San Jose Encampments in a Super-Rich Community

NOTES BY NORSE:  The winter (summer, spring, and fall) destruction of survival encampments has become a growth industry in Santa Cruz under Mayors Bryant and Robinson–with persistent, arbitrary, and destructive raids on the privacy, property, and well-being of those outside with no shelter.

         The pretexts are age-old:  environmental protection (but not the human environment), public health (but let’s not build any 24 hour bathrooms), drug “crimes” (how’s the prohibition war going for you?), and, the latest and most trumpeted but least substantial–“public safety” (gee, Martha, all those police calls and tickets for sleeping, sitting, and being in a park after dark–they’re willfully violating laws that our police department advised the  City Council to make!…and creating…a crime wave!).
The growing number of homeless people are a symptom of housing, jobs, war priority, and bankster fraud, it’s become easier and more profitable to discover or attribute flaws, faults, and failings in homeless people themselves to explain away rent profiteering, job flight overseas, and a bloated corrupt and overpriced  health care system.    But let’s just call them drunks, addicts, crazies, and lazies.  Sort of what’s always been done when you wish to dismiss legitimate basic survival demands and sub-humanize folks.
The city can’t even see its way clear to two decent mass meals for homeless people per year (Thanksgiving and Xmas).  Food Not Bombs has stepped in to feed on the sidewalk near the main post office today.   Nor has there been any official provision for warming centers as the temperatures drop.

  Hard Times USA

The Jungle: Thousands of Homeless People Live in Shantytowns at the Epicenter of High-Tech, Super-Rich Silicon Valley

Residents of Silicon Valley’s largest homeless encampment illustrate the widening divide between the nation’s haves and have-nots.
Photo Credit: Evelyn Nieves
December 15, 2013  |

By mid-morning on Thursday, the sun was shining hard enough to dry wet blankets and the residents of the Jungle began surfacing, letting each other know they were still alive.
Six straight nights of freezing temperatures had tested their tenacity, not to mention their tarps and tents. It was so cold that the raccoons that raid the trash bins every night disappeared, a first. Ditto the crows, squirrels and feral cats. Life in the Jungle, 75 wooded acres off Interstate 101 in San Jose that comprises Silicon Valley’s largest homeless encampment, came to a standstill.

Click to enlarge.
Photo: The entrance to the Jungle. 

With the hard ground thawing, the Jungle looked as if spring had sprung. People strolled the dirt paths, rode their bikes and walked their dogs. Everyone in the Jungle—200 men and women, give or take—looked ready to celebrate surviving the earliest, coldest cold snap on record.
“We were lucky,” said Troy Feid, a former carpenter, squinting into the bright sky. “Not everyone was.”

Click to enlarge.

Photo: Troy Feid, a former carpenter who suffers from depression, has lived in the Jungle on and off for six years. He ended up homeless after he lost his job when he went to jail for nearly a year for owning a motorcycle he didn’t know was stolen. Now he lives in an elaborate encampment he built out of scrounged wood and plastic with his cat, Baby.

Four homeless men in Silicon Valley did not make it through the season’s first bout of sub-freezing temperatures. Over the last two weeks, three of them froze to death on the streets of San Jose, not far from the Jungle.
That people live and die on the streets of Silicon Valley is no news to the poor, of course. With more than 6,500 tech companies in all, Santa Clara County is home to the biggest stars in the tech universe, including Google, Facebook, Yahoo, eBay and Apple. But the land of high-tech milk and honey is also a prime example of the widening divide between the nation’s haves and have-nots.
For all its stock-option millionaires, the San Jose/Santa Clara County region (pop. 1.8 million) also has the nation’s fifth largest population of homeless (after New York, Los Angeles, Seattle and San Diego), according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The main culprits? Budget cuts that have frayed the safety net and sky-high housing costs. These days, a three-bedroom, one-bath starter home in San Jose, the county seat and one of its most affordable cities, costs a cool million. Rents for a two-bedroom apartment go from $2,000 to $5,000 a month, and those on the low-end are scarce.
While homelessness remains off the radar of the Silicon Valley titans, it keeps getting worse, up 20 percent in two years. More than 7,600 people sleep on the streets every night. Dozens of encampments dot the landscape, and thousands of people live in temporary quarters—shelters, motels, friends’ homes. Several private and public organizations in Santa Clara County are dedicated to helping the unhoused receive medical care, supplies and assistance in finding shelter. But funds and available units to move homeless people into permanent housing are meager.
For now, emergency shelters remain the only immediate option for those on the streets. But shelters prohibit pets and loads of possessions. Most people in the Jungle have both.

Click to enlarge.
 Photo: The Jungle is a place of many signs. Signs mark people‘s territories, give instructions as to where to put trash for pickup (the city picks up trash placed in trash bags it provides Jungle residents), welcome visitors, or more often, warn them away.

In fact, calling the Jungle an encampment hardly describes it. A shantytown of tents and shacks made from doors, tarps and whatever else people could find, the Jungle sits on county land along Coyote Creek just below street level from Story Road, a commercial hub anchored by a Walmart.

“I rode my bike to the hospital,” she said. “The doctors told me I was very lucky.”

Click to enlarge.
Photo: Yolanda Gutierrez, 39, recently suffered a stroke. She rode her bicycle to the hospital, where doctors told her she was lucky to be alive. She has lived in the Jungle for about a year and is trying to get out.

“Lucky” is a word residents of the Jungle seem to use a lot. Jose, a 46-year-old handyman, has asked for his last name not to be used because it “might embarrass his family.” He said he considers himself lucky for the encampment he shares with his 90-pound pitbull puppy, Rocky, and a bunch of chickens that tend to wander through the Jungle. Always poor, he said, he chose to move to the Jungle after quarreling with a roommate. Like so many others here, he has designed a space that feels more permanent than not. A cactus garden adorns the front of his camp, and he has created different rooms out of found objects. Even Rocky has his own house, with his own twin-sized mattress.
“He eats better than I do,” Jose said, adding kibble to Rocky’s bowl.

Click to enlarge.
Photo: Jose is teaching himself how to play a keyboard.

Residents of the Jungle have no shortage of food. Church groups from all over San Jose come on Sundays. A month ago, a handful of co-workers from a local LED light company began showing up on Tuesdays with food and supplies. Last Tuesday, they brought a U-Haul truck full of sleeping bags they bought after collecting donations from friends and others who heard about their treks to the Jungle. Individuals show up to give out food and blankets as well.

Click to enlarge.
Photo: Birdman and his Blue Amazon, Natasha. Birdman, a San Jose native, spiraled into homelessness after spending five years in prison for trying to build a homemade gun. He has lived in the Jungle for three years.

