Tag Archives: City Council repression

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

Posted on by

CUT AND PASTE VERSION OF THE LATEST FLYER:

SAVE VIBRANT STREET LIFE DOWNTOWN !

PROTEST, CHOW-DOWN, AND SPEAKOUT !

SUNDAY SEPTEMBER 22nd 1:30 PM

on Pacific Avenue in front of Forever Twenty-One

SING BACK AT CITY COUNCIL

TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 24th 3 PM

Council Chambers 809 Center St.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Attachment(s) from Robert Norse

1 of 1 File(s)

Further Notes on the City’s Attack on Non-Commercial Street Life

Posted on by
Members of the Public and City Council members:

City Council is scheduled to vote on the extended “forbidden zones” laws on September 24th.

Before they do, the public should know (and they are advised of) the follow:

CURRENT SMOKING BAN LAW IGNORED
An inconvenient fact not mentioned and an area not examined by staffers Hende and Collins in their no-input-from-smokers presentation on September 10th  was the current law:

Current law MC 6.04.060 (u)   provides:

    Areas which share their air space, including, but not limited to, air conditioning, heating, or other ventilation systems, entries, doorways, open windows, hallways, and stairways, with other enclosed areas in which smoking is prohibited. It shall be the responsibility of any person smoking outside where smoking is otherwise permitted to ensure that smoke does not enter any buildings where smoking is prohibited through open windows or doors; however, in no event shall smoking be allowed within twenty-five feet of any such door or open window or within twenty-five feet of any other air-intake facility through which air may flow into a building from outside that building. Notwithstanding the prohibition set forth in this subsection an employer may establish an outdoor employee smoking area within twenty-five feet of an employer’s service entrance door; provided, that said door is closed while employee smoking is taking place.
In other words, there’s a 25′ setback for smokers already on side streets and hence no need to create a total ban and thus a clustering on streets still further away.    Mentioning this inconvenient existing law might strip some of the wind from the sales of law supporters (though no clear evidence of complaints was presented by the SCPD or any other staffers around this issue and certainly no input from the affected group).
Additionally, as the tenor of the town turns more hateful under pressure from Take Back Santa Cruz and other hobophobic groups, recent accounts and common experience documents that  homeless people smoke at a significantly higher rate than the housed population (see http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/18/news/la-sn-homeless-smoking-20130718 ).   Hence this ordinance unduly impacts the poorest portion of our downtown community and seems likely to be used as another tool to move them out of the downtown, out of sight and out of town.
STREET PERFORMER IMPACT SEVERE; EVEN MORE SO FOR VENDORS
 this huge restriction of space (coming on the heels of an already sterilized sidewalk which irrationally excludes people from sitting, peacefully sparechanging, performing for donation, vending, and/or politically tabling from more than 75% of the sidewalk on Pacific Avenue (and 100% of virtually all sidewalks in other business districts—-which are less than 10′ wide.
Additionally, the notion that one street performer–much less two–can comfortably perform within a 4’X4′ are is ridiculous.  The notion that a vendor can do so and also have a chair and her or his personal possessions in that area is even more far-fetched.
And the notion that this all should be put on boxes or tables increases the burden on performers unnecessarily and to a ludicrous extreme in the interest of a hostile aesthetic–again imposed without any input from performers.
STREET PERFORMERS SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED NOT EXCLUDED
Collins and Hende (and City Attorney Barisone) misleadingly implied that street performers aren’t impacted by the display device provisions since they can “play anywhere on the avenue” (and that artists can “hold up their art with their hands” and so also not be impacted.
While it is true that a street performer without an open guitar case or cup or cap on the sidewalk is not limited as to where he or she may play, that’s only if they don’t have one of those items out to collect donations.  This, of course, ignores how street performers operate.  Cups, caps, guitar cases, etc. are indeed  “display devices”–as defined by the peculiar wording of the ordinance and have been treated as such by police for the last 19 years.
The specific definition of  MC 5.43.-000(b) defines display devices as “a table, rack, chair, box, cloth, stand, or any container, structure or other object used or capable of being used for holding or displaying tangible things, together with any associated seating facilities…”
In addition the few spaces left in the area street performers, political tablers, and vendors usually set up (between New Leaf Market and Locust St.)  are further constricted by the Move-Along law (another unique Santa Cruz DTA creation) which forbids using any particular space for more than 1 hour in any 24 hour period.    This means that even if a space is suddenly emptied of someone sitting, sparechanging, standing, performing, vending, or tabling, the person who used it before won’t be able to come back for a day.    Given the severe expansion of the “forbidden zones” (now covering 95% of the sidewalk), as well as the new 12′ distance required between display devices, this seems both likely and indeed designed to drive away those seeking to use the public space for any of those activities.

