Category Archives: HOT ISSUES

Rooting Out Police Racism and Homeless Bashing: Demo 2 PM Wednesday at SCPD HQ !

Posted on by

FIGHT BACK AGAINST POLICE & VIGILANTE ABUSE OF THE POOR !

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 172 PMLaurel & Center outside SCPD HQ

following the weekly 11 AM-1 PM HUFF meeting at the Sub Rosa Cafe

Stop Racial and Class Profiling in Santa Cruz

Campsite Raided? Property Impounded or Tossed? Harassed on the Street?

Treated like a Criminal because you’re Poor and Outside? Vehicle threatened?

Security Guards Barking at You in the Parks? Hassled for Your Dog? “Moved Along”?

“Eat ’em Don’t Shoot ’em” Brownies & HUFF Cafe Coffee

No Ferguson in Santa Cruz! End Harassment by Officers Azua, Barnett & Others

Stop Military Style Attacks on the Poor Downtown and Around Town

Volunteer forCampsite Protection Movement & Copwatch

Flyer by HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom) 831-423-4833 www.huffsantacruz.org 309 Cedar PMB #14B Santa Cruz

Berkeley Bash Back Rally: September 13

Posted on by

 

In the last half year in the south campus area of Berkeley there have been hundreds ofarrests banishments and stay away orders. The Telegraph Avenue Merchants Association has taken the landlords contributions hired a ambassador force that acts and do a lot of the work of the police. They have stopped our communication by wiping out all venues that we in the past have communicated through. They have wiped out all of the community on Telegraph Avenue. This is a rally is open to everyone to speak to overcome this repression by the police, landlords, business and corporations.

FIGHT BACK CONCERT & EVENT IN THE PARK  Saturday, September 13th, 1-5PM    Musicians, Poets and Speakers

 PEOPLES PARK-           BERKELEY

  PUSH BACK

      POLICE & BUSINESS REPRESSION

 

 LANDLORD & CORPORATE REPRESSION

It’s a mystery! The Disappearing Records of Bob Lee’s $34,000 Wells Fargo Loan

Posted on by

NOTE BY NORSE:   The use of prosecutorial terror to chill activism in Santa Cruz after the decline of the Occupy movement in the winter of 2011-2012 is particularly significant to homeless people.  It was at the courthouse and adjacent San Lorenzo Park campground that homeless locals, community activists, and travelers established a Sanctuary Village of their own.  It was makeshift, grubby, struggling, and plagued with all the problems homeless people usually face.    It wasn’t Middle Class Pretty.   However it provided a refuge for more than a hundred homeless folks at its height for two months (including toilet facilities–now scarce to non-existent in most of Santa Cruz).  See “Occupy Santa Cruz Helps Those Fallen Through the Cracks” at https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/11/20/18700516.php  &  “Occupy Santa Cruz Addresses Sanitation Concerns” at https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/11/15/18699622.php?show_comments=1#18700006     It was trashed by police who gave refugees no place to go–since sleeping is illegal at night and “lodging” illegal all the time.  See “Police Raid and Destroy Occupy Santa Cruz Encampment in San Lorenzo Park” at https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/12/08/18702101.php .

by Becky Johnson (posted by Norse)
Saturday Aug 23rd, 2014 10:10 AM

One of D.A. Bob Lee’s principal demands in the Santa Cruz Eleven cases has been “restitution” to Wells Fargo Bank. Why are there “no records” of a $34,000 interest free loan to DA Bob Lee’s 2010 re-election campaign from Wells Fargo Bank? On Wednesday August 20th, Judge Steven Siegel held a hearing on a motion by attorney Alexis Briggs to uncover the records of Wells Fargo’s 2010 loan to Santa Cruz District Attorney Bob Lee. Lee has been relentless pursuing 11 activists at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars for a peaceful occupation of a 5 year-vacant Wells Fargo-leased bank building. 7 of the defendants, some of whom lost jobs, housing, and health because of this vendetta against the Occupy movement, had all charges dismissed after a grueling year of merry-go-round court appearances. The Final Four defendants still being hounded have been to court nearly 50 times, according to defendant Brent Adams.

Wednesday’s hearing in Judge Steven Siegel’s courtroom was a continuation of a hearing from the week before. Alexis Briggs, attorney for Cameron Laurendau of the Santa Cruz Eleven filed a motion on behalf of her client to recuse District Attorney Bob Lee from the case & have the State Attorney General take over the prosecution of the remaining four defendants.

