Questions for a Councilmember

Posted on November 16, 2013 by huffsantacruz

Micah (Posner): Following up on the HUFF meeting of several weeks ago, I’ll attempt to briefly summarize what I’m now seeking–either clarification or action–from you on the issues raised there and earlier. Please do it briefly and in writing. If you feel unable to do so because of “tactical” or other concerns, please contact me by phone. I also include some of the prior e-mail for reference. Again, short answers are fine. And I’d be happy to meet with you if you need clarification or elaboration.

1. Forward to Vogel a request for an update on Vasquez’s sidewalk smash of Richard Hardy (http://www.santacruz.com/news/2013/04/30/police_video_goes_viralwith the video itself referenced in the comments that follow). If you’ve done this, when did you do it? If you won’t do it, why not?2. As I understand it, at the HUFF meeting 3 weeks ago, you committed yourself to making sure that any member of the public got 2 minutes to speak on each individual Consent Agenda item–whether by pulling it yourself or some other means. Am I correct here? Our previous dialogue: Is it still your position that 2 minutes is adequate public comment time for 6-30 items on the Consent Agenda that are supposed to receive a Public Hearing at the request of the public or city council? Your response: I think that the public should be able to speak ONCE for two minutes on each consent item that they are concerned with. I believe that this is how Mayor Bryant has been holding the meeting. BUT THAT IS NOT THE POSITION OF THE MAYOR OR YOU AT THE LAST FEW COUNCIL MEETINGS. RATHER YOU CAN TALK FOR TWO MINUTES ON A TOTAL OF ALL THE ITEMS AS A GROUP NOT ON EACH ONE. AND YOU MUST COMBINE THAT WITH YOUR EXPLANATION OF WHY YOU WANT ANY OF THESE ITEMS PULLED AND YOU MUST BE CAREFUL NOT TO SAY ANYTHING OF SUBSTANCE ON THE ITEM THAT ACTUALLY DOES GET PULLED OR YOU WON’T BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK AT THE PUBLIC HEARING–AS GUARANTEED BY THE BROWN ACT. ARE YOU CLEAR ON THIS? Do you still support Bryant’s position claiming that you will still not be able to speak on any particular item even if you’ve successfully coaxed a council member to remove it from the agenda because you’ll then “have had your comment time?” What if you want to speak on several Consent agenda items? Then the time you’ve spent “persuading” a Council member to “allow” a Public Hearing on one item will leave little time to address any other item essentially violating the spirit if not the letter of the Open Meetings (Brown) Act? I THINK YOU’VE AGREED THAT 2 MINUTES IS NOT ENOUGH TO SPEAK ON 15 ITEMS (OR EVEN A SUBSET OF THEM). WHAT ARE YOU WILLING TO DO TO BACK UP THIS UNDERSTANDING?

3. Have you followed up on your commitment to attend an ACLU meeting and/or letter them specifically urging them to publicly oppose the cutbacks on space for street performers, vendors, and artists recently passed by City Council over your and Lane’s objections? Will you be doing so? (It’s actually probably equally if not more important to request a statement supporting homeless survival rights and opposing police sweeps when there is no alternate shelter being offered–are you willing to do this?). My previous comment is still apt: If you are really interested in putting some energy into public education here, I believe it would ultimately encourage allies and challenge the level of hatred (and merchant discrimination) against homeless people. I’d suggest public statements as well as public appearances at the ACLU Board and other organizations, seeking to enlist their aid and buck up their spaghetti spines. Useless as these groups have generally been locally, they seem like political animals who perk up at the appearance of a public official. It also might make up in some degree (in their eyes) for your sell-out on the Cowell Beach issue (I believe the harsh term is accurate). Your response: That’s a great idea but is a better role for activists then elected. That’s partly what I learned by encouraging the ACLU prior to the Council Meeting. TO REPEAT–THE CLOWNS AT THE ACLU BOARD, SCCCPL, NAACP, DON’T RESPOND TO ACTIVISTS. BUT POLITICAL CLIMBERS AND POWER-WORSHIPERS THAT THEY ARE, THEY DO RESPOND TO VISITS FROM POLITICIANS. YOUR PROPOSAL TO SEND THE SIDEWALK-SHRINKAGE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO THE ARTS COMMISSION IS A NICE TACTIC; USE IT IF YOU NEED TO REASSURE YOURSELF YOU CAN RAISE THE ISSUE PERSONALLY AND PUBLICLY WITH THE ACLU & OTHER GROUPS, BUT GO IN PERSON OR SEND WRITTEN LETTERS.

4. I appreciate the additional info about the segregated costly Levee portapotty (i.e. potential plumbing). I’d still like some insight into who is pushing this in the staff rather than the much more reasonable and dignified alternatie of keeping open the San Lorenzo Park bathroom, say? Hence my request about who you talked to, when, their responses, any written communications, etc. Hence my inquiry to you in late October: “THE STAFF” IS NOT A HELPFUL REPLY. ACCOUNTABILITY IS THE QUESTION HERE. WHY WAS THE OBVIOUS KEEPING BATHROOMS THAT ALREADY EXIST OPEN AT NIGHT REJECTED? WAS IT EVEN CONSIDERED? I REPEAT THE QUESTION BECAUSE YOU HAVEN’T ANSWERED IT.

