services Center sued the center this week, alleging that he was harassed by its homeless clients, and wrongfully fired.

 

The lawsuit describes a “hostile work environment” at the center at 115 Coral St., where he was taunted with racial slurs by homeless people who ate and slept there.

“They have 101 policies and one of them needs to be to protect their employees from harassment,” said Eric Nelson, an attorney representing Jeremy Miller, the former employee.

“They could have helped their employee and they should have offered training other than ‘Just take it on the chin.'”

Miller, 32, also contends that the center did not pay him overtime or provide him proper meal breaks and work breaks. He is seeking money in the suit, but his attorneys said have not specified the amount.

A lawyer for the Homeless Services Center acknowledged Wednesday that Miller sometimes was called racial slurs by homeless clients — but he said there were far fewer instances than the daily problems Miller claimed.

The lawsuit really started with Miller’s firing, said Tom Griffin, an attorney for the center.

“It’s a very challenging group of individuals to work with,” he said of the homeless clients. “All of the people running the program have been exposed to hostile and verbal (abuse) instances in the course of their work,” he said.

“The Homeless Services Center takes their responsibilities to the community, their clients and their employees really seriously. They’re striving to do a better job with limited resources in all of those areas,” Griffin said.

Miller has lived in Santa Cruz for about 20 years and has been homeless himself. He received services as a client at the Homeless Services Center in 2011, which is where center staff got to know him.

The center provides two daily meals, showers, a mail room and beds for about 110 homeless people as well as other services on its campus. It is funded privately and also receives money from the state, Santa Cruz County and the city of Santa Cruz.

Miller volunteered there from July 2011 to March 2012, when he was hired as a campus supervisor.
 

 

WORKING CONDITIONS

 

A First Alarm guard often patrols outside the property, but Miller’s job as campus supervisor essentially was to patrol the lot and make sure there were no fights or illegal drug use. He wore a necklace badge and clothes similar to a mechanic — as he described it — in part because homeless clients often don’t respond well to uniformed guards.

Miller, who is black, said he was threatened several times and called the “N-word” when he tried to enforce the rules, Nelson said. He endured daily harassment and the homeless clients sometimes spit on him, pushed him and punched him, according to the lawsuit.

The threats included death threats to Miller and his family, the suit contends.

Miller said he did not receive training to deal with the center’s clients, “many of whom had serious mental disorders,” the complaint states. At least one other employee witnessed the threats — and was deposed by attorneys during settlement talks with Miller this month.

When Miller asked other staff members if he was qualified for the job, another staff member allegedly asked him, “Do you know how to take a punch?”
Griffin, an attorney for the Homeless Services Center, acknowledged it’s a difficult place to work.

“You’re talking about a group of individuals, some of which are confrontational, abusive and under the influence of a variety of intoxicants. But that’s our clientele,” Griffin said.

Because Miller had been homeless and received services at the center, the staff who hired him “were looking for a win-win situation,” Griffin said. “It turned out not to be a good fit.”

In part because Miller had been homeless and knew some of the clients, he was not universally respected in his new role.

“You have to separate yourself from people and maintain a level of professionalism,” Griffin said. Miller was unable to that, he said.

Miller’s lawsuit contends that none of the staff backed him up when he tried to enforce the rules, and that dynamic “emboldened” the homeless clients to harass him, Miller’s attorney said.
 

 

LAID OFF

 

The problems continued until July Fourth, when Miller was laid off ostensibly because the job description changed and he was no longer qualified. Miller’s attorneys contend that he was fired.

“Rather than addressing the harassment, (Homeless Services Center leaders) terminated Mr. Miller, thereby furthering the discrimination and retaliating against Mr. Miller based on his race,” according to the complaint.

Miller subsequently became homeless again, and returned to the center to eat a free breakfast on July 30.

“It was extremely humbling and humiliating for him to go back for breakfast,” his attorney said.

That day, a staff member of the center came up to Miller and asked him, “What the (expletive) are you doing here? Get the (expletive) out of here,” according to the lawsuit.

Griffin said that since then, the center’s leaders have apologized and allowed him to return for meals.

The center’s leaders also hired a new supervisor who has training as a security guard, Griffin said.