At that hearing, a well-suited representative from Wells Fargo, Hani Ganji, appeared before the Judge to provide records, if any, of any financial relationship between the Bank & Bob Lee in the past 5 years.

In 2010, Bob Lee was running for re-election for his District Attorney for Santa Cruz County position. He submitted papers to the County elections board as required by law that he had taken out a loan from Wells Fargo Bank for $34,000. About six weeks later, he filed an addition affidavit claiming that $32,000 of the original $34,000 loan had been paid off. He also checked the box indicating that zero interest had been charged. This possible preferential treatment by the bank towards Lee prompted the motion.

DA Bob Lee was not in court, despite being the subject of the motion, and sent County Counsel, Mr. Sheinbaum, to court on his behalf, who explained that Lee “was ailing.”

The Hani Ganji told the Judge, “Wells Fargo has searched for any loans in the last five years and we didn’t find any records.”

Sheinbaum told Siegle that Lee had no records of the transaction, either, but that there was “a perfectly innocuous explanation” for the lack of records.

Siegle admitted he was “not clear how that works.” “Not only do we have no record of that loan. We have no records of any loan in the last five years.”

“It’s a mystery,” admitted Sheinbaum, “but there are several perfectly innocuous reasons for the lack of records.” When asked for even one such reason by Briggs & Defense Attorney Lisa McHaney, he did not offer a single response.

So did Lee submit fraudulent records to the County Elections department? Did Lee get a $34,000 interest-free loan from Wells Fargo and they have destroyed the records? Or even worse, did Lee get the loan & upon his victory, was gifted $32,000 8 months before he charged 11 local activists and whistle-blowers with felony charges and sought over $25,000 in “damages” from them for occupying an empty bank building, leased to Wells Fargo for three days and turning it into a community center.

Is Lee lying? Is Wells Fargo lying? Are they BOTH lying?

Upcoming, defense attorney, Brian Hackett has another hearing seeking to recuse DA Bob Lee for “misdemeanor shopping,” when Lee revealed to three defendants “There were $30,000 in damages! Come up with the money and we can talk” about reducing the felony charges to misdemeanors.”

Siegel set a continuance of the hearing for next Wednesday, Aug 27th and 9:00 AM in Department 6

(Full Disclosure: I am one of the Santa Cruz Eleven defendants. My charges were dropped in 2013 for lack of evidence)

MORE NOTES BY NORSE:

Alexis Briggs provides more details of the hearing in a interview at http://radiolibre.org/brb/brb140821.mp3 (56 minutes into the audio file).

In 2012, D.A. Bob Lee was quite candid in stating it would be “a whole new ballgame” if the defendants paid off Wells Fargo: See “Impromptu Conversation Between DA Bob Lee and Two of the Santa Cruz Eleven” at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/07/18/18717774.php .  Continue reading →

Unanswered Questions for Santa Cruz Community & Upcoming Events

Posted on by
Upcoming Events and Unanswered Questions Flyer for Candidates & Public
by Robert Norse
Saturday Aug 16th, 2014 9:49 AM

With a load of forums, protests, and a court date upcoming, I’ve prepared a preliminary HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom)-ish series of questions for the public and the City Council candidates to consider. The Unanswered Questions flyer can be downloaded and distributed or picked up in hard copy at the Sub Rosa Cafe at 703 Pacific Ave. along with the accompanying list of events–possible distribution points for the flyer.

The Unanswered Questions flyer represents my opinions and not necessarily those of HUFF but I think most would agree. I encourage those with upcoming events linked to police or military abuse, human rights violations in Santa Cruz and elsewhere, or the political charades that go on around election time contact me by e-mail so that I can include them in future postings (rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com).

§

by Robert Norse Saturday Aug 16th, 2014 9:49 AM

Continue reading →

Speak-Out Leads to Historic Shift in Local ACLU Avoidance of Homeless Civil Rights Issues

Posted on by
by Robert Norse
Tuesday Jul 1st, 2014 9:12 PM

A crowd of homeless supporters showed up at last night’s ACLU meeting (outnumbering the Board by nearly 2-1 at one point). In a series of speeches (to be rebroadcast on Free Radio Thursday night), they urged the local ACLU to issue a policy statement against the Santa Cruz Sleeping Ban and other anti-homeless laws. It was the largest such homeless crowd ever to hit an ACLU Board meeting in my experience. In the hour and a half before the meeting more than twice that number signed petitions demanding action. Folks got there under their own steam without prior organizing after an announcement and flyering at the Red Church a scant hour earlier. Perhaps because it’s end of the month or perhaps because some of had enough, we may be seeing a significant rise in activism.

