The Sunday March 5th 2017 Show features lots of commentary and babble about the most recent Santa Cruz City Council meeting—with its toothless “Sanctuary” Ordinance against Trump’s Expansion of Obama’s Toxic Deportation practices, interviews from the street aplenty, review of SCPD police violence, and an interview with Councilmember Chris Krohn at his pre-Council Tuesday meeting.
If you wish to revisit any part of the show or missed it, it will be archived at http://radiolibre.org/brb/
Call in number: 831-427-3772. (Be patient and call back if you get a busy signal; we’ve only got one phone line.) E-mail questions at rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com either before the show or during.
The show will also archive at http://radiolibre.org/brb/
Krohn was Mayor in 2002, ran unsuccessfully for Supervisor and has written occasionally on political and activist subjects. I and other homeless activists wrote about his administration and its refusal in the main to advocate for human rights for those outside. See the 2002 Street Spirit stories at http://www.huffsantacruz.org/
Has the former Councilmember grown a new set of wings and balls?
This year Krohn has kept up with the “politically acceptable” liberal positions of the day such as former Mayor Lane’s belated, partial, and failed Sleeping Ban repeal proposal of last March. He has also jumped on the bandwagon of those betrayed by Bernie last summer.
Krohn did speak about ending the Sleeping Ban in his opening Council speech on December 13th. And the After-Burn Coalition (the “New City Council” group) did also raise that issue as a rallying point.
Since Krohn does not have the potential majority he had and didn’t use in 2002, it remains too be seen whether in 2017 his rhetoric can be turned into concrete action. Such actions might be facilitating public records act requests, raising issues on which he will lose in the short run, but educate in the longer haul, and using the prerogatives of office to spotlight rather than rubbersgtamp staff abuses. However, there’s often a yawning gap between campaign promises (or statements made on the radio) and their fulfillment.
We often find to our chagrin that those in power don’t need to act on their rhetoric since they can’t be held accountable for it.
I may be adding my own additions to call in questions to sharpen the discussion.
I wrote this letter this morning after Vice-Mayor Cynthia Chase attempted to stop me from speaking with my back to the Council during Oral Communications yesterday afternoon. It wasn’t clear to me that she was taking action to arrest me, but seemed like she was threatening to do so. It has to emphasized again that a violation of Council rules, unless it disrupts the meeting, is not a disruption, however much a presiding officer wants to paint it as one. The interruption and threat to the speaker is the disruption. Showing disrespect is not a crime and often a duty.
At issue was the SCPD slaying of Sean Arlt Sunday before last (https://www.indybay.org/
Cynthia:
Council’s failure to either agenda-ize or allow at least a three minutes per speaker Oral Communications time last night (and a 5 minute period for groups as has been traditional) provoked a lot of justified anger in the community.
Council has failed to recognize, much less reign in a long out-of-control police department with a lethal use of force policy, a perpetual lack of transparency, and a history of class profiling. This means many have lost their faith that the Council will provide even the semblance of a discussion, much less action, on these issues facing communities confronting abusive behavior by police departments across the country.
I think other speakers (and common sense) has made it clear. Leaving everything to the same department (and its D.A. friends) who OKs 4 armed and armored police shooting a guy “brandishing” a rake 4 times in 20 seconds appears like a corrupt rubberstamping of an out-of-control police department.
Refusing to demand the department show its video/audio to the community seems further evidence of this. And the final straw, of course, is failing to protect the community by requiring Vogel either discipline his officers or be fired.
I’m writing you regarding your attempt to persuade me to face the Council when speaking. I actually wasn’t aware it was you speaking (though I should have been), incidentally. My comments were not intended to be personally insulting, but to attempt to finish my (1 minute only!) public testimony without interruption.
Without intention to insult you, I’d add that this wouldn’t have made any difference. As I’ve told the Council in the past, this is my right and the right of any member of the public which the Council is required to respect (though it seldom does). As the 9th Circuit Court has ruled in an early City Council attempt to arrest me and later avoid responsibility for a civil rights violation–violating a Mayor or a Council’s “rule of procedure” is not a disruption. On the other hand, repeatedly interrupting a speaker at the microphone during Oral Communications so as to materially interfere with their right to speak is.
It was those who repeatedly interrupted my attempt to speak that were creating the disruption. A disruption is something that materially impedes the progress of the meeting. I would go so far to say as shout from the audience while viewed as “disrespectful” are a part of the democratic process–which is often not polite and friendly.