5. What’s the follow-up on your request to Barisone re: Sparks v. White? Specifically–has Barisone responded–in writing? If not, please renew the request–it’s likely to be helpful in court and in dealing with cops on the street. It is my feeling that his vindictive response to finding street art and culture constitutionally protected from the “no price tags” nonsense being pushed by the police were these bogus time-place-manner restrictions that essentially constrict-to-death street performing, vending, art, and tabling downtown. Do you have any indication around this either way?

        You replied: I will follow up, however, the issue doesn’t seem very timely to me.
FOR ANY ARTIST TRYING TO DISPLAY HIS WORK IN A 3 1/2′ x 3 1/2′ SPACE IT’S OBVIOUSLY VERY IMPORTANT. THEY CAN PRESENT THAT OPINION IN COURT WHEN THEY’RE HARASSED.   When did you follow-up on the Barisone request?6.   You may ignore the internal conservative pressures that shut down the 5 Krohn Krappers a decade ago, but I suspect we’ll hear the same crap soon about your costly portapotty “solution”.   Or we’ll find the same two-tier “homeless get surveilled; middle-class people get privacy” that is now the case in the Locust St. Parking Structure.   I suggest you head this off by getting the real records of real police concerns. Otherwise you may find yourself swept up in a Council response to mob myths fearprompted by TBSC et. al.   This is a repeated request.   Please review the requests in bold below and forward those questions to staff. They are currently claiming to “have no records”. Which frankly strikes me as steaming horseshit without benefit of portapotty.
You replied: I don’t see what happened in the past is relevant. We will soon open the bathroom and I will be very careful about reported “problems”. With regard to privacy issue, these didn’t seem very important to the homeless at a well attended HUFF meeting several months ago. HOW WILL YOUR “CARE” WITH PROBLEMS MANIFEST ITSELF?    IF THE PORTAPOTTIES WERE CLOSED IN THE PAST BY AESTHETIC PRIMADONNAS LIKE MATHEWS & ROBINSON OR THEIR STAFF ALLIES, THEN IT’S LIKELY TO HAPPEN AGAIN. ALL THIS IS USUALLY DONE WITHOUT POLICE STATS (AS THE ORDINANCES WERE PASSED–NOR DID YOU OR ANY OTHER COUNCIL MEMBER DEMAND THEM). IT’S NOT A “BATHROOM”, BUT A PORTAPOTTY, BY THE WAY, SO LET’S NOT TRY TO SELL SHIT BY ANOTHER LABEL.

7. Dan Madison reports being banned from Verve for backpacks/homeless appearance. Similar stories are coming out of New Leaf and Lulu Carpenter’s as well as the Coffee Roasting Company. What’s the result of your inquiry to the Roasting Company?

You replied: I’m having a hard time getting ahold of the owner of the Roasting Company. It changed hands several years ago from a well known local to some guy in Watsonville and the staff gave me a bum phone number for him. Could a HUFFster work on finding the contact info for the owner? If not, I will keep it on my long to do list. A LETTER TO THE DOWNTOWN ASSOCIATION WOULD BE HELPFUL HERE ASKING THEM TO CLARIFY THEY DON’T SUPPORT POLICIES THAT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE HOMELESS. Yes?8. The request you ignored seeking specific written response from P & R and the SCPD regarding the requirements, advance notice time, specific limits, costs, & appeal processes regarding Special Permits and Amplified Sound permits. You responded: I’ll work on this. I did the work and the “info” such as it is, is at https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/11/09/18746169.php?show_comments=1#18746356 PLEASE KEEP A RECORD OF REQUESTS TO STAFF, TO WHOM THEY WERE SENT, WHEN, AND THE REPLIES RECEIVED–SINCE STAFF ARE THE REAL RULERS OF THE CITY UNDER KING BERNAL. WE WILL AT LEAST THEN HAVE A PAPER RECORD OF WHAT’S (NOT) HAPPENING. I REMIND YOU THAT YOU HAVE AN INTERN THROUGH WHICH MANY OF THESE ACTIONS CAN BE FUNNELED.