Santa Cruz Suffocation of Street Culture

Posted on by

NOTE by NORSE:  Apologies to those who received the first version of this addition to my indybay article at https://www.indybay.org/comment.php?top_id=18742960 .  This is a corrected and amended version of that e-mail.
Most of the following I e-mailed to City Council.

The question, of course, is whether the community is prepared to tolerate this crackdown on street performers, vendors, smokers, and homeless people downtown and what effective resistance strategies can be mounted.  Next Sunday’s 1:30 PM protest in front of Forever Twenty-One may provide some ideas.

There’ll be an additional gathering at City Council on the afternoon of the 24th when Council votes pn the 2nd reading.

I played some of the staff’s defense of the proposed amendments on my show–archived at http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb120915.mp3 (about 2 hours into the audio file).

In response to what I heard, I wrote the following–some of which has already been detailed in the main article:

CURRENT SMOKING BAN LAW IGNORED
An inconvenient fact not mentioned and an area not examined by staffers Hende and Collins in their no-input-from-smokers presentation on September 10th  was the current law:

Current law MC 6.04.060 (u)   provides:

Areas which share their air space, including, but not limited to, air conditioning, heating, or other ventilation systems, entries, doorways, open windows, hallways, and stairways, with other enclosed areas in which smoking is prohibited. It shall be the responsibility of any person smoking outside where smoking is otherwise permitted to ensure that smoke does not enter any buildings where smoking is prohibited through open windows or doors; however, in no event shall smoking be allowed within twenty-five feet of any such door or open window or within twenty-five feet of any other air-intake facility through which air may flow into a building from outside that building. Notwithstanding the prohibition set forth in this subsection an employer may establish an outdoor employee smoking area within twenty-five feet of an employer’s service entrance door; provided, that said door is closed while employee smoking is taking place.

In other words, there’s a 25′ setback for smokers already on side streets and hence no need to create a total ban and thus a clustering on streets still further away.    Mentioning this inconvenient existing law might strip some of the wind from the sales of law supporters (though no clear evidence of complaints was presented by the SCPD or any other staffers around this issue and certainly no input from the affected group).

Additionally, as the tenor of the town turns more hateful under pressure from Take Back Santa Cruz and other hobophobic groups, recent accounts and common experience documents that  homeless people smoke at a significantly higher rate than the housed population (see http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/18/news/la-sn-homeless-smoking-20130718 ).   Hence this ordinance unduly impacts the poorest portion of our downtown community and seems likely to be used as another tool to move them out of the downtown, out of sight and out of town.

STREET PERFORMER IMPACT SEVERE; EVEN MORE SO FOR VENDORS
This huge restriction of space comes on the heels of an already sterilized sidewalk which irrationally excludes people from sitting, peacefully sparechanging, performing for donation, vending, and/or politically tabling from more than 75% of the sidewalk on Pacific Avenue.  It also (currently) impacts 100% of virtually all sidewalks in other business districts—-which are less than 10′ wide.

Additionally, the notion that one street performer–much less two–can comfortably perform within a 4’X4′ area is ridiculous.  The notion that a vendor can do so and also have a chair and her or his personal possessions in that area is even more far-fetched.

And the notion that this all should be put on boxes or tables increases the burden on performers & vendors unnecessarily and to a ludicrous extreme in the interest of a hostile aesthetic–again imposed without any input from performers.

STREET PERFORMERS SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED NOT EXCLUDED IN THE ATTACK
Staff members Collins and Hende (and City Attorney Barisone) misleadingly implied that street performers aren’t impacted by the display device provisions since they can “play anywhere on the avenue”.  There was also the absurd suggestion that artists can “hold up their art with their hands” and so also not be impacted.

