Hikers AND bikers should enjoy Pogonip

Posted on by

As We See It:

SC Sentinel:   03/14/2012

We get that hikers in Pogonip don’t want to share trails with mountain bikers.

We also get that bicycle advocates push hard for what they want, often get it because they are good at organizing and applying pressure, but sometimes leave a trail of resentment behind them.

But their plan to pay for and build a 4-foot-wide trail in the city’s Pogonip greenbelt adjacent to UC Santa Cruz and Highway 9 is one that should be accepted, even if some of the touted benefits of the path are a bit overstated.

The 1.5-mile trail has already been approved by the advisory Parks and Recreation Commission, and next will be taken up the Santa Cruz City Council, either in two weeks or at another date, probably in April.

The proposal for the trail is the culmination of a longtime dream by the biking community, who want more trails in city-owned property. A Sentinel poll last week showed overwhelming support for the bike trail. The trail through Arana Gulch, another Santa Cruz greenbelt, was supported by bicyclists, whose efforts paid off when the state Coastal Commission finally approved the path earlier this year.

The Pogonip trail proposal winds its way up a couple of social hills. One is already occupied by a vocal environmental/conservationist community, veterans of the efforts in decades past to establish the greenbelt. This group likes the quiet and relative unobtrusiveness of allowing only pedestrian access.

These folks have legitimate concerns about environmental problems associated with bikes. It’s more than likely that the hikers and horseback riders who prefer Pogonip the way it is now in terms of trail use will not use the new bike trail. That’s OK. They can continue to use existing trails.

The other issue is the prevalence of crime in Pogonip — specifically drug use and drug dealing, especially heroin and methamphetamine.

The situation got so bad that the Sentinel devoted much of a special report two years ago to investigating the so-called “Heroin Hill” that was making Pogonip off limits except to narcotics officers making arrests.

Since then, aided by money from a tax city voters assessed on themselves, police and park rangers have made major inroads in the Pogonip drug trade. While down significantly, however, vestiges remain.

Another issue in Pogonip has been illegal camping, a problem that continues, as transients and people seeking a place to sleep outside of the long arm of the law often pitch tents in the greenbelt. Unfortunately, this prohibited use also is often accompanied by illegal campfires occasionally leading to wildfires, trash left behind and a host of other environmental degradations.

Will a bike path solve these issues? Yes and no. Yes, in that the more public use, the better. That’s why citizen groups trying to drive out illegal activities from public spaces back the biking trail.

No, because mountain bikers speeding by are not really going to deter wily drug dealers, not to mention illegal campers, tucked back in the shadows and trees.

But this is public property, and a bike path absolutely fits in with public use and access. So we support both pedestrian trails AND the biking trail. While the city obviously does not have the money to make the bike trail happen, bike-path advocates say they’ll raise the $25,000 or so needed to complete the trail and provide the volunteers to maintain it. Based on their track record, they’ll do both — and we urge the council to approve their proposal.

Attorneys for two accused in 75 River St. takeover say their clients were there as journalists

Posted on by
JESSICA M. PASKO
Santa Cruz Sentinel:   03/09/2012

SANTA CRUZ – Two men facing charges in connection with the takeover of a former bank are slated for a preliminary hearing Tuesday. Their attorneys say the men are photojournalists and were working in that capacity when the alleged violations took place.

Alex Darocy, Bradley Stuart Allen and nine other people are charged with two felony counts of vandalism and conspiracy, and two misdemeanor counts of trespassing. The charges stem from the takeover of the building at 75 River St. late last year. In that incident, a group claiming to be acting “anonymously and autonomously” but in solidarity with Occupy Santa Cruz remained in the building for nearly three days before leaving peacefully.

Darocy and Allen, who pleaded not guilty to the charges last month, are photojournalists who have done work for a number of outlets, including Santa Cruz Indymedia, according to defense attorneys George Gigarjian and Ben Rice.

Allen has worked as a freelance photojournalist covering social issues for more than a decade, Rice said. His attendance of Occupy protests in Santa Cruz were in the capacity of a photojournalist, with the sole purpose of documenting events through his photography, he said.