Claudia Brown, board president of the Homeless Services Center, declined to comment on the lawsuit.

Miller’s attorneys said they expect a response from the center’s attorneys in the coming weeks.

“I think the Homeless Services Center has recognized the importance of having a certain kind of personality — a certain skill set — to defuse and not escalate certain kinds of behaviors,” said Griffin.

“Miller didn’t have those skills and couldn’t effectively deal with them. They put some new requirements of the job to the person who comes in.”
 

Fresno’s Third Day of Destruction Against Homeless Encampments

NOTES BY NORSE:  Fresno activists provide portapotty facilities and trash pick-up’s for the surviving homeless encampments, and document the City’s destructive activities–as shown below.  They have also prompted renewed ACLU legal activity to require the City to live up to the “store, don’t destroy homeless property” order of the $2.3 million Kinkaid settlement of 2007.   Santa Cruz, by contrast, has no 24-hour bathroom, and its only concession to homeless (and indeed broader public) health and safety is to spend $15,000 on a segregated fenced-off portapotty (still projected with no actual facility yet set-up) on the San Lorenzo levee.   The cost of renting a portapotty is $100 per month.   Instead of using thr $15,000 to keep open bathrooms already there in San Lorenzo Park and the parking garages, Santa Cruz city council homeless-degraders are spending three times that amount to set up a “Security Gate” at the Homeless (Lack of) Services Center at Coral St.
Also on the Council’s “harry the homeless” agenda today are measures severely reducing the public space available for street vendors, street artists, sparechangers, street performers, and political activists downtown plus further anti-smoking laws targeting homeless smoker–see “Shafting Non-Shoppers: Expanding the Destructive Downtown Ordinances” at https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/09/09/18742960.php?show_comments=1#18742963

https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/09/09/18742970.php

Central Valley | Health, Housing, and Public Services

The City of Fresno Destroyed the Only Shelter these Homeless People had
by Mike Rhodes ( editor [at] fresnoalliance.com )
Monday Sep 9th, 2013 2:15 PM

These photos are from week 3 of the City of Fresno’s demolition of homeless encampments in the downtown area. Photo below: City of Fresno workers destroy a homeless shelter on San Benito, near H street.

While city officials claim to be on the verge of bankruptcy they did manage to find enough money to destroy the only shelter hundreds of homeless people had. The city would not help by providing drinking water, portable toilets or trash bins, but they were out in force to bulldoze tents, tarps, and wood structures built by the homeless in downtown Fresno.

§Brown Beret member Hashid Kasama observed the demolition

by Mike Rhodes Monday Sep 9th, 2013 2:15 PM

§Typical street scene today on H street

by Mike Rhodes Monday Sep 9th, 2013 2:15 PM

§Photo 6

by Mike Rhodes Monday Sep 9th, 2013 2:15 PM

Another example of homeless people using creative modes of transportation to escape the demolition

§Most people used shopping carts to move their property

by Mike Rhodes Monday Sep 9th, 2013 2:15 PM

§Some people just had too much stuff to move

by Mike Rhodes Monday Sep 9th, 2013 2:15 PM

§Josh and Martha take a short break from packing

by Mike Rhodes Monday Sep 9th, 2013 2:15 PM

§Tearing into a shelter with a bulldozer

by Mike Rhodes Monday Sep 9th, 2013 2:15 PM

§Homeless people tried to save anything of value

by Mike Rhodes Monday Sep 9th, 2013 2:15 PM

§Dignity in the midst of chaos

by Mike Rhodes Monday Sep 9th, 2013 2:15 PM

§Rounding up the homeless dogs

by Mike Rhodes Monday Sep 9th, 2013 2:15 PM

§This is just one of many dogs that were taken by the SPCA

by Mike Rhodes Monday Sep 9th, 2013 2:15 PM

© 2000–2013 San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the SF Bay Area IMC. Disclaimer | Privacy | Contact

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

NOTES BY NORSE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Santa Cruz County’s top prosecutor declares emergency personnel need

By Calvin Men

Santa Cruz Sentinel

Posted:   08/30/2013 06:26:05 PM PDT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow Sentinel reporter Calvin Men at Twitter.com/calvinmenatwork

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