The Jungle has its own volunteers, who collect donations—mostly food—from local businesses and dole them out. City and county officials say the Jungle has had its share of crime, including a murder last year. Fights break out. But the Jungle has peacekeepers, too; self-appointed mediators who broker truces, or if deemed necessary, ask troublemakers to leave.
“Most people are okay,” said Troy Feid, who regularly allows his neighbors to use a camp shower he has hooked up in the elaborate camp he shares with his cat, Baby. Feid, who suffers from depression, manages a smile when he gives a tour of his home, a warren of tidy rooms. “I’ve got plans for this place,” he said. “I just hope we last the winter here.”
Winter remains weeks away. But for a little while, the weather will be kind enough.
Photos by Evelyn Nieves.

TO MAKE AND READ COMMENTS GO TO:

http://www.alternet.org/hard-times-usa/jungle-thousands-homeless-people-live-shantytowns-epicenter-high-tech-super-rich?page=0%2C2

Free Holiday Meal on Christmas Day, 2 p.m. Post Office

 

  • Free Vegan Meal Christmas Day!!!
    Wednesday, December 25, 2013
    Starting at 2:00 PM in front of the Downtown Post Office
    850 Front Street, Santa Cruz, California
    In celebration of this season of peace Santa Cruz Food Not Bombs invites the community to join them for a free vegan dinner, live music and pleasant conversations outside the Downtown Post Office. The public is welcome to help cook on Christmas morning starting at 9:00 AM at the Front Street Kitchen, 504A Front Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060. The Front Street Kitchen is donating their facilities and equipment insuring that the holiday meal will be a huge success.
    Food Not Bombs co-founder Keith McHenry will participate in the Santa Cruz celebration. He reports that many Food Not Bombs groups will be sharing vegan meals on Christmas this year responding to the increased need across the United States because of new cuts in food stamps and the extreme reduction of access to food during the holiday season.
    Sponsored by
    Santa Cruz Food Not Bombs
    www.santacruzfoodnotbombs.org
    831-515-8234

The Hungarian Regime Takes a Cue from the City of Santa Cruz–Bans Sleeping Outside

NOTES BY NORSE:  Looks like Take Over Santa Cruz*–has its friends and allies in Hungary.   A similar  attack on recycling fouled the air at City Council last month in a preliminary “investigation” of the two recycling centers (which found nothing) and passage of measures to heighten scrutiny, encourage the state legislature to empower local bigots to move recycling to out-of-town areas and ban new ones.   The Santa Cruz [Homeless] Sleeping Ban has been in place for decades and its enforcement is now on the upswing.   Similar to Sundown Town laws that drove blacks out of town in the mid-West (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_towns ), Santa Cruz’s MC 6.36.010a is an absurd, costly, and arbitrary “tool” used by police to drive the homeless (and often disabled) out of town.

                            As Sgt. Le Moss reportedly said to David the Street Performer, when he phoned in to file a complaint that Officer Aguilar and others were harassing him on the street a week ago, “why don’t you just leave town?”.  Le Moss is the sergeant who broke the arm of a vehicular-housed woman in her 60’s some years ago for which the city paid out settlement money, but retained the assaulter on the force (See “60 Year Old Homeless Wolman Says Police Broke Her Arm”  at https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/05/10/18498341.php ).  So far David has not received a call back from the SCPD (though he reports the harassment has stopped.
Meanwhile as temperatures in Santa Cruz dip again towards freezing, Mayor Rattlesnake Robinson may be attending the Homeless Death Memorial today (10:30 AM at 115 Coral St.), but she hasn’t opened up any public buildings to prevent death by hypothermia.  Brent Adams’ Sanctuary Camp/Warming Center group (https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/12/12/18747693.php?show_comments=1#18747702) will meet again Sunday the 22nd to see if its letter-writing campaign has opened up any doors.  There are rumblings of an emergency gathering on the nights of predicted freezing with tents and heaters, but so far nothing tangible has taken shape.  Some that warmth seekers ignore the newly-posted “No Loitering” signs in the (supposedly public) Metro Transit Center.    Frosty times ahead.*A rebranding of the Take Back Santa Cruz’s name in the interests of truth in advertising.

‘They Want Scapegoats’:Hungary Cracks Down on Homelessness

By Keno Verseck

Photo Gallery: Hungary's Tough New Law on Homelessness Photos
AFP

The conservative Hungarian government has repeatedly targeted the homeless with its recent policies. Now a new ban on sleeping outdoors is drawing outrage and accusations of scapegoating.


Has she ever resorted to begging? No, that would be undignified. “I have never done that,” says Zsuzsanna Lakatos indignantly. The 58-year-old Hungarian woman has been homeless for two decades. She lives with her husband Bertalan on the outskirts of Budapest in a tiny dilapidated building they have fixed up, and the couple earns money doing odd jobs such as renovations, gardening and helping people move.

ANZEIGE

A large source of their income used to come from collecting discarded household items, which they would clean, repair and resell at markets. But now they’ve become more cautious, thanks to the trash law that has been in place since January in Hungary.

According to the regulations, large discarded items in public places are the property of those officially in charge of their removal. Those who are unauthorized to do so face fines and jail time — a rule that targets the many homeless trash collectors in the country.

But now things have gotten even worse for Hungary’s homeless. On Monday evening, the parliament in Budapest passed a law banning the homeless from sleeping outdoors around certain public places, though the law’s criteria remains vague. The law applies to all of Hungary’s World Heritage Sites, as well as any other homeless-free zones designated by local city authorities. Those who violate the ban face fines, community service and even jail time for repeat offenses.




Not Enough Shelters

The new law is actually an amendment to one passed last year that was subsequently struck down by the Constitutional Court. To avoid another rejection by the court, the national conservative government under Prime Minister Viktor Orbán passed an amendment to the Hungarian constitution earlier this year that makes it difficult to declare the law unconstitutional again.

A number of Hungarian human rights organizations are now protesting the new law, calling on the country’s president, János Áder, not to sign it. “The criminalization of the homeless violates basic rights and is unacceptable,” declared a joint statement by the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union (HCLU), the Hungarian Helsinki Committee and seven other civil groups.

“The new law basically makes homelessness a punishable offense,” says Tessza Udvarhelyi ofThe City Is for All, an initiative that champions the rights of the homeless. “Many don’t know what to do now. The government has promised that all homeless people will be accommodated in shelters, but there are no spaces available in the shelters.”

According to estimates by aid organizations, between 10,000 and 15,000 homeless people live in the capital of Budapest, a city of some 2 million. But there is lodging in shelters for only about 6,000.

Gábor Iványi, a prominent Methodist pastor who has been ministering to the homeless for some two decades, says his soup kitchen and homeless shelter at a church in Budapest’s 8th district are frequently overflowing. “The new law against the homeless is deeply un-Christian, as is the approach by officials,” he says. “They are constantly sending patrols to the shelter and harassing people, even when they are simply waiting for food.”
Government representatives reject such criticism. “It is sheer nonsense to call it the criminalization of the homeless,” says Gergely Pröhle, a senior Foreign Ministry official. “We just don’t want the homeless to live in certain public places that are heavily visited by tourists, and that is totally legitimate.”