Likewise, Girgarjian says his client was documenting a news event.

“Alex is an established photojournalist and we’re in the position that he was there in that capacity,” Gigarjian said of the charges.

Rice has reached out to the National Press Photographers Association, of which Allen is a member.

Mickey Osterreicher, general counsel for the organization, said he has been dealing with similar situations around the country as dozens of journalists have been swept up in mass arrests at protests.

“I think the normal tension between the police and the press has been exacerbated by the Occupy movement,” he said, adding that the organization is hoping the court will dismiss these charges.

Gigarjian and Rice opted to split off their defendants from the nine other defendants for the purpose of the preliminary hearing. The rest of the defendants are scheduled to begin their hearing in April.

Blocking entrance not the right call

Posted on by
by John Corgiat Jr., Santa Cruz
SC Sentinel – As You See It, March 6, 2012

I find it distressing that a group of UC Santa Cruz students were allowed to block the entrances to UCSC on Thursday, March 2. I was attempting to drive onto the campus at the western entrance, and two young men came to my vehicle to inquire why I wanted to go on campus. When I told them that I was trying to bring my young grandson to his parents, they instructed the students to step aside to provide an opening for me to drive through. Just past the students were several police officers, who did not appear to be doing anything to stop the students from blocking the entrance.

I am an American citizen, and I should not have to explain my reasons for going on campus to anyone unless the person is a law enforcement official.

I am one of the California taxpayers who provide the funds to even have the university; the funds that the state has stopped spending on college education partly would have to come out taxes that I pay if the cuts are reversed. How much do any of the students pay in taxes compared to the rest of us? The students should not have any rights to interfere with the flow of traffic onto the UCSC campus, a campus that is provided by the taxpayers of this state.

I am told that the students were protesting the increasing costs to attend UCSC. I have no problem with protests as long as their rights do not infringe on my rights, and those students blocking the entrance on Thursday were definitely infringing on my rights.

Occupy Education: Dozens Of Protesters Demonstrating In State Capitol Arrested

Posted on by
by HANNAH DREIER
Associated Press 03/5/12

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California Highway Patrol officers arrested dozens of protesters who refused to leave the state Capitol Monday night after repeated warnings, capping off a day of protests over cuts to higher education that saw thousands descend upon Sacramento.

CHP Capt. Andy Manard said police expected the number of people arrested to be 68. They would be charged with trespassing, he said.

Police started pulling out protesters who remained in the Capitol rotunda around 7:30 p.m., more than an hour after they began warning them with a bullhorn to leave. Protesters chanted “We’re doing this for your kids,” as they were lifted up by the arms one-by-one, handcuffed with plastic ties and led them away.

“We gave them about seven or eight opportunities to avoid arrest,” Manard said. “We wanted to give them every opportunity to leave. Having that many arrests puts a stress on the jails too.”

He said the protesters would be taken to the Sacramento County Jail.

Several lawmakers watched from a second-floor balcony.

Hundreds of protesters remained outside the Capitol, along with hundreds of officers in riot gear who flanked the building. A CHP helicopter circled overhead throughout the day and evening. Manard said there were 210 officers for Monday’s events.

Those arrested were part of a daylong protest over state budget cuts to higher education that have led to steep tuition increases and fewer courses at California’s public universities and colleges.

The sit-in was staged after thousands of protesters swarmed the Capitol lawn, waving signs and chanting, “They say cut back, we say fight back.”

“We were expecting to have a good future, but things are looking uncertain for a lot of families,” said Alison Her, 19, a nursing student at California State University, Fresno. “I’m the oldest in my family and I want my siblings to be able to go to college, too.”

Organizers had hoped that 10,000 protesters would demonstrate against rising tuition rates and demand that state lawmakers restore funding for higher education. But the actual turnout fell short.

After the rally, hundreds of students lined up to enter the Capitol and filled conference rooms and hallways inside. Some met with lawmakers to lobby for increased funding for higher education, while others headed for the rotunda.

CHP officers allowed several hundred students to settle on the black and white marble floor of the rotunda before all four hallway entrances to the area were blocked. Another hundred students sat down in a hallway, communicating with fellow protesters by call and response.