9. What is the status of the police-napped bikes? Are they still being held hostage by city staff and the SCPD (with the help of the Bike Dojo)? I don’t want to hear you’re “working on it”, please. We’ve heard that for a year and a half now. Please specify recent meetings, timetables, claims, and responsible parties. You replied: I’m looking into this. AGAIN…MEANING WHAT? SPECIFICALLY? PLEASE SEND ME A SUMMARY OF THE NUMBER OF TIMES YOU’VE MET WITH THE BIKENAPPERS AND THEIR STAFF PALS, WHEN THESE MEETINGS HAPPENED, WHAT PROMISES WERE MADE, AND WHETHER THE PROMISES WERE FULFILLED. REMEMBER–YOU’RE THERE TO SERVE THE COMMUNITY, NOT TO GREASE THE SOFT PARTS OF THE STAFF. POOR PEOPLE ARE GOING WITHOUT BIKES BECAUSE OF YOUR “CONCERN” FOR STAFF SENSIBILITIES. STAFF STONEWALLING ON THIS BIKE BULLSHIT WE’VE PUT UP WITH FOR NEARLY TWO YEARS NOW. LET US KNOW THE DATE SENT AND THE PERSON TO WHOM THE MEMO WAS SENT. PLEASE PROVIDE A LIST OF ALL COMMUNICATIONS TO AND FROM STAFF ON THIS ISSUE IN THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF, AND PARTICULARLY IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS.

10. You might want to consider that your complaissance with staff (the constant strokings you do as they mendaciously remove everyone’s rights using the phony Public Safety mythology are embarrassing and repugnant). I refer to the earlier issues the Parks and Recreation blank check 24-hour stay-away-or-face-a-year-in-jail ordinance, the median law, Cowell’s Beach closure, the bucks-for-baloney “Security” gate out at the H(LO)SC. You replied: I consider it all the time. AND YOU ARE TO BE COMMENDED FOR ACTUALLY RAISING THE ISSUE SHARPLY FOR THE FIRST TIME–IN THE CONTEXT OF THE LATEST SCAVENGING “INVESTIGATION” SCAM AT LAST COUNCIL MEETING. EVERY TIME YOU CHALLENGE THIS MYTHOLOGY WITH A REQUEST/DEMAND FOR STATS, THE MORE SHAKY THEIR HOUSE OF CARDS BECOMES. SEE ITEM xxX BELOW.

11. I have no written response from you on CruzioWorks discrimination against Dan Madison and his son Gryphon, which I requested you seek info from. Didn’t you agree to look into that–as a private party if not as a Council person? What have you learned? You replied: I’m not at all convinced that Cruzio was discriminating against the Madisons based on their housing status and don’t intend to get involved. YOU BASE THIS ON WHAT? YESTERDAY AT CAFE BRASIL I SPOKE WITH A CRUZIO CLIENT WHO WORKED NEXT TO MADISON FOR SEVERAL HOURS AFTER HE’D PAID HIS $300; THIS GUY WAS BAFFLED WHEN THE MANAGEMENT CAME IN AND BOOTED MADISON OUT WITHOUT EXPLANATION. WHAT HAS LED YOU TO ABANDON THIS ISSUE?

12. Any sign of restored Needle Exchange in the City? Please forward me a map of where Sharps Containers are available. You replied: Staff is working on a Sharps Container in the new bathroom. This is a good effort as it gets them in the business of figuring out how to do Sharps Containers and could be used for other locations. With regard to Needle Exchange, the Council here’s a lot more about getting rid of needle exchange at Emeline rather than the converse. I REPEAT PLEASE FORWARD ME A MAP OF WHERE SHAPRS CONTAINERS HAVE BEEN PLACED OR DETERMINE THAT THEY DON’T EXIST.12. When will you appoint a real activist (or anybody, for that matter) to the Measure K Commission? Craig Canada might still be interested if you approach him. The Commission is a joke, but having a strong voice there would still be helpful in exposing the rising marijuana bust rate here (and the freeze and cutback in dispensaries within the city). What really needs doing, of course, is public statements regarding legalization and medicalization–something to talk back to the poisonous nonsense being spread by Comstock and Robinson and their TBSC friends.

You replied: I appreciate your suggestion. I think I did reach out to Craig at some point and he wasn’t interested. Feel free to refer him to me. It’s hard for me to recommend this position to someone given that the Commission is a joke. I don’t like to waste people’s time. GIVEN THAT THE PUBLIC SAFETY TASK FARCE IS CONSIDERING ELIMINATING MEASURE K, LIMITING OR SHUTTING DOWN HEAD SHOPS, AND USING THE DRUG WAR AS PROTECTIVE COVER ON THEIR WAR ON THE HOMELESS, I THINK HAVING A STRONG VOICE THERE–EVEN ONE THAT CAN’T WIN VOTES IS IMPORTANT. I’LL PASS THIS ON TO CRAIG. DO I UNDERSTAND YOU’LL AGREE TO APPOINT AN ADVOCATE, IF ONE COMES FORWARD (I CAN’T VOUCH FOR CRAIG).

Sorry for the backlog, but these issues don’t go away. Though the tone and extent of these questions may put you off, please try to respond however briefly. That is your job.

Thanks again for getting back to the basics by attacking the Public Safety mythology as far as you did. You need to talk to Vogel and get his specifics–since it’s my understanding from a conversation this summer that there has been no increase in crime subtantially in Santa Cruz in the last 20 years–all the comparisons with other cities of its same size aside. Not that Vogel is the most disinterested source, of course.

Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:32:44 -0700
From: micahposner@cruzio.com
To: rnorse3@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Reiterating some requests and questions

Dear Robert,Sorry to miss the HUFF meeting.