BOARD MAJORITY FINALLY BEATS BACK OLD GUARD
The ultimate 5-3 vote supported Steve Pleich’s resolution to suspend camping laws in the city and county came after several decades of ACLU indifference or hostility to this most basic of human rights. It was a marked change in policy for the Board, long dominated by the notorious Sleeping Ban Supporter former Mayor Mike Rotkin. Even if the change is only symbolic and unsupported by legal action or public lobbying. There is much toxic propaganda about “homeless crime” and the need to “curb our compassion” This breath of sanity is welcome and long overdue.

Voting in favor of the resolution were Pleich, Jay Campbell, Mithrell Bowerman, Daniel Etler, and Ron Pomerantz. Voting against were Mike Rotkin, Peter Geldblum and Keith Lezar.

SLEEP IS NOT A CRIME RESOLUTION
The resolution reads:
“Statement of Principle: The Santa Cruz County Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union supports in principle a limited time moratorium on enforcement of camping ban laws and ordinances within the City and County of Santa Cruz on the grounds that such laws and ordinances selectively criminalize the homeless community. While the chapter is mindful that such a moratorium raises practical problems within the community at large, we believe that the benefits of such an approach in terms of the opportunity for civic leaders, policy makers and stakeholders to reassess the efficacy of these laws and ordinances outweighs any temporary adverse impact.”

RECENT HISTORY OF ESCALATING HARASSMENT
Homeless folks have faced a steep escalation in destruction of their camps, seizure of the property, “move along” harassment as well as citations and arrests in the last few years as the economy continues to tank. New programs designed to paint lipstick on the endless goal of “cheaply” eliminating homeless people from the downtown and city generally by eliminating their civil rights.

These include the “100 Chronic Offenders” program, the Downtown Acountability Program, the “Real Change” Red Starve-Out-the-Panhandler meters, the outrageous constriction of public spaces for performers and the public on the sidewalks of all business districts, the prosecution of those unable or unwilling to deal with to their “no sleep” and “no sitting” tickets with misdemeanor charges, and the escalating Drug War under Take-Back-Santa-Cruz orchestrated Needle Hysteria.

Well-intended incremental legal efforts by Brent Adams’ Sanctuary Village group have been repeatedly rebuffed by city bureaucrats. Thuggish First Alarm Security guards have been promoted to positions as CSO’s on the SDPD (“Big John” being the example I’ve noticed). The “Happy Hosts” continue to retain an unmarked inaccessible office in the downtown area (if you can find it and determine when it’s actually open, please let us know!). Illegal commercial signs retain immunity from legal scrutiny but homeless backpacks and survival gear are fair game for seizure and harassment.

PRIOR ACLU SILENCE
The local ACLU has said nothing about any of these issues in spite of being repeatedly approached on them. [See “Expose the Local ACLU: No Help for Homeless Rights ” at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/12/01/18747111.php

Steve Pleich, who founded the “Homeless Legal Assistance Project” and is running for City Council for the 3rd time has been on the ACLU board for 3 years, and Vice-Chair for 2. Until last night he has not demanded any resolutions on these issues come up for a vote, in spite of having a host of allies appointed to the Board.

NUMBERS AND VOLUME MATTER
It is far too early to see if this is any kind of a turning point in either Pleich’s politick approach or ACLU timidity, but it seems clear that as Pleich himself agrees, having a significant number of people demanding change makes a difference.

In the presence of such numbers, previously timid and/or silent members of the Board may have gathered courage. The verbal commentary given by the angry and eloquent speakers will be on Free Radio Santa Cruz (101.3 FM, streams at http://audio.str3am.com:5110/listen.pls, archives at http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb140703.mp3 .