Protesters spent two hours debating in call and response whether to stay after 6 p.m. and get arrested. They developed a list of core demands to present to lawmakers, including taxing the rich, educating prisoners and funding free textbooks.

A statue of Queen Isabella and Christopher Columbus was decorated with signs reading “Stop the fee increases” and “Occupy education.”

Four people were arrested during the day, CHP spokeswoman Fran Clader said. Three women were arrested for failing to obey an officer’s order after trying to unfurl a banner on the second floor, and a man was arrested outside the building for being in possession of a switchblade knife, the CHP said.

Gov. Jerry Brown said in a statement that the protest highlights the need for California voters to approve a tax increase he has proposed for the November ballot.

“The students today are reflecting the frustrations of millions of Californians who have seen their public schools and universities eroded year after year,” Brown, a Democrat, said in a written statement. “That’s why it’s imperative that we get more tax revenue this November.”

Brown’s initiative would fund education and public safety programs by temporarily raising income taxes on people who make more than $250,000 a year and temporarily increasing the sales tax by half a cent.

The University of California Student Association has endorsed a rival initiative that would tax millionaires and earmark the revenue for education. The California Federation of Teachers and state PTA support that initiative.

Buses brought hundreds of students in from as far away as the University of California, Riverside, 450 miles south of Sacramento, for Monday’s march.

The crowd was a sea of red and white, as many wore T-shirts that said “Refund our Education” and “March March.”

Tuition has nearly doubled in the past five years, to $13,000 for resident undergraduates at University of California schools and to $6,400 at California State University schools. Community college fees are set to rise to $46 per unit by this summer, up from $20 per unit in 2007.

Sam Resnick, 20, a history student at Pasadena City College, brought a tent with him to the rally.

“We want to show the state government that we care about our education, and we’re not going to leave until they make it a priority,” Resnick said.

Despite participation from outside groups, including Occupy movement protesters and supporters of the millionaire’s tax, student organizers tried to keep the focus on education cuts.

Assembly Speaker John Perez, D-Los Angeles, urged the students in a speech to use social media to spread the word about how much debt they are forced to take on to attend public colleges and universities. Perez and other Democrats support Brown’s tax proposal.

“For thousands of students across California, the debt is too much to take on and the bill is too high,” he said.

But at one point, the crowd drowned Perez out, chanting “Show us.”

US Attorney Warns Calif. Farmers Against Pot Grows

Posted on by

Don Thompson

Associated Press, 2-29-2012

Sacramento, Calif. — The top federal prosecutor in the Central Valley said Tuesday that he plans a tour this week to tell agricultural landowners they could lose their property or be prosecuted if they permit large marijuana plantations on their land.

U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagner will visit the Fresno County Farm Bureau on Thursday and the Kern County Sherriff’s Department on Friday to warn of the federal crackdown.

Investigators have found large marijuana fields primarily in the southern part of the valley, from Stanislaus County to Kern County, Wagner said in an address to the Sacramento Press Club. The crackdown targets landowners who allow their properties to be used for marijuana cultivation.

 

Wagner called the large-scale operations “a hazard to people in those farming communities.”

 

Ryan Jacobsen of the Fresno County Farm Bureau welcomed the news. He said residents are endangered by the marijuana grows, which often are operated by absentee landowners.

 

“It looks like it’s mostly outsiders. It’s not most of the mainstream farmers and ranchers who have been there for generations,” Jacobsen said. “A lot of this is not necessarily being grown for California medicinal marijuana use. A lot of it’s being exported to other states.”

 

He and Wagner said the marijuana plots are often on the scale of industrial farming.

 

“We’re not talking about backyard size. One bust was 55 acres. There’s many, many 20-acre parcels down here that are being fully grown with marijuana. It’s probably on a scale much, much larger than most people are familiar with,” Jacobsen said. “There’s guard towers that have gone up in the middle of ag lands to protect the grows.”

 

California narcotics officers said they found millions fewer pot plants on remote public lands last summer, largely because they believe growers have shifted to growing in plain sight with the hope that California’s medical marijuana law would make prosecution by state district attorneys more difficult.

