Category Archives: HOT ISSUES

Phony Reform of the Street Performer Laws Coming Up at Council 7 PM 5-13

Posted on by

 

Performance Pens–the “Reform” Proposal from Vice-Mayor Lane and Councilmember Comstock
by Robert Norse
Monday May 12th, 2014 11:28 PM

The evening session of City Council on Tuesday May 13 will feature as its second and final order of business, discussion of a report by Comstock and Lane on proposed modifications to the Display Device Downtown Ordinance. The current sidewalk privatization law bans sitting, performing, vending, tabling, and sparechanging on 95% of the downtown sidewalks (and 100% of sidewalks in other business districts where buildings are present). The Comstock-Lane modifications would make “a Morgani exception” but set in gleaming and glaring cement the street culture-crushing laws. Instead of restoring the Street Performers Voluntary Guidelines–which worked well for 22 years–they would set up highly-restricted designated zones, giving performers “their own space” but apparently no more than they already have–just differently arranged.

Comstock and Lane cooked up these proposals in private conversations with individuals involving no announced public hearings. Lane ignored my request for the same.

I have not spoken with any street people or performers (other than Tom Noddy) that were consulted in the formation of these dialogues. It is not clear that Homeless (Lack of) Service Center bureaucrats were consulted either (though given their willingness to put in a Security Gate and ID cards they might have eagerly jumped on board).

The full staff report can be found at http://sire.cityofsantacruz.com/sirepub/cache/2/1kfzveexdnc1m5f01431dc55/387346905122014102408710.PDF though it may disappear and have to be accessed through the City Council website under the May 13 agenda. I present what seems to be the (heartless) heart of the proposals below with my comments:

STAFF REPORT: The “new regulatory framework” would be “simpler”.

The last time this “simplification” argument was used (in September 2013), the Comstock-Robinson majority loped off 20% of the sidewalk space for street performers reducing their share to 5% or less of the sidewalk—cramming them next to the curb.

The gentrification geniuses also reduced allowable space to 12 sq feet, required 12′ distances between performers, sparechangers, vendors, and tablers, & banned blankets and tarps as “trip and fall hazards”.

Of course, merchant signs and display devices have proliferated as benches have disappeared.

All this and Santa Cruz’s unique “Move Along Every Hour” law (including resting “too long” on a bench) too!

STAFF REPORT: The performance pens and tabling spaces would be marked with paint on the sidewalk—clarifying that the First Amendment regarding tabling and performing with a cap on the ground only applies to highly limited areas of the sidewalk.

When some of us tried to chalk out the sidewalk being stolen in the Great Sidewalk Swindle of 2002 with (erasible) chalk, we were arrested for vandalism. But the friendly merchant fascism has grown so self-confident that they can propose this with a straight face and not expect a flood of outrage from those who still remember traditional Santa Cruz values.

STAFF REPORT: Performance-oriented spaces can be delineated separately from tabling spaces.

So city bureaucrats will now dictate what fraction of the sidewalk you can register voters in, where you can play a guitar, and where you can display your artwork.

STAFF REPORT: Marked spaces will no longer require the “need” to have the 14′ setbacks.

Since everywhere else will be illegal. Unmentioned is what the need was to have the vast forbidden areas in the first place, other than giving the police blank checks to run off “undesireable” people.

STAFF REPORT: Some larger performance spaces will be allowed accommodating larger performing groups.

Now, given the 12′ limitation voted in by Terrazas, Mathews, & Bryant, virtually all groups are technically illegal since it’s nearly impossible to take up that little space with instruments, cases, and other items.

STAFF REPORT: Likely that 50 to 60 spaces can be marked out– “very similar to what is available now”

Of course, no such number of viable spaces are available in the Pacific Ave. core downtown area—and this misrepresentation exposes the mendacity of the project’s conclusions generally.

Marking out spaces for performers is likely to put serious pressure on merchants nearby. The previously fluid and flexible flow of performers in the downtown area—until sabotaged by the destruction of the Street Performers Guidelines in 2003—addressed this concern. Limited and static places for performers is may also increase friction between performers, tablers, vendors, and others trying to use the sidewalk—as crowding often does in other confined areas.

