FW: Sin Barras Updates and Events [1 Attachment]

Posted on by
[Attachment(s)from Robert Norse included below]

It is my belief that many homeless people are in Santa Cruz jails for trivial offenses.  Activists from Sin Barras have been coming to HUFF meetings for the last month.  I think their events are likely to interest HUFF activists and sympathizers–hence this e-mail!

Robert Norse

Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 15:54:12 -0700
Subject: Sin Barras Updates and Events
From: ashnguye@ucsc.edu
To: gailpage@earthlink.net; rnorse3@hotmail.com

Hi Gail and Robert,

This is what’s happening on the Sin Barras front. We are in the midst of:
  • creating educational pamphlets/zines on the research we have done regarding the prison system in santa cruz county
    • the zine will be premiered at our Art Show Fundriaser this Friday
  • organizing an Abolition Art Show Fundraiser this Friday, you and friends are all welcome to come!
  • programming for our April 6th Speakout + March
  • communicating with Scott McDonald (Santa Cruz County Chief Probation Officer)

We have also:


We’re also coordinating ride shares for an event in San Francisco related to our work. Let us know if you’d like to join us:
    • We will meet up at 8:30 am outside the forum with banners and posters demanding an end to overcrowding, releases and real health care to save our friends and family in prisons & jails;
    • We will be making t-shirts of the same color with slogans like “overcrowding=death” and something punchy about healthcare for us all to wear;
    • We are gathering volunteers who feel comfortable holding banners up inside the symposium;
    • We will be bringing statements from people inside prison about the conditions/healthcare and pointed questions for volunteers to raise during Q&As or any other chances to speak;
    • We will ask that all supporters stand or raise hands or fists when our organizers are reading or making statements;
    • We will hand-out and collect more post-cards to give to Kelso at the event
  • We welcome your comments AND participation. As one CCWP member said, it is important for Kelso (Medical Receiver) and all of those law enforcement types to see a solid block of people standing up in solidarity with all of our loved ones inside.
As for further research, we are investigating the numbers of inmates still awaiting trial and we are still desperately looking for narratives and testimonials of treatment and conditions inside Santa Cruz County Jail.

—
Health & Happiness,
Tash Nguyen

UC Santa Cruz
Urban Anthropology & Environmental Studies
sinbarras.wordpress.com/
http://lostupnorth.tumblr.com/

“Let’s be gentle with ourselves and each other and fierce as we fight oppression.” 

– Dean Spade

__._,_.___
Attachment(s) from Robert Norse
1 of 1 File(s)

Interesting Report–with a usable link!

Posted on by

To reach  the Housing report go to http://wraphome.org/2013-01-12-00-37-37/organizing-toolkit & then click the links in the following sentence.

In 2006, WRAP published a Without Housing report that clearly showed the world why America’s “approach” to ending homelessness has been overwhelmingly ineffective. In 2010, we updated the report, now available in both English and Spanish.

Robert Norse

Support Homeless Rights and Services–A Response to Councilmembers Robinson and Lane

Posted on by
NOTE BY NORSE:  Rouster-of-the-Wretched Lynn Robinson, until the election of Pamela Comstock, was the most reactionary member of the Santa Cruz City Council.  Along with David Terrazas. Cynthia Mathews, and Hillary Bryant, Robinson has faithfully backed or initiated a steady stream of anti-homeless measures increasing criminal penalties for innocent behaviors like sitting on the sidewalk, sleeping outside at night (in a town with no alternatives for most), and peaceful sparechanging.
Last Sunday Robinson flung rhetorical acid at the Homeless (Lack of) Services Center [HLOSC] in a front-page story, attacking its funding, denouncing its management, and smearing its clientele.
For Robinson’s rattlebrained roarings go  to http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_22807781/santa-cruz-vice-mayor-activists-question-city-funding.
Joining the gruesome chorus of bigotry orchestrated by Take Back Santa Cruz, Robinson championed further cutbacks in the vital needle exchange program and megaphoned the familiar right-wing merchant myth that Santa Cruz is a magnet for crime, violence, and danger because of its (alleged) tolerance of homeless people, drug abuse, poor people entitlements, and “weirdness”.
Santa Cruz, in fact, with the collusion of self-described “liberals” like Don Lane (and former Council member Katherine Beiers) pioneered California anti-homeless laws in 1994 including the Sitting Ban, the Sparechanging Ban, & the Street Performing Ban.  (The word “ban” is meant to suggest that police are given such broad prohibition powers that they can restrict, bully, harass, ticket, or arrest whomever they choose doing these activities–which they do.)
Santa Cruz has also instituted Permit Parking, banning the very existence of homeless vehicles (even when homeless aren’t in them) during nighttime in hours in many neighborhoods.  The City Council passed the notorious Parking Lot Panic law which bans anyone from reading a book, socializing, or–for that matter–changing a baby’s diapers in their car in any of the city-owned parking lots.  In the last few years, it has leveled nighttime curfews all over the city establishing forbidden zones at such traditionally  public areas as City Hall, the Library grounds, the River, the Parks, and elsewhere.
As far as “drug tolerance”, the City has crippled the voter-mandated Measure K, supposedly making recreational marijuana use in private for those over 21 the lowest priority, and its rates of marijuana arrests have been rising, not falling.   The closed-door City Council putsch that shut down the effective and safe Needle Exchange program on Barson St. with no public debate or announcement was an abject surrender to the hysteria of the Take Back Santa Cruz/Clean Team crowd stoking rising hysteria over the needles found in their clean-up’s (a relatively small number–400 over several months compared to the several hundred thousand picked up each year).
Instead of calling for a changed policy that moves away from the useless, costly, crime-producing, and rights-wrecking Drug War, the policy of the City Council is to throw more money at the SCPD.  Instead of opening up more needle exchange sites and increasing funding and staff for clean-up’s, City Council is buying into the absurd “Just Say No” stupidity once heralded by Nancy Reagan.
Now comes Vice-Mayor Lynn Robinson leading the pack of paranoids, denouncing the Homeless (Lack of) Services Center.
HUFF has harshly and persistently criticized abuses and leadership at the HLOSC.  For not providing shelter other than for a fraction of the population.  For not advocating for the rights of those outside.  For not protecting disabled people from arbitrary decisions by their staff.  For caving to anti-homeless bigotry of neighbors with their “no impact” zones (penalizing clients for simply seeking the right to use the public spaces as members of the public rather than as cringing abjects subject to the whims of neighborhood NIMBY’s.  For closing the center during the day to those who they’re supposedly paid to serve.  For refusing to replace vital storage lockers.  And more.
But the HLOSC does provide two meals a day (unless they exclude you), does offer a (for-pay) mail service, and does provide a pick-up point for Armory Shelter in the winter as well as providing an entry point for other programs.
Council member Don Lane (whom I call satirically Gone Lame) has long been a booster and frequent Board of Directors member of the Homeless (Lack of) Services Center at 115 Coral St.  He recently was Mayor and President of the Board of the HLOSC.  And Robinson’s toxic venom has upset him.
What is his response?  Not a forthright “homeless people have rights and needs” statement.    It wouldn’t be credible to those who closely follow his record (and many don’t, because his rhetoric is often impressive).  but more to the point, he would actually have to take an unpopular stand in a city where bigotry, bullying, and police-worship is on the rise.  That’s something I don’t remember his ever doing.
So instead he tells nearby businesses that it’s their job to ramp up the war against the homeless in the nearby public spaces, not the HLOSC–which–get this–just doesn’t have the money.  Instead of mobilizing people who have long objected to police, merchant, and resident abuses against poor people outside, instead of championing the obvious–emergency campgrounds, public bathrooms, trash collection, and reform of the HLOSC (to make it more accessible and less a prison camp), he defends the group he’s made his turf for the last decade.  He attempts to “reason” with the wretched Robinson instead of exposing her libelous anecdotes and self-righteous bigotry.  In essence, he is saying that he supports the war against the homeless, but they can’t blame the HLOSC for not pursuing it vigorously enough because they don’t have the money.
Aside from being fascistic and immoral, this tries to play pattycake with same unrealistic “drive the homeless away” approach.  This approach targets the wrong people and institutions.  It panders to “compassionate fatigue”, “homeless enabling”, “street culture = criminal behavior” “hyperpolice/vigilanteeism = increased security”  and other all to familiar misleading stereotypes.   it appears with the underlying phony distinctions between “our” homeless and the “other” homeless, between “the worthy poor” and “the crazies, druggies, criminals, and bums”.  The phony focus on needles, the Drug War, homeless camps, trash, are an attempt to vilify the homeless community.   Wild exaggerations of conditions that conditions that exist in every city don’t lead to more safety for the community and set the stage for an intensifying witchhunt against the homeless community–something Don Lane has watched without comment or objection for the last year.
Access to food, shelter, medical care, and equal  treatment is a right we need to enforce.   The reactionary fantasy that these exist in abundance in Santa Cruz is ridiculous to anyone who’s ever been poor here.  In so far as the HLOSC meets these needs and secures these rights, it needs to be supported.  In so far as it fails, it needs to be held accountable, reformed, and/or replaced.

Don Lane

City Councilmember for the City of Santa Cruz

Thoughts on my letter to Lynn Robinson concerning the Homeless Services Center

Posted on March 19, 2013 at 2:41 pm
I have been absent from posting to this blog for many months.  Mainly I’ve been trying to cut back to 50 hour work weeks after being at more like 60 hours last year (during my term as mayor). I’ve also been nursing a herniated disk in my neck—which I hope will finally diminish as a problem after spinal surgery next week.
But I have been recently awakened from my slowdown — first by the horrifying deaths of city police Detectives Baker and Butler –and then further by some of the disturbing reactions that have surfaced in the past few weeks (alongside the amazingly generous outpouring of support for our fallen officers that showed up around our community) in the form of troubling proposals to change some of the community’s policies.
One of these proposals struck me particularly hard because it went right to heart of the primary volunteer work I do, which is to support policies and programs to successfully address homelessness and homeless issues in our community.
This proposal played itself out when the local daily paper got its hands on a letter that my city council colleague, Santa Cruz Vice Mayor Lynn Robinson, wrote to the Executive Director of our local Homeless Services Center, Monica Martinez.  As you will see below, her letter did not sit well with me.  Though I originally saw the letter on February 27, I set it aside (in spite of my negative reaction to it) in recognition of our need to focus on mourning the deaths of Butch Baker and Elizabeth Butler.  However, once the Sentinel reporter spoke to me about the letter (around March 13) and told me he was going to feature it in a newspaper story, I thought it was then appropriate to send a response to Lynn.  It was also important for me to respond at that time because, that same week, Lynn also made a formal motion to cut funding for the Homeless Services Center at our city council meeting. And it lso appears that she quietly triggered a document search to see if she could find other ways to do things that I saw as undermining the work of HSC.  In other words, Lynn did not just write a letter, she appeared to me to have begun a three-pronged “campaign” against HSC.
I’m sharing it here because many people communicated with me that my letter was referred to in a Sentinel article but it was not printed. They said they wanted to see it.
I don’t often send letters like the one below. It is strongly worded and takes a very firm position on the issues involved.  For people who know my work in the community, they will recognize that it takes a different tone than my typical tone. I normally try to work in the middle ground of controversial local issues.  Though I am not trying to fool myself into believing I am always a neutral player, I usually try to quickly move past my own views to embrace the “controversy” and try to be a voice for bringing the divided participants together.  This works for me most of the time.  But not always.
There are some issues that cut deeper for me and then I discover my limits.  One of those issues is immigration.  My only daughter, who my wife and I adopted when she was 10, was born in Mexico and brought to the United States without proper immigration documents when she was a very young child.  The rest of her life story is irrelevant to this essay, but the fact that the “group” she belongs to is regularly under attack in the politcal discourse of this country makes me very sensitive on these issues. I want to seek middle ground on immigration issues but I have especially little tolerance for hateful language around immigration issues. So my public comments and actions on this issue tend to be less measured.

My journey into the issue of homeless is a bit less personal but that journey has still been long and deep.  I actually got involved about 25 years ago when I was invited to help resolve a conflict between the Downtown community and the City government on one side and a group of good samaritans and political advocates on the other side who were serving a daily meal to homeless individuals in a public space Downtown. (There’s a bit more about this story in the letter below.) Suffice it to say that my mediation in this situation led to my assisting the meal-serving group to relocate away from Downtown and to a place where the meal could be served in a more orderly and safe situation.

Through that episode, I met some very caring and committed people and I started to learn more about the lives of local people living on the streets of our community.  I got involved in starting the Homeless Community Resource Center and continue to this day in work that brings me into contact with homeless individuals and families and with those who work with those difficult-to-serve populations.

So the issue of homelessness is a big deal for me. I will not pretend that it is not personal after those many years of work.  But its not just “personal.”  It is also something I have spent a lot of time learning about and working on as a community problem in the context of being a city councilmember. It is a problem that everyone in the community recognizes. As an aside, I should note here that I encounter many people who say two things almost simultaneously that I find very puzzling. First they say something like: “Don, why do you spend so much time focusing on homelessness and not focus enough on the rest of us taxpayers who are not homeless and who have important needs, too?” Then they say: “I am so upset about all the problems homelessness and homeless people cause in our community.  Why don’t you do something about it?”  I’m not sure they see the contradiction but I certainly do. And so I continue to work on the issue of homelessness.

And I do it for the entire community- not just for those who are on the street. I do it because my compassion (which has oddly become a bad word among some people in Santa Cruz lately) includes concern for everyone who suffers from the existence of homelessness.  That includes just about everyone. Obviously this includes people living in a variety of very difficult situations that share the label “homelessness.” And it includes compassion for housed people who have to deal with a variety of challenges including public expense, business disruption, dirtying of public spaces and a variety of things that the legal world euphemistically calls “nuisance” behavior.

The reason I “take sides” at certain moments on this issue is that I have a visceral reaction to scapegoating groups that are vulnerable and groups that do not have much political influence.  Since I deal with a lot of people dealing with homelessness, I am particularly senstive when I see them under attack.  This does not mean I embrace or excuse bad things that homeless individuals do. And it does not mean that I believe every homeless service program is perfect. It means that I will resist efforts to punish a group for the bad acts of particular individuals in that group. And I will resist efforst to blame people who are making the community better simply because those people are not making the community perfect.  And thus I wrote the letter below…
—


Dear Lynn
Thanks for your call on Thursday night… I appreciate that you let me know about your letter to Monica Martinez.  As I mentioned, I had asked Monica to forward it to me a couple of weeks ago (soon after you told me about it) and I’ve had a chance to review it quite carefully.  I especially appreciated the letter’s clarity expressing your specific concerns… because our recent meeting about these issues did not get to as much specificity as I had hoped.


As I mentioned to you in our phone call, I stepped down from the Board of Directors of HSC in February.  I did that in large part because I have been working on a few different projects related to homeless issues and I was spreading myself too thin, especially in combination with my City work and my other employment.  I also think it’s important for the community to know that when I speak about issues of homelessness in our community, I am not speaking on behalf of HSC.  My focus is moving more and more to larger policy issues and I want to work primarily in that mode. 


Having said that, I want to respond to the content of your letter and acknowledge that some of my response is informed by my knowledge about the work of HSC and its neighbor agencies stemming from my past work there.
In your letter, I found it particularly notable how authoritatively you spoke about HSC. This surprised me because of your statements to me at our meeting a couple of weeks ago where you specifically told me that it has been a very long time since you’ve actually visited the homeless programs located on Coral Street.  I think this fact is indicates how your strong feelings about HSC are informed more by your personal perspective as to what is going on at the Coral Street “campus” rather than on a truly thorough examination of homelessness and homeless programs in Santa Cruz.


Perhaps the most obvious example of this is your apparent assumption the Homeless Services Center organization is solely responsible for the Coral Street campus.  I think you are aware but failed to acknowledge that the Coral Street campus is shared by three organizations: the County Health Department’s Homeless Persons Health Project (HPHP); the Santa Cruz Community Counseling Center’s River Street Shelter; and the Homeless Services Center.  Did you know this and chose to single out HSC… or did you forget to include the other organizations in your communications about the Coral Street area?  It was particularly noteworthy that your letter described how Paul from HPHP was working with one of the people you had concerns about… and then blamed Monica and HSC (an organization completely separate from HPHP) for the alleged failure of Paul to solve the problem you wish he could solve.  (I should also note here that there is probably no single individual in this community who has more constructively addressed the health issues of homeless individuals than Paul, who is a public health nurse with HPHP.  You could not have picked a poorer person to single out. His work is exemplary by any standard and until you’ve learned more about the work he does and tried to do the kind of work he does, you would be well-advised to steer clear of mentioning his work in the negative way that you mentioned it.)


Next, I wonder if you are aware of the functions and activities of the Homeless Persons Health Project in general. More than 100 individuals drop into HPHP on a typical day.  Did you know, for instance, that if a homeless person in the Santa Cruz area is interested in receiving help with their substance abuse problems, HPHP is the most appropriate place for that person to go for assistance?  Since there is no other similar drop-in program designed for homeless persons with this problem, do you have a suggestion for where these persons should be going instead?  I understand that you would like these folks to go to some other place in the county for assistance but there is no other such place right now. Soon there will be a new facility for HPHP in South County (which I think we agree will be a positive thing) and there will more of the jurisdictional sharing that you seek.  But there will still be many homeless IV drug users in the Santa Cruz area (until there is a sea-change in funding for treatment and a dramatic reduction in the flow of heroin and meth into this area) and they will continue to seek help at the Coral Street clinic of HPHP.


Perhaps the most alarming assumption contained in your letter is the idea that HSC is primarily responsible for every homeless person in the vicinity of Coral Street.  I believe this is based on the idea that HSC staff have tried to create a no-impact zone near its Coral Street location.  I believe HSC staff has worked seriously toward this within the limited resources it has… because you and others have demanded that HSC take responsibility for this.  I have always supported HSC’s effort to do this even though it pulls staff resources away from their primary function of safely serving homeless persons who come to HSC itself for services.  However, I have also had reservations about your demand because, though the demand came from representatives from the City, it did not come with any new dollars from any funding source including the City.  In fact, HSC’s funding from the City has fallen by about $100,000 during your time on the city council and you have supported that reduction.  So, in other words, you want HSC to use funds the City Council has designated for meeting the basic needs of low-income people to patrol city streets and sidewalks and other people’s private property… and you want HSC to take on that extra burden with a lot less money.


I should also note that I had reservations about HSC taking on your demand for a no impact zone because I suspected that HSC did not have the legal authority and powerful tools that would be required to make it effective… thereby setting up HSC for failure and your subsequent criticism.  That suspicion was certainly borne out by your letter.  And, to add insult to injury, now you have randomly expanded the zone you expect HSC to “police” to an even greater area by throwing in a business on the other side of the Highway and a Costco driveway.  I dare say that your placing expectations on locations so detached from the HSC campus made what was originally a dubious demand into an unreasonable one.


Even more to the point, since the “no impact” effort began, HSC staff members have been working very closely with the SCPD to protect the safety of both clients at the Coral Street property and in immediately adjacent areas.  I am not aware of any way HSC has not cooperated fully with SCPD. HSC has also worked closely with the First Alarm security staff and, again, I’m not aware of any situation where HSC has not worked cooperatively with First Alarm.  I am also not aware of any action you or other city officials have taken to deputize HSC staff to enforce local nuisance behavior and drug laws.  If a person outside the property of the homeless programs at Coral Street is seen violating laws, what tools have you provided HSC staff to enforce those laws?  I’m pretty sure the answer is that you (and the City in general) have provided the same tool to HSC staff that you have provided to every other community resident… you have given them the phone number to call the police.  HSC staff does this on a regular basis just as you have asked.  HSC has also continued to deny access to its programs by people who have violated the rules of HSC. (This has been HSC’s practice since long before you got involved.)


I’d like to go a bit further with you on the question of who is responsible for all the problematic behavior that some homeless individuals are involved in around the Harvey West district and the city in general.  I’ll start with a bit of history… on two separate occasions I have been approached by key people dealing with Downtown issues asking me to encourage volunteers serving meals on the streets Downtown to stop doing this Downtown.  On both occasions, I was able to get those volunteer groups to re-locate their meal programs to the Coral Street facility.  This was applauded by both city officials and representatives of private businesses Downtown.  In other words, HSC and its partners took on an extra burden at the request of the City because it knew that THE CITY ITSELF HAD THE RESPONSIBILITY TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONGREGATION OF HOMELESS PEOPLE IN PUBLIC LOCATIONS. That is still the case.  Only City officials have the legal responsibility and authority to do this.  HSC cannot walk Downtown and do anything to address problematic behavior of homeless persons.  This is true in every public location in the city… the river levee, the parks, the Pogonip. 


My point here (in the form of a question) is simply this: what are you, Lynn, doing to FULLY address this behavior in public spaces?  I know you have tried different approaches and made some inroads but all the things you have proposed and supported have not eliminated this problematic behavior in these public places.  Shall we cut funding from the Parks and Rec budget because there are still some homeless individuals perpetrating illegal and problematic behavior in Parks facilities?  Shall we cut the Public Works budget because they cannot ensure that there are no homeless people gathering on their sidewalks?  Shall we cut the Police budget because they have not eliminated crime among the homeless population?  I think you know that we should not…and will not…make these cuts.  The only question that remains unclear is this:  Shall we cut our salaries because we have not eliminated problem behavior and illegal behavior in public locations entrusted to our care as City Councilmembers?   I suspect the answer is “no” because we are both working pretty damned hard on a lot of difficult issues… and we don’t believe in punishing ourselves for our imperfect records… because we are still doing some good work.


I’d like to pose another question on a related topic:  Have you been consistent with private property owners who have ongoing behavior problems related to homelessness?  The first property that comes to mind is the rail line that runs through Harvey West and the Pogonip.  Have you placed expectations on Roaring Camp and Big Trees Railway similar those placed on HSC?  You specifically noted problems along the railroad tracks…yet you target HSC for responsibility when problems on the tracks have existed for decades… long before HSC existed.  Is there a different standard? If so, what is the basis for that double standard? And if you do contact Roaring Camp in the future and they successfully cleared their railway property of problem behavior by nudging it to the nearby sidewalk, would you then approach them again to demand more because there is a problem NEAR their property?  This seem to be how you have treated HSC… will you be taking the same approach with others?


There are properties all around Harvey West and other locations in Santa Cruz that have persistent overnight camping and gatherings of people who are behaving in ways similar to those described in your letter.  Have you been putting the same pressure on these businesses and property owners to address these problems?  If so, I hope you can fill me on how you are applying that same pressure. (Perhaps you could show me the letters you’ve sent them.)  Of course, we all know that those property owners might try to rely on the currently favored approach of blaming HSC for everything (simply because it exists and is doing its job) and using that as an excuse for avoiding their share of responsibility.  But legally, that is not how it works. If any property owner is allowing nuisance behavior to persist on his/her property, they are responsible for addressing it.  HSC is meeting its responsibility by excluding people who break the rules or the law while on its property—and by calling the police as needed. That is what the City and police have expected of HSC. Now shall we penalize them for doing what we have asked?


At this point, I feel compelled to address the anecdote in your letter that demonstrates how far off the mark I think your entire message is.  I refer to your recounting of the tale of the woman with prosthetic legs. Your city government, with your strong support (and my support, as well) has undertaken an ongoing program of cleaning out and removing encampments occupied by homeless individuals in and around our community.  This woman was one of the homeless individuals living in that kind of situation who was displaced in one of those cleanups.  So an action that you vigorously supported drove this woman into a more visible place in our community (and a more vulnerable situation). It is very troubling that you are blaming HSC because you are now seeing her out there in a visible location.  The real question is what are YOU doing to help this woman who you have made more vulnerable by your actions?  The answer appears to be that you are demanding that someone else deal with her—while at the same time consistently moving to reduce funding for one of the principal organizations that is trying mightily with limited resources to help her.  Since you are a person of great compassion, how do you justify this?


Some of us have been working without any financial support from the City to expedite the 180-180 project in Santa Cruz.  The woman with prosthetic legs has been surveyed by  the 180-180 project and could possibly be housed through that project. But she won’t be housed sooner because your City (and mine) pushed her into an even more vulnerable situation.  She will be housed because HSC and its partners and volunteers and supporters put together the resources – without your help – to make it possible.  It is so disappointing to me that you would play the role you have played in making her more vulnerable and then expect someone else to clean up a problem you helped create. 


It appears to be less than constructive that you would poke around these issues and these programs with such a lack of information and understanding.  Do you really think that programs whose funding you have voted to cut should now be taking care of every needy person you see just because you make a phone call? Is this a responsible approach for an elected leader of this community?   If and when the woman with prosthetic legs is housed and taken off the street safely, it will be because HSC has been working on this for months and it will happen in spite of your actions.


Your letter and your approach to these issues may end up impressing some people in the community with its “get tough” language and demands now that it seems to be coming to light.  However, it will not impress many of us actually trying to help the most vulnerable and impoverished people in our community.  If you want to dig in, as you said you will do in your “gardener” mode, I want to encourage you to plant some seeds of intelligent solutions rather than throwing around “enough is enough” language.  Anyone in the community can express frustration and say “I’ve had it.”  There are plenty of things that I can list around the community that I could say “I’ve had it” about.  My view is that leaders move quickly past their frustration to identify thoughtful solutions based on good information.  I know you have shown this kind of good leadership on other issues. So I’m looking forward to your thoughtful answers and suggestions that go beyond what I see right now as unfair and misdirected complaints on these Coral Street area issues.


Finally, despite the criticisms contained in this letter, I want to acknowledge how hard you are working on a range of important community safety issues.  The community is definitely benefitting by much of your work. I hope you will recognize that I share your desire for a safe community. I simply cannot support particular approaches that are off-target and unfair and inadvertently play into the fear-based demands of some frustrated community members.
I respectfully request that you take the next step in your Coral Street efforts by answering the questions I raised in this letter.  The questions may seem rhetorical in nature… but every one of them needs and has a real answer.  I hope you will take the time to thoughtfully answer each one.  In turn, I would be happy to answer any questions you have for me– to the best of my ability — about homeless issues and homeless services.


Thank you for considering my request…and for your continued service to Santa Cruz.


Don

Judge Timothy Volkmann denies dismissal for ‘final four’ in River Street bank occupation

Posted on by
NOTES  BY NORSE:   Former Santa Cruz Eleven defendant and photojournalist Alex Darocy covered the hearing below at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/03/12/18733496.php?show_comments=1#18733512 .  I presented my own take with links to the motions filed to dismiss at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/03/07/18733298.php .

Regarding the trespass charge, it was selectively enforced and seemed to be done as a political sop to anti-Occupy authoritarians as well as a form of  SCPD face-saving.  Plus it seemed a pretty convenient opportunity to go after activists long-publicly critical of police misconduct and alternative media whistleblowers.  If there was a real concern about “trespass”, it should have been a timely bust, done within 24 hours of the occupation and uniformly applied to everyone there.  Clearly this was a combination of tokenism, scapegoating, and intimidation against other direct action critics of Wells Fargo and large corporate criminals.
Free  speech and free assembly considerations also play a significant role–not to mention the community reality that the building was long-vacant (and has remained so).  Prosecutions in a dozen other cities have led to acquittals or been dropped for similar occupations.  First Amendment protections are an explicit part of the 602 trespass statute which were ignored (by both prosecution and defense).
In terms of harm-reduction, the vacant bank could have provided shelter for a population that has a far higher death rate than the terrified mob that shows up at City Council ranting about needles, drug addicts, the homeless, and “crime”.

Regarding the “felony vandalism” charge, prosecution witnesses agreed there was zero evidence of explicit documented vandalism by any of the four (not to mention the eleven originally charged).    Nor were any vandals identified.

The discredited assistant D.A. pursuing this case (Rebekah Young) was already sanctioned $500 for repeatedly violating court orders and keeping evidence from the defense.

To justify this  prosecution, Young presented a tenuous torturous “aiding and abetting theory” which suggested “aiding and abetting the trespass” meant that the “natural and probable” vandalism consequences made the defendants responsible for $23,000 in vandalism and subject to 4 years in prison. 

Defense attorneys pointed out that courts have never ruled that vandalism is a “natural and probable” consequence of the crime of trespass. This is a novel new doctrine apparently trotted out to respond to the lynchmob mentality stalking Santa Cruz (which masquerades as some kind of public safety “protection”). Or perhaps for D.A. Young to magically transform a discredited prosecution into a “win” so she can get a passing grade on her homework, somehow, after having already flunked.
150 “trespassers” alleged (none arrested at the scene), 139 unknown. 0 known vandals. A massively overcharged butcher bill by Wells Fargo. According to defense attorney Bryan Hackett, (a) there has to be someone that the defendants “aided and abetted” in the original trespass (and no such showing was made—only that the defendants either were in the building and/or communicating with those in the building), (b) there has to be a someone they aided (no one was identified), and (c) it must be shown that action led as a “necessary and probable” consequence to vandalism (also no evidence other than broad claims that it was a tumultuous situation.
The issue is likely to be appealed to a higher court once a transcript is available—which must be done within 15 days of Judge Volkman’s decision. That should be happening shortly.

Previous occupations in Santa Cruz (such as that of the Heiner House in 1992, or the Campbell St. House in 1996, have never led to felony charges (there were originally two felonies and two misdemeanors charged).  The current form of judicial terrorism against activists does further damage to a First Amendment already diced and shredded by the Obama/Bush demolition team.

Judge Timothy Volkmann denies dismissal for ‘final four’

in River Street bank occupation

By Cathy Kelly
Posted:   03/11/2013 04:41:37 PM PDT
SANTA CRUZ — In a courtroom full of activists, Judge Timothy Volkmann on Monday denied a motion to dismiss trespassing and vandalism charges against four remaining defendants accused of the takeover of a former Wells Fargo Bank building on River Street.
Gabriella Ripley-Phipps, Franklin Alcantara, Cameron Laurendau and Brent Adams are among 11 people originally charged with trespassing, vandalism and felony conspiracy for a high-profile occupation of a vacant former bank on Nov. 30, 2011.
Summarizing the 350-page preliminary hearing transcript, Volkmann described Ripley-Phipps as the group spokesperson and said the other three were seen inside the building at least twice. He then noted “it appears the major tussle centers on the felony vandalism charge” and whether that was a “natural consequence of the (misdemeanor) trespass (charge).”
Volkmann said his colleague, Judge Paul Burdick — who presided over the preliminary hearing — found that the vandalism was a natural and probable cause of the trespass due to the size and emotionally charged nature of the crowd, the stacking of furniture against the doors and other barricading behavior, the length of time they stayed inside, and other factors.
As prosecutor Rebekah Young put it, “They were in there for the long haul.”
The defense challenged Young’s theory that the four are guilty as aiders and abetters. In other words, that if they entered the bank with the crowd, and if the damage to the building was a “natural and probable” result of that entering, they are guilty of vandalism even without direct evidence of their part in the destruction of property.
Volkmann listened to Santa Cruz defense attorneys Lisa McCamey, Jesse Ruben, Bryan Hackett and Alexis Briggs argue that there is little or no direct evidence of who damaged the bank. They also argued the vandalism charge could not hold under the aiding and abetting theory without more proof of the circumstances surrounding the entering of the building.
“There is no evidence they agreed to trespass,” McCamey said. “Their mere presence is not enough for this theory.”
Volkmann ruled against them, noting there is a lower standard of proof the District Attorneys’ Office must meet at the preliminary hearing stage. He said the defense attorneys’ arguments “may be applicable” at trial.
Trial is set for May 13, but Ruben said he anticipates a conflict due to a homicide trial he is taking part in.
The group is due back in court April 8 for a status hearing.
A group of supporters and activists came to court for the afternoon hearing, as they have several times, with flyers urging “Drop the Charges! Santa Cruz Eleven: The Final Four.”
The case began after people swarmed into the former bank after an Occupy Santa Cruz march, causing damage now estimated at about $25,000 and sparking a tense situation with police. Three days later, the group walked away.
The four remaining defendants are out of custody.
Earlier, Burdick dismissed charges against seven people due to insufficient evidence. He also dismissed a conspiracy charge the group had faced and fined the District Attorney’s Office $500 for failing to provide evidence to defense attorneys.
Follow Sentinel reporter Cathy Kelly on Twitter at Twitter.com/cathykelly9
For more info: santacruzeleven.org

Fresno Homeless Camps: Official Lie vs. Activist Truth

Posted on by
The Fresno Bee article about the Press Conference held yesterday at Ventura and F street is below and at this link:
Note that at the end of the article City Council member Oliver Baines blames the lawsuit for their problems.  Just when they get some momentum going to keep the streets clean, they get sued. . . according to Baines.  For some reason, The Bee did not mention that the Community Alliance is able to put 8 portable toilets and 3 dumpsters at the encampment without incident.  If we can help keep the encampments clean without destroying homeless peoples property, why can’t the city do the same thing?  Maybe they should call me up and ask for our secret.
Mike Rhodes
Editor
Community Alliance Newspaper
PO Box 5077
Fresno Ca 93755
(559) 978-4502 (cell)
(559) 226-3962 (fax)
editor@fresnoalliance.com
www.fresnoalliance.com

Residents near downtown Fresno urge faster city action on homeless trash
By BoNhia Lee – The Fresno Bee
Wednesday, Mar. 13, 2013 | 06:30 PM
Residents who live south of downtown Fresno know the homeless problem in their neighborhood won’t be solved right away. But they think the piles of trash that come from the homeless are an easy fix.
Members of the Golden Westside Planning Committee and residents who live in tidy houses near Ventura Avenue and E Street held a news conference Wednesday to urge city officials to clean up their neighborhood.
Late Wednesday, city officials said they’re working on a solution.
The group gathered in front of a small alley on Ventura Avenue, between E and F streets, where trash had accumulated over the last four months.
Capri Sun juice packets, restaurant takeout boxes, clothes, blankets, hangers, soup cans and more were scattered on the ground.
The trash “carries feces, it carries roaches, it carries rats, it carries all kinds of things as our children walk through the neighborhood,” said Debbie Darden, the group’s chairwoman. “It’s an ongoing problem. We feel it’s the responsibility of the city of Fresno to act on it quickly and on a regular basis to get it cleaned up.”
The trash is what you would see in Third-World countries like Pakistan and Nigeria, said Kevin Hamilton, deputy chief of programs for Clinica Sierra Vista.
“When you have piles of trash sitting around for months, it gets wet, the elements start to work on it and it becomes a place where bacteria live,” Hamilton said. “This is truly a health hazard to our community.”
The committee and resident Jeff Tapscott said calls to Council Member Oliver Baines, who represents the area, the mayor and city manager since January have not resulted in a cleanup yet.
“The trash never seems to leave,” said Tapscott, who has lived in the neighborhood for 17 years. “I pick up what I can pick up.”
Their suggestion: put Dumpsters in the alleys and on the streets.
When contacted on Wednesday, city spokesman Mike Lukens said in a written statement that the city will put trash bins in the neighborhood.
“The city will cooperate with residents in the neighborhood and place trash bins there, but we’re also working on an overall cleanup of the area,” Lukens said.
Baines said residents should expect to see the trash cleaned up within a month.
“I share their frustration,” Baines said. “They’re right. It’s an issue that needs to be taken care of.”
But the process takes time, Baines said. The city has to figure out whether the property that needs cleaning is publicly or privately owned. Then there are the lawsuits.
The city has been sued by homeless advocates twice before for destruction of property after cleaning up homeless encampments.
“It really slows the process down and almost stops the process all together,” Baines said. “That has been a big hinderance. Just when we get the momentum going we get hit with the lawsuit and we have to of course work through all that.”

180/180 Program–Hope or Hoax? Unanswered Questions

Posted on by

Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 13:22:52 -0500
From: phil.kramer1@gmail.com
To: rnorse3@hotmail.com
Subject: UPDATE: “Homelessness” Leadership Council formed

Greetings!
We’re excited to report that the Leadership Council has been formed. The selection process was difficult because so many people – nearly 80 – expressed an interest in joining. This was a good problem to have, though we then had to focus on establishing a group that balanced stakeholder and geographic criteria with the need to have a workable size. We believe we’ve come close to accomplishing this with the twenty-five people who have been initially selected to kick off this important new community working group.

The group selected comprises a broad base of stakeholders, representing all parts of Santa Cruz County, from the San Lorenzo Valley to Watsonville, and places in between. There may be additional and ongoing efforts to recruit specific stakeholders to fill any gaps, but that will be a decision for the new “council” to make. For now, this group of twenty-five committed community members will hold their first meeting on March 13. One of the agenda items for this meeting, as promised, will be to review feedback gathered from the Summit, and a discussion on what to do with this valuable input.

And, we’re making fairly good progress on the other “next steps” that were outlined in the previous update (Jan. 17), though we’re running a little bit behind our original ambitious timetable.

  • We are ready to move forward on education and advocacy work and want to invite all of you, especially everyone who expressed an interest in community (public) education and advocacy, to join us on Thursday, April 18 at 7pm at United Way in Capitola for a discussion on both these topics and areas of interest. Please RSVP if you plan to attend by emailing info@smartsolutionstohomelessness.org.

  • Significant progress has been made on engaging the business community. On Friday, Feb. 15, twenty-three business people gathered at United Way for a discussion on “The Business Case for Smart Solutions to Homelessness”. This group plans to meet again, to work on identifying specific areas where they can have the greatest impact. There is great potential for synergy and partnership, with the leadership council, as a few of the business leaders are also on teh newly formed council.

  • A great number of you also expressed interest in volunteering. While we’re not able to provide a comprehensive list of all volunteer opportunities here, or to personalize them based on your area of interest, here are a few excellent resources and opportunities to get involved, including the huge one-day event in Santa Cruz called Project Homeless Connect, on Tuesday, April 9. Click here to sign up.

A great resource for a multitude of volunteer opportunities is The Volunteer Center of Santa Cruz. And, here are just a few of many other volunteer opportunities with organizations that work on issues related to homelessness:

If there are other volunteers you’d like highlighted in the future please email info@smartsolutionstohomelessness.org.

We look forward to working with all of you on our shared goal to reduce and end homelessness in Santa Cruz County. By working together as a community we can make it happen!

Sincerely,
The Summit Planning Team

©2013 Smart Solutions to Homelessness | c/o United Way / P.O Box 1458 / 4450 Capitola Road, Suite 106, Capitola, CA 95010

This email was sent to rnorse3@hotmail.com. To ensure that you continue receiving our emails, please add us to your address book or safe list. View this email on the web here. You can also forward to a friend.
Unsubscribe

Powered by Mad Mimi ®

—
Philip Kramer
Project Manager
180/180
www.180santacruz.org
phil@180santacruz.org
(831) 334-4976
——————

On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Robert Norse <rnorse3@hotmail.com> wrote:

Who’s in the group?

——————

Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 18:41:36 -0800
Subject: Re: UPDATE: “Homelessness” Leadership Council formed
From: phil.kramer1@gmail.com
To: rnorse3@hotmail.com

Hi Robert,
I don’t have time to type in the 25 people right now. When the group meets for the first time we’ll ask them about how they want to present or publish their names and affiliation.

Thanks, Phil

On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 8:33 PM, Robert Norse <rnorse3@hotmail.com> wrote:

Phil:  This sounds neither transparent, accessible, nor respectful to the many people who came to the early December meeting.  People who put their energy into this affair need to know who has been chosen by the chosen few, don’t ya think?  And before the event, not after.  Looks like your paid position here has left Occupy far behind.

R

Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 20:40:58 -0800

Subject: Re: UPDATE: “Homelessness” Leadership Council formed
From: phil.kramer1@gmail.com
To: rnorse3@hotmail.com

CC: ctconnor@pacbell.net; spleich@gmail.com; gailpage@gmail.com; becky_johnson222@hotmail.com; lrevans@ecocentricdesignco.com; jeanpiraino@gmail.com; compassionman@hotmail.com; alex@alexdarocy.com; kimisheo@hotmail.com; killerleslie@yahoo.com

Whoa! Not appreciated Robert. I think it’s only fair that I ask the Leadership Council how they want their names and information shared. I’m helping the group through the process of formation and organizing, that doesn’t mean I make decisions for the group.

Phil

On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 8:08 AM, Robert Norse <rnorse3@hotmail.com> wrote:

Phil:

First you write that you “don’t have time to type in 25 names”.  It’s hard to believe you don’t have a list of those names that can be cut and pasted.

Then when that seems flimsy, you move on to suggest that you need to seek the permission of people who were publicly at a meeting.   Skepticism turns to cynicism turns to amusement.

Come on, Phil.

I’m not too enthused about a project that ignores 95% of the homeless population to please merchants who want to eliminate from public view the most irritating group (and then likely ignore or criminalize the rest).  And that ignores attacks on the survival camps of homeless people who are being attacked daily by police and TBSC vigilantes.

Enough with the excuses.  Show respect for the people who spent their time attending the last conference.  Let’s have the list of who the “chosen few” are.

And,while we’re at it, please provide transparent figures on your salary and how much money has been coming in to this project and from what sources.

R

Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 17:36:11 -0800
Subject: Re: UPDATE: “Homelessness” Leadership Council formed
From: phil.kramer1@gmail.com
To: rnorse3@hotmail.com
CC: ctconnor@pacbell.net; spleich@gmail.com; gailpage@gmail.com; becky_johnson222@hotmail.com; lrevans@ecocentricdesignco.com; jeanpiraino@gmail.com; compassionman@hotmail.com; alex@alexdarocy.com; kimisheo@hotmail.com; killerleslie@yahoo.com

Dear Robert,
You brought up a number of points that I’ll try and answer here. As of March 1st I’m working as a volunteer for the Smart Solutions effort. There will be a new person hired by the United Way in the very near future to take on the staffing role for the project.

Since the entire project in a volunteer effort, a couple of folks I checked with who have been quite involved suggest that I wait until the first meeting and let the group decide about publicizing the membership list. Since that group of about 25 people will be making decisions for the project, that seems like the right way to handle it. I am happy to let you know that I am one of the members of the new leadership group, representing the 180/180 campaign. I am also happy to give you an idea as to the makeup of the initial group (which could be expanded after the initial meeting). There are currently 6 “formerly homeless” or self described “advocates”; 5 representatives from local government; 3 from the business community; 3 from faith-based organizations; and 5 representatives from “service provider” organizations.

I think you made an incorrect assumption about the Smart Solutions project. It does not favor any one particular approach to addressing homelessness in the community – it simply stresses broad community engagement and evidence-based practices that are cost effective. It is erroneous to state that this approach only focuses on 5% of the homeless population. Most communities using this approach have elements of their overall plan that addresses the homelessness of a wide majority of homeless persons in their communities.

Regarding your request for transparency, since I’m a volunteer for the Smart Solutions effort at this point, I can report that I receive exactly $0. For approximately one year prior, I was paid a modest part-time wage by a local nonprofit organization to organize the Smart Solutions project but this is no longer the case.
Thanks,
Phil

From: rnorse3@hotmail.com
To: phil.kramer1@gmail.com
CC: ctconnor@pacbell.net; spleich@gmail.com; gailpage@gmail.com; becky_johnson222@hotmail.com; lrevans@ecocentricdesignco.com; jeanpiraino@gmail.com; