Category Archives: Activist Articles

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

Posted on by

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.”

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

Posted on by

[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)

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

Posted on by

 

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

Hope and Despair in Palo Alto

Posted on by

NOTES BY NORSE:  Activists are proceeding on several fronts to defend the rights of vehicularly housed folks up there.  Chuck Jagoda yesterday described on the stream of Free Radio Santa Cruz how Palo Alto activists invited and funded a Santa Barbara social worker involved in the government-run park-and-sleep program down there in hopes of replicating it in Palo Alto.  Attorneys, as can be seen from the press release below, are not waiting for the city to start ticketing homeless people peacefully and harmlessly sleeping in their vehicles, but have llaunched a pre-emptive strike with a demand letter to be followed by a letter.

Jagoda’s account is at
http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb131124.mp3.towards the end of the audio file.

Meanwhile Santa Cruz’s “Smear the Poor” Sentinel’s headlines for yesterday scream out the fraudulent “Task Force on Public Safety” pre-constructed agenda redefining homeless survival campers as public safety threats. (See http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/santacruz/ci_24587717/public-safety-task-force-armed-solutions-santa-cruz   ).  Strangely enough, the usually toxic stream of comments following the story has some defenders of basic human rights and common sense.  Jump on and provide your own perspective.


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, NOVEMBER 17, 2013
COALITION OF PRO BONO LAWYERS TO FILE SUIT TO STOP PALO ALTO FROM
ARRESTING THE HOMELESS FOR LIVING IN VEHICLES: CALLS PALO ALTO LAW “INCREDIBLY HARSH.”

A group pro-bono lawyers from Palo Alto, California has notified the City of Palo Alto that they intend to file suit to prevent enforcement of a new ordinance that they say effectively bans all homeless people from within the city limits. According to the letter, sent by Palo Alto-based attorney Carrie LeRoy, along with co-counsel William Abrams and Paul Johnson, of the Silicon
Valley law firm of King & Spalding, and Stanford Law School professors Juliet Brodie and Michele Dauber, the law criminalizes the homeless in their daily lives and activities and is unconstitutional. The letter also contends that Palo Alto’s ordinance discriminates against the disabled homeless.
The lawyers represent several clients who stand to be arrested and imprisoned if the law goes into effect, according to Abrams. “James and Suzan Russaw are elderly grandparents who need to stay in the area to be near their granddaughter and grandchildren. Mr. Russaw is receiving regular kidney dialysis and needs to be able to drive to his medical appointments. Fred Smith is an elderly man and long-time resident of Palo Alto who, since he lost his job a few years ago, has been unable to afford conventional housing. Since Mr. Smith’s wife passed away and is buried in Palo Alto, where the two resided for most of their lives, he hopes that he will not be forced to leave the city. Mr Smith also needs to sleep in his vehicle rather than outdoors in order to avoid exacerbation of health issues. The Russaws and Mr. Smith are on every affordable housing and shelter bed waiting list in the area, but there is simply insufficient shelter in Palo Alto and Santa Clara County for Palo Alto’s vehicle dwellers.”
The lawyers are contesting the legality of Palo Alto’s Vehicle Habitation Ordinance, which was passed by the City Council on August 5, 2013. The ordinance is one of the broadest bans of its kind, banning all eating, sleeping, and resting in any car within the city limits. “This law is overly broad, and effectively means that the homeless who happen to rent or own a vehicle must leave Palo Alto or risk arrest. They cannot even stop here to eat a sandwich or read a book. This is needlessly draconian,” said Abrams, who noted that a violation of the law carries a possible fine of $1000 and six months in jail. “This is incredibly harsh,” he said.
The pro bono lawyers are working without pay in order to stop the law from being enforced.
“Our clients have done nothing wrong, are not criminals, and do not belong in jail,” said LeRoy. “They need housing, not criminal prosecution.” LeRoy was quick to point out that Palo Alto has no available shelter beds for the homeless. The local Opportunity Center which provides some housing for the homeless currently has a 20 year waiting list. “Santa Clara county in general and Palo Alto in particular have a dramatic shortage of available housing,” according to LeRoy. “It is the height of cruelty to tell people that it is criminal to sleep in your car, but that we have nowhere else for you to go within the entire county.”
The city has also banned overnight use of all city and public parks and facilities. “Palo Alto has been uniquely inhospitable to the homeless and poor,” noted LeRoy.

According to the city, the VHO was passed in order to prevent the homeless from congregating at Cubberley Community Center, a city recreational facility. However, according to LeRoy, there was no need to ban vehicle dwelling everywhere and at anytime in the city. “What about commercial and industrial areas as is permitted in Menlo Park and Mountain View? What is the basis for banning sleeping in areas where there are no homes, parks, or other people at night?” For LeRoy, who grew up in Palo Alto, the question is about the character and values of the city itself. “To me, the question is what kind of town do we want to be? I grew up in this city and have always thought of it as a compassionate, creative, resourceful and inclusive one. It would be one thing for the city to ban vehicle dwelling where it could point to readily-available, conventional housing alternatives. It is wrong, offensive and contrary to the spirit and values of Palo Alto to pass a law that, if enforced, will serve only to punish and injure Palo Alto’s poorest and most vulnerable residents—that is the criminalization of poverty.”

Attachments: Letter to Palo Alto City Attorney Molly Stump; City Staff Report 8-5-13 (Excerpt)
Contact:

William F. Abrams (650) 590-0703  BAbrams@KSlaw.com
Carrie LeRoy, (650) 470-3144 carrie.leroy@skadden.com

Palo Alto Homeless Update - Despondent Husband Found Dead At Don Barr's $25 million dollar Homeless Asylum