With regard to the shitter questions. I don’t find them pertinent/ am not interested in them. I was directed by HUFF (a couple months ago) to get a 24 hour bathroom, “any bathroom”. That’s what I’m trying to do. The one we are going to open is not the most efficient or obvious or “best” use of funds. It’s the easiest one for me to get. Welcome to government.

I’ll forward your question to Barisone.

I would be very happy to talk to the owner of the Cofee Company about backpacks. Then I’ll get back to you.

Micah

Micah:Thanks for the heads-up on the latest attack on street vendors.

Please quickly request an opinion from Barisone–who continues to stonewall me–on the City of Sparks v. White decision’s applicability here (i.e. the constitutionality of banning street artists from showing price tags for their artwork). I’d have thought you’d have done that back in February actually, or several weeks ago.

On the shitter front, regarding item #9 is it correct to assume that the former public bathroom in the Locust Street garage is now gone?    I believe I’ve also pointed out to you both the wasteful and discriminatory aspect of spending $15,000 to set up what is essentially a segregated portapotty on the leevee instead of using that money to open the San Lorenzo Park and/or Soquel/Front bathrooms all night. Your response?

Also what’s the status of the most-expensive-portapotty ever? How does its cost compare with the cost of the 5 portapotties set up in 1999 under the Krohn Krapper Kommission?

I have not been able to secure police data in spite of a Public Records Act request regarding the removal of those portapotties in terms of actual crime or vandalism then. Please seek this directly from the SCPD or via the City Manager.

You should also be advised that certain cafes are now banning people from bringing their backpacks in the store (the Coffee Roasting Company for one)–which means, unless an individual wants to risk losing her or his stuff by setting it outside (and being ticketed too boot for “abandoned property”), they can’t access that public service.   Are you willing to publicly step up to mediate problems so that cafes have another alternative to expressing their bigotry than banning homeless-looking people with backpacks (or without–Brent Adams noted a family of three turned away earlier this week from the same Coffee Roasting Company).

.

Subject: Re: City of Sparks v. White and letter to City Attorney
From: micahposner@cruzio.com
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 22:07:26 -0700
To: rnorse3@hotmail.com

Dear Robert,

I hope you are aware of further efforts by 3 councilmembers to reduce selling art. It is on Tuesday’s agenda.

MicahSent from my iPad

On Sep 3, 2013, at 9:58 PM, Robert Norse <rnorse3@hotmail.com> wrote:

John: While I appreciate this fairly boilerplate answer, I do know that in the interests of both fairness and saving the City money, you have clarified the status of certain practices and rights in Santa Cruz in the past. Robin told me that he conferred with you several years ago after the City of Sparks decision came out, and got your agreement to encourage the SCPD to lay off (to put it gently).   Was I misinformed?
Are you saying that you’ll answer a question for a Council member but not a member of the public about this issue?
Hopefully not.
Since police are still variously misinforming artists on Pacific Avenue that they can’t display prices on their artwork (when they’re not harassing them for other things), I’d again encourage you to simply do what you did before when approached by an artist trying to stop this practice, which unnecessarily lays the city open to litigation.
It is my understanding that the decision is still valid law (one of the attorneys involved actually practices in this area), so please, step out from behind the template and be direct here.
I am also requesting Chief Vogel and the Council contact you for your “advice” here, so I’m not ignoring your suggestion either.Thanks,

Robert

From: JBarisone@abc-law.com
To: rnorse3@hotmail.com
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:43:58 -0800
Subject: RE: City of Sparks v. White and letter to City Attorney

Robert, I passed your concern along to the Police Department and if it has questions I will do the necessary research and answer them for the department. As you are aware I work for the City Council and the various City departments. I don’t take instructions from, perform work for, or provide opinions to members of the public; nor do I publicly divulge my advice and communications to my clients unless the clients make such a request. I would suggest that in the future, if you have a complaint or concern concerning a City employee or practice, you contact the responsible City department head. If that department head seeks my advice in connection with your issue, I will be happy to assist him or her. Thanks, JGB

From: Robert Norse [mailto:rnorse3@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 9:19 AM
To: John Barisone
Cc: Robin the rightsfinder; Ricardo Lopez; Brent Adams; Tom Noddy; Becky Johnson
Subject: RE: City of Sparks v. White and letter to City Attorney

John: On 2-7, as you probably remember, I sent you an inquiry regarding City of Sparks v. White. On 2-13, you advised me you hadn’t got to it yet.It’s now a week later and street performers will be attending the HUFF meeting today at the Sub Rosa.

I’d like to be able to advise them if they are acting legally, based on your understanding of the law and the police enforcement policy.

If I don’t hear from you in the next few hours, perhaps later today you can let me know–and I can them contact the performers by e-mail.