While it is true that a street performer without an open guitar case or cup or cap on the sidewalk is not limited as to where he or she may play, that’s only if they don’t have one of those items out to collect donations.  This, of course, ignores how street performers operate sine the point of the performance usually is to collect donations.  What collects donation?    Cups, caps, guitar cases, etc.   These are indeed  “display devices”–as defined by the peculiar wording of the ordinance and have been treated as such by police for the last 19 years.

The specific definition of  MC 5.43.-000(b) defines display devices as “a table, rack, chair, box, cloth, stand, or any container, structure or other object used or capable of being used for holding or displaying tangible things, together with any associated seating facilities…”   Could anything be any clearer (or more sweepingly inclusive)?

In addition the few spaces left in the area street performers, political tablers, and vendors usually set up (between New Leaf Market and Locust St.)  are further constricted by the Move-Along law (another unique Santa Cruz DTA creation) which forbids using any particular space for more than 1 hour in any 24 hour period.    This means that even if a space is suddenly emptied of someone sitting, sparechanging, standing, performing, vending, or tabling, anyone who’s “set up a display device” during that day won’t be able to come back and use that space for a day.

Given the severe expansion of the “forbidden zones” (now covering 95% of the sidewalk), as well as the new 12′ distance required between display devices, the new laws seem both likely and indeed designed to drive away the “unsightly” cluttered scene that so offended Mathews, Comstock, & Robinson–who are essentially imposing their own aesthetic dictates upon the entire community.

SIGN-MAKING TOMORROW (Monday September 16th)  AT THE RED CHURCH 5-6 pm at Lincoln and Cedar Streets.  The Occupy Santa Cruz Homeless Justice Working Group and HUFF will be making signs for the September 22nd and 24th protests tomorrow at the Red Church.  Come on down and mingle with those who will be affected.

There is also some discussion of this issue on Steve Pleich’s website at Citizens for a Better Santa Cruz facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/groups/463105420413280/ ).  Pleich posted that I was permanently banned from the page for posting a link to the revealing and abusive Ken Collins video (https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/05/15/18736901.php ) illustrating, I think, the mentality behind these anti-homeless laws and many of those who support them  (Collins was weighing in heavily on the issue and I felt the video of his threatening and harassing a homeless camper was pertinent; Pleich’s strong censorship response, I think, shows too much concern with offend Take Back Santa Cruz sensibilities.

Clearing Away Disposable People on Pacific Avenue

Posted on by

For a downloadable pdf version of this flyer with various points highlighted go to:
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/09/09/18742960.php?show_comments=1#18743230

A protest will also be held 9-22 at 1:30 PM in front of “Forever Twenty-One” on Pacific Avenue near Soquel Ave.
See https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/09/09/18742960.php?show_comments=1#18743107

by Robert Norse\  Saturday Sep 14th, 2013 4:20 PM

Shafting Non-Shoppers: Expanding the Destructive Downtown Ordinances
Merchant Monopolization of Public Spaces Marches On

In a disguised attack on the entire non-commercial street scene, City Council voted to restrict still further the very limited public space currently allowed the community downtown. Under the guise of health concerns, reducing congestion, and preventing a “trip-and-fall” hazard (none of which is documented), the reactionary new laws crowd street performers, vendors, homeless people, tablers, local residents, & tourists together & sterilize 95% of the sidewalk as “forbidden zones” for resting, vending, or performing.

This is a merchant/right-wing attack on the street counter-culture. It has nothing to do with “bad behavior.” It’s about “bigot aesthetics”–clearing away visible poverty, traditional Santa Cruz diversity, and political activists. Council staff showed no input from those impacted (other than merchants) and had no info on costs or stats documenting problems.

