From: Becky Johnson
Santa Cruz, Ca. 95060
(831)429-8529 ph/fax
to: Mayor Reilly and
the Santa Cruz City Council
re: Tuesday, Jan 14, 2003
item #28 Move-along ordinance and the 10 foot rule
Dear Mayor Emily
Reilly and the members of the Santa Cruz City Council,
On Tuesday, the last item on
your evening agenda is the 2nd reading of an ordinance which will greatly limit free expression in Santa Cruz.
Although you see it as a softening of an
even more oppressive and limiting ordinance you
passed on July 23rd, 2002--- the truth is, this too is a law too far, an intrusion into the free activities of the citizens
of Santa Cruz who wish to share
information amongst themselves freely, and without the threat of a $162 ticket hanging over their heads and chilling
their free speech.
The "move-along"
provision you are considering is patently unconstitutional. Loitering laws were thrown out by the Supreme Court in
the early '80's. Perhaps City
Attorney John Barisone has correctly guessed that in these Ashcroftian times, the Supreme Court will start
upholding these anti-free speech ordinances.
Do you really want to go on record as the City that undid protections of first amendment rights?
A "move along"
provision is the same thing as a loitering law. The court ruled that you cannot arrest someone for doing nothing or
for doing nothing illegal. If a street
musician is playing music legally for 59 minutes, it does NOT suddenly become illegal in 60 minutes. This
provision is not practical for political
tables which usually set up for 2 or 3 hours at a time.
Laws forbidding sitting down
14 feet from everywhere are extremely restrictive. And its not an $18 parking ticket we are talking
about. Do you remember back in July
when you asked City Attorney John Barisone how much the fine
would be for breaking the sitting law and
he said "I don't know--I'll have to check and get back to you." Can you hear a bold faced
lie when its coming from your own city attorney?
John Barisone knows full well that a person cited under all of these
infraction codes ends up paying $162 for
the non-criminal behavior of sitting, lying down even for a few moments as Richard Parsons is currently
going to trial for--- prosecuted by John
Barisone!
Playing hacky-sack, frisbee,
asking someone for a cigarette, leaning against a building, playing a flute in a doorway of a closed business, amateur
bubble-blowing, playing hopscotch on the
sidewalk, playing music 9 feet from a doorway, asking for a
dime while seated on a bench ARE NOT CRIMES!!! These are the peaceful, free, and chosen activities of the citizens
of Santa Cruz. You have no business
---and no compelling need--- to outlaw these activities.
Furthermore, you have plenty
of remedies for those whose behavior is truly causing a problem. Dealing
drugs is illegal. Blocking a sidewalk is illegal. Tresspassing in a doorway is illegal.
Unreasonable noise is illegal. And if
that is not enough, any person can file for a TRO if any legal activitity is prolonged, unreasonable, or interferes
with a business. I know this --for Tim
Fitzmaurice was instrumental in filing just such a TRO against me --for stealing pens!!-- when I lobbied at
his office to put the Sleeping Ban on the
agenda while he was mayor. 5 months later and thousands of dollars in
legal costs on both sides, the Judge threw the suit out of court for lacking
merit. But, it proves that any person does have that option for REAL
abuses.
We need to go back to the
ordinances in 1994. They have their problems. I don't like them and think they are unneccessary and
have the problem that they are by their
very nature selectively enforced against the poor.
But you obviously don't have
the political will to repeal those restrictive laws. You must admit that these new laws are a mistake. They
do not solve any problem that
exists. As Utah Phillips recently said about
the proposed and recently enacted
downtown ordinances, "What good are these laws anyway? The good people don't break them
and the bad people won't follow
them." He also assured us that all of these laws are illegal and he has promised to forward to us a stack of decisions
protecting street musicians and public
assembly to dump of John Barisone's desk.
Lastly, as a homeless
advocate for HUFF, Homeless United for Friendship &
Freedom, I must protest your
passage of such extremely restrictive ordinances which have banned begging from an estimated 90% of Santa Cruz's
sidewalks. Are you attempting to
solve poverty by fiat? Banish from sight those who are not benefitting from the bounty of Santa Cruz?
This is despicable.
What is going to happen when a homeless person gets cited for asking for spare change in a forbidden
location? He is issued a $162 citation. He is not allowed a public defender or a jury trial. He must show
up at a court hearing that may or may not
fit his schedule---often requiring him to stay for weeks in the area or risk arrest for a failure to appear.
Once in court, he will most likely be found guilty.
Since he can't pay the $162 fine (whatever made you think that he could?)
he will be "given" the
"humane" "option" of "community service" for
which he must PAY $35 for the
"privilege" or working for free. This is not slave labor. It is
worse.
Where is he going to get the
$35 to register for Community Service? He must beg for it! Otherwise, he is going to jail for
sure. And that is a huge expense for our
city and county budgets. Excuse me, but are you just swimming in money
that you can afford to blow it by jailing a
homeless man for asking for a dime and
not being able to afford the $35 fee?
In California it costs
$40,000 to keep one person in jail for one year. Why don't you just put him up at the Hilton instead!
On Tuesday night, if you have
any sense, if you have any courage, if you have
any conscience----Just say no. No to the move along. No to the entire
ordinance.
---Becky Johnson