REAL AGENDA LAID BARE

“The more pressing issues for merchants include early morning messes left behind by homeless persons sleeping adjacent to businesses and the gap in downtown ordinance enforcement in the early to mid-evening after the Downtown Hospitality Team has completed its work. We now see for instance, partner with the Downtown Management Corporation to fund more early morning cleanup of human-created messes and more Community Service Officer patrol coverage on Pacific Avenue on busier evenings. It appears that these efforts, along with the City’s current work on the vertical prosecution team (Downtown Accountability Program) will have a more positive impact on the Downtown.”

The bigoted language (barren of documentation) speaks for itself. More cops, more harassment of homeless people. But let’s lure back The Great Morgami and still the criticism these abusive ordinances have roused, by accustoming the community to a step-by-step surrender of public space to anxious merchants and right-wing ideologues.

As for the noxious and nearly unique-to-Santa-Cruz “Move Along” law, all discussion is to be postponed for six months.

The full staff report can be found at http://sire.cityofsantacruz.com/sirepub/cache/2/1kfzveexdnc1m5f01431dc55/387346905122014102408710.PDF

Prior commentary on the latest turn of the screw in enforcing the “homeless get out” Downtown Ordinances:
“Restoring Sidewalk Sanity in Santa Cruz ” at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/03/19/18752796.php
“2013: A Nasty Year Heavy With New Anti-Homeless Laws” at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/03/10/18752404.php?show_comments=1#18752432

For those who want to look over the Downtown Ordinances, go to http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/08/29/18657087.php?show_comments=1#18752784 though you have to go through the comments sections to update the earlier document.

For those who harkened to comforting fantasies spread by City Council staff about “permits” as an “escape valve” for those wanted to be legal, see “Shrinking Sidewalks and the Permit Fantasy” at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/11/09/18746169.php

A general critique of some of the Downtown Ordinances after the passage of the Sidewalk Shrinkage laws in September: http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2013/10/10/tour_of_shame_longer_flyer.pdf .

Some of the comments in the Council-friendly Sentinel story are of interest at http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/News/ci_25737729/Santa-Cruz-council-to-review-downtown .

This issue will be on the City Council agenda Tuesday evening shortly after 7 PM.

Bring an audio recorder at your own risk! (See “Video of the False Arrest at Santa Cruz City Council for Audio Recording on April 1” at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/05/03/18755258.php).

Continue reading →

Video of Arrest at Santa Cruz City Council for Audio Recording April 1st

Posted on by

 

During a Special Session of the Santa Cruz City Council on April 1st, I was arrested for failing to leave when I twice replaced my recorder on the bannister between the public and City Council. I have regularly placed my ancient tape recorder there for more than two decades without incident. The railing is the best spot for an audible recording. Nonetheless Mayor Robinson termed my replacing the recorder there “a disruption” and insisted I leave the meeting or face arrest. I declined to do so, since attending (and recording) public meetings is an essential right (that needs to be exercised in order to be real)–particularly so for an alternate media person like myself. These rights are guaranteed on paper at least under the Brown (Public Meetings) Act. Video-journalist Brent Adams posted a video on you-tube which documents much of the action. I discuss it further below.

Brent’s video can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUNz646cnoM .

Brent Adams kindly made, uploaded, and provided the video of the incident. I wrote the entire article. The views above are mine and do not necessarily represent his.

The audio for the incident can be heard at http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb140403.mp3 (about 15 minutes into the audio file).

FALSE ARREST BY THE MAYOR; POLICE SELECTIVELY REFUSE TO CITE
The Mayor’s action was a false arrest in that my behavior not only didn’t disrupt the meeting but was protected under constitutional rights supposedly guaranteed by the state and federal constitutions. Obviously by any reasonable standard, my recording activity was not disruptive. Having Lynn Robinson say so does not make it so. In fact, filing a report on that basis is a criminal act, since the report is a false one. Both Deputy-Chief Martinez and Sgt. Bush refused to accept my citizen’s arrest of Mayor Robinson for making the false report.