I thought this whole matter was made clear to the Council in the lawsuit that cost the City $200,000 in the mock-Nazi salute case of 2002–which you may be familiar with. Mayors Lane and Mathews have thought better of trying to stifle an obviously First Amendment-protected activity at the microphone during a public comment period.
This is likely to happen again, depending on the behavior of the Council. It’s up to the speaker at the mike, not to the Council or the Council’s presiding officer, how a person makes their commentary. If they choose too be disrespectful, that’s something the no member of the Council has any business moving to repress with force or threats of force.
I’ve had little contact with you other than the brief friendly chat we had when I interviewed you last month outside City Council for Free Radio Santa Cruz. I don’t have much faith in your interest in restoring basic rights to the broader community or the homeless community–based on your track record. But I found you amiable and approachable.
Hence I’m writing to you to explain that my back-to-the-Council presentation was not intended as a personal insult to you. My raised voice was intended to make what I was saying audible because, indeed, as you pointed out, I was turned away from the microphone.
I was addressing my views to the community because the Council clearly intended to do nothing about the Arlt slaying other than leave it in the hands of the agencies who committed what appears to be a rather lethal crime. I encourage you not to take gestures of disrespect to the Council personally, but to regard them as a necessary (if unpleasant for you) part of the cost of being a public official facing an justifiably outraged citizenry.
I would be happy to discuss this matter more fully with you if you wish. I think it’s important for you to understand some of the history here as you are likely to be the next Mayor.
I can appreciate your wanting me to behave in a certain fashion and your asking me to do so. Repeatedly interrupting me so as to interfere with my speaking time, however, is another matter. Obviously, even more seriously, I cannot and will not accept the use of armed force to attempt to suppress free speech at the public microphone during public comment period. Please assure me that you will not do this again and will intervene on behalf of speakers there if other members of the Council attempt to do so.
Feel free to call me if you wish to discuss these matters more fully.
Robert
(423-4833)
I’m passing this appeal on to the HUFFsters and will bring it up at tomorrow’s HUFF meeting. Not that we can do that much, but we can send e-mails. You’re also invited on the air Thursday night at 6-8 PM, if you’d like. We’ve gotten into a new studio and have live broadcasting again.
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:18:17 -0700
Subject: URGENT – PLEASE ACT
From: peggylee.kennedy@gmail.com
To: venicejusticecommittee@gmail.
Sorry for the duplicate emails, but this is really important!
Tomorrow, June 22 the LA City Council Committee on Poverty and Homelessness has (agenda item 4) the new ordinance making it illegal to sleep in a vehicle!
Here is the link to the agenda:
http://ens.lacity.org/clk/
Please email a letter of opposition ASAP
and
PLEASE try to come to the meeting! It starts at 3pm. Put in a speaker card saying you are opposed to item 4.
Below is the email I sent them. Feel free to use what you want, but use your own words of course.
Below that is David’s email
——————————
To: LA City Council Homelessness and Poverty Committee
LACity Councilmember Harris-Dawson councilmember.harris-dawson@
LACity Councilmember Huizar councilmember.huizar@lacity.
LACity Councilmember Bonin councilmember.bonin@lacity.org
LACity Councilmember Cedillo councilmember.cedillo@lacity.
LACity Councilmember Price councilmember.price@lacity.org
Legislative Assistant Eric Villanueva Eric.Villanueva@lacity.org
CC: Mayor Eric Garcetti
Re: June 22, 2016, Agenda Item 4, Council File 14-1057
Amending LAMC 85.02 (to prohibit lodging in a vehicle on city streets)
Councilmembers:
I am opposed to this ordinance in either of the two draft forms provided by the City Attorney:
It makes the act of lodging in a vehicle a crime when homelessness is persistent and growing.
It does not create solutions first and foremost, which is what this committee should look at first considering the urgency of the homeless situation in Los Angeles.
It is inhumane and innocent people will be harmed.
The City of Los Angeles saw another increase of 11% in the homeless count of 2016 from that of 2015 (one-year). The prior 2015 count saw an increase of 12% from 2013 (two-years). Clearly the homeless problem in Los Angeles is persistent and growing.