---------------------------------------------------- Decaying body found at shelter by Angela Ruggiero, Palo Alto Daily Post Staff Writer Mon Nov 25 2013 The decomposed body of a man who lived at a Palo Alto homeless center was found in his room, and may have been there for weeks. Lonnie Gullett, 63, was a resident of the Opportunity Center at 33 Encina Ave., where homeless people are provided rooms and services.  The Santa Clara County Medical Examiner-Coroner was called at noon Friday for his body.  The office said his death appears to be from natural causes. Friend and neighbor Lorin Krogh said he had not seen Gullette for several weeks and believes he was dead in his room for a long time. Mila Zelkha, director of strategic relations for the InnVision Shelter Network, which runs the Opportunity Center, said that employees had noticed Gullette had not been around for some time.  Employees decided to check his room on Friday, and found his body. Krogh said that Gullette had been through some bad luck recently after his longtime girlfriend Vivian “Venus” Sarmago, was attacked.  She had been beaten at the center and suffered a traumatic brain injury that nearly killed her.  Michael Rowe Guilford, 46, of San Jose, was arrested in connection with the attack on suspicion of battery and being drunk in public. Gullette spoke to the Post at the time, and said that at first, Venus seemed OK, but was later in a coma after she wouldn't wake up one day.  She was  left Stanford Hospital paralyzed and is currently in a nursing home. Victim once owned his own business Krogh told the Post yesterday that he had known Gullette for at least 10 years.  Gullette had hired Krogh to work with him on a street team to help get homeless people off the street.  Before, Gullette had been a general contractor and owned his own business in Sacramento for 15 years.  After being hospitalized he became seriously ill, and went on disability. “He was a really good guy,” Krough said. “and he was really bummed out about Venus.” Krogh said Gullette had told him “I don't know what to do,” after Venus was left in a vegetative state. Chronic health problems Krogh said that he and Gullette used to drink together years ago, before they turned sober.  Gullette had chronic health problems and used a wheelchair and Krogh said he thinks the cause of his death was natural. Gullette made Post headlines on April 4 when he fell down the embankment of San Fransquito Creek.  Gullette, who used a wheelchair to go long distances,, was able to stand.  He said he had gotten up to relieve himself, but lost his balance and tumbled 39 feet down the side of the creek bed.  Firefighters had to lift him out of the creek, but he was not badly injured. As the firemen began to pack up and leave the creek that day, Gullette pointed to the crown of first responders and said, “That's your tax dollars at work.  Those guys don't get paid enough.”

Debbie’s Death and the Rebirth of Compassion in Santa Cruz

Posted on by

NORSE’S NOTES:  They follow in the comment section of this story.  Leave your own comments at http://santacruz.patch.com/groups/around-town/p/the-sad-story-of-the-woman-who-died-in-a-camper-fire-last-week?ncid=newsltuspatc00000001&evar4=picks-1-post&newsRef=true&yPos=3349 .

The Sad Story of the Woman Who Died in a Camper Fire Last Week

A woman was touched by tragedy.

Posted by Brad Kava (Editor) , November 10, 2013 at 11:29 PM
patch

by Regina Henderson

I befriended a homeless woman whose camper broke down on Ocean St last week which was pushed on to my block. Anyone who knows me.. knows I don’t look kindly regarding this sort of thing. After 2 days, I left a terse note saying “You are being watched.. Move your vehicle” …young sketchy looking guys hanging out, garbage, shopping cart, guys on bikes coming by…. as time went on I realized the owner/occupant was a woman maybe my age.. but looked 70. I got to know her a bit … while she tried to work on her engine, I got to know her name,..Debbie.. how long she’d beein in town …since 1987…. 17 yr. old son in Felton… and she wanted to get back up there. ..she was in need of guidance and help…and I wanted to help her…while she worked on the engine every day, we chatted and I became invested in wanting to help her as her story unfolded… I told her to find someone to tow it back to Felton… she had just received the 72 hour notice…I called HSC to get help for her, a nice guy Kevin gave me his personal # and said he would tow her but needed tow straps..
I gave her his info… checked up on her… she said she was often victimized by “the 26 year old homeless kids” (her words not mine) she said she was like their mom and they took advantage of her… stole her medication, her $ etc. I checked up on her this morning and she said she wasnt feeling well… she was in the loft bed and complained about friends who did not return with the groceries she paid for etc…..
I told her to take care of herself and asked if she needed anything to help her feel better.. she thanked me and said no……About 4 PM today my husband yelled out as he was leaving on a bike ride… The RV is on fire…….I ran out and up to her truck when the firetrucks where …. just as I got there they were laying Debbie on the ground…she was not alive….. this has touched my soul on a profound and deep level…going over this with Keith late tonight…
I cant help but wonder Why? of all the “characters” I have met over the years, and the many “transients” I have encounted in this town the last 10 years…why Debbie…. why did I get so involved with trying to help this one lost soul???.. Keith said it kind of perfectly in one word “Eerie” This experience will last with me the rest of my days … RIP Debbie… I know you will be treated far better on the other side than you were treated here….

Regina Henderson
Ocean’s 11 Neighborhood Watch

Regina November 11, 2013 at 12:07 PM
After a few days of soul searching and research I have found out that we have NO program specifically geared toward Homeless women. I have to to understand and believe that homeless women are so completely vulnerable and are targets for the aggressive and crime ridden youth/young men who wear the mask of homelessness and who are running amok in our community. In honor of Debbie… I am committed to opening this dialogue NOW and work toward a way/space that we can nurture and give comfort to the truly vulnerable homeless… our women on our streets without a place to call home. I understand that the HSC has just purchased a house/property next to the Evergreen Cemetery in Harvey West… I have a call out to them and look forward to hearing back … perhaps we can make this space a safe place for the homeless women of our community… in honor of Debbie…Debbie’s Home…..
jmelhuff November 11, 2013 at 01:34 PM
Regina, Thank you for writing this. I’m so sorry to hear of this terrible tragedy. Hoping this raises awareness in our community.
Kathryn Paul November 11, 2013 at 03:50 PM
Thank you very much for the nice words you have said about a friend. I have new Debbie for about ten years and yes she has had much more tragic in her life. This has been very shocking for myself as I just seen her around the first, and now she is gone. I do know that yes, she had a very hard life, but now she is with her Guardian Angle..(Her Daughter) RIP, My friend Debbie…
Eve Roberson November 11, 2013 at 05:18 PM
When I read the article in the paper I immediately called another older woman I know who lives in her camper truck because she cannot find housing either. Thankfully, she answered my call but she is still not close to finding a home either. We have tried to locate some help for her but as you found, Regina, there is apparently none. Our social service net has a big hole in it and I support your suggestion. Eve, Local Live Oak Neighborhood Watch
warren west November 12, 2013 at 02:59 PM
what sc social services have a big hole / is that why im a retired senior nurse who has been homeless 20 yrs.
warren west November 12, 2013 at 03:01 PM
perhaps people paying taxes are getting ripped off by there gov.
There is no shelter for 95% of the homeless community in Santa Cruz–including the most vulnerable–women and children. HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom) and other activists have been trying for years to require the City Council to designate even the most rudimentary facilities–some “gone by dawn” parking lots (as they have in Santa Barbara now), a Sanctuary campground (as proposed by Brent Adams and others), or at the very least some Safe Sleeping Zones where homeless families can sleep without fear of being ticketed (the fine is now around $150).The fear of groups like Take Back Santa Cruz and other neighborhood NIMBY’s has blocked City Council from taking even the most elementary steps to let folks sleep–not anywhere and everywhere–but somewhere. When protest camps arise (as they naturally do–since there are 1500-2000 homeless in Santa Cruz without legal shelter), they are dispersed and the leaders prosecuted.