At one point Chair Geldblum seemed to have ordered the issue closed without a vote and demanded that the public leave. Though there was no objection by Pleich and the rest of the Board to this behind-closed-doors process, the word was passed down later that a vote was held and the resolution passed. .I’ve asked for more specific details from those permitted to remain and when more info, I’ll pass it on. ,

§Flyer Distributed June 30th

by Robert Norse Tuesday Jul 1st, 2014 9:12 PM

 

Petition and Flyer Which Prompted the Largest Homeless Presence at the ACLU Meeting in Years

Continue reading →

Real Sidewalk Clutter–Illegal Merchant Signage on Pacific Avenue

Posted on by
by Pat Colby and Robert Norse ( rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com )
Sunday Jun 29th, 2014 11:37 PM

Last September the City Council cut back already severely-limited public space on the sidewalk to even less. I estimate less than 2% of the original Pacific Avenue sidewalk is now available for sitting, sparechanging, performing with a cup, vending, and/or political tabling. In an attempt to justify this strangulation of space, Councilmember Pamela Comstock made a comment characterizing what she saw on the downtown sidewalks as “sidewalk clutter”. In response to this and to show the extent of selective enforcement of the sidewalk laws–favoring merchants and penalizing street people–Pat Colby created a video showing what she considered real clutter–commercial sidewalk sandwich board signs–all of which are illegal under the Municipal code (zoning ordinance section 24.12.320.3). Pat played her power point presentation last Tuesday (6-24) at City Council.

COLBY’S SAGA OF ILLEGAL SIGNS
Colby’s presentation speaks for itself and can be found on line at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHPpOLOG0-k .

City Council’s own “imbedded” video groupie Community TV also documented the presentation at http://sire.cityofsantacruz.com/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=561&doctype=AGENDA , where it can be found 2 hours 28 minutes and 20 seconds into video accompanying the on-line archive.

I contacted Eric Marlatt, Principal City Planner, the week before the Council meeting. He advised me that ALL free-standing commercial signs (such as you find at regular intervals on Pacific Avenue and its sidestreets) are illegal–at least on Pacific Avenue. He also advised me that there had been no complaints or enforcement against these illegal signs for the last year.

In her presentation and at other points Pat has expressed concerns that the signs as well as the numerous sidewalk cafes that encroach upon the public sidewalk may burden disabled people and could be in violation of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act.

SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT THE REALITY,
I share with her another major concern that selective enforcement of the Downtown Ordinances against sitting, tabling, etc. downtown has been repeatedly used with a political impact (if not a political agenda) of driving away a class of people from the downtown area. Police harassment of poor people, performers, political activists, low-income travelers, and homeless folk downtown under the Downtown Ordinances escalated last year, though the departure of The Great Morgani, the colorful accordion performer, presaged a lengthy period ignoring people in “illegal spots”.

Such spots are any part of the ‘public’ sidewalk that is within 14′ of any building, street corner or intersection. kiosk, drinking fountain, public telephone, public bench,
public trash compactor, public trash can, information or directory/map sign, sculpture or artwork displayed on public property, ATM machine or other cash disbursal
machines, vending cart; or fence [See MC 5.43 at http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaCruz/ ]. This amounts to 98% of the sidewalk if you include the for-profit only sidewalk cafe encroachments and the space taken by the illegal sidewalk signs.

Whether this “benign neglect” was done to forestall protests, coax back performers, save tax payer money, or simply wait until the heat could be turned up later–is anyone’s guess. However virtually every performer, panhandler, tabler, etc. is situated “illegally” given the grandiose restrictions intended to give the police a blank check to “move along” anyone they want.

WENZELL CASE SHOWS HOW QUICKLY THE HAMMER CAN FALL
The amiable tolerance can and has been quickly withdrawn–as in the case of Kate Wenzell [See “Downtown Ordinances — A License to Harass Scarf Lady Kate Wenzell” at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/02/21/18751387.php] I hope to be writing updates on Kate’s case soon.

The obvious double standard being used, allowing illegal sidewalk signs that stand there all day while human beings are required to move every hour is glaring and undeniable. She has done a significant public service in bringing this issue to public attention.

For the full “Deadly Downtown Ordinances” with scattered updates go to http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/08/29/18657087.php?show_comments=1#18752784 )–however to be complete you’ve got to download the more recent 1st Amendment-choking additions mentioned in the Comments sections.

POSITIVE CHANGE WITH PAINTED CAGES?
For those hopeful of a “positive change” with the proposed “painted boxes” being prepared by Assistant to the Assistant City Manager Scott Collins, get ready for disappointment. Collins’ latest e-mail to me suggests there will be same amount of space as is currently “legal”. His exact words in the e-mail were: “Council’s intention is to have a similar amount of space available for performance and tabling as currently exists, simplifying the matter with clearly delineated space.”