Distracting from Other Issues

Tessza Udvarhelyi disagrees. She says that the policies are part of a wider hostility toward the poor by Orbán’s government. “They need scapegoats to distract from the poor social situation in the country, and therefore use the poorest of the poor, the homeless, Roma and refugees,” she says. While past governments have also taken aim at the homeless, their approach was not as systematic, she adds.

“Before the Constitutional Court ruled last year that the law against homelessness was unconstitutional, it was valid for eight months,” says Udvarhelyi, “and in these eight months the equivalent of €130,000 in fines were imposed against 2,000 homeless people in Budapest. With this, policy on homelessness took on quite a new quality.”

The Lakatos moved from eastern Hungary to Budapest in 1992. Zsuzsanna Lakatos had worked as a bookkeeper at a steel combine in the city of Miskolc. Her husband had been a day laborer on a farm. In 1991 they both found themselves unemployed and then homeless. They now live on a private estate on the southwestern outskirts of Budapest. The owner of the land has allowed them to repair the ruins of an old building and live in it. This way they are not as vulnerable to the police, who have long been clearing the homeless out of huts and camps in many public wastelands, even on the outskirts of the Hungarian capital.

But despite the relative privilege of their living situation compared to other homeless people, the Lakatos are afraid. In recent years they’ve been increasingly subjected to police checks. Sometimes Bertalan, who is Roma, is insulted as a “dirty gypsy.”

“I hope we don’t face any fines or prison sentences,” says Zsuzsanna. “When the new law comes into force, we will do our best to go underground.” Isn’t that exactly what the government wants? “Yes,” she answers.



To make or read comments and to see more photos, go to http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/new-hungarian-law-discriminates-against-homeless-a-925822.html .

Associated Press

By PABLO GORONDI January 17, 2013 6:33 AM
In this photo taken early morning Friday, Jan. 11, 2013, homeless women sleep with their teddy-bears in a shelter called 'The Heated Street' in Budapest, Hungary. Hungary considers constitutional change to allow authorities to force homeless off the streets. (AP Photo/Bela Szandelszky)
.View gallery
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .

BUDAPEST, Hungary (AP) — Homeless men and women huddle on street corners amid Budapest’s majestic domed palaces, shivering under old blankets and cardboard boxes in frigid winter weather.

It’s an image that critics say Prime Minister Viktor Orban doesn’t want the world to see. And if he has his way, the homeless could be fined and even jailed for sleeping outside — even though some of the country’s homeless shelters are already overflowing and short of beds.

 

Orban’s punitive ideas for the homeless have set him up for his latest clash with the constitutional court and civil rights groups as he tries to reshape the country in a conservative image by centralizing power. Since winning power in 2010, Orban and his party have undermined independent institutions and democratic standards in a nation that was once an icon of democratic struggle for throwing off communism in 1989.

Now Orban is carrying out an informal referendum at town hall meetings around the country to gauge support for a constitutional amendment that would enshrine punishments for the homeless in the charter itself.
Hungary’s homeless policy has revived accusations by human rights groups that Orban’s ruling Fidesz party cares little about the country’s disadvantaged. In just one recent controversy, one of the party’s founding members, journalist Zsolt Bayer wrote in a newspaper column that many of the country’s Gypsies, or Roma — an impoverished minority that faces entrenched discrimination — “are animals” and “unfit for coexistence.”
Fidesz refused to distance itself from the column, saying it understood citizens’ anger about crimes committed by Roma and called on those demanding Bayer’s expulsion from the party “to refrain from standing on the side of the criminals.”

View gallery

In this photo taken early morning Friday, Jan. 11, …

In this photo taken early morning Friday, Jan. 11, 2013, a homeless man sleeps on the floor in a she …

 

The homeless issue has been brewing for several years. At the end of 2011, Orban’s ruling right-wing Fidesz party used its overwhelming parliamentary majority to make the punitive regulations first introduced earlier that year by the Fidesz-backed mayor of Budapest — including fines of up to $650 for repeat offenders and the threat of up to 60 days in jail — applicable nationwide.
“This is a method to demoralize or intimidate us,” said Gyula Balog, 53, who has been homeless for nearly 20 years. “No one was jailed but quite a few had to pay fines. It’s frivolous to fine those who have nothing.”

At the time, even the United Nations expressed concerns, saying the obligation to provide shelter “cannot serve as an excuse for the criminalization or forced detention of homeless persons.”
“By a wave of the legislative pen, the Hungarian Parliament has labeled tens of thousands of homeless people in Hungary as potential criminals,” said a statement from two U.N. human rights experts. “Moreover, the law has a discriminatory impact on those living in poverty.”
At least 1,500 homeless are believed to be currently living rough in Budapest, even as temperatures are expected to remain below freezing in coming days and dozens of homeless are found frozen to death each year on the streets.

View gallery

In this photo taken early morning Friday, Jan. 11, …

In this photo taken early morning Friday, Jan. 11, 2013, a homeless man sleeps on a mattress in a sh …

 

In the winter, many head to the warmest spots they can find, usually the entrance halls of subway stations, sometimes quietly holding out a paper cup for money from passersby or by selling street newspapers.
Authorities recently inaugurated two more shelters in the capital and the government spent 8.5 billion forints ($38.4 million, €28.9 billion) on the homeless in 2012, with a similar figure planned this year. But some of the most popular refuges, like the “Heated Street” run by the Hungarian Evangelical Brotherhood, are full far beyond capacity, with many people sleeping on mats on the floor.
The issue of the fines re-emerged in November when the constitutional court struck down the punishments, saying homelessness was a social issue that should not be handled as a criminal matter.
There are no exact figures on the number of homeless in Hungary, but the U.N. last year put the figure at between 30,000 and 35,000. A survey carried out each year on Feb. 3 in Budapest and the larger Hungarian cities by NGOs, counted 8,641 in 2012, up from 7,199 in 2011.

Many cities across the United States also ban activities such as “urban camping,” panhandling, “lodging” outdoors and similar actions, often resulting in fines or jail time for offenders.
The Hungarian government argues that it is simply acting out of concern for the dozens of homeless people who freeze to death every year, implying that fines are meant to push the displaced to seek refuge in warm shelters.
“There are more places in heated shelters than there are homeless living in Hungary,” Orban said last month in Parliament. “So no one … is forced to survive winter under the open sky.”
But social workers and the homeless themselves accuse the government of caring only about the country’s image.
“They simply want to clean up the areas frequented by tourists,” said Balog, speaking outside the department store where he sold Commodore 64 computers during communism, before losing his job and family because of his alcoholism.