 

Investigators said growers frequently lease the land, though some growers are small farmers supplementing their incomes. Other crops may be grown to hide the growing marijuana plants.

 

“Those farmers who plant large crops of marijuana or who lease their land to people who do are risking forfeiture of their lands or, in the egregious cases, criminal prosecution,” Wagner said.

 

He was met with criticism before and during his speech from those who said the federal government should not interfere, given California’s liberal medical marijuana law.

 

California law permits the drug to be cultivated and supplied to sick people on a nonprofit basis. Federal officials say many clinics profit under the pretense they are helping the sick.

 

Wagner said investigators have found that some medical marijuana dispensaries were generating $10,000 to $50,000 in profits each day, selling marijuana for twice what they paid for it.

 

“That’s not about sick people. That’s about money,” he said.


Planting seeds at food awareness rally: Activists gather at Town Clock

Posted on by
By STEPHEN BAXTER – Sentinel staff writer
02/27/2012

 

The Food Not Bombs crew dishes out stir-fry, beans and rice at Monday’s… (Dan Coyro/Sentinel)

SANTA CRUZ – Mirroring food activism events nationwide on Monday, about 30 people gathered at the Town Clock to try to empower residents about their food choices.

Leaders of the “Hoe Down” event pushed for more local, organic agriculture. They dished up free servings of spicy potato, bok choy and carrot stir-fry to passersby, handed out fliers and listened to lectures about organizations such as UC Santa Cruz’s Demeter Seed Library.

Members of Occupy Santa Cruz organized the event and worked with groups such as Food Not Bombs and the Homeless Garden Project.

“We need to build our local food systems,” said Roxanne Evans, who helped organize the event. “That’s why we wanted to bring these groups together.”

The Occupy camp in San Lorenzo Park served food to activists and the homeless before authorities dismantled the camp Dec. 8.

Since then, its members have tried to keep food issues in the spotlight. Evans said there are many Santa Cruzans who grasp the environmental consequences of eating food that has been treated with pesticides and trucked in from outside the county.

However, she encouraged more people to grow their own organic food or buy from local farms and farmers markets.

Andrew Whitman, a UCSC undergraduate who runs the seed library, talked about its mission to preserve biodiversity on the Central Coast and give free seeds to gardeners. Whitman has tried to gather the most robust, locally adapted seeds for heirloom fruits and vegetables.

The program allows gardeners to borrow those seeds, plant them, and return more seeds to the seed library.

“Our main goal is to get seeds out to people,” Whitman said.

The project is a response to genetically modified seeds. Those seeds have boosted production but have been controversial for their effects on human health, wildlife and the environment.

Some participants at Monday’s event collected signatures for a state ballot initiative that would require foods to be labeled if they are genetically modified.

Evans runs TerraGnoma Community Demonstration Garden in Seabright. She offers produce and educational events in return for a little help with the garden.

Evans said she hoped more people would stop and think about their food choices.

“We don’t really eat, we fuel up,” she said.”The reality is that food is a celebration.”

Four charged with taking over River Street building make first court appearance

Posted on by

Cathy KellySanta Cruz Sentinel:   02/21/2012

SANTA CRUZ – Four men appeared in court Tuesday to face charges stemming from the takeover late last year of a vacant River Street bank building – including longtime homeless rights activist Robert Norse, who came to court dressed in a blue bath robe with a teddy bear affixed to his waist between the robe and its sash.

Grant Garioch Wilson, Franklin Cruz Alcantara and Bradley Stuart Allen pleaded not guilty to two felony charges of vandalism and conspiracy and two misdemeanor trespassing charges.

The arraignment for Norse, named in court documents as Robert Norris Kahn, was continued to Feb. 29 after he asked Judge Ariadne Symons for time to hire an attorney.

Norse also asked the judge about her instructions to “cooperate” with police in the meantime, saying he operates a “cop watch” program that could be construed as some type of interference with police.

“That doesn’t sound like a problem,” Symons assured him.

The other three men were appointed attorneys and Symons ordered them back for a March 5 preliminary hearing.

Attorney Art Dudley, who represents Alcantara, also asked for clarification of what “cooperation” with police entailed.