One activist, Gary Johnson, received a two-year sentence for sleeping four nights on the bench at the courthouse with a “Sleep is Not a Crime” sign. Yet the drumbeat to make life harder for the poor outside gets louder. Vigilante groups spur the Mayor’s anti-homeless Task Force on Public Safety to propose ever more repressive legislation and harsher enforcement.

But, as Regina’s story, experience, and research shows, once people really look into what’s available, who’s impacted, and even the cost of the current War on the Poor, the picture shifts harshly into focus. Perhaps there is hope after all.

Running Roughshod over the Recyclers: More Stench from the Santa Cruz Hatemongers

Posted on by

NOTES  BY NORSE:  City Council will be asked to research a non-existent “criminal problem” around recycling based on the fears, fantasies, and political buttons being pushed by right-wing NIMBY’s in our community.  The City Attorney and Police Chief (surprisingly) have already pointed out that (a) state law preempts attacks on local recycling centers, and (b) there are zero reports of bikes being stolen to be sold for recycling profits.  Still the staff forges ahead.  The following was my comment on the Sentinel on-line article at http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_24486415/santa-cruz-council-examine-impact-recycling-centers :


        A pretty transparent assault on homeless survival activity that hurts no one and actually benefits the environment. Even throw-aways now aren’t good enough for the Evil Homeless. Any scheme, no matter how cruel and counter to the Santa Cruz community (as distinguished from its governmental) compassionate traditions) is now on the table.
        Looks like centrist Democrats are now eagerly feeding from the fascist trough, their snouts in the air scenting the foul wind and which way the plague of hate blows as they eagerly troll for votes from the activated Hate Mob.
        Expect attacks of food-providers soon–as “criminal enablers”. Oh, wait,, that’s already happened out at the Homeless (Lack of) Services Center turning an already no-shelter-for-most “campus” into a prison annex with a $100,000 “security gate”, ID cards, and other “public safety” measures–as the zombie corpse of Drug War insanity stalks the day.
        The results of the City Council’s latest attempt to placate the Take Back Santa Cruz NIMBY’s with their street performer slaughter legislation can be seen downtown: Of the few that remain, almost all are in “illegal” locations. Self-righteous bigots and their SCPD and yellow-jacket
Hostile-apatality allies [“Hosts”] are apparently biding their time. Waiting for legitimate outrage against these laws to cool before moving in to pick off individuals with threats, citations, and arrests.
        Is the sight of poverty so unbearable and frightening that otherwise intelligent people can descend to this kind of abuse? Give a politician a constituency, I guess, and they’ll run with it, no matter how deep the slime.
        The spurious use of environmental, public safety, and economic concerns is, of course, liberal cover for another attack on the visible poor. So much easier to treat humans as trash, if you cover the roar of the compactor and the cries of pain with reassuring rhetoric, sweet reason, and checkbook ethics.

Santa Cruz council to examine impact of recycling centers

By J.M. Brown  Santa Cruz Sentinel  Posted:   11/08/2013 05:44:01 PM PST

SANTA CRUZ — The Santa Cruz City Council will consider Tuesday recommendations for the city to more closely monitor the impacts of recycling redemption centers.


Out of mounting concern about the theft of recyclables, bikes and copper, the Transportation and Public Works Commission suggested in September the city scrutinize records of California Redemption Value centers that pay people for turning in cans, bottles and scrap metal. The panel also recommended requesting the state reconsider laws requiring such centers in local communities.


Noting that many people recycle at home now, commission Chair Richelle Noroyan said she doesn’t believe the redemption centers are needed.


“It’s almost encouraging people to break into the recycling containers,” she said.


Noroyan understands there are disadvantaged people who are not committing crimes and are picking up littered recyclable material for income. But she fears the theft of recyclables and scrap metal may partially fuel the local drug trade, and stealing from curbside containers costs the city revenue that funds environmental programs.


Public works staff have suggested the council ask the state for help in address scavenging and change zoning rules to treat redemption recycling centers as a conditional use in all areas where they are allowed. The staff also suggested reviewing for six months reports that Santa Cruz’s two CRV centers are required to file with police to determine what kind of scrap metal is being recycled and by whom.


Councilman Don Lane said stealing should certainly be discouraged, but he said he also feared requesting the removal of recycling centers could eliminate a way for poor people to earn money and increase the amount of recyclable material that ends up in the garbage.


“If you don’t have a recycling center for them to turn it in to, there isn’t much incentive,” Lane said. “It would be important to get a little more analysis of that before we move in that direction.”


Also Tuesday, the council will consider a request from the parking division to halt the 11-year practice of allowing electric vehicles to park for free at downtown meters and in parking garages. Since the incentive program was started in 2002, the city has reported a surge in electric vehicles charging at city stations for free, growing by more than 180 percent since 2010.


The city will continue the free charging because the state only permits electric companies to sell power, but the cost is expected to go up as the popularity and performance of electric vehicles increase. Electric vehicles pay to park near the beach and wharf, but the city has lost nearly $8,000 since 2010 on free parking for nearly 3,500 vehicles at the Soquel/Front garage downtown.


“As the numbers have grown and we’ve been adding more electric charging stations, (the incentive program) has achieved its desired purpose,” City Manager Martín Bernal said.


The council also will vote Tuesday on awarding a $7.1 million contract for the final phase of the Bay Street Reservoir replacement. The costs will be covered through capital improvement funds.


The Public Works Department will request spending $100,000 in capital improvement funds to share in the costs of roadway, bike lane and sidewalk improvements sought by the city on the southwest corner of Ocean and Water streets so a property owner can more easily develop the long-empty site.
Follow Sentinel reporter J.M. Brown at Twitter.com/jmbrownreports

IF YOU GO

SANTA CRUZ CITY COUNCIL

WHEN: 3 p.m. Tuesday
WHERE: Council Chamber, 809 Center St.
INFORMATION: www.cityofsantacruz.com

 

SOME COMMENTS:

 

 

So here’s what we have going on: People advocating for more nanny state! We have a small group of haters that can’t stand unsightly poor people in their neighborhood, attempting to force absurd draconian policies upon the community. They’re getting away with it because most people in SC are apathetic, and don’t bother to do a little research. Perusing this document, I see Michael Becker a Take Back Santa Cruz admin, Brook Crumpton from the Clean Team, Richelle Noroyan a flip-floppy City Council hopeful, and several other TBSC sympathizers. When is Santa Cruz going to wake up and see the agenda of gentrification that’s being pushed here? This war on the poor is pretty blatant, and eventually they’ll climb the ladder to where the policies that they’re pushing affect those of us who live in houses and earn moderate incomes.
How about this City Leaders… We’re going to start a movement to pull out all of the CRV from your blue money bins that we put out once a week for you to extract! We pay the CRV, and then basically hand it over to you, and now it sounds like you rely on it as a source of income. If you’re going to try and ram through another poor hating agenda, I think it’s time for a little push back.