THE NEW LAWS
The new law changes:
+++ Extends the Smoking Ban to the side streets one block in either direction from Pacific Avenue, including all alleys & side streets and to to all surface parking lots in downtown between Laurel Street and Water St. perhaps private parking lots as well (Julie Hendee, one of the authors of the law wasn’t sure!).
+++ Requires street artists, street vendors, panhandlers, and political activists to provide “freestanding” display devices such as tables or boxes on which to hoist above the sidewalk anything with them. This bans tarps & blankets now used to display jewelry, artwork, political fliers and likely laying objects directly on the sidewalk. This includes panhandler’s cups and caps as well as street performers’ guitar cases and change bowls.
+++ Reduces the total display device space to 16 sq ft now to include all the person’s personal possessions;
+++ Requires a 12′ distance between display devices, isolating community members.
+++ Reduces available space 4/5 to include 95% of the sidewalk by expanding the “forbidden zones” to 14′ from buildings, street corners, intersections, kiosks, drinking fountains, public telephones, public benches, public trash compactors, information/directory signs, sculptures or artwork, ATM-style machines, outside street cafes, vending carts, and fences. This bans sitting on any sidewalk that is narrower than 14′ (stops use of all sidewalks in other business & beachfront districts).
+++ Defines “display devices” as any kind of container “capable of being used for holding…tangible things”—which may include a backpack or sleeping bag, making likely its use against homeless people.

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

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

FIGHT BACK AGAINST THE WEALTH-A-FICATION OF DOWNTOWN SANTA CRUZ
+++ Use your video phone to show authorities harassing the public on the streets downtown. Post on You-Tube and http://www.indybay.org/santacruz . Send them to HUFF (rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com ).
+++ E-mail City Council at citycouncil [at] cityofsantacruz.com .and demand these ordinances be reviewed for cost, effectiveness, impact, and unintended consequences by citizen committees and with public input.
+++ Spread opposition; Write local papers; Use Facebook & Twitter;. Ordinances become final a month after a 2nd vote in two weeks (October 24) Support businesses who oppose, publicize those who don’t.
+++ Post your own accounts of discrimination downtown. The Coffee Roasting Company & Starbucks recently banned large backpacks; CruzioWorks refuses 24-hour service to Dan Madison for his homeless appearance.
+++ Come to City Council 3 PM September 24th to oppose the 2nd Vote on these laws!
This side of the flier by Norse of HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom) 831-423-4833 http://www.huffsantacruz.org 9-14-13

Who’s Watching Us in Santa Cruz?

Posted on by

NOTES BY NORSE: 

Deputy Chief Steve Clark presented his usual smarmy defense of this system, noting the upsurge in car thefts. I was the only one questioning this agenda item when it came up at City Council two days ago with Clark and Chief Vogel standing by to push it through.

They needn’t have bothered. No Council member sought to require any anti-surveillance protections, clarification of which records were retained, etc. One can understand the crypto-fascist majority of Bryant, Terrazas, and Mathews supporting this. Or the unapologetically fascist Robinson and Comstock.

But the psuedo-progressives Posner and Lane following along?   Well, ask yourselves what police expansions these two have ever opposed?

Community members should demand to know what kind of records are currently being kept on innocent people by the SCPD and what surveillance devices are currently being funded and/or accessed by police agencies. Just demanding public records as to where the surveillance cameras are placed could be helpful.

If anyone has information about where Santa Cruz surveillance cameras are placed, please pass it on to HUFF.

Santa Cruz Police to Add Cameras That Can Track Every Driver in the City

Some think the system which monitors every license plate on a road could be a ‘1984’-like invasion of privacy.

Posted by Brad Kava (Editor) , September 11, 2013 at 04:20 AM
patch

With little debate or discussion, the Santa Cruz City Council Tuesday approved the purchase of $38,000 of cameras that can photograph and keep indefinitely the license plates of every car entering or leaving the city.

Called Automated License Plate Readers, the technology has been controversial in other cities, with freedom advocates claiming it is a step toward a 1984 surveillance system. The ones proposed by local police are mobile and can be kept in an officer’s car and set up when needed. They can read thousands of license plates per minute.

The money comes from a federal grant to help local agencies buy equipment. Police across the country have used them for cameras and other paramilitary equipment. The sheriff’s department will share in the funds.

Santa Cruz Deputy Chief Steve Clark told the council the technology would greatly help in retrieving stolen cars, and could have helped in a number of unsolved cases, such as the disappearance of antique dealer Deanna Brooks, who went missing 13 months ago and has never been found.

He said it could have possibly helped in the shooting of a UCSC student who survived a gunshot wound to the head at a bus station last year and has remained unsolved.