The judge said he was to obey police orders and not run from them or lie to them.

Allen’s attorney, Ben Rice, asked for a hearing to reconsider a condition set by Symons that Allen stay away from the River Street building. The hearing was scheduled for Friday.

Outside court, Rice said his client works as a photojournalist, but that he could not further discuss the grounds for challenging the order.

The men are among 11 charged in connection with a nearly three-day occupation of the building.

The others are Cameron Stephens Laurendeau, Becky Johnson, Brent Elliott Adams, Desiree Christine Foster, Edward Rector, Gabriella Ripley-Phipps and Alex Darocy.

The District Attorney’s Office announced the charges Feb. 8, after weeks of investigating who was involved in occupying the former Coast Commercial Bank. The building is owned Barry Swenson Builders, records show.

On Nov. 30, a group describing itself as an “anonymous, autonomous group acting in solidarity with Occupy Santa Cruz” burst into 75 River St. declaring they would turn into a community center. The group left the building peacefully after about 72 hours, marked by numerous negotiations with police, including an initial confrontation with officers in riot gear.

In announcing the charges, District Attorney Bob Lee said his office “remains committed to enforcing the law, protecting private and public property and holding people accountable for the destruction and illegal occupation of property.”

In an editorial submission in the Sentinel Sunday, Norse said the activists at the vacant bank had a posted no vandalism policy. He stated that those charged are “largely if not entirely alternative media journalists who regularly and sympathetically report police repression; including several bloggers, two photojournalists, a radio broadcaster, and several spokespeople.” (NOTE: The greater portion of this is missing from the online article, starting from the third word in the second sentence!…Media tampering, perhaps?)

UC chancellor raised no objection to baton report

Posted on by
Nanette Asimov
SF Chronicle, February 21, 2012

E-mails have surfaced that for the first time reveal UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau was informed on Nov. 9 while traveling that police used batons to forcibly remove an encampment involving hundreds of student Occupy protesters, yet did not call a halt to their use.

The use of force was criticized as excessive not only by students who were hit and are suing the university, but also by faculty and others.

The Nov. 9 protest is under investigation by a campus Police Review Board to determine who authorized use of batons by police, seen on video hitting nonviolent student protesters who had pitched tents in violation of campus policy. The five-member Review Board, convened by Birgeneau in November, is also holding hearings to determine a timeline of events that day and whether police conduct was appropriate.

Birgeneau, who was traveling in Asia on the day students first set up tents as part of the Occupy movement, received an e-mail from Provost George Breslauer soon after the first of two police confrontations with protesters on Nov. 9.

“Police used batons to gain access to the tents,” Breslauer wrote, describing a scene in which 300 to 400 students had locked arms to prevent police from moving in. “This is likely to continue for days, I suspect.”

Birgeneau responded a few hours later.

“This is really unfortunate,” the chancellor wrote. “However, our policies are absolutely clear. Obviously this group wanted exactly such a confrontation.”

A second e-mail from Birgeneau reiterates the no-tent policy and refers to the mishandling of Occupy Oakland, where tensions were inflamed in October after Mayor Jean Quan at first permitted encampments, then had police remove them forcibly. She then reversed course but eventually had the tents removed for good.

“It is critical that we do not back down on our no encampment policy,” the chancellor wrote Breslauer, copying the message to several other executives. “Otherwise, we will end up in Quan land.”

Chancellor’s apology

Birgeneau has apologized for the events of Nov. 9. He also told almost 400 members of the Faculty Senate on Nov. 28 that he was “extraordinarily disturbed” by what happened and that, as chancellor, he took full responsibility.

He told the faculty that he had explicitly prohibited police from using tear gas or pepper spray.

“Unfortunately, we did not at the same time discuss the use of the baton,” Birgeneau told the faculty.

In two open letters to students, faculty and others on campus, Birgeneau also did not reveal that he knew police had used batons. Instead, he wrote on Nov. 14 that “we cannot condone any excessive use of force against any members of our community.”

Linda Lye, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, which obtained the e-mails through the Public Records Act, identified what she called a “deeply troubling” discrepancy between how the chancellor is represented in his open letters and testimony to the Faculty Senate and how he appears in the Nov. 9 e-mails.