Martinez said it was “her meeting”. However the 9th Circuit Court has ruled (in the earlier mock-Nazi salute case) that such a disruption has to be real. Refusing to follow an unconstitutional restriction (actually created to impact me) is not “disruptive” unless it actually disrupts.

Both Deputy-Chief Martinez and Sgt. Bush, initially saw no disruption in the activity I engaged in until directed to remove the recorder by the Mayor.

BROWN ACT PROTECTS CITIZENS AND MEDIA
A legislative body may not prohibit any person attending an open meeting from video recording, audio recording or broadcasting the proceedings, absent a reasonable finding that such activity would constitute a disruption of the proceedings. (§§ 54953.5, 54953.6; Nevens v. City of Chino (1965) 233 Cal.App.2d 775, 779; see also § 6091.)

Under the Act, the public is guaranteed the right to provide testimony at any regular or special meeting on any subject which will be considered by the legislative body before or during its consideration of the item. (§ 54954.3(a).) In 80 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 247, 248-252 (1997),

ABSURD AND PREVIOUSLY UNENFORCED DECORUM “RULE”
The rule cited by Robinson reads “Hand-held recording devices may not be left unattended at the speaker’s podium or elsewhere in the Council Chambers.”

Under this rule, if taken literally one would have to sit next to one’s recorder at all times wherever it was placed. If one left the room to use the bathroom or to interview someone else it would be a “disruption” to leave the machine “unattended” to record the meeting.

On April 1st, Robinson–under her own rules by excluding me–denied me the opportunity to record the proceedings since leaving the tape recorder anywhere in the room “unattended” would be a “disruption”. I was also denied the chance to speak at the meeting and report on it for my twice-weekly Free Radio Santa Cruz show.

ONE COMPLAINT
AFterwards I asked Bren Lehr, the City Administrator/Clerk, for copies of any complaints on e-mail or hard copy as well as any discussion between Council members and staff regarding the presence of the offending tape recorder. Lehr reported that there was only one complaint she had heard of and nothing in writing from any members of the public.

The rule seems to have been activated either as part of the Mayor’s confusion of repression with order or perhaps a particular disliking for having me visibly present at City Council meetings. Though video recordings are available days afterward and streaming happens during the meeting, I think it important if not essential that individuals and particularly reporters be able to make their own recordings with their own equipment without harassment. There’s actually a provision of the Brown Act that provides that even during a real disruption where the chambers are cleared, reporters unconnected with the disruption must be allowed to remain. This is the first time in over the 27 years that I have faced this bizarre kind of arrest for “criminal recorder placement”.

FURTHER BACKGROUND
I’ve described this incident in more detail at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/04/02/18753441.php (“Norse Incident Sounds Alarm”).

I am slated to be arraigned Tuesday morning May 6th sometime after 8:30 AM in Santa Cruz Superior Court. I face a possible maximum penalty of $1000 fine and one year in jail. I’ll be checking on Monday afternoon to see if D.A. Bob Lee intends to back up this blatant denial of basic rights.

I may be in good company because the morning of May 6th is also the date for the bogus arraignment of numerous UCSC students, activists, and union supporters arrested for striking up at UCSC around the same time.

Continue reading →

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.”

Santa Cruz City Council reverses restrictions on public assembly

Posted on by

 

Play slideshow Play slideshow Save all photos Save all photos Want to save all these photos at once? Learn how
Online pictures are available for 30 days
NOTE TO READER: HUFF member, Robert Norse, first alerted others that peaceable
assembly was likely to be cut drastically by a new City ordinance. 4 HUFF members went directly
 to the local ACLU and sought action from this largely inactive chapter. Following this
December 2nd meeting, ACLU members lobbied the City Council successfully to restore
 the restrictions as HUFF had sought. — Becky Johnson of HUFF
HUFF Photo: ACLU deliberates at Louden Nelson Ctr.
on Dec 2 2013, listens to HUFF members concerns
re: loss of public space, harassment of homeless people
by members of the SCPD, & about the limitations on
peaceable assembly.