Thanks,

Robert
(423-4833)

— On Thu, 2/7/13, Robert Norse <rnorse3@hotmail.com> wrote:
From: Robert Norse <rnorse3@hotmail.com>
Subject: City of Sparks v. White
To: “John Barisone” <jbarisone@abc-law.com>
Cc: “Robin the rightsfinder” <circulation999now@yahoo.com>, “Jonathan (!) Gettleman” <jonathangettleman@yahoo.com>, “David Beauvais” <davebeau@pacbell.net>, “lioness@got.net” <lioness@got.net>, “Ed Frey” <edwinfrey@hotmail.com>, “J.M. Brown” <jammbrow@gmail.com>, “Alexis of Pier 5” <alexis@pier5law.com>, “Ricardo Lopez” <riclopez35@yahoo.com>, “Joe the strummer” <talljar@gmail.com>, “Tom Noddy” <tnoddy@aol.com>, “Brent Adams” <compassionman@hotmail.com>, “Coral (!!!) Brune” <coralbrune@hotmail.com>, “Free” <overthrowproperty@yahoo.com>, “John Malkin” <jsmalkin@hotmail.com>
Date: Thursday, February 7, 2013, 11:05 AM

John:

You may remember Robin coming in to secure an agreement from you that he could resume displaying his artwork on the sidewalk without a permit and without harassment from the SCPD even though he attached price tags. This was several years ago in response to the City of Sparks v. White (http://seattletrademarklawyer.com/storage/White%20v.%20City%20of%20Sparks%20-%209th%20Cir.%20Opinion.pdf) decision. He told me that you and he made such an agreement.

Several artists have told me that “Hosts” and SCPD officers have been telling them they’ll be cited if they do what you apparently oked for Robin. I know Robin also requested an explicit change in the law and to my knowledge and his you never recommended or created it.

I want to know if you’ve change your position here and now regard art work as not First Amendment-protected (as far as explicit pricing goes). What is the current policy and direction to the SCPD?

This clarification is particularly important because some police officers are not merely banning explicit pricing, but also claiming that showing artwork without a business license is “panhandling” even if it’s done for donation in accord with the explicit exemption of MC 9.10.010(a) which states “A person is not soliciting for purposes of this chapter when he or she passively displays a sign or places a collection container on the sidewalk pursuant to which he or she receives monetary offerings in appreciation for his or her original artwork or for entertainment or a street performance he or she provides.”

Please let me know what the status of the White decision is regarding city policy as well as assurance that MC 9.10.010(a) is still active law.

Hope you are well.

Robert
(831-423-4833)

From: rnorse3@hotmail.com
To: mposner@cityofsantacruz.com
CC: micahposner@cruzio.com; seandeluge@gmail.com; becky_johnson222@hotmail.com; lemasterhearth@hotmail.com; spleich@gmail.com; jeanpiraino@gmail.com; deetler@gmail.com; sschnaar@riseup.net
Subject: Questions
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 07:53:15 -0700

Micah:

Included for diversion: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Disguises-for-portable-toilets-with-something-to-4780198.php

What’s the status of the $15,000 portapotty slated to be installed near the Levy? Why aren’t you proposing that that money be spent instead to open up the Soquel garage bathroom or the San Lorenzo restroom at night? It would probably be cheaper, more durable, less segregated, and more sensible.

Have you e-mailed your Cruzio server to ask them why the discrimination against homeless client Dan Madison and his son Gryphon?   (See https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/08/14/18741605.php ). I include Dan’s e-mail (he does a Free Radio show under the name “Sean Deluge”) in case you wish to speak with him directly.

Robert

Blankets On Pacific Avenue for Justice 1 PM Thursday October 24th

Posted on October 22, 2013 by huffsantacruz

https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/10/22/18745224.php

Title:	Community Blanket Sit-In
START DATE:	Thursday October 24
TIME:	1:00 PM – 3:00 PM
Location Details:
On the sidewalk in front of Forever Twenty One on Pacific Avenue near Soquel in downtown Santa Cruz
Event Type:	Protest
Contact Name	Phil Posner
Email Address	chatrabbi [at] aol.com
Phone Number	831-713-6730
Address
Join us October 24th – the day the Santa Cruz City Council’s new draconian downtown ordinance “restricting artists, musicians and Petitioners'” freedom of expression is to take effect. The Ordinance not only restricts display space, it even bans blankets on which artists may display their wares and maintains the rule that artists and musicians must move to a new location after one hour. Bring a blanket and a piece of jewelry or a favorite musical instrument. As Councilman Don Lane, who with Micah Posner voted against the ordinance, pointed out a 6-foot-long table, even a smaller card table with two chairs, or a three-member music combo would all “… violate the new standards.” Further, As Councilman Posner stated, these rules are “literally a curtailment of freedom of speech” and difficult to regulate (and enforce) without a measuring tape, T-square or other tools.” If you agree that individuals seeking to share their sidewalk musical or artistic talents have the same right to freedom of expression as brick and mortar merchants join us in solidarity – in opposition to rules that are arbitrary and oppressive; whose intent seems to be an attempt to whip clean artistic, musical creativity and freedom of expression from our downtown streets. Join our peaceful, non-violent protest. Sincerely: Committee for Fairness & Equal Opportunity for Artisans and Musicians. 831-426-1319 and HUFF – Homeless United for Freedom & Friendship 831-423-4833