She said the letters and testimony “paint a misleading picture of the role (Birgeneau) played while abroad, which was in reality that he was in active contact and affirmatively set the tone for the university’s response” to protesters.

‘Batons used after the fact’

UC Berkeley spokeswoman Claire Holmes, who was among four campus executives copied on the e-mails, strongly disagreed with Lye’s interpretation.

“He found out that there were batons used after the fact,” Holmes said. “The chancellor acknowledged that that was unfortunate, but that we don’t want to abandon (the policy) that we don’t want people to camp. I don’t think you can infer from the e-mails that he’s authorized” the use of batons.

At their November meeting, the Faculty Senate passed four resolutions disapproving of Birgeneau’s handling of the Nov. 9 protest.

Yet Bob Jacobson, Faculty Senate chairman, said the e-mails by themselves fail to indict the chancellor because they don’t indicate who first authorized police to hit the nonviolent students with batons.

“I hope that the entire set of statements is going to come out at some point, and we’ll have this entire history,” Jacobson said.

Meanwhile, the ACLU plans to send a letter today to the Police Review Board, informing them of the new information.

A choice that smarts

Posted on by

by Peter Burke

Feb 16, 2012

Residents can opt out of Smart Meters, like the one shown here, but it will cost them $75, plus $10 per month, to avoid the new technology. Peter Burke/Press-Banner

Residents can opt out of Smart Meters, like the one shown here, but it will cost them $75, plus $10 per month, to avoid the new technology. Peter Burke/Press-Banner

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. customers in Santa Cruz County received certified letters by way of the U.S. Postal Service last week describing the fees they would pay to opt out of the widespread Smart Meter program.

PG&E notified customers following a Feb. 1 decision by the California Public Utilities Commission that it would charge a $75 one-time setup fee and a $10 monthly meter-reading charge for all customers who keep their traditional analog meters, rather than switch to wireless Smart Meters at no charge. Customers must respond by May 1 to opt out, according to PG&E.

Those notified were all on the Smart Meter Delay List — customers who had requested PG&E delay the installation of the wireless meters while the utilities commission decided on the specifics of the opt-out program.

Santa Cruz County Supervisor Neal Coonerty, who represents most of Bonny Doon and part of Santa Cruz, said he had heard from many residents on the topic of Smart Meters, most recently about the new fees.

“They’re mostly unhappy about the cost of opting out,” Coonerty said. “They feel it’s unfair and punitive and makes it more difficult to refuse the Smart Meter.”

Coonerty said he thought PG&E could eat the cost of keeping analog meters and sending employees to read them.

“(The fee) seems like a way to discourage people from opting out,” he said. “They seem like a labor-saving device for (PG&E).”

Scotts Valley’s Joshua Hart, head of watchdog stopsmartmeters.org, contends that the decision was made by a regulatory agency that wants to protect the Smart Meter program, despite 49 local California governments passing moratoriums or opposing the change.

“The real reason for the opt-out fee is not to cover PG&E’s costs — it’s simply to encourage people not to opt out,” Hart said.

A PG&E customer service representative explained this week that the fee would pay for a worker to check that an existing analog meter was in working condition. A sticker would then be placed on the meter to notify other workers to skip installing a Smart Meter in its place.

The utilities commission ruled that PG&E must monitor the costs associated with the opt-out program and could charge more if costs were higher than anticipated — or refund customers’ money if costs were lower.

PG&E assumed 145,800 customers would opt out in the study done for the California Public Utilities Commission. The company estimated to the commission that opting out would cost the company $416 per customer, a number far below the $75 fee the CPUC agreed PG&E could charge customers. The actual cost will depend on how many customers opt out.

Smart Meter debate heard by commission

The California Public Utilities Commission heard from Smart Meter opponents and proponents before ruling on the opt-out details.

Included in the hearing were people who opposed the meter because of radio-frequency emissions, as well as those who complained about the accuracy of the meters and the prohibitive cost of opting out to low-income or fixed-income families.