Santa Cruz council reverses public gathering permit limit

By J.M. Brown

FOUND ONLINE HERE

Santa Cruz Sentinel

Posted:   12/10/2013 06:23:25 PM PST


SANTA CRUZ — The Santa Cruz City Council on Tuesday reversed an earlier decision to reduce the limit of public gatherings to 50 people before a city permit is required.

Five-time former mayor Mike Rotkin, speaking on behalf of the Santa Cruz County American Civil Liberties Union chapter, urged keeping the limit at 100. He said the city has not demonstrated how less than 100 participants in a rally or other event pose a public safety risk that would justify a restriction on free speech.

“Changing the threshold from 100 to 50 people would immediately impact the ability of people to organize protests at the town clock and county building steps,” he said.

Mayor Hilary Bryant and Councilmen Don Lane and Micah Posner voted in favor of keeping the number at 100 on Nov. 26 but lost on a 4-3 majority. Posner raised the issue again Tuesday during a final reading of ordinance changes governing public expression and commercial events, and council members agreed unanimously to make the reversal.

“As public assemblies get larger, almost invariably there are traffic impacts,” Posner said. “From the stand point of freedom of assembly, (traffic costs) shouldn’t trump those considerations.”

The city’s special events coordinator, Kathy Agnone, said there are several public places downtown where more than 50 participants in rallies or other events can cause traffic problems, and the proposed rule change was designed to help the city plan better. The city permit would not cost anything unless a street closure was required.

“I positively regret that this was something seen as penalizing and criminalizing folks gathering because that’s not what this is about,” Agnone said. “We are really just trying to be reasonable and streamline the process.”

Councilwoman Cynthia Mathews moved the proposed reversal as a good-will gesture, saying she hopes common sense will prevail.

BOARDWALK LOT

Tuesday, the council approved on a 6-1 vote an agreement with the Santa Cruz Seaside Co. to share in revenues generated by improvements to the Beach Boardwalk’s primary parking lot.

To ease traffic congestion on Beach Street and create more street parking during the peak summer season, the company has proposed $1 million in changes, including reconfiguring the lot to create 150 new spaces, add two entrances and establish pay stations upon exit.

Since 1984, the Boardwalk has collected a 10 percent tax for the city on its parking fees. The council agreed to return 50 percent of the tax revenue generated by the new spaces during the next 10 years not to exceed $200,000.

“We think these kinds of agreements spur economic activity,” Seaside Co. spokesman Kris Reyes told the council, echoing Economic Development Director Bonnie Lipscomb, who said the city has had to seek creative ways to form public-private parternships now that redevelopment has been eliminated.

Councilman Posner voted against the plan, saying the Boardwalk’s annual profit on the new spaces — expected to exceed $350,000 — is sufficient to recoup its own investment in the lot with a few years. He called the tax-sharing agreement “an inappropriate use of public funds.”

Vice Mayor Lynn Robinson disagreed, saying, “I understand there is a profit to be made, but there is a huge public benefit here that I see.”

The council also OK’d allowing the Tannery Arts Center to seek a property tax exemption for the performing arts theater planned for the city-owned Hide House. The council also allowed dropping “Hide House” from the name to accommodate a significant naming-rights donor.

Tuesday, the council also approved setting a public hearing for March 11 to increase wastewater rates during a four-year period. To stabilize the wastewater budget and fund capital improvements, rates are proposed to increase nearly 6 percent each year on average for single-family users for three years then 2.5 percent in the final year.

The council also commended winners of the annual Officer Jim Howes Community Service Award: police officer Ken Deeg, outgoing city arts coordinator Crystal Birns and Santa Cruz Neighbors co-founder Michael Bethke. Howes retired after 26 years as a police officer known for community engagement.

Follow Sentinel reporter J.M. Brown at Twitter.com/jmbrownreports

 

City Council Right-Wingers Next Target: Public Assembly 2 PM 10-10

Posted on by

 

Title: Constricting and Restricting Public Assembly Back at City Councl
START DATE: Tuesday December 10
TIME: 2:15 PM – 2:45 PM
Location Details:
Santa Cruz City Council Chambers
Exact time is uncertain, but the laws are items #14 and #15, directly after the Consent Agenda. To be safe, show up at 2 PM.
Event Type: Meeting
COUNCIL MEETS AT 2 PM
The Council will again be convening at the unusual time of 2 PM. Probably because the Coronation of incoming Mayor “Rattlesnake” Robinson (so termed because of close collusion with the anti-homeless and vicious Drug War policies of Take Over Santa Cruz.For those interested there traditionally been a post-coronation cakes-and-drinks celebration across the street in the Civic Auditorium to which the public is invited. This has been a chance to mingle with those in power and spend a little time indoors before returning to the freezing streets.