Comment at http://news.yahoo.com/hungary-homeless-face-winter-fear-return-fines-074819834.html

Palo Alto Vehicle Habitation Law suspended; 9th Circuit Spanks L.A. City Attorney

NOTES BY NORSE:  The audio of the 9th Circuit Court hearing which punches the L.A. City attorney in the chops in the case of Cheyenne Desertrain, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al,   can be heard at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view.php?pk_id=0000012040  It’s a rare opportunity to hear the slitherings, slippings, and slidings of a city attorney directly challenged–not by the defense lawyer Carol Sobel, but by the actual judges themselves who pin the tail squarely on the donkey by clarifying the specifically anti-homeless focus on the enforcement actions.

                Santa Cruz has used a variety of devices to muffle, buffer, and mask the anti-homeless intent–in the process creating potential criminalization for everyone in the interests of appearing impartial.  So it’s not just panhandlers, but anyone with a sign who faces a ticket and potentially jail for standing on a median or roundabout with any kind of sign (including a constitutionally protected sign).  The night-time curfews in the parks, around the library, at the City Hall complex, and around the police station are designed to frighten homeless people away, but also impact everyone, particularly political protesters.    The infamous only-in-Santa-Cruz (at the time of passage in 2003) “Move Along-Every-Hour” law targeted seated panhandlers, but had to be framed more generally so that it took in political protesters, voter registrars, musicians, performers, and anyone with a “display device.”
This year, the cover for homeless-o-phobia is “public safety” with anyone who challenges security thugs in the parks (1 day stay away or up to 1 year in jail).  The notorious Sidewalk Shrinkage law which expanded the 14′ forbidden-to-sit zones “protecting” benches, buildings, crosswalks, kiosks, phone  booths, sculptures, trash compactors, and trash cans (to name only some of the new sacred items) does seem to be a broader aesthetic attack on performers of all sorts (Morgami the colorful accordionist and Mr. Twister the balloon clown excepted–though that’s not written into the law).  However since many of those performing, displaying artwork, or showing crafts are unhoused or poor people struggling to make it, the intent of the law is pretty clear.
The expansion of smoking bans this year and in prior years to cover situations when people aren’t complaining is another example–homeless people smoke at about 3 to 4 times the rate of housed people.  Most recently, the new Public Assembly Constriction laws, requiring costs for street closures and permits for smaller numbers of people, makes it more difficult for poor people and spontaneous protests.   Many of which have been homeless-themed in the past, considering the City’s abhorrent Sleeping and Blanket Bans (as well as its other laws and practices targeting the visible poor outside).
Meanwhile Palo Alto activists are rightly celebrating the City’s delay in enforcing the “live in van, go on the lam” law, but the majority of those outside there have no such luxury.  Laws passed shortly after the vehicle habitation ban criminalized being around community centers at night–the traditional sleeping spots of many ground sleepers.  When I asked Palo Alto activist Chuck Jagoda if action against that law was on the activist agenda, he said no.
In Santa Cruz, some are organizing to address the lack of warming centers on cold weather winter days–and good for them for doing so!–but the broader and deeper issue is the destruction of homeless campsites, the seizure and trashing of homeless property, and the reduction of homeless people to the status of trash–that goes on 365 days a year here.

 http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2013/12/17/car-camping-ban-put-to-bed-for-a-year

Car-camping ban suspended for a year

Legal concerns prompt Palo Alto to delay enforcement of controversial law

by Gennady Sheyner / Palo Alto Weekly

 

Faced with citizen anxieties, threatened lawsuits and a pending court case in southern California, Palo Alto officials agreed on Monday to delay for a year the city’s deeply controversial ban on vehicle habitation.

 

 

The City Council voted unanimously to approve a staff recommendation to delay enforcement of the ban, which the council officially adopted on Sept. 19 and which was scheduled to kick off in February.

 

 

The ban, which was prompted by a swell of car campers at Cubberley Community Center and in a section of College Terrace, was adopted despite heated opposition from homeless advocates and members from the faith community. Last month, a coalition of attorneys led by Carrie LeRoy announced its intention to sue the city over the ban and requested a meeting with City Attorney Molly Stump to discuss their concerns. LeRoy argued in a Nov. 15 letter to the city that the ban is too broad and too punitive, that it violates the U.S. Constitution and that it would effectively criminalize homelessness.

 

 

“Enforcement of the VHO (vehicle habitation ordinance) will exacerbate serious health issues and disabilities prevalent among Plaintiffs, who will be forced out of their vehicles or Palo Alto altogether to avoid criminal liability,” LeRoy wrote.

 

 

The council’s decision on Monday to delay the ban squashes the controversy for at least a year. In a memo released last week, City Manager James Keene pointed to a case currently going through the Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals. That case, Cheyenne Destertrain v. City of Los Angeles, revolves around the issue of vehicle habitation. The appeals court has recently heard the arguments in this case and staff believes its decision “may provide further clarification regarding legal requirements governing ordinances prohibiting vehicle habitation.”

 

 

The letter also noted that the council has already taken another step to address the transformation of Cubberley into what officials often refer to as an “ad hoc homeless shelter.” In August, the council adopted a new law ordering that all community centers, including Cubberley, be closed between 10:30 p.m. and sunrise. Thus, the lawyers contended, the new law serves no legitimate purpose.

 

 

In the memo, Keene pointed to the Los Angeles case and noted “some members of the public have questions regarding the scope of the ordinance, which suggests that an additional period of outreach and review would be beneficial.”

 

 

The council approved the delay unanimously as part of its “consent calendar,” with no discussion or argument. The only people who spoke out on the issue were a handful of public speakers who opposed the ban. One speaker, Lois Salo, urged officials to go a step further and rescind the ban. Others said they were pleased to see the prohibition delayed, even if it’s just for a year. Edie Keating from the Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto was among them.

 

 

“Many members of the community appreciate your willingness to keep this open for up to a year,” Keating told the council. “There will be a need to find a solution so that we aren’t in the same place at some future point in time. Many people are already talking about what the possible solutions could be.”