These counts are of people, not simply numbers. They are community members and neighbors once housed in Los Angeles. In fact 72% of adults experiencing homelessness have lived in LA County for more than 20-years. (Los Angeles Homeless Service Authority (LAHSA) Homeless County Presentation
https://documents.lahsa.org/
There are no Safe Parking programs in place, if ever created at all, which might meet the demand of those living homeless in a vehicle. Such programs may take years to develop. Any person of average intelligence can understand that living in a vehicle is safer than living outside “rough.” Furthermore, Los Angeles does not have enough homeless shelters for the homeless people living “rough.”
The fact is Los Angeles has a severe housing crisis and is one of the least affordable places to live in the United States. (National Low Income Housing Coalition: Affordable Housing Gap Analysis 2016 http://nlihc.org/sites/
In the mean time, emergency measures are in order now. We need safe places for homeless people to rest, storage for their belongings, access to sanitary facilities, and so much more.
Turning homeless people into criminals is cruel, it certainly is not a solution and it has proven more expensive that housing people.
Vote no and stop this from going forward!
Interested HUFFsters: My twice-weekly radio show is now back in the studio. You can call in at 831-427-3772 when I’m on air, and leave me a message at 831-423-4833 off-air. Since I’m no longer preparing my shows in advance, unless I have an unusual guest, I won’t be sending out the twice-weekly reminder of my show. I invite you all to listen and call in anyway!
Hi Everyone:
PROPOSED MEETING
Zav believes it would be good for Freedom Sleepers to firm up any plans for the July 5 Memorial Demo and clarifying what needs to be done and who can do it. He suggests we meet at 8 PM in front of City Hall at the Freedom Sleeper site on Tuesday night.
Zav has also asked HUFF members (and anyone interested) to be particularly aware of the Budget approval that follows the Consent Agenda (Item #22) probably at 2:45 or 3 PM, which concerns money for public bathrooms (if any). HUFF is encouraging the City to open the City Hall bathrooms 24-hours a day (the “Give a Shit” campaign). Unfortunately the documents giving budget specifics and when items are coming up are not on line at the moment.
UPCOMING COURT HEARING
Also up for possible discussion at the 8 PM meeting (if that’s what we decide) is support for the June 17 Motions Hearing on my two “in the park after 10 PM” citations (10 AM Dept. 1). The issue here is to get the police video and audio released prior to trial. And use the occasion to publicize the City’s continuing harassment of Freedom Sleepers (and, of course, the unhoused community).
There is a chance that the well-documented City staff’s movement of agendas to the sidewalk in December may nullify my tickets (and perhaps those of all other Freedom Sleepers) and show that the arrests were false. My court (not jury) trial before Judge Marigonda is currently slated for June 24 at 10 AM but may be postponed–if the Discovery Motion is granted.
ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA
I’d also add that on the June 14 Consent Agenda at 2:30 PM earlier that day are item #5, expanding triple fine zones for the holidays from the downtown area to include the entire city for July 4, Halloween, and New Year’s. Plus expanding the time affected to 48 hours before and 48 hours after the holiday itself. Pretty serious expansion of police power for harassment (and fund-raising) for minor offenses.
Item #6 kicks down $100,000 for graffiti abatement; item #8 $50,000 for a trash container up at the golf course; item #10 authorizes the City’s whole financial packet without any examination of investments in war profiteering or companies boycotted by the BDS movement (to boycott Israel unless it leaves the Occupied territories); item #11 $36,000 for new police helmets at $350+ a helmet.
If anyone wants to talk on these Consent Agenda items, I encourage you to send an e-mail to a Council member (mposter@cityofsantacruz.com, dlane@cityofsantacruz.com, cchase@cityofsantacruz.com, etc.) asking them to pull the item from the agenda for separate discussion and vote. Or call them at 420-5020 and leave them a message.
NUMBER & LOCATION OF BLUE BOXES NOT SETTLED
The Resolution specifying the number and location of the blue cages, or “exempt zones” (as the blue bracketed areas on Pacific Avenue are called) is NOT on the agenda as anticipated. However the law banning jewelry and other “Commercial” sales and uses, tightening the “move every hour” law, and enacting further restrictions on using the blue cages goes into effect on June 23 or 24th.
A pastiche of vendors, a passel of poor folks, and my analysis and argument. That’s pretty much it.
Go to http://radiolibre.org/brb/ for older shows–as well as the latest show. To see some of them described go to http://huffsantacruz.org/
For the really old shows go to http://huffsantacruz.org/