Raleigh – I think you are absolutely correct that there needs to be a recycle center – just for the reasons you stated. However, it becomes a little concerning for people to have people going through their garbage.
The reason I commented to your first comment, and you continue on with the response is about “progressive”. It appears that you support allowing homeless to hangout at street corners, smoke pot, drink, bum for money, collect recycleables and just basically not respect our community or neighbors’ property. If I misunderstood you – sorry.
I bet that we could sit down at a table, and have very, very similar viewpoints on most things. However, I’m a bit more libertarian in my views. If people want to dig through my garbage to find a scrap to live, fine! I threw it out, you can have it! Also, I support ANYONE hanging out in any public space, as long as they’re abiding by the laws of common sense and respect. People that look dirty, or who are poor have just as much right to be downtown as you or I. We each will have a different line of acceptable behaviors, and laws make for that societal demarcation. I personally don’t care if people are hanging out on Pacific asking for money, I simply tell them no. Simple. Done. Do we need more laws to deal with it? Have we become so dependent on the government (police) that we can’t even say no? Are we so helpless that we grovel to the City Council to be our savior? Apparently so.
Collecting recyclables? Go for it. To me that’s actually respecting our community! And who am I to stifle some poor soul from putting food on their table after they work all day collecting a valuable resource that would have otherwise gone to a landfill?
Do I trust any report from these small town crony politicians, and hater community groups who are trying to enact a surveillance state in conjunction with more ridiculous laws? No way!
Yes this is a serious issue in Santa Cruz, and it needs to be dealt with. Don Lane loves to neglect and enable.

NORSE NOTE:  For more about Ken Collins and his idea of “clean-up’s” see https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/05/15/18736901.php  

Richelle Noroya, you are showing everyone in this town just how narrow minded and classist you really are. I will not even mention how morbidly obese you appear on the web.
So, in a town that encourages reacycling and sustainablity, you suggest to close recycling centers because it might spur drug trade? The we should close the Flea Market, Yard Slaes, Pawn Shops or any other business for that matter as it could also contribute to this problem. Get Real, people need to make a living, including these recycling center owners who are taxpaying busuness owners contributing to Your community.
Please be aware that there are anti racketeering laws put in place just to stop the cornering of markets. That includes the recyclables you speak of as a commodity. You simply cannot control an open and legitimate market, it is against the law and you should know that.
You might be in a postion now where you don’t need the money. That could change, be very thankful you are where you are. Don’t underestimate your fortune and try to show some compassion for your fellow humans. Even the middle class family that uses a recycling center to help pay bills!

Homeless Human Rights Violations–in Fresno and Santa Cruz as Winter Approaches

Posted on by

NOTE BY NORSE:  Santa Cruz’s downtown main drag, Pacific Avenue,  is now a curious scene of regular violation of the new Downtown Ordinances that exclude 95%+ of the sidewalks in business districts from sitting or setting up a table.  The laws impact anyone with a “display device”–expansively described as “anything capable of holding tangible things” (i.e. a cup for a panhandler, a table for a political petitioner, a guitar case seeking donations for a busqueer).  Almost every singer, sitter, performer, or vendor that I’ve seen is in technical violation of these ordinances since so much obviously innocent behavior is simply rebranded as “criminal”.   This fits in nicely with the right-wing claims of a homeless “crime wave” requiring public money and police attention–soon to be ceremoniously announced by Mayor Bryant’s new Citizens Task Force on Public Safety (http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/index.aspx?page=1924 ).

                               Obviously uninterested in going after every instance of sitcrime, strumcrime, or sparechanecrime, cops and their cheery parapolice pals the “Hospitality” Hosts walking the beat beside them pick and choose who to harass and “move along” or ticket.  The casual and regular use of selective enforcement has soaked its way deeply into political acceptability as to be clearly visible almost  any time of day along Pacific Avenue.
That’s not enough for some CSO’s (Community Service Officers) who reportedly loom over homeless folks thumbing through their ticket books announcing new unwritten crimes that require the sitter to be 50′ from a crosswalk or building.  Or suddenly a Host announces the homeless sparechanger is sitting in a “performance zone” (of which there are none) and must move on.  And seeing to get a permit to play music or display artwork in more than 12 square feet is generally not an option, except in a very few locations (See “Shrinking Sidewalks and the Permit Fantasy” at https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/11/09/18746169.php  ).   Some homeless wiseheads are learning to justify either their peaceful panhandling or their simply sitting by making colorful signs and selling them as artwork;  this is similar to the brief rush of kazoo players a decade ago that hit the avenue when expanded forbidden-to-sit zones were created for homeless people but not those “performing”.
And mass ticketing of homeless people continues in San Lorenzo Park as recently as 11-10, according to one rudely awakened sleeper.
Property seizures are still a relatively ordinary occurrence with receipts haphazardly given, much property being taken to the city dump, and the police property room open only two days a week for two hours on those days.
Coming up next at City Council tomorrow afternoon–investigation into the feasibililty of cracking down on homeless recyclers by relocating recycling centers to more distant places or eliminating them entirely.  The City Attorney has already reluctantly told the bigotbackers on the Council that this conflicts with state law, but the “cut off all survival avenues” staff presses on.   Julie Hendee, a particularly nasty entrenched city staffer was recently heard scolding a church group for feeding people in public on the sidewalk, urging them to move indoors and out of sight.
  Food Not Bombs soupslinger Keith McHenry reports on crackdowns across the country against FNB food servers (http://anarchistcook.wordpress.com  ).
   Fresno, at least, is still the site of an ongoing lawsuit against earlier police violations (see http://www.necn.com/12/27/12/Fresno-homeless-lawsuit-survives-legal-c/landing_nation.html?&apID=d6771ce98a814833907a33ec0be52b35 and http://weap.org/humanrights/the-pursuit-of-justice/homeless-victory-in-fresno-has-implications-for-the-nation—by-mike-rhodes.htm).

Are Homeless People’s Human Rights being Violated in Fresno?
by Mike Rhodes ( editor [at] fresnoalliance.com )
Monday Nov 11th, 2013 5:15 PM

Homeless people in downtown Fresno, like the two in the photo below, are being harassed by the Fresno police. They are being told they can’t sit on public sidewalks, their property is being taken, and some say their constitutional rights are being violated.

 

 

“They told me I could not sit on the sidewalk and that I could only stay if I sat on the curb with my feet in the gutter, or if I sat entirely in the gutter,” Lori (not her real name)* told me. “A friend of mine got a citation for sitting on the sidewalk, because her sleeping bag and other stuff was beside her.”Violet (not her real name)*, a homeless woman who lives near the Poverello House, confirmed that citations are being given by the police to people who have their property with them. “If you go into the Pov (the Poverello House – a homeless social service agency in downtown Fresno) to eat and you leave your stuff on the sidewalk the police will take it,” Violet said. If homeless people have property with them they are being cited for having “debris on the road” and if they leave it for a few minutes it is hauled away.