This, of course amounts to 2% or less of the total sidewalk space. The 2% is an approximation that comes from having measured the spaces actually legal under the current law.

BOGUS MAP, BEMUSED COUNCILMEMBERS
Scott Collins “map” of these spaces, which he presented to City Council last year is wildly inaccurate where he claims there are double the number of spaces that actually exist.

So far City Council member Posner and Vice-Mayor Lane have taken no public interest in the situation. Collins has also indicated he will not be soliciting or accepting public input on the location, number, and extent of the new “performance cages” as some fondly call the proposed painted boxes on the sidewalk–outside of which it will be illegal to busque, table, or vend (perhaps sit or sparechange).

Again, a tip of the hat to Pat Colby and the others who helped create the graphic presentation illustrating the City’s dirty double standard.

 

Continue reading →

Struggle for the Right to Sleep in Santa Cruz: Why Successes in Eugene?

Posted on by
NOTE BY NORSE:  Some weeks ago, Santa Cruz Sanctuary Camp Brent Adams sent out an article discussing the success of Opportunity Village in Eugene OR–through a variety of protest, heavy lobbying, and religious leader support.  For years HUFF has focused on the first two of these tactics.  Brent has been quite critical of HUFF over the last two years for its protest activities.  He has also created a nexus of support for Santa Cruz Sanctuary Village (previously Santa Cruz Sanctuary Camp).  His recommendation that we examine this Eugene article encouraged some HUFFsters who felt that if activists could come together around these issues while at the same time recognizing differences in style and tactics, ‘twould be a good thing. The  SLEEPS strategy (the successful Eugene movement) is described in the link and the excerpt below.

From: compassionman@hotmail.com
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 13:23:09 -0700

…

You’ve all done so much work on homelessness in Santa Cruz and I’m surprised we still haven’t had much success at repealing the Sleeping Ban or in establishing a Safe Sleep Zone or Sanctuary Camp/Village.

In these TakeBackSantaCruz/PublicSafetyTaskForce times it has been sometimes disheartening.  Local officials and large non-profits are following the Obama-esque Housing First model with Smart Solutions to Homelessness & 180/180 and they’ve had great success with that but we still have many hundreds of people living outside.

The Circle Church and ISSP are quite successful with their programs too.  
For me, it had seemed like tactics and strategies to repeal the Sleeping Ban, setting up protest camps and the initiative to establish a Sanctuary Pilot Camp have been at cross purposes when viewing what next steps to take.  After reading the most recent report from inside Opportunity Village,  and reading a comment from homeless activist Jean Stacey admonishing Sanctuary Village to take a different approach, we’re interested in broadening our view of things.
And please also read Jean Stacey’s comment at the bottom of this email.
Thanks everyone!!
Brent  831-234-9848
>>  Jean Stacey is a homeless activist in Eugene, OR who works with SLEEPS.
Here are here comments after reading the Goodtimes cover story about Sanctuary Camp.
“Just read a great article on your hoped for project and it has lots of very valid, very important information. There are some really big pieces of the founding of Opportunity Village Eugene that are missing however…if you think this is all of the story, you will never make it happen. There were three things that made OVE happen: endless strategic protests 24/7 by SLEEPS, Occupy and Interfaith Occupy; 2)the appearance of the conestoga huts which were “cute” and far more palatable aesthetically and emotionally to the citizenry/politocs than a tent city will ever be and 3)a local minister, Dan Bryant, who spoke fearlessly, calmly and goodnaturely, with integrity and with a good natured belief in the best in all people and who had developed a strong network and respect through many years of service to the community. Without any one of these three components, coming together at just the right time, OVE would still be on the planner’s drawing table. The whole strategy was two pronged: protestors to drive the Council to DO something….and a totally separate dignified, professional, non rabble rousing group to actually do it. At first I, like Brent, tried to play both protestor and organizer….but once the village had been opened a few months, i got off the board of trustees so that my activism could become more radical. very hard to play both roles and i don’t advise it. OVE was formed as a response to a two month 24/7 SLEEPS protest in dec/jan after months of being stalled. I’d suggest stop calling your planned camp out a “raising of awareness” and quit filing for a permit. Say it is a protest in which you want to redress your grievances….you don’t have to get a permit to protest. You are in the Ninth Circuit Court. Start talking about Jones v LA and Lavan v LA. The published story I got to read is about the aftermath and result of the protests, activism and advocacy that preceded it. Without the protests, it would never have happened. Eugene has the WORST shelter ratio of any city that is not located in florida, california or hawaii….the 19th worst in the entire nation. This failure to house people was no accident….the city (hypocritically calling itsel the ‘human rights city”, has fought and fought and fought against shelter and would have continued to do so had the protests not been both educational/consciousness raising, threatening and embarrassing, and provided a focal point for all the folks who were human rights activists to rally round. I highly encourage you to launch a similar two pronged attack and would be happy to talk to you about it if you want. Just email me at contact@EugeneSLEEPS.org jean stacey”