Don’t Surrender the Sidewalks Without a Struggle: Protests 10-20 and 10-24

Posted on October 18, 2013 by huffsantacruz

Title:	Santa Cruz Shame Shamble
START DATE:	Sunday October 20
TIME:	1:45 PM – 3:15 PM
Location Details:
On the sidewalk in front of Forever Twenty One on Pacific Avenue near Soquel in downtown Santa Cruz
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
Full-scale head-on Sidewalk Snatching in pursuit of “law and commerce” will begin October 24th when a second protest is scheduled (see flier below). At issue are the laws targeting street performers, artists, vendors, homeless folks, sparechanges, and anyone who likes to linger downtown in a non-commercial mode. Rushed through City Council with no prior public process, outreach to affected groups, or consultation with social service providers, street performers, and others downtown, the laws reduce public space downtown almost to the vanishing point. The laws provide police, hosts, and security guards as well as cranks, hostile merchants, and Take Back Santa Cruz vigilantes a field day against whomever they want to “move along”. A historical tour of past public space struggles is slated for 2 PM when we may also be able to observe the Hostile-patility yelllow jackets as they helpfully advise people to surrender rights and space…or face hundreds of dollars in fines (and jail for the second offense). Bring a musical instrument, horn, or other noisemaker if you have one. Meanwhile the right-wing City Council through Mayor Bryant’s “Public Safety” Citizens Task Force is considering all manner of anti-homeless and anti-progressive measures. Shudder at the latest Task Farce staff report at http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=34511 . Many of the Downtown Ordinances that will be in full grim flower on October 24th are described at http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2013/10/10/tour_of_shame_longer_flyer.pdf Final cries of anguish & definance can be directed at City Council on Tuesday October 22nd at 5 PM during the brief Oral Communications period. The Committee for Fairness & Equal Opportunity for Artists and Musicians is planning a Community Blanket Sit-In 10-24 1 PM to 3 PM as described below. Bring video equipment. space_suffocation.pdf download PDF (85.7 KB)

pp_flier_1.pdf
download PDF (13.7 KB)

Pass it on and post it!

Santa Cruz “Hostility” worker account

Posted on October 8, 2013 by huffsantacruz

Santa Cruz “Hostility” worker account

by Tania
Tuesday Oct 8th, 2013 11:19 AM

Santa Cruz “Hostility” worker account from Oct 6, 2013 during a street demonstration on Pacific Avenue. Includes a link to a 41 sec youtube video documenting the encounter.

On Sunday Oct 6, 2013 I witnessed a city worker in a “hospitality” role threatening a friend. We were peacefully demonstrating the new Continue reading →

SAVE VIBRANT STREET LIFE DOWNTOWN !

Posted on September 22, 2013 by huffsantacruz

(Text of flyer for Sept. 22, 2013, protest of latest anti-homeless legislation by City Council.)

(Flyer in pdf format at bottom)