THE NEW LAWS
Agenda item #15 restrictvely rewrites the entire sections on public demonstrations for what were previously termed “Commercial and Non-commercial Events.” They have been relabeled “Public/Major Events” & “Public Gathering and Expression Events”

The staff report can be found at http://sire.cityofsantacruz.com/sirepub/cache/2/gm3nxoa24g4uqu55k4gs1zrb/382360111252013053508496.PDF .

Quite simply, the law rewrite criminalizes protests that have more than 50 participants (previously the “allowed” maximum was 100). permit requirement has now tightened apparently so that 50 rather than 100 people require a permit. Marching in the street is no longer provided for except through costly street closures. Permits must be applied for 5 days rather than 36 hours in advance.

PRIOR HISTORY
The law passed 6-1 at the First Reading and is likely to slide thru the Council swamp like shit through a goose tomorrow. I pointed out that most protests don’t seek permits—that’s the point of protests: the First Amendment is our permit.

Repressive authority from Birminghan Alabama in the 60’s the murdering generals in Egypt in 2013 have all used “permits” as a way of suppressing dissent.

I encourage indybay readers to examine this ordinance themselves. Like the Sidewalk Shrinkage ordinance severely reducing space for public performance, political tabling, panhandling, vending, and art display, this ordinance passed its first reading without police testimony that the current law has any problems.

Kathy Agnon, the Permitmeister, presented a very sunny account of the proposed new laws. She however didn’t provide any documentary evidence indicating a history (either anecdotal or otherwise) of such problems.

PUBLIC RECORDS–STILL NOT PROVIDED
My attempt to get public records was delayed by Agnon & other city staff, in spite of what I’d thought were assurances from Nydia Patino. I’d hoped to have records of permit applications and rejections for the last six months available. Accordingly, as usual, we have the staff’s arguments in favor of laws instead of any solid evidence that there’s a real problem that needs fixing. We need some more objective record beyond Agnon’s expertise and good will.

For the texts of the old and new laws, go to http://sire.cityofsantacruz.com/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=479&doctype=AGENDA and look up agenda item #12. You can also view the video of public testimony and Council discussion there.

The texts of the proposed Public Assembly-restricting new laws is also available at http://sire.cityofsantacruz.com/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=482&doctype=AGENDA without the clarification of what’s being changed.

If you value your right to publicly assemble and march in any cause, this ordinance should have a big red warning light attached to it, considering the make-up of the Council.

GLOOMY PROSPECTS AHEAD
The likely next mayor (Lynn Robinson), and the past record of this Council and the City Manager in cutting back public space, public assembly, and public accessibility suggests empowering the police in unhealthy ways—even against smaller gatherings, to say nothing of the DIY New Year’s Parade coming up in several weeks.

Considering the phony hysteria generated around “public safety” that is likely to be front and center on “Rattlesnake” Robinson’s January agenda, further restrictions on the right to gather to demand redress of grievances is the last thing we want right now.

MORE OF THE SAME PSUEDO-PUBLIC SAFETY
The parallel with the recent ordinance changes constricting street performance and art is instructive. The hypocrisy and special interest nature of the “display device” ordinance was obvious then and has become more obvious since.

Obstructive commercial signs have sprouted on the Pacific Avenue sidewalks in spite of the balleyhooed “trip and fall” pretext used to criminalize laying out a blanket.

This “danger” as well as the Robinson-Comstock-Mathews “upscale aesthetics’ concerns also prompted the constriction of tabling, vending, and performance space, and the expansion of “forbidden zones” now encroaching on 95% of the sidewalks downtown for non-merchant activity.