One woman told me she had been taken to the hospital and when she returned everything she owned was gone. She does not know if the police took it, but said that even if they did she could not re-claim it, because she is too sick to walk to the storage facility and carry it back. She begged me for a couple of dollars to buy some adult diapers, to replace the ones that had been taken.

Down the street, Ben (not his real name)* said that on Saturday he had received a sleeping bag and tent from a the Sleeping Bag Project. He put up the tent on Santa Clara street Saturday night. In the morning he got up to go to the bathroom, but when he returned it was gone. He is sure the police took it.

Violet said the same thing happened to her daughter a couple of days ago. “She was gone for a few minutes and when she returned, the tent was gone,” Violet claimed. “The police come every morning at dawn and kick our tent, yell our names, and tell us to get up and move on.” Violet says that the harassment is so bad that she and her friend have to take shifts watching their property. Sometimes she will go eat at the Poverello House and sometimes her friend can go. They can only go together if they hide their property somewhere that can’t be found by the police.

For more information about attacks on the homeless in Fresno, see:

Where Hope Goes to Die
Sunday Nov 3rd, 2013
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/11/03/18745912.php

The Grain Silo/Canal Bank Homeless Encampment is Destroyed
Wednesday Oct 23rd, 2013
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/10/23/18745312.php

Grain Silo Homeless Encampment Posted for Demolition
Thursday Oct 10th, 2013
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/10/10/18744664.php

City of Fresno Finds New Ways to Harass the Homeless
Wednesday Oct 9th, 2013
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/10/09/18744608.php

***

Mike Rhodes is the editor of the Community Alliance newspaper. He can be reached by email at editor [at] fresnoalliance.com .

* Homeless peoples real names are not being used in this story out of concern of retaliation.

 

Fresno v. Santa Cruz–a Contrast in Homeless Activism

Posted on by

NOTES FROM NORSE:   Fresno activists, provide material support (portapotties, toiletries, a water source) to existing encampments in Fresno (with no legal authorization from authorities or financial support from government sources).   Fresno activists also rush to encampments being dismantled, document the havoc being wrought by authorities, and even actively resist that destruction by placing their own bodies on the line.

                  Santa Cruz activists content themselves with e-mail reports (like this one), appeals to political and community authorities to create a “Sanctuary Camp” , NO support or regular documentation of the tightening grip about the throat of the local Santa Cruz homeless, touchie-feelee “let’s understand the homeless” sessions, and chats with public officials in the airy hope of finding a “solution”  acceptable to a homeless-hostile City Council.  Meanwhile police crackdown on those who rest, socialize,  display their art, or perform for donation downtown as well as sleepers with no legal place to be at night.   The latest assault is City Council’s scheduled research into an anticipated attack on homeless recyclers at City Council today at 3 PM.