The city will purchase eight mobile units that can track traffic at major entry points, Clark said. Milpitas has used similar technology.

At issue in some cities is the question of how the technology can be used. The American Civil Liberties Union has issued a 26,000 page report on the monitoring, calling it an invasion of privacy and raising poignant questions, none of which were asked by the city council.

For example, do police have a right to monitor and keep information on drivers not suspected of a crime?  Are the records public, and if so, could a citizen subpoena them, for example, in a divorce case to check on a cheating spouse? Can an insurance company get ahold of them to determine who was driving a car or how well they were driving?

Under what restrictions would the police use the information and for how long would they keep it?

The ACLU says of the “ALRP” technology on its homepage:

“The documents paint a startling picture of a technology deployed with too few rules that is becoming a tool for mass routine location tracking and surveillance. License plate readers can serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose when they alert police to the location of a car associated with a criminal investigation. But such instances account for a tiny fraction of license plate scans, and too many police departments are storing millions of records about innocent drivers.”

A report by the International Chiefs of Police Association listed some concerns about personal liberties and the readers:

“Recording driving habits could implicate First Amendment concerns. Specifically, LPR systems have the ability to record vehicles’ attendance at locations or events that, although lawful and public, may be considered private. For example, mobile LPR units could read and collect the license plate numbers of vehicles parked at addiction counseling meetings, doctors’ offices, health clinics, or even staging areas for political protests.”

Civil rights groups sued the Los Angeles Police Department over use of the cameras.

For further comment go to:  http://santacruz.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/santa-cruz-police-to-add-cameras-that-can-track-every-driver-in-the-city?ncid=newsltuspatc00000001&evar4=picks-2-post&newsRef=true

Santa Cruz Street Performers Crushed In Under New Ordinances

Posted on by

https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/09/09/18742960.php?show_comments=1#18743077

by Robert Norse

Wednesday Sep 11th, 2013 9:46 AM

Street performers will be severely impacted.

Their allowable performance area will be reduced from the current standard–having an 18 sq ft table and being able to have other items outside that area–to 16 sq ft and having to have all their personal possessions (including musical instrument cases) inside that area.

They will be required to provide stand-up tables or boxes on which to perch their stuff (actually creating more of a trip-and-fall hazard–one of the laughable undocumented excuses used to sugarcoat this attack on the street scene). In effect they’ll be required to store their personal goods inside these devices

How many poor people can actually afford to purchase such devices? How many homeless people can store them at night?.

They will be required to be 12′ away from each other—limiting still further the total available space (under the second phony pretext—also asserted without proof or documentation–that there were “conflicts”).

But most important, the 10′ “forbidden zones” have been increased to 14′–something specifically rejected by extensive hearings in 2002 and 2003 when several committees and the City Council itself in repeated sessions debated the issue. Street performers then vocally and accurately pointed out that the expanded zones (which were at that time designed to corral and deter homeless and poor people panhandling and sitting) would severely impact the performers. The Downtown Commission as well as a Joint Council-Commission Task Force recommended and got the Council to limit the damage to 10′.

This new expansion “no man’s land” (the forbidden zones bans on tabling, sitting, sparechanging, vending, etc. essentially only consumer access to stores) cuts available performance space down to about 1/5th of what it was.

How so? Rough estimates in 2002 were that the sitting and panhandling ban (which were increased from 6′ to 14′) eliminated 95% of the sidewalk for “legal behavior”. The 10′ forbidden zones finally settled on after extensive research and public debate eliminated 75% of the sidewalk for “display devices”. Street performers will now be in the same position as sitters and sparechangers have been for the last decade—legal on only 5% of the street (as distinguished from the previous 25% (and that was a generous assessment).

Since then, additional forbidden zone creators like “public art”, directory signs, trash compactors, and other items have been added to the landscape. Additional bike racks have been put in creating less space for traditional Santa Cruz street activity.

The new ordinance now proclaims that any street musician who performs with a cup or open guitar case (a “display device”, to quote the ordinance, “anything capable of holding tangible things”) will be illegal within 14′ of a forbidden zone indicator.