Food Not Bombs co-founder Keith McHenry keeps positive attitude SENTINEL Dec 13 2013

NOTE TO READER: Thanks to organizers, this is most likely the first positive coverage Food Not Bombs has ever received in the Sentinel. — Becky Johnson of HUFF

Food Not Bombs co-founder Keith McHenry keeps positive attitude

By Terri Morgan

Santa Cruz Sentinel

Posted:   12/13/2013 04:34:12 PM PST
Click photo to enlarge

Food Not Bombs volunteer Jean Piraino helped prepare a meal for the audience at… ( SCS )

SANTA CRUZ — Even after 33 years, thousands of interviews, hundreds of nights spent in jail, and millions of meals served, the co-founder of the Food Not Bombs movement is still enthusiastic about the organization.
Keith McHenry, who launched the group with seven friends in 1980, talked excitedly about the volunteer movement, which has since spread to 1,000 different communities around the world.
Food Not Bombs is dedicated to collecting food from stores and distributors that can’t be sold, and using it to cook and provide vegan or vegetarian meals for the hungry. Along with reducing food waste, the organization tries to inspire people to work for social change. As well as solving problems like hunger, poverty and homelessness, the group also seeks to stop wars and the destruction of the environment.
“We’re trying to stop policies that are increasing climate change,” McHenry said, adding those policies include clear cutting, and planting genetically modified food crops. “Climate change is directly leading to an increase in hunger.”
In Santa Cruz Thursday evening, as part of his “Smashing Hunger, Squashing Poverty” speaking tour, McHenry spoke to about 60 people about human needs, and to advocate for the government spend more money on social services than on bombs.
“You have severe cuts in food stamps while an increasing percent of (government) spending the most recent budget is for the military,” McHenry said. “What they’re doing is taking funding out of social services.”
At the same time, municipalities across the nation are following the lead of 50 cities and passing laws banning or limited the practice of sharing food in public, he said.
McHenry has been arrested more than 100 times for violating such laws, and faced a sentence of 25 years to life in California as part of the state’s three-strikes law.
“Even though we provide meals and groceries to thousands of people we are not a charity,” McHenry said. “Food Not Bombs is trying to inspire the public to participate in changing society.”
The talk was hosted by the Santa Cruz chapter of Food Not Bombs, which has been serving hot meals every Saturday afternoon outside the downtown post office for the past year. Volunteers gave the audience of taste of their work, by providing a full meal that included salad, rolls, vegetable stew and green beans. The meal also included fresh fruit and a choice of deserts, and volunteers encouraged people to take vegetables and other groceries with them before they left the event.
“We try to always do vegan food, but if someone gives us cooked meat we don’t refuse it,” said Abbi Samuels, a volunteer with the Santa Cruz chapter. Last month, for example, a group that provided a free Thanksgiving meal in the community donated several pans of leftover turkey she said.
Roughly 15 people volunteer regularly with the local chapter, and more are needed, she said. The work is rewarding, Samuels said.
“I got involved because I wanted to help others,” she said. “It’s very rewarding to see people (eat the meals) because they are so thankful.”
There is also a huge need, she noted. “There are close to 4,000 homeless people in Santa Cruz County,” Samuels said.
Follow Sentinel correspondent Terri Morgan at www.twitter.com/soquelterri

Will Santa Cruz Anti-Homeless Bureaucrats Read the Writing on the Wall? [1 Attachment]

[Attachment(s)from Robert included below]

 

NOTES BY NORSE:  Palo Alto–faced with massive activist organizing and lawsuits–is now about to hold off on its attempt to run homeless vehicle dwellers out of town.  They still have in place ordinances to drive away those without vehicles from unused community centers and parks at night.  The enclosed attachment describes the latest retreat by the gentrification gurus in the face of the likely L.A. 9th Circuit Court hearing d
Santa Cruz for decades (since 1978) has enforced its “sleep in a vehicle at night, get hassled and fined” law in spite of repeatedly-declared Housing Emergencies by the City Council.  A pittance of relief was made in 1995 by “allowing” churches to shelter three vehicles of sleepers, in 1999 by “allowing” businesses and non-profits to shelter two vehicles of sleepers and in 2010 by asserting that all Sleeping Ban citations (including vehicles) would be dismissed for those on the waiting lists of the HLOSC–the Homeless (Lack of) Services Center and/or the River St. Shelter.  All of this was done in response to activist pressure where many people risked fines and jail to bring this to public view.
Yet the bucks-and-bigotry-backked riptide against poor people outside has swept forward.  Over the same period, the use of “permit parking” restrictions banning vehicles at night without permits was used to drive away homeless vehicles (explicitly).  “Loitering” in public parking lots was made a crime–in spite of constitutional findings back in the Larson case in the 80’s that barres such anti-homeless laws (a special gift of Supervisorial candidate Ryan Coonerty when he was Council member).  The harsh and erroneous demonization of homeless people (in spite of rhetorical “concern”) along with sweeps and crackdowns by the Rotkin, Lane, Bryant, and now Robinson City Councils with no meaningful expansion of shelter space has further heightened the emergency.
Local activists and attorneys failed to effectively mount a legal challenge using arguments like those that overturned the L.A. law against sleeping and sitting in L.A. in the Jones decision and subsequent settlement.  Local ACLU remaining deafeningly silent in spite of repeated pleas to supposed homeless sympathizers on their Board of Directors Steve Pleich.
Still, the waves in Los Angeles and Palo Alto coming on the heels of homeless hypothermia centers are a wake-up call to activists who have in the past used winter weather and Xmas sentiments to expose the toxic abuses.  Charity drives aren’t enough.  Should protests take place in places like the Metro Center (where reportedly ‘No Loitering” signs have recently been posted) to open up warming centers at night?  We’ll see.
Thanks to Palo Alto activists Tony Ciampi  and Chuck Jagoda for forwarding  the attachment and article.

Looks like Palo Alto will be staying  the VHO.  See Attachment.http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-78447865/

 

Email
Facebook
374
Twitter
47

Jae C. Hong / Associated Press

A federal appeals court panel appeared skeptical about a Los Angeles city ordinance that bans people from living in their car. Above, a homeless resident pushes a cart along a downtown street.

By Gale Holland

December 5, 2013, 5:35 p.m.

A federal appeals court on Thursday appeared to be leaning toward striking down a Los Angeles city ban on homeless people living in their cars or recreational vehicles on public streets and in parking lots.A three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, meeting in Pasadena, seemed to embrace arguments from civil rights attorney Carol Sobel that the criminal law was unconstitutionally vague.

“It’s very hard to figure out what you’re talking about,” Judge Marsha Berzon told the lawyer for the city.

The city’s ordinance dates back to 1983, but came under fire in 2010 when a special Los Angeles police task force, responding to neighborhood complaints, began aggressive enforcement in Venice.

A group of homeless car dwellers filed suit in 2011 challenging the law. U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner dismissed the suit, and the plaintiffs appealed.

Unlike other cities, which bar sleeping in vehicles or overnight parking, Los Angeles prohibits using cars as “living quarters” both overnight and “day-by-day, or otherwise.”

Deputy City Atty. Blithe Bock told the court that police determined a vehicle was lived in by the “totality of circumstances,” including whether it appeared to be operating.

Drivers were ticketed if police found things in their car such as bottles of urine, clothing and open food that suggested it was a “living quarters,” she said.

“You’re using your car as a living space, you’re using your car as a toilet, you’re using your car as a kitchen,” Bock said.