Identifying Potential Sites of Campgrounds for (Homeless) Members of
The Public: A Quest for Humanity on the Streets of Fresno, California
By Paul T. Jackson
T  a  b  l  e     o  f     C  o  n  t  e  n  t  s
Prologue
Formulation of a Legal Solution to a Legal Problem
Liability with Respect to Third-party Conduct
Liability with Respect to Water on Proposed Campgrounds
Liability with Respect to Use of Fire on Proposed Campgrounds
I.     Along the East Side of Regional Sports Complex: Proposed Campground for Semi-autonomous, (Homeless) Members of the Public                                                  
II.    93721 Heavy-industry Corridor: Proposed Campground for (Homeless) Members of the Public with Mobility Issues
III.   93706 Light-industrial Corridor: Proposed Campground for Campers Who Are Bicyclists, Electric Wheelchair Users and Addicts                                                 
Conclusion                                                                                                                 
Prologue
For many years now, local churches, masjids, synagogues, and temples—their members impelled by a desire to reduce suffering in the homeless communities of Fresno, California—have raised funds to purchase fire-and water-resistant tents. So have conscientious, albeit agnostic residents in this city. Such tents are vitally necessary to the lives of homeless people, and are to be the only form of shelter in any campground the City will permit on the proposed public campgrounds to be discussed in this paper.
However, without assurance that, after the tents are set up, neither the City nor any other public entity will declare a “cleanup” only to tear the tents down and store them in bins virtually inaccessible to the owners of the much-needed tents awaiting alleged abandonment thereof, the religious, spiritual, and just plain decent impulses to live and let live would be imprudent. Our modest efforts to alleviate such needless suffering in our community would be frustrated by a City impelled by alleged concerns of health and safety necessitating abatement of each and every homeless encampment under the terror of the City’s territory, including even that which had been set up near the grain silos where concern for neither health nor safety appeared to anyone yet on this past October 23rd suffered the fate of all other woebegone people who, though lacking customary homes, seek to keep body and soul together. They seek to survive, despite the edict of some less-enlightened, if not benighted institutions whose leaders have the audacity to declare them to be mere street people or “infidels,” allegedly alienated from the dignity which we know to be inherent in every natural person.
Now, therefore, we have come to realize that definite steps must be taken so that our efforts to alleviate such suffering will no longer prove vain; that tents and sleeping bags purchased with hard-earned money for the health and safety of homeless people undoubtedly living harder lives do not end up forever lost to their owners as a result of measures allegedly taken for their health and safety; and that the people who need these donated items may use them safe and secure in the knowledge that the land on which they do is legally available to them under reasonable conditions and not a labyrinth of rules and regulations, such as are imposed at one facility housing some two percent of the local homeless population, while the remaining 98 percent endure waves of officially sanctioned repression.
Formulation of a Legal Solution to a Legal Problem
Since solutions concerning availability of land to those people who truly need it, must come through the legal system, it is self-evident that solutions will be wrought in that system. If traditional politicking—letter-writing, lobbying, petitioning, and picketing—were enough to bring about the necessary land reform, it would have been achieved long ago in an area with plenty of food and land to share.
We know solutions to homelessness must exist in Fresno, land-poor though the city is. The area is very rich in land and the foods grown here. Land, food, tents, and sleeping bags are primarily what the homeless people here need. If the City would but open public lands to the public—a seemingly obvious proposition—caring, socially responsible residents will see to the other three needs. A reasonable legislative body will open public land as a campground if furnished with unlocked bathrooms with running water for rinsing one’s hands, a duty of personal hygiene which most of our homeless wouldn’t shirk if given the chance, and if not entirely forgotten after having been locked out of public bathrooms downtown for so very long. With the bathrooms and dumpsters that will be made available to them, the living conditions of homeless individuals will satisfy the “health and safety” requirements of which local public politicians and officials drone in their attempt to justify “cleanups.” And a court of law could find a campground with these basic amenities of hygiene satisfies those requirements, often cited by those officials, though by means never the officials intended: Unimproved public land opened as a campground for (homeless) members of the public!
Most homeless individuals in Fresno, California need access to public services which are delivered downtown. Selecting the location of a proposed campground is usually made with that consideration in mind. Though land is plentiful, vacant public land is not. Selection of potential sites, which the writer makes using the City’s website (http://gis4u.fresno.gov/viewer/), is a quest for all of the prerequisites the City must satisfy to use the law empowering it to open unimproved (or vacant) public lands; to avoid schools and parks incurring opposition to a proposed campground; and of course to choose location where it’s possible for us to enable (homeless) campers to meet the basic necessities of life.
Liability with Respect to Third-party Conduct
Criminality among homeless individuals has recently been documented and reported in The Fresno Bee. It’s sure to be the hue and cry of those local politicians who will oppose any proposal of the Fresno Homeless Advocates that the city open a campground. Generally, the City, as any public entity, is not liable for injury resulting from third-party conduct, whether negligent or criminal, on unimproved public land opened pursuant to chapter 2 of the Tort Claims Act. (See, e.g., Gov. Code, § 830.2 and § 835.)
However, in opening public lands as campgrounds for (homeless) members of the public, the City incurs liability if it’s reasonably foreseeable that a person will use property adjacent to public property (or the property itself) with due care, yet the person’s use results in danger due to a condition which exists in conjunction with some particular feature of the public property. “If the third party’s negligence or criminal conduct is foreseeable, such third party conduct may be the very risk which makes the public property dangerous when considered in conjunction with some particular feature of the public property.” (Swaner v. City of Santa Monica (App. 2 Dist. 1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 789, 804 [198 Cal.Rptr. 208].)
The City, by erecting a barrier on the perimeter of a campground, addresses its said liability if it takes a precaution against a motorist who (using due care) tries to make a U-turn crossing into a proposed campground or negligently crosses into it. The barrier need not prevent any possibility of a large truck from entering one of these proposed campgrounds. However, it must be so constructed as to make entry thereinto by a motorist an act of negligence entirely on his part, and not the City’s. It must be high enough above ground level and present a vertical face to the average motor vehicle that would alert any responsible motorist he is violating the boundary of the street and putting life and limb at risk.
Additional study is necessary to determine the specifications of the barrier.
In virtually all other conceivable cases, the City is immunized under Government Code, section 835 for any injury resulting from third-party conduct.
Liability with Respect to Water on Proposed Campgrounds
Access to potable (drinkable) water will remain a challenge for occupants of a proposed campground. Such water is not furnished in all wilderness areas, governed by the same law (ch. 2 of the Tort Claims Act, contained in Cal. Gov. Code, §§ 830—840.6) as that under which public land will be opened within our city limits. Where potable water is not available, a bathroom faucet may be set to produce only a trickle of water for cleaning one’s hands, discouraging its consumption and satisfying the minimum requirements of the Health and Safety Code.
We anticipate that occupants in outlying campgrounds lacking running, potable water will, at least over the short term, demonstrate the self-reliance, resourcefulness, and cooperativeness of homeless people of former tent cities “cleaned up” or destroyed by the City. We believe that they’ll secure and replenish drinking water for their own communities.
Liability with Respect to Use of Fire on Proposed Campgrounds
“Fire rings” are shallow concrete basins, usually about 4 feet in diameter. (Historically, these were used on California beaches, both for recreation (bonfires) and cooking, though they’re now banned on most of the state’s 108 public beaches.) Barbecue pits tend to be deeper.
The California Fire Code is contained in Part 9 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (www.calregs.com). The San Joaquin Air Pollution District has jurisdiction to give prior approval permit any open burning under conditions stated in the District’s authorization (Cal. Fire Code, § 307.2.1). And if an open burning “creates or adds to a hazardous or objectionable situation,” the fire code official may order such fire extinguished (Id., § 307.3).
To keep themselves warm in wintertime, homeless people would probably be happier with a fire 15 feet away, rather than 50 feet away from any structure. Generally, an open burning must be 50 away (Id., § 307.4). However, if built in an “approved container,” a fire may be as close to a structure as 15 feet therefrom (Id., § 307.4, exception 1).
Additional study is needed to determine the specification of an “approved container.”
But if the pile size is 3 feet or less in diameter and 2 feet or less, the fire must be at least 25 feet away from a structure (Id., § 307.4, exception 2).
 “Open burning, bonfires, recreational fires and use of portable outdoor fireplaces shall be constantly attended until the fire is extinguished. A minimum of one portable fire extinguisher complying with Section 906 with a minimum 4-A rating or other approved on-site fire-extinguishing equipment, such as dirt, sand, water barrel, garden hose or water truck, shall be available for immediate utilization.” (Cal. Fire Code, § 307.5.)
Selection of a campground may require consideration that a fire may create a hazardous or objectionable situation on certain lands. The first of three proposed locations could produce such a situation, requiring further study.
I. Along the East Side of Regional Sports Complex: Proposed Campground for Semi-autonomous, (Homeless) Members of the Public
Just to the east of the Fresno Regional Sports Complex are three large tracts of vacant land, presumably publicly owned. Their current use is actually non-use; they’re vacant. The City’s current plans are to use them as an open space/regional park, which would be adjacent to the sport complex.
With respect to the intersection of S. West Ave. and W. Annadale Ave., the tracts are on three corners, excluding the SE. The tracts to the NE and NW of the intersection span almost as far N as W. Jensen Ave. The tract on the SW corner is about half the area of that on the NW corner of that intersection. All three tracts are remote from residential parcels.
As vacant land without landscaping, buildings, or other improvement, these appear to qualify as “unimproved public land” within the meaning of California Government Code section 831.2, so that “[n]either a public entity nor a public employee is liable for an injury caused by a natural condition” thereof. (Ibid.)
The Fresno Homeless Advocates may propose that the City leave all three tracts unimproved, except for the paving of roads, construction of bathrooms, and furnishing of dumpsters and access to sanitary (though non-potable) water. These public works do not “improve” the land such as would remove it from coverage by section 831.2, supra. But these public works furnish the land with the basic necessities of an overnight, long-term campground. The Fresno Homeless Advocates may propose that the City revise its plan accordingly.
Whole families will have the opportunity to come from local churches to visit this large campground. While parents serve and/or share food with needy campers there, children (under proper supervision) will use the sports facilities at the adjacent complex. Churches that now serve food in Roeding Park and that sometimes find they end up with excess food, will coordinate with others in Fresno’s religious community, so that food and potable water are served to meet people’s needs in both large parks. (The sports park is about 4 mi away from the Pov’.)
We anticipate these proposed campgrounds will comport with the City’s recent (Nov. 9, 2013) recoding of the nearby Running Horse property, now called Mission Ranch, for large-scale commercial farming. The presence of such farming implies the absence of residences and schools, which would likely incur opposition to the proposed campground.
However, a threat to the feasibility of a campground on this tract appears if the vacant land, like the sports complex adjacent thereto, is reclaimed landfill. If so, methane emissions would appear to present a safety hazard to anyone using a controlled fire on such land, whether for cooking food, bodily warmth, or storytelling or other fireside recreation. The heat of a barbecue pit could raise the temperature of the soil on which it rests, possibly resulting in methane emission at dangerous levels. And if methane were emitting on hotter days of the year, any fire could present even greater risk to the public.
Further study is necessary.