PG&E argued in favor of the meter and offered different opt-out scenarios. The company preferred to use a Smart Meter with the radio turned off as the alternative, rather than keeping an analog meter.

Stopsmartmeter.org’s position, Hart said, is that Smart Meter technology can cause long-term damage to the brain, DNA and other parts of the body. He recommends that people opt out, don’t pay the fee and do anything they feel they need to keep their analog meter.

“The bottom line is people need to take care of their own safety,” he said.

The PUC, however, cited several studies that deemed the devices safe.

Hart also recommends keeping $75 on hand in an account as a safeguard.

The commission ruled that income-qualified families under the California Alternate Rates for Energy program would pay a reduced $10 opt-out fee and $5 monthly fee.

The commission still ruled in favor of the digital technology as a way to manage California’s energy supply, reduce greenhouse emissions and manage future power plant development costs, however.

“We remind parties that while we believe that residential customers should be offered an opportunity to opt out of receiving a wireless Smart Meter, the selected option should not impede state energy objectives,” commissioners wrote in the Feb. 1 ruling. “As such, it is important that the selected opt-out option has the capability to allow customers to take advantage of smart grid benefits in the future.”

The Smart Meter collects gas- and electricity-use data and transmits it every 15 minutes by way of radio frequency to a network access point. The access point aggregates the information and sends it to PG&E by way of a cellular signal.

The constant readings allow customers to view their use hour by hour and also allow PG&E to charge different rates during peak-use hours, which fall during weekday afternoons.

How to opt out:

  • Go to www.pge.com/smartmeteroptout.
  • Call 866-743-0263.

A day after DA’s Office announces charges, one arraigned in takeover of former bank building

Posted on by
JESSICA M. PASKO – Santa Cruz Sentinel
Posted:   02/09/2012

SANTA CRUZ – One of the 11 people charged in connection with the takeover of a vacant bank building last year was in court Thursday morning for arraignment on charges of trespassing, conspiracy and vandalism.

Becky Johnson appeared in shackles and red jail clothes in front of Judge Ariadne Symons, and pleaded not guilty to the charges. Symons agreed to grant attorney Ed Frey’s request that Johnson be released on her own recognizance and ordered her to return to court March 2 to confirm a preliminary hearing date.

Johnson is among those named in the criminal complaint announced Wednesday by District Attorney Bob Lee in connection with the three-day takeover of a former bank at 75 River St. A group declaring themselves to be

A man flashes the victory and peace sign to fellow Occupy protesters atop the roof of the former home of Coast Commercial Bank on River Street. (Shmuel Thaler/Sentinel)

acting “anonymously, autonomously in solidarity with Occupy Santa Cruz” illegally entered the building on or about Nov. 30 and remained there for nearly three days, eventually leaving without incident after numerous police negotiations.Under the terms of Johnson’s release, she was ordered to stay away from 75 River St. and cooperate with all law enforcement.

Another defendant named in the complaint is longtime Santa Cruz activist and demonstrator Robert Norse, who has frequently clashed with police and city officials. According to court records, Norse, referred to in court documents as Robert Norse Kahn, 64, was served a warrant Wednesday charging him with trespassing, felony conspiracy and vandalism. In a signed order, he was released on his own recognizance and agreed to appear in court on Feb. 21.

Those also named in the complaint are Brent Elliott Adams, Franklin Cruz Alacantara, Bradley Stuart Allen, Desiree Christine Foster, Cameron Laurendau, Edward Rector, Gabriella Ripley-Phipps, Grant Garioch Wilson and Alex Darocy.

Mike Rowe, chief of the investigations department at the Santa Cruz County District Attorney’s Office, said he did not know how many of the warrants had been served as of

Occupy Santa Cruz members took over a vacant building on Water Street on Wednesday afternoon. (Shmuel Thaler/Sentinel)

Thursday afternoon.According to jail records, Foster, 19, was booked into County Jail Thursday morning in lieu of $5,000 bail. Darocy was arrested on the charges just before noon Wednesday, according to the Sheriff’s Office, but jail records showed he was not in custody Thursday. The Sheriff’s Office did not have record of arrests of any of the other defendants as of Thursday afternoon.