HARASSMENT REPLACING TICKETING
But probably many have noticed that most every performer, vendor, even political tabler down there is in violation of the letter of the law as passed on September 24th—as pointed out in a recent Santa Cruz Weekly article.

Hosts and police have given out few if any citations, but harassment has stepped up. Some cops are now claiming that craftspeople are allowed to display their jewelry/art for donation only 6 times a year and must thereafter get a business license..

So may it be with this “Parade Permit” ordinance–last hauled out notoriously to ticket Whitney Wilde, Curtis Reliford, and Wes Modes for “walking in a parade without a permit” on a DIY New Years event 3-4 years ago.

I have been in at least several dozen marches down Pacific Avenue in the last few decades, probably more, and none of them had a permit. Nor were there citations, arrests, and/or prosecutions to my knowledge. But enabling police, the city attorney, and compliant bureaucrats with restrictive laws is not a good idea.

Defending the traditional freedoms Santa Cruz peaceful protesters have enjoyed ultimately requires exercising them. For the first time “political signs” were “allowed” in the Xmas parade last Saturday (though I’ve always ignored such clearly unconstitutional restrictions).

The ordinance coming up tomorrow on the afternoon agenda empowers more repression and makes spontaneous protest more risky, They need to be sent back for a public process of discussion–with those directly affected and with the public at large.

Earlier info on the first reading at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/11/25/18746832.php

Confront Task Farce Hysteria Tuesday

Posted on by

 

Title: Confront Task Farce Hysteria Against the Homeless
START DATE: Tuesday December 03
TIME: 6:30 PM – 8:30 PM
Location Details:
Outside City Hall Chambers in Santa Cruz 809 Center St.
Event Type: Protest
Contact Name Robert Norse
Email Address rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com
Phone Number 831-423-4833
Address 309 Cedar PMB #14B Santa Cruz, CA 95060
There have been six months of largely closed-to-public-comment “hearings” by this group personally chosen without public input or homeless representation by Mayor Hillary Bryant in response to pressure from homeless-hostile groups: Ken Collins’ Clean-‘Em-Out Team, Pamela Comstock’s Take Over Santa Cruz, and Lynn Robinson’s Santa Cruz NIMBY Neighbors.

A pre-selected group with a pre-fabricated agenda has kidnapped the label of “Public Safety” to demonize homeless illegal drug users and homeless people generally.

Now their “investigation” and “research” with the usual conclusions of more police, harsher jail time for life-sustaining behavior like survival camping, and amped up Drug Prohibition is ready for ratification by incoming Mayor-to-be Lynn Robinson and her cabal of frightened or complacent politicians.

Speaking truth to this dank den may not be the most pleasant task, but the community needs to hear it.

Bring sleeping bags, signs, musical instruments, friends, and warm blankets.

Hot vegan food will be provided by JumboGumbo Joe Schultz.

We will have a speak-out to decide on next steps to address the callous crackdown and upcoming freezing winter weather.

Subsequent actions later that night will be decided then.

Sleeping or covering up with blankets is a crime in Santa Cruz after 11 PM.

It is illegal to be on the grounds of City Hall with a protest sign after City Council closes its meeting.

There is shelter each night for less than 5% of the City’s unhoused population.

These facts tell the tale.

Strike Back at Task Farce Terrorism Tuesday 12-3; PROTEST AT 6:30 PM

Posted on by

The latest chapter in the City’s crackdown on homeless people will be played out Tuesday night at City Hall in the 7 PM Special Session of City Council.


The ratification of the wretched Task Force for Anti-Homeless Hysteria recommendations come up shortly at City Hall (809 Center St.).

Recommendations include increased penalties for life-sustaining behavior, more funding to homeless-harassing police and security, pressure on the courts to “crack down”, a ramp-ed up “War on Drugs”…and more!

Steve Schnaar’s critique of the recommendations (and links to the recommendations themselves) is at https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/11/26/18746864.php?show_comments=1#18747067  .

My response is at https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/11/30/18747066.php .

Prepare for a long cold winter. 

PROTEST AT CITY HALL WITH JOE SCHULTZ’s  JUMBOGUMBO!  6:30 PM !