Sobel said there were no clear standards for what property or items you could keep, or for how long you could rest in your vehicle.

“So you can’t just sit in your car and nod off?” Judge Harry Pregerson asked Bock.

“He was wrapped in a blanket,” Bock responded, referring to one of the plaintiffs.

“What’s wrong with that?” Pregerson said.

Judges also questioned the rationale for the stepped-up enforcement. Bock said it came in response to a spike in crime by young transients and complaints of trash being dumped on neighbors’ property.

“People were coming home and finding refuse on their front lawn,” Bock said.

Sobel suggested that gentrification and tension between new and old residents were the real drivers of the heightened enforcement, and Pregerson seemed to agree.

“Tell me if I’m wrong,” Pregerson told Bock. “You had a task force of police officers who were told their job was to clean up the Venice area of all these homeless people because people in the neighborhood didn’t like it.”

Pregerson also suggested there are better ways to handle homeless people than rousting them from their cars.

“Long Beach treats people differently,” he said. “If they find a family, they take the kids and get them in a facility and make sure they’re enrolled in school…. The next thing they do is try to find housing for them…. Why can’t the city of Los Angeles do that?”

“The situation is heartbreaking,” Bock answered. “But it is a question for legislators.”

“That’s a cop-out,” Pregerson shot back.

After the hearing, Bock said police referred car dwellers to shelters and other services that could help them get off the streets.

“Homelessness is a horrible problem, we’re all aware of that,” she said. “But we have a whole city to take care of.”

A police spokeswoman said the department is continuing to enforce the vehicle habitation ban. Outside court, some of the homeless plaintiffs and their supporters accused the city of trying to drive them out of town.

“They’re intimidating people, driving up and making a lot of noise,” said plaintiff Steve Jacobs, who lives in his SUV in Venice. “There are fewer and fewer RVs there all the time.”

The court is likely to rule on the case in the next few months

Attachment(s) from Robert

1 of 1 File(s)

Santa Cruz City Council reverses restrictions on public assembly

 

Play slideshow Play slideshow Save all photos Save all photos Want to save all these photos at once? Learn how
Online pictures are available for 30 days
NOTE TO READER: HUFF member, Robert Norse, first alerted others that peaceable
assembly was likely to be cut drastically by a new City ordinance. 4 HUFF members went directly
 to the local ACLU and sought action from this largely inactive chapter. Following this
December 2nd meeting, ACLU members lobbied the City Council successfully to restore
 the restrictions as HUFF had sought. — Becky Johnson of HUFF
HUFF Photo: ACLU deliberates at Louden Nelson Ctr.
on Dec 2 2013, listens to HUFF members concerns
re: loss of public space, harassment of homeless people
by members of the SCPD, & about the limitations on
peaceable assembly.

Santa Cruz council reverses public gathering permit limit

By J.M. Brown

FOUND ONLINE HERE

Santa Cruz Sentinel

Posted:   12/10/2013 06:23:25 PM PST


SANTA CRUZ — The Santa Cruz City Council on Tuesday reversed an earlier decision to reduce the limit of public gatherings to 50 people before a city permit is required.

Five-time former mayor Mike Rotkin, speaking on behalf of the Santa Cruz County American Civil Liberties Union chapter, urged keeping the limit at 100. He said the city has not demonstrated how less than 100 participants in a rally or other event pose a public safety risk that would justify a restriction on free speech.

“Changing the threshold from 100 to 50 people would immediately impact the ability of people to organize protests at the town clock and county building steps,” he said.

Mayor Hilary Bryant and Councilmen Don Lane and Micah Posner voted in favor of keeping the number at 100 on Nov. 26 but lost on a 4-3 majority. Posner raised the issue again Tuesday during a final reading of ordinance changes governing public expression and commercial events, and council members agreed unanimously to make the reversal.

“As public assemblies get larger, almost invariably there are traffic impacts,” Posner said. “From the stand point of freedom of assembly, (traffic costs) shouldn’t trump those considerations.”

The city’s special events coordinator, Kathy Agnone, said there are several public places downtown where more than 50 participants in rallies or other events can cause traffic problems, and the proposed rule change was designed to help the city plan better. The city permit would not cost anything unless a street closure was required.

“I positively regret that this was something seen as penalizing and criminalizing folks gathering because that’s not what this is about,” Agnone said. “We are really just trying to be reasonable and streamline the process.”

Councilwoman Cynthia Mathews moved the proposed reversal as a good-will gesture, saying she hopes common sense will prevail.

BOARDWALK LOT

Tuesday, the council approved on a 6-1 vote an agreement with the Santa Cruz Seaside Co. to share in revenues generated by improvements to the Beach Boardwalk’s primary parking lot.

To ease traffic congestion on Beach Street and create more street parking during the peak summer season, the company has proposed $1 million in changes, including reconfiguring the lot to create 150 new spaces, add two entrances and establish pay stations upon exit.

Since 1984, the Boardwalk has collected a 10 percent tax for the city on its parking fees. The council agreed to return 50 percent of the tax revenue generated by the new spaces during the next 10 years not to exceed $200,000.

“We think these kinds of agreements spur economic activity,” Seaside Co. spokesman Kris Reyes told the council, echoing Economic Development Director Bonnie Lipscomb, who said the city has had to seek creative ways to form public-private parternships now that redevelopment has been eliminated.

Councilman Posner voted against the plan, saying the Boardwalk’s annual profit on the new spaces — expected to exceed $350,000 — is sufficient to recoup its own investment in the lot with a few years. He called the tax-sharing agreement “an inappropriate use of public funds.”

Vice Mayor Lynn Robinson disagreed, saying, “I understand there is a profit to be made, but there is a huge public benefit here that I see.”

The council also OK’d allowing the Tannery Arts Center to seek a property tax exemption for the performing arts theater planned for the city-owned Hide House. The council also allowed dropping “Hide House” from the name to accommodate a significant naming-rights donor.

Tuesday, the council also approved setting a public hearing for March 11 to increase wastewater rates during a four-year period. To stabilize the wastewater budget and fund capital improvements, rates are proposed to increase nearly 6 percent each year on average for single-family users for three years then 2.5 percent in the final year.

The council also commended winners of the annual Officer Jim Howes Community Service Award: police officer Ken Deeg, outgoing city arts coordinator Crystal Birns and Santa Cruz Neighbors co-founder Michael Bethke. Howes retired after 26 years as a police officer known for community engagement.