SAVE VIBRANT STREET LIFE DOWNTOWN !
PROTEST, CHOW-DOWN, AND SPEAKOUT !
SUNDAY SEPTEMBER 22nd 1:30 PM
on Pacific Avenue in front of Forever Twenty-One
SING BACK AT CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 24th 3 PM
Council Chambers 809 Center St.
In a disguised attack on the entire non-commercial street scene, City Council will vote to restrict still further
the very limited public space currently allowed the community downtown. Under the guise of health concerns,
reducing congestion, and preventing a “trip-and-fall” hazard (none of which is documented), the reactionary new laws
crowd street performers, vendors, homeless people, tablers, local residents, & tourists together. This will classify
95% of the sidewalk as sterile “forbidden zones” with no resting, vending, or performing. This attack on street
counter-culture has nothing to do with “bad behavior.” It’s about “bigot aesthetics”-& homeless cleansing
clearing away visible poverty, traditional Santa Cruz diversity, and political activism. Council staff took no input
from those targeted. They provided no info on the costs of current selective enforcement, nor stats of real
problems. This merchant monopolization of sidewalk space is part of a broader “drive the homeless away” agenda.
THE NEW LAWS AS AMENDED
+++ Extends the Smoking Ban to the side streets one block in either direction from Pacific Avenue, including all
alleys & side streets & to to all surface parking lots between Laurel Street & Water St. perhaps private parking lots as
well. Ignores that current law already bans smoking 25′ from a door or window in the side streets.
+++ Bans tarps & blankets now used to display jewelry, artwork, political fliers, etc. and requires all devices
on the sidewalk to be “free-standing”. This okays guitar cases and cups, but arguably makes backpacks and
anything placed perpendicular to the sidewalk “display devices” requiring a 12′ distance from the next “device”.
+++ Reduces total allowed space to 12 sq ft area [3 “squares”] which now includes table, instruments, chair,
people & possessions—virtually requiring special permits. The ill-defined space requires a tape measure.
+++ Requires 12′ distance between display devices, isolating performers and forcing away other vendors.
+++ Reduces total available space 4/5 to exclude 95% of the sidewalk by expanding the “forbidden zones” to
14′ from buildings, street corners, intersections, kiosks, drinking fountains, public telephones, public benches, public trash containers,
information/directory signs, sculptures or artwork, ATM-style machines, outside street cafes, vending carts, and fences. This bans
sitting on any sidewalk that is narrower than 14′ (no sidewalk use in other business districts at all if buildings adjoin).
+++ In conjunction with Santa Cruz’s unique “Move Along Every Hour” law, police can then ban
individuals from any one spot for 24 hours & require them to move 100′–further reducing “legal” spots.
When added to the frequent merchant expansion of their displays onto the sidewalk in front of their shops this
exclusion of non-commercial activity will be nearly all-embracing. This, of course, suits those whose real
objective is to drive away the once-vibrant street scene in Santa Cruz and ‘Capitola-ize” the Avenue.
The resulting congestion will have people competing for the public spaces (when there is actually room for
all). It will severely crowd not just those using display devices, but others trying to sit down in the few
remaining spots available whether these be elderly residents, homeless locals, visiting travelers, UCSC
students, or naive tourists (who will, of course be selectively ignored or courteously directed to pay-cafes). And
either drive such people away or produce a hostile response and more conflict downtown. Police will be
given greater power to drive away a significant number of people currently using the sidewalk.
Flier by Norse of HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom) 831-423-4833 www.huffsantacruz.org 9-22-13
DOWNTOWN FOR ALL ! NOT JUST THE RICH, CONSERVATIVE, & FEARFUL
+++ Use your video phone to capture evidence of authorities harassing the public on the streets downtown. Post on
You-Tube and www.indybay.org/santacruz . Send them to HUFF (rnorse3@hotmail.com ); pass on links.
+++ E-mail City Council at citycouncil [at] cityofsantacruz.com .and demand these ordinances be reviewed for cost,
effectiveness, impact, and unintended consequences. Send them back to citizen committees for public input.
+++ Spread opposition; Write local papers; Use Facebook & Twitter;. Ordinances become final a month after a
2nd vote in two weeks (October 24) Support businesses who oppose, publicize those who don’t.
+++ Post your own accounts of discrimination downtown. The Coffee Roasting Company, Verve, & Starbucks
refused service to homeless people with backpacks; CruzioWorks refused 24-hour service to homeless Dan Madison.
+++ Come to City Council 3 PM September 24th to oppose the 2nd Vote on these laws!
+++ Witness & support other street performers & streetfolk when they face harassment from authorities.
+++ Get familiar with the Downtown Ordinances, often misquoted by police and hosts. Copies available
through HUFF (Wednesdays 11 AM, Sub Rosa Cafe 703 Pacific) & soon at the Sub Rosa Cafe (703 Pacific).
+++ Prepare to sustain a long struggle by documenting police and merchant behavior regularly, organizing
solidarity between vendors, activists, and others seeking to use the public space. Report harassment accurately.
Flier by Norse of HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom) 831-423-4833 www.huffsantacruz.org 9-19-13
DOWNTOWN FOR ALL ! NOT JUST THE RICH, CONSERVATIVE, & FEARFUL
+++ Use your video phone to capture evidence of authorities harassing the public on the streets downtown. Post on
You-Tube and www.indybay.org/santacruz . Send them to HUFF (rnorse3@hotmail.com ); pass on links.
+++ E-mail City Council at citycouncil [at] cityofsantacruz.com .and demand these ordinances be reviewed for cost,
effectiveness, impact, and unintended consequences. Send them back to citizen committees for public input.
+++ Spread opposition; Write local papers; Use Facebook & Twitter;. Ordinances become final a month after a
2nd vote in two weeks (October 24) Support businesses who oppose, publicize those who don’t.
+++ Post your own accounts of discrimination downtown. The Coffee Roasting Company, Verve, & Starbucks
refused service to homeless people with backpacks; CruzioWorks refused 24-hour service to homeless Dan Madison.
+++ Come to City Council 3 PM September 24th to oppose the 2nd Vote on these laws!
+++ Witness & support other street performers & streetfolk when they face harassment from authorities.
+++ Get familiar with the Downtown Ordinances, often misquoted by police and hosts. Copies available
through HUFF (Wednesdays 11 AM, Sub Rosa Cafe 703 Pacific) & soon at the Sub Rosa Cafe (703 Pacific).
+++ Prepare to sustain a long struggle by documenting police and merchant behavior regularly, organizing
solidarity between vendors, activists, and others seeking to use the public space. Report harassment accurately.
Flier by Norse of HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom) 831-423-4833 www.huffsantacruz.org 9-19-13
DOWNTOWN FOR ALL ! NOT JUST THE RICH, CONSERVATIVE, & FEARFUL
+++ Use your video phone to capture evidence of authorities harassing the public on the streets downtown. Post on
You-Tube and www.indybay.org/santacruz . Send them to HUFF (rnorse3@hotmail.com ); pass on links.
+++ E-mail City Council at citycouncil [at] cityofsantacruz.com .and demand these ordinances be reviewed for cost,
effectiveness, impact, and unintended consequences. Send them back to citizen committees for public input.
+++ Spread opposition; Write local papers; Use Facebook & Twitter;. Ordinances become final a month after a
2nd vote in two weeks (October 24) Support businesses who oppose, publicize those who don’t.
+++ Post your own accounts of discrimination downtown. The Coffee Roasting Company, Verve, & Starbucks
refused service to homeless people with backpacks; CruzioWorks refused 24-hour service to homeless Dan Madison.
+++ Come to City Council 3 PM September 24th to oppose the 2nd Vote on these laws!
+++ Witness & support other street performers & streetfolk when they face harassment from authorities.
+++ Get familiar with the Downtown Ordinances, often misquoted by police and hosts. Copies available
through HUFF (Wednesdays 11 AM, Sub Rosa Cafe 703 Pacific) & soon at the Sub Rosa Cafe (703 Pacific).
+++ Prepare to sustain a long struggle by documenting police and merchant behavior regularly, organizing
solidarity between vendors, activists, and others seeking to use the public space. Report harassment accurately.
Flier by Norse of HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom) 831-423-4833 www.huffsantacruz.org 9-19-13