The forbidden zones extend within 14′ of:
buildings,
street corners,
intersections,
kiosks,
drinking fountains,
public telephones,
public benches,
public trash compactors,
information/directory signs,
sculptures or artwork,
ATM-style machines,
outside street cafes,
vending carts,
and fences.
(See http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaCruz/?SantaCruzNT.html under MC 5.43.020).

The Council’s claim that it wants to “avoid confusion” and “make things consistent” disguises the fact that this kind of consistency punitively sucks up the public space. Comments by City Council members (Robinson, Comstock, Mathews, Terrazas) seemed to indicate “aesthetics” (i.e. Get rid of the indications of visible poverty) and merchant sensibilities (more space for us and our customers) were the major indicators.

No concrete evidence of “trip and fall”, congestion, ongoing conflict problem, or any other real public safety concern was presented.

But, of course, this ties in nicely with the City’s redefinition of “Public Safety” as “Homeless Removal”.

Real public safety concerns might be aesthetically and economically “desirable” alcohol abusers lured by the city’s nightlife, but hey–they pay good money for their raucous behaviors and “contribute to the economy of the city”.

The real issue is how to restore and reclaim the public spaces that the Downtown Association and Take Back Santa Cruz–operating through the City Council–have stolen…again. Perhaps a kazoo brigade? Perhaps chairs distributed to homeless people to sit (sitting in a chair anywhere on Pacific Ave sidewalks is legal if you’re not blocking the sidewalk)? Perhaps link-ups with Palo Alto attorneys who have already committed themselves to challenging anti-homeless laws there?

The law comes up for a second reading on September 24th.

I’ll be hoping to write more about this infuriating situation if I can find the steam.

Fighting Back Against City Council’s “Crowd and Crush Street Vendors and Performers Ordinances”

Posted on by

https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/09/09/18742960.php?show_comments=1#18743107

by HUFF (posted by Norse)

Wednesday Sep 11th, 2013 11:24 PM

HUFF voted to call a protest with food, possibly music, and speakers on Sunday September 22nd at 1:30 PM in front of Forever 21 near Soquel and Pacific Avenues in anticipation of the final vote on the ordinances the afternoon of September 24th at City Hall.

A preliminary organizational meeting will be held Saturday September 14th at 5 PM on the steps of the main post office after the Food Not Bombs meal.

We encourage folks to pass the word to street performers, street vendors, homeless people being targeted by police, rangers, and security thugs, as well as political activists–all of whom will be severely impacted by these downtown ordinances that reduce tabling, sparechanging, vending, and performing space by 4/5.

RECENT REPORTS OF POLICE AND MERCHANT HARASSMENT AND DISCRIMINATION
Reports are coming in of mass harassment at the Red Church driving away sleepers on Tuesday morning and of mass ticketing of sleepers up near the railroad tracks a few days earlier. Travelers newly arrived are getting camping tickets, but not being informed that such tickets are subject to dismissal if the victim gets on the waiting list of the Homeless (Lack of ) Services Center. Trespass tickets are being used as a substitute for camping tickets in order to avoid the mandatory dismissal required by MC 6.36.055.

The downtown Coffee Roasting Company, according to its staff, is now refusing service to homeless people with large backpacks. Brent Adams reports that a family of three (mother, father, and child) bought coffee last night, and then were told to leave after the father brought in a laptop computer. If you are a regular customer or simply concerned about this kind of hateful attitude, please speak to the management and let them now how you feel. Also please post any more recent accounts of such repulsive behavior.

Sean Deluge created the flyer.

Shafting Non-Shoppers: Expanding the Destructive Downtown Ordinances

Posted on by

https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/09/09/18742960.php

Shafting Non-Shoppers: Expanding the Destructive Downtown Ordinances
by Robert Norse ( rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com )
Monday Sep 9th, 2013 11:33 AM

In a disguised attack on the entire non-commercial street scene, tomorrow’s afternoon City Council meeting will rubberstamp restricting Continue reading →

HUFF opposes passage of Palo Alto’s Living in Vehicles ordinance

Posted on by

FROM: Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom

309 Cedar St. PMB 14B

Santa Cruz, Ca. 95060

TO: Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA

re: Item # 17 on Action Agenda for Aug 5 2013 meeting

MC 9.06.010 “Living in Vehicles” ordinance proposal Continue reading →