Follow Sentinel reporter J.M. Brown at Twitter.com/jmbrownreports

 

City Council Right-Wingers Next Target: Public Assembly 2 PM 10-10

 

Title: Constricting and Restricting Public Assembly Back at City Councl
START DATE: Tuesday December 10
TIME: 2:15 PM – 2:45 PM
Location Details:
Santa Cruz City Council Chambers
Exact time is uncertain, but the laws are items #14 and #15, directly after the Consent Agenda. To be safe, show up at 2 PM.
Event Type: Meeting
COUNCIL MEETS AT 2 PM
The Council will again be convening at the unusual time of 2 PM. Probably because the Coronation of incoming Mayor “Rattlesnake” Robinson (so termed because of close collusion with the anti-homeless and vicious Drug War policies of Take Over Santa Cruz.For those interested there traditionally been a post-coronation cakes-and-drinks celebration across the street in the Civic Auditorium to which the public is invited. This has been a chance to mingle with those in power and spend a little time indoors before returning to the freezing streets.

THE NEW LAWS
Agenda item #15 restrictvely rewrites the entire sections on public demonstrations for what were previously termed “Commercial and Non-commercial Events.” They have been relabeled “Public/Major Events” & “Public Gathering and Expression Events”

The staff report can be found at http://sire.cityofsantacruz.com/sirepub/cache/2/gm3nxoa24g4uqu55k4gs1zrb/382360111252013053508496.PDF .

Quite simply, the law rewrite criminalizes protests that have more than 50 participants (previously the “allowed” maximum was 100). permit requirement has now tightened apparently so that 50 rather than 100 people require a permit. Marching in the street is no longer provided for except through costly street closures. Permits must be applied for 5 days rather than 36 hours in advance.

PRIOR HISTORY
The law passed 6-1 at the First Reading and is likely to slide thru the Council swamp like shit through a goose tomorrow. I pointed out that most protests don’t seek permits—that’s the point of protests: the First Amendment is our permit.

Repressive authority from Birminghan Alabama in the 60’s the murdering generals in Egypt in 2013 have all used “permits” as a way of suppressing dissent.

I encourage indybay readers to examine this ordinance themselves. Like the Sidewalk Shrinkage ordinance severely reducing space for public performance, political tabling, panhandling, vending, and art display, this ordinance passed its first reading without police testimony that the current law has any problems.

Kathy Agnon, the Permitmeister, presented a very sunny account of the proposed new laws. She however didn’t provide any documentary evidence indicating a history (either anecdotal or otherwise) of such problems.

PUBLIC RECORDS–STILL NOT PROVIDED
My attempt to get public records was delayed by Agnon & other city staff, in spite of what I’d thought were assurances from Nydia Patino. I’d hoped to have records of permit applications and rejections for the last six months available. Accordingly, as usual, we have the staff’s arguments in favor of laws instead of any solid evidence that there’s a real problem that needs fixing. We need some more objective record beyond Agnon’s expertise and good will.

For the texts of the old and new laws, go to http://sire.cityofsantacruz.com/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=479&doctype=AGENDA and look up agenda item #12. You can also view the video of public testimony and Council discussion there.

The texts of the proposed Public Assembly-restricting new laws is also available at http://sire.cityofsantacruz.com/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=482&doctype=AGENDA without the clarification of what’s being changed.

If you value your right to publicly assemble and march in any cause, this ordinance should have a big red warning light attached to it, considering the make-up of the Council.

GLOOMY PROSPECTS AHEAD
The likely next mayor (Lynn Robinson), and the past record of this Council and the City Manager in cutting back public space, public assembly, and public accessibility suggests empowering the police in unhealthy ways—even against smaller gatherings, to say nothing of the DIY New Year’s Parade coming up in several weeks.

Considering the phony hysteria generated around “public safety” that is likely to be front and center on “Rattlesnake” Robinson’s January agenda, further restrictions on the right to gather to demand redress of grievances is the last thing we want right now.

MORE OF THE SAME PSUEDO-PUBLIC SAFETY
The parallel with the recent ordinance changes constricting street performance and art is instructive. The hypocrisy and special interest nature of the “display device” ordinance was obvious then and has become more obvious since.

Obstructive commercial signs have sprouted on the Pacific Avenue sidewalks in spite of the balleyhooed “trip and fall” pretext used to criminalize laying out a blanket.

This “danger” as well as the Robinson-Comstock-Mathews “upscale aesthetics’ concerns also prompted the constriction of tabling, vending, and performance space, and the expansion of “forbidden zones” now encroaching on 95% of the sidewalks downtown for non-merchant activity.

HARASSMENT REPLACING TICKETING
But probably many have noticed that most every performer, vendor, even political tabler down there is in violation of the letter of the law as passed on September 24th—as pointed out in a recent Santa Cruz Weekly article.

Hosts and police have given out few if any citations, but harassment has stepped up. Some cops are now claiming that craftspeople are allowed to display their jewelry/art for donation only 6 times a year and must thereafter get a business license..

So may it be with this “Parade Permit” ordinance–last hauled out notoriously to ticket Whitney Wilde, Curtis Reliford, and Wes Modes for “walking in a parade without a permit” on a DIY New Years event 3-4 years ago.

I have been in at least several dozen marches down Pacific Avenue in the last few decades, probably more, and none of them had a permit. Nor were there citations, arrests, and/or prosecutions to my knowledge. But enabling police, the city attorney, and compliant bureaucrats with restrictive laws is not a good idea.

Defending the traditional freedoms Santa Cruz peaceful protesters have enjoyed ultimately requires exercising them. For the first time “political signs” were “allowed” in the Xmas parade last Saturday (though I’ve always ignored such clearly unconstitutional restrictions).

The ordinance coming up tomorrow on the afternoon agenda empowers more repression and makes spontaneous protest more risky, They need to be sent back for a public process of discussion–with those directly affected and with the public at large.

Earlier info on the first reading at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/11/25/18746832.php

San Jose: Four people die of exposure overnight, three of them at homeless encampments

 

By Mark Emmons

memmons@mercurynews.com

 

Posted:   12/06/2013 02:36:23 PM PST


The Santa Clara County coroner’s office confirmed four people died of hypothermia-related causes Thursday night as temperatures plunged below freezing.

Sources say that three of the people died of exposure in three separate homeless encampments while a fourth person died in a garage during the cold snap.

The coroner’s office declined further comment early Friday afternoon. The Santa Clara County Office of Emergency Services referred questions to a county spokesperson, who did not immediately return phone calls.

“I’m just angry,” said Jenny Niklaus, the CEO of EHC LifeBuilders, a provider of homeless services. “We have to solve this problem. Even with our cold-weather shelters open, there are still people out there. This is what happens when we allow homelessness to happen. People die.”

A line forms outside the National Guard Armory, Sunnyvale, one of the cold-weather shelters that opened this week; 2009 photograph. (Josie Lepe, Mercury News)

Temperatures throughout the greater San Jose area reached a low in the mid-20s in the overnight hours, according to the National Weather Service. The low at Mineta San Jose International Airport was 30 degrees, breaking the previous Dec. 6 record of 32 degrees in 1931.