Flyer in pdf – Flyer for 9-14, revised 9-22.pdf

Banning Art & Music will not make downtown “safer”

Posted on September 22, 2013 by huffsantacruz

by Becky Johnson

Sept 22, 2013

Santa Cruz, Ca. — Today we gather in protest. Today we gather

to use first amendment rights that will be seriously curtailed

in a little over a month under the pretense of “public safety.”

Next month, we will likely lose vast areas of public space

greatly limiting our right to speak, to set up a political table,

to circulate several petitions at once, our right to seek redress of government

grievances, and our right to peaceably assemble in the center of

our community.

For years, the City of Santa Cruz, at the urging of the Downtown Association

and carried out by the Santa Cruz Police Department, has continuously violated

the rights of artists & musicians to display & sell their works of art in a public

space. A pushback was made right here on Pacific Ave. by recording artist

& street performer, Mike True, who challenged his citation for displaying

his CD’s for sale on Pacific Ave. in court. He won.

Later, his case & others recently won a further victory which unambiguously

asserts that artists, writers, and musicians can display their works of art in public

spaces without the need for any kind of permit.

As you know, all rights are subject to time, place, and manner restrictions if

the State, in this case the government of the City of Santa Cruz, can prove their

is an overwhelming public health or safety hazard that justifies it.

Make no mistake, the public safety “emergency” that is so horrible that

Councilmembers Cynthia Mathews and David Terrazas have ordered our

government to limit the rights & freedoms of the citizens of Santa Cruz

to exercise our first amendment rights, is to continue to prevent

artists & musicians & political tablers to exercise our LEGAL, PROTECTED

first amendment rights.

The “emergency” is that artists & musicians now have the LEGAL, PROTECTED

right to display their art or music. The HORROR!!!!

People, this is about greed and hate, nothing else. A phony “trip-fall” hazard

was presented to urge the banning of blankets, tarps & ARTISTs.

The ordinance which bans PEOPLE who are presenting art, performing music,

or political tables protects trash cans, fences, and statues!

Please stop this backlash against the color and character of our community.

Don’t make Santa Cruz the City known for “Sing a song, go to Jail”

“Show a painting, go to jail” or “smoke a cigarette go to jail.”

Protect your first amendment….by using it.

Thank-you.

Our right to exhibit art or literature, with price tags

posted without the need to ask “permission” from police or other

government authorities.

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

Posted on September 20, 2013 by huffsantacruz

CUT AND PASTE VERSION OF THE LATEST FLYER:

SAVE VIBRANT STREET LIFE DOWNTOWN !

PROTEST, CHOW-DOWN, AND SPEAKOUT !

SUNDAY SEPTEMBER 22nd 1:30 PM

on Pacific Avenue in front of Forever Twenty-One

SING BACK AT CITY COUNCIL

TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 24th 3 PM

Council Chambers 809 Center St.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attachment(s) from Robert Norse

1 of 1 File(s)

Flyer for 9-14, revised 9-19 expanded.odt

Clearing Away Disposable People on Pacific Avenue

Posted on September 14, 2013 by huffsantacruz

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

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

Text of the Flyer for those pdf-challenged

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who’s Watching Us in Santa Cruz?

Posted on September 12, 2013 by huffsantacruz

NOTES BY NORSE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

96 3 0

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

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

Santa Cruz Street Performers Crushed In Under New Ordinances

Posted on September 11, 2013 by huffsantacruz

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

Preliminary Update Focusing on the Impact on Street Performers

by Robert Norse

Wednesday Sep 11th, 2013 9:46 AM

Street performers will be severely impacted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Huff Santa Cruz

Homeless United for Friendship and Freedom Newspaper Archives

Category Archives: HOT ISSUES