 

 
II. 93721 Heavy-industry Corridor: Proposed Campground
For (Homeless) Members of the Public with Mobility Issues
Two vacant parcels lie to the S of the intersection of S. Cherry and S. Railroad avenues. The parcels are particularly helpful to those homeless individuals who have difficulty cooking for themselves, and/or mobility issues hindering them from walking long distances.
The parcels are only 0.6 mile away from the Pov’, an estimated 12-minute walk (or wheelchair ride). To the S of those two are three more, also in the 93721 ZIP code, i.e.: Parcel Nos. 28282828 and 23202320, both lying to the SW of the intersection of E. Florence Ave. and S. Tulip St. These are 1.1 mile away from the Pov’, an estimated 21-minute walk.
While constructing restrooms on all public campgrounds, including both of the parcels at Cherry and Railroad, the City would do well to furnish the two last-mentioned parcels with ramps leading to the restrooms. The City, as any public entity, is not required by the Americans with Disabilities Act to make every recreational area accessible to disabled individuals. But, to fulfill the ADA’s purpose of making public facilities equally available to disabled individuals, the bathrooms at the 93721 campgrounds should be furnished with ramps.
III. 93706 Light-industry Corridor: Proposed Campground for Campers Who Are Bicyclists, Electric Wheelchair Users and Addicts
In the 93706 ZIP Code, there’s a cluster of five parcels, all of which are listed as vacant land.
In the industrial corridor, no residential parcels or public parks are nearby. Nor are there any schools, the nearest being the Teocalli Dance Academy, which is 0.3 mile to the northwest.
The cluster of parcels has one which is fairly remote: A large parcel on the SW corner of the intersection of E. Church Ave. and S. Golden State Blvd. Just 0.1 mile to the west of that intersection is S. Sarah St.; on that street, 475 feet to the S of Church is Foundry Park Avenue, from which the same corner lot is accessible. Continuing  0.2 mile on Foundry Park Avenue (past Wilson’s Motorcycle), the said avenue comes to a fork: A 0.2 turn to the NE, connecting with Golden State, and the same avenue continuing SE another 0.1 mile to reach Ry-Den Truck Center at the cul-de-sac.
The four remaining parcels in the cluster are on either side of the 0.2 mile long avenue connecting to Golden State.
As vacant land without landscaping or buildings, these appear to qualify as “unimproved public land” within the meaning of California Government Code section 831.2, so that “[n]either a public entity nor a public employee is liable for an injury caused by a natural condition” thereof. (Ibid.)
Assuming campers have some means of transportation, they’ll have two services within their reach. The Turning Point G Street Residential Re-Entry Center is just 0.3 mile to the northeast, an estimated 7-minute walk on Golden State Boulevard. The proposed campground will be convenient for recovering addicts.
The Pov’ is 1.4 mile away—an estimated half-hour walk or ten-minute bicycle ride—mostly along Golden State Boulevard. Using this route, which is low traffic and also the shortest to the Pov’, campers will avoid the dance academy, which is the only public facility in the area.
Conclusion
In our quest for legally sustainable, politically suitable, and truly feasible solutions to homelessness, we are confronted by chapter 2 of the Public Tort Claims Act. This chapter contains laws permitting a public entity to open unimproved public land to the public. To provide a base of stability for Fresno’s harried homeless population, we propose homes be made available to them in the manner of a campground. Such a proposal appears the quickest for the great majority of the people and the least costly without jeopardizing life and limb, let alone the immorality of the City’s apparent war against homeless individuals.
To that end, we have moved that the Fresno Homeless Advocates propose the City open the above mentioned “vacant” parcels near downtown, and the large “vacant” tract three miles to the east thereof. To make our proposal legally and politically viable, we must see it through the City’s eyes. Therefore, we attempt to address liabilities arising if the City were to open the vacant (unimproved) public lands for our stated purpose. Whatever liabilities each location poses to the City, and  whatever advantages each poses to the proposed campers, the writer hopes this paper has invited the Fresno Homeless Advocates to engage in serious thought into the kinds of considerations necessary to formulate a viable proposal that would alleviate the living conditions of our longsuffering homeless communities.

Fresno: Where the Disappearing Blankets and Tents Went

Posted on by

NOTES BY NORSE:  Santa Cruz homeless activists have long demanded that Santa Cruz store rather than discard homeless property.   I have had conflicting accounts of whether this is done, but rarely of people being able to reclaim their property.  More recently a camper near “Nasty’s Camp”, the camp targeted by SCPD and sheriffs for seizure of their (legally grown) marijuana crop [http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/santacruz/ci_23880596/santa-cruz-police-clear-hundreds-pot-plants-trash?IADID=Search-www.santacruzsentinel.com-www.santacruzsentinel.com ]  reported all her property twice stolen and dumped by workers affiliated with the city though she wasn’t charged with anything.

Santa Cruz is a much smaller community than Fresno and reclaiming property should be easier.  Simply citing state law and the constitution clearly doesn’t do the trick if you don’t have the power of people on the street and perhaps attorneys behind you.  Still I encourage any Santa Cruz homeless person who’s had her property taken by police post their accounts of whether they were able to reclaim it or not.  Public exposure is much cheaper than trying to find legal help–though the possibility of Small Claims Court is still open.
Where Hope Goes to Die

These photos show where the City of Fresno is temporarily storing property taken from homeless people during the sweeps over the last two months.

 

 

The large blue tarps flap in the wind and catch your eye as you drive down south down H street, on your way to the center of downtown Fresno. Few people know that this small city of blue topped storage containers is where the City of Fresno, complying with a Federal court order, has brought the confiscated property of homeless people, as they fled the destruction of their humble shelters. Today, the police are confiscating shopping carts filled with homeless people’s property and adding those to the collection – even if the owner of the property just left their property in front of the Poverello House while they got a bite to eat.This confiscation of homeless peoples property started about 2 months ago with the demolitions of downtown Fresno homeless encampments. It continues today as the police and city workers round up homeless people’s property and lock it away behind a barbed wire fence, guarded 24 hours a day/7 days a week, with very little chance that it will be given back to its owners.

Even when homeless people are with their property, on the streets of Fresno, they are harassed by the police. In an incident that happened about a week ago, a group of homeless people were given “debris in road” citations. The “debris” was their blankets, food, and other items they need to survive.

There is little chance that homeless people who lost all of their belongings in these raids by the police and city workers will be able to re-claim their property, because there is no place in the city that is currently safe for them to keep it. Nobody can carry everything they need to survive with them all day/every day. Therefore, the “technical” compliance with the Federal court order is simply a cover for the city’s ongoing policy of taking and destroying homeless peoples property, endangering their health, and decreasing their overall quality of life.

For information about what homeless advocates are doing to respond to this crisis, see: http://www.helpfresnoshomeless.org/

 

 

§These Shopping Carts Were Taken From the Homeless

by Mike Rhodes Sunday Nov 3rd, 2013 5:31 PM

 

 

§Sign Identifying Who the Property was Taken From

by Mike Rhodes Sunday Nov 3rd, 2013 5:31 PM

 

 

Comments  (Hide Comments)

by Kit Williams

Sunday Nov 3rd, 2013 7:44 PM

The sergeant of the police task force charged with following the homeless to ensure that they do not resettle anywhere told me that the police were taking the shopping carts because the carts belonged to stores and would be returned to them, their rightful owners. Apparently this isn’t true, as the carts remain lined up beside the storage containers. Are store owners clamoring for the return of their property? I’ve read nothing that indicates they are.The receipt given to a homeless person whose property is confiscated says clearly (on the bottom of the form) that a photo of the property is placed on the reverse side of the form. I have yet to see a single photo of any property.

The idea that the City is complying with the court order is clearly a farce. At the end of ninety days, the property, if unclaimed, can be discarded by the City. If the City isn’t doing so, it’s undoubtedly because they don’t have the resources (the personpower) to do so, not because they are holding it out of the goodness of their hearts.

The idea that a homeless person is capable of reclaiming their property before the end of the ninety day period is likewise a farce, as this article states. Because they are homeless (and lack vehicles), they have no way to transport their belongings and no place to put them were they able to reclaim and transport them.

It is time for all of us to stand up to the City, to insist on both emergency and transitional housing, for safe and legal campgrounds, for some form of housing for those without shelter of any kind. Contact your City Council member now!

The temperatures are dropping into the 40s, into the range at which people can suffer from hypothermia. Can the City be held liable or found culpable in the deaths of any homeless people who have had the most basic of shelters torn from them? A possible question worth exploring ….

by paulal

Sunday Nov 3rd, 2013 9:27 PM

It looks like it would be impossible for a person to find their belonging in those big containers.

More “Public Safety” Snake-Oil Today at 6 PM at the CopShop

Posted on by

https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/10/30/18745646.php

Title: Public Hysteria Task Farce Slimes On…
START DATE: Wednesday October 30
TIME: 6:00 PM – 9:00 PM
Location Details:
Santa Cruz Police Department’s Community Room at Laurel and Center Streets
Event Type: Vigil/Ritual
Contact Name Susan O’Hara (posted by Norse)
Email Address sohara [at] cityofsantacruz.com
Phone Number 831 420-4020
Address
FACILITATING STAFF FOR THIS INSTITUTIONAL HATE-CRIME GROUP
Susan O’Hara is the city’s staff person (your tax payer dollars at work) who–along with Scott Collins–has been feeding and tending the Task Farce beast.

It may seem unfair to blame these bureaucrats who are facilitating this official cover for reactionary demonization of the homeless (“it’s just my job; my family has to eat: etc.)

Still Susan and Scott Collins–not to mention the ever-amiable Fred Keeley–are the workhorses that keep this foul flock fed and watered (again on your taxpayer dime). as they excrete the foundation for a new level of costly, cruel, cowardly, and pointless attacks on the poor and the addicted.

The graphic representation at http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2013/10/23/10-23_poster.pdf still aptly conveys the underlying spirit of the TF.

SEASIDE COMPANY SOFTSOAPER SOFTENS THE STENCH
It’s being smoothly soft-pedaled by Seaside Company Snake Oil salesman Kris Reyes He is the Director of General Services and External Relations at the Santa Cruz Seaside Company. His softer packaging seems to have upset some of the more Tea Party-ish members last week.

Epitomized by Renee Golder, they’d like to see more explicit and outspoken medieval Drug War measures (such as a straight-forward ban on all needle exchange in the County).

In order to maintain credibility with those a tad nervous about jumping on the reactionary steam roller, Reyes would prefer to submerge us slowly in the water, so it can be quietly heated to a boil later. Let’s not appear “extreme”.

But the entire group is clear on supporting a retreat back into the worst Drug War paranoia of the last century by agreeing on the objective of banning needle exchange in Santa Cruz city, for instance.

CRAVEN COUNCIL HAS DUMPED BEST PRACTICES
This was already done by City Council when it shut down the only site in the City at Barson St. last January behind closed doors with no public discussion, expert input, or public vote.

The sound of former liberals scuttling for cover as misinformed and fearful bigots shook their cans of improperly discarded needles at city council and Bryant-Coonerty opportunist politicians licking their ambitious chops was deafening and infuriating.

The flier I distributed there last week at http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2013/10/23/10-23_flier.pdf still sums up the origins, impulse, goals, & toxic consequences of this surrender to homeless-aphobia hysteria.

MEETING TODAY
The repulsive juggernaut lurches on today–again without audience input–at the cop shop, though the public is welcome to go and watch this well-mannered train wreck.

Issues of real crime and real rehabilitation are not the focus of this group. But as with Sheriff Wowak and his successful propaganda to spend $25 million to upgrade and expand the local jail, the TF camouflages its real passion and prejudice with reassuring noises about youth truancy and drug-treatment.

Their real interest is creating a hostile climate for homeless people and the counter culture, designating them as a “public safety” threat.

FOLLOW THE FOLLY
Agenda and staff report (and subsequent audio) are at http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/index.aspx?page=1924 .

It’s a bit hard to follow recent audio since they are completing a line by line finalizing of their report.

Still, it beats relying on the complaint and complaissant Shanna (Banana-Brain) McCord who continues her career as SCPD swill-spreader.
See http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/santacruz/ci_24375964/santa-cruz-task-force-focuses-youth-program-treatment .

Real public safety, of course means addressing real problems instead of scapegoating street performers, homeless residents, and hippie travelers. But it makes a convenient diversion from confronting those with real wealth and power whose insatiable hunger gobbles up homes, jobs, and lives.