More freezing weather is expected later this weekend.

Santa Clara County Supervisor Mike Wasserman, who has been an advocate of funding programs that help get chronically homeless into permanent housing, said the deaths are just the latest example of the seriousness of the problem.

“People are dying out there, and it’s just wrong,” Wasserman said. “I hope to god this never happens again. You have to understand that every single person in these encampments is somebody’s son or daughter, brother or sister, mother or father. And yet they’ve been just abandoned.”

EHC LifeBuilders opened up its county-funded Cold Weather Shelter Program last Monday night with 275 emergency beds at three sites in advance of the cold snap. After these deaths, an additional 200 to 300 temporary beds were being added. Also, the shelters will remain open for additional two hours in the morning.

Outreach workers from the agency as well as other local nonprofits InnVision Shelter Network, the Bill Wilson Center and Downtown Streets Team spent Friday combing the encampments, parks and streets as they handed out blankets and encouraged people to go to the shelters.

“We’ve got a cold weekend ahead of us and our goal is make sure nobody has to be outdoors,” Niklaus said. “But the fact is there are more people outside than we have beds. We’re doing what we can, and I don’t want to lose any more people. This is a crisis.”

San Jose/Santa Clara County has the fifth-largest homeless population in the country behind only New York City, Los Angeles, Seattle and San Diego, according to a recent U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development report.

Of the 7,631 homeless, who were counted in January as part of a nationwide census, 74 percent were listed as “unsheltered” — meaning they have no place suitable for human habitation to stay. It has been estimated that on any given night, there are 5,000 people outside in the county.

Evening temperatures in San Jose were expected to warm up Friday night and then drop back to around 30 degrees on Saturday night, according to the National Weather Service.

“The question we have to ask ourselves is how many people have to do die?” said Jennifer Loving, executive director of the nonprofit Destination: Home. “It’s cold outside and people can’t survive when it’s freezing. That’s just a fact. This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone.”

The deaths are a sad reminder of just how dangerous it is to be homeless. On Dec. 19, EHC LifeBuilders will hold its annual memorial ceremony remembering those who have died on the streets over the past year. Niklaus believes the total will be more than 40 this year.

 

COMMENTS

NOTE FROM NORSE:  Chuck Jagoda, whose letter is included below, is a Palo Alto activist struggling–as any of us in Santa Cruz struggled two decade ago to open up the Armory as emergency shelter in the winter–though it served (and serves now) only a fraction (100) of the homeless community here (1500-2000).   In Santa Cruz, it’s also a costly psuedo-solution, run by the military which prohibits support animals, doesn’t allow users to come in later in the evening if they have jobs, doesn’t allow conjugal activity, can’t be driven to directly, and is essentially one big room filled with 50-100 people on cots–which can be difficult when some are ill and some are Vets with PTSD.
The Homeless (Lack of) Services Center has recently been misinterpreting MC 6.36.055, which requires dismissal of camping tickets if one is on the waiting list of two always-filled shelters or if the armory is filled.  Instead, I was told last week that being on the waiting list does not give you automatic dismissal of the $156 citations–as it has before the Armory opened.  Instead the Armory must have been full that night–which is often only the case on rainy or cold nights.  Harsher policies being followed by the city attorney in the wake of homeless-ophobia by groups like Take Back Santa Cruz have prompted misdemeanor prosecutions if more than three tickets are left unpaid for–with a fine of up to $1000 and a jail term of up to 1 year.   These are terrorist tactics, used to appease bigots, who feel that harsher policies will make Santa Cruz “less welcome” and “less enabling” to homeless people, who, they mistakenly believe, flock to Santa Cruz to use drugs, steal, and harass customers and merchants downtown.

  I have a dim view of the Armory, though I risked ail two decades ago to get it open.  It is used instead of opening up buildings or campgrounds that would be much cheaper and more convenient.   Under the incoming Mayor Robinson, who has asserted her hostility to homeless civil rights and homeless services and after the Council’s acceptance of the Public Safety Task Force, things are likely to get worse.


From: cruiserterry@aol.com
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 22:42:33 -0500

I remember the armory like it was yesterday.
Stood in line there. Spent Christmas there.
Some nights we would be turned away after being in line for hours.
It was so cold at night I was thankful to have a car to sleep in.
I had to sleep sitting up because of my two kids.
It was soooo cold I would waste a little gas to keep the car warm.
Diane

Sent: Fri, Dec 6, 2013 6:37 pmSubject: Fwd: San Jose: Four people die of exposure overnight

Yet Sunnyvale’s armory shelter–in which homeless would NOT have frozen to death and the 150 safe, warm shelter beds inside the armory–is set to be destroyed after this winter.

It is to be “replaced” by 47 “permanent” (which means as long as the residents have left after years of homelessness) housing.  This is a pure joke.  No one is buying or renting or living in the other “permanent housing” that has been built near the armory.  At night from the armory parking lot you can see the rows upon rows of dark windows–no one is in those homes.  What makes anyone thinks 47 more units will house presently homeless people there?  And even if that does happen, what about the 100 presently homeless who will no longer have a place to sleep in the winter?  (Assuming 47 will be in the permanent housing that will “replace” the armory)

There is nothing wrong with building permanent housing, using a Housing First approach, or making more permanent housing available to unsheltered people.  All are great ideas.

What is VERY wrong is the destruction of viable temporary shelter.  Does anyone think that such shelter won’t be needed next winter?  If such a person exists (pay attention Housing, Homeless, and other officials) thinks so, let him/her answer this?  If three houseless folks died WITH the alternative of an armory, how many do you think will die WITHOUT that protection?

From someone who’s been homeless in Santa Clara County for four years to anyone who cares about the survival of unhoused people–please do not continue to subtract temporary shelter opportunities until and unless there are no homeless people still alive who need them.  

The promise of permanent housing is a wonderful thing–and a long road–and a government promise.  I remember other government promises–like Urban Renewal, fifty years ago.  It really turned out to be Urban Removal–as perfectly viable neighborhoods (at least in some cases) were destroyed and nothing was built to replace them.

As one Holocaust survivor put it–“You don’t throw out dirty water until you have clean water.”  That is survival mode.  That is what unsheltered people live in–survival mode. Do you know that homeless people die at four times the rate of non-homeless?  Did four housed people freeze to death in Santa Clara County while these four homeless people did? I didn’t read about it and I doubt it happened

None of the officials who so easily talk about permanent housing for 47 people as justification or even explanation for destroying the 150 shelter beds at the armory–I very much doubt that any of them would give up their present lodging for a PROMISE of permanent shelter at some future, unspecified, date.  Yet that is the plan they actually, publicly are trying to sell.  

Please don’t ask us to accept a bad bargain none of you would look at twice if it involved you or your loved ones

–Chuck Jagoda