 

Continue reading →

Santa Cruz Eleven Update & Wretched Mainstream Media Coverage

Posted on by
A Week Later The Sentinel Does Drive-By Coverage of the Santa Cruz Eleven
by Robert Norse ( rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com )
Tuesday Jun 10th, 2014 7:43 AM

Today’s Scent-Anal finally got around to covering the 6-4 hearing of the Final Four of the Santa Cruz Eleven–in a story that’s buried on-line and nearly impossible to leave comments on (you keep getting displaced by an ad). I suppose we should be grateful there’s any space given to the issue at all. I have so far unsuccessfully tried to leave the following comments on the story–which reiterate past concerns, but, I think, are still strongly relevant. The Sentinel story is by Jessica York and can be found at http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/News/ci_25931032/Delays-continue-in-vandalism-trespass-case .

No mention of the $100,000 cost of the case to the taxpayers so far, plus another $100,000 for the upcoming felony trial. Nor any interest in the ongoing foreclosure fraud and crime being perpetrated by Bob Lee’s pals in the Wells Fargo rackets. Nor info about senseless prosecution was and is part of a broader repression against the Occupy movement and stopping similar protests as the war against the poor escalates.

No analysis of the fact that the D.A. And police have zero evidence of any actual vandalism committed by the four defendants. The abuse of the “aiding and abetting’ theory spins the expensive lie that simply because these four along with more than a hundred others were in the building (as I was), they are “guilty” of vandalism.

Also conveniently forgotten was the original purpose of the peaceful occupation of the now six-years vacant Wells Fargo-leased ban building: to provide a community center and/or homeless refuge for those outside—only 5% of whom have any legal place to sleep at night.

The continued case simply provides political cover for Bob Lee’s failed case here and the endless distraction from escalating rents, ongoing foreclosures, and increasing poverty prompted by the massive wealth in equality in the country (and in the county).

Meanwhile on-going low-intensity terrorism against protesters and the community continues with the 6 PM to 6 AM curfew all around the courts and county buildings (denying the basic right to peaceful protest there) as well as increased “public safety” exclusions and visible police-state presence downtown, around city hall, the library, and the parks. No word from the local ACLU on these blatant bites out of the Constitution. Gary Johnson served a 6 month sentence and received an additional 2 years for sleeping on a bench outside the courthouse for a handful of nights (see http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/01/06/18748816.php ).

Recently I’ve learned from Ed Frey, the attorney in Gary Johnson’s case, that there have been new positive developments in his demand to have the case reheard because only 2 of the required 3 judges were present at the appeal hearing. More on that when he posts it or I get more info. Earlier documents in the case are o Ed’s website at http://www.fullspectrumdemocracy.org/

Gary’s probation ended in March, Ed tells me, and his on-going commentary often appears at Gary’s website: http://peacecamp2010insider.blogspot.com/ .

Recent updates & comments on the June 4th hearing are posted at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/06/05/18756978.php .

Continue reading →

Harassing the Homeless: ID Checks, Security Gate, Downtown Dragnet

Posted on by

 

Item #10 on the City Council’s afternoon agenda Tuesday (5-27) funds the Consolidated Goon Squad Operation downtown of D.A.’s, cops, parole officers, & “social services” targeting “Chronic Offenders”. This latest assault is part of the Homeless Removal Program (titled the “Downtown Accountability Program”[DAP]) as part of the on-going criminalization of the outside poor making Santa Cruz “less welcoming” to high rent refugees, foreclosure victims, disabled folks outside, and low-income travellers–not to mention hippies, performers, and street vendors.

Items #11 pressures the Homeless (Lack of) Services to complete a Security Fence and Gate and ID Cards within 90 days or forfeit funding.

BUCKS FOR BULLYING THE BUMS DOWNTOWN
The staff reports, draft City and County budgets for the “DAP” and Board of Supervisors DAP program passed 5-13 can be found at http://sire.cityofsantacruz.com/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=557&doctype=AGENDA . Click on the link at Agenda Item #10. This is part of the dog-and-pony show announced by D.A. Bob Lee that provides few if any new resources for actual drug rehab and housing programs, but hires new bureaucrats and establishes new offices to “monitor” the “undesirable” element downtown. The targets: folks who have been ignoring their infraction citations because (a) they couldn’t afford to pay for them if they wanted to, (b) they’re an insult to basic human dignity frequently (“move on every hour, no holding up a “for change” sign after dark, disobeying a security thug in a park, etc.), and (c) they are essentially a response to the “get out of town” agenda of certain groups now holding sway at City Council–long entrehcned in the SCPD, Parks and Rec, and the City staff.

I suppose it’s also a backhanded acknowledgment of the value of the Housing First! idea or at least that’s how it’s being sold. But since the only housing it specifically anticipates is jail after the second “offense”, the main point is to get drunks, “crazies”, and rebels out of sight by locking them up. Job security for lawyers, courts,bureaucrats, deputies, cops, and the occasional social service person. No new meaningful resources for homeless people.

DIRTY DEAL BETWEEN THE HOMELESS LACK OF SERVICES CENTER AND RATTLESNAKE ROBINSON
The contract, agenda report, and extra SCPD/NIMBY “goodies” can be found under the link at Agenda Item #11. This $100,,000+ boondoggle is part of the Public Safety mythology which suggests the Homeless (Lack of) Services Center [HLOSC] has a huge violent crime problem. The Sentinel has been pushing this Take-Back-Santa-Cruz Crime Scare stuff for quite some time. Mayor Lynn Robinson’s “Santa Cruz Neighbors”/SCPD baby-fascist combine has been doing the same. Glorifying abusive officers like Sgt. Butchie Baker and smearing those he harrassed has become “the new wisdom”. Sleeping for the poor outside has become not only a crime but a “public safety hazard”. “Public safety” is the undocumented, unjustified, and false rationale for turning HLOSC into an even more prison-like area. It will also drive away folks anxious about police contacts for the far more frequent “crimes” of sleeping, sitting near a building, drug possession, and trespass with intend to sleep.

Will these new “unwelcoming” measures materially impact the presence of chronically or seasonally homeless folks, or stop counter-culture travelers from connecting with friends, family, etc. in Santa Cruz? Or simply create more suffering, paranoia, and hostility?

No persuasive documentation of a “crime waye”, either at the HLOSC, in the surrounding Harvey West neighborhood, or downtown was presented either to City Council last year, in police reports obtained by Public Records Act action, during the NIMBY-dominated Public Safety Task Force show last summer, or anywhere else. That’s unless you consider open container, sleepcrime, sitcrime, smokingcrime, and drug use to be a serious crimes. What is really involved here is the old story, spruced up in new duds–jacketing homeless people as “needle menaces”, “lurkers”, “bad behavior problems”.

This Criminalizing Carnival is the most sickening and blatant hypocrisy, since all the “crimes” for which homeless people are being ticketed and jailed are things housed people can do freely in their homes.

The problem is not that the city (state and country) has ignored the need to build (or at least replace) low-income housing destroyed in each new upsurge of gentrification but that homeless people themselves have intractable mental, drug, moral, or alcohol problems, you see. It’s all their responsibility. Don’t blame the wealthy and the powerful.

The items are likely to appear soon after 2:30 PM when the open session of the City Council begins.

THE BANG WILL BE IN THE BUDGET
Budget hearings for the SCPD and the Water Dept. begin at 7 PM on the evening agenda.

Budget hearings resume Wednesday morning at 9 AM at a Special Session of City Council.

Though I’ve never had the patience or stomach to sit through more than a fraction of these hearings–it’s in the budget hearings that the fuel for the fires of the latest homeless Witchburnings will be appropriated.

Comments on this story can be left at https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/05/26/18756293.php /
The Sentinel’s “story” on this is at http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/santacruz/ci_25830031/santa-cruz-council-hear-new-approach-water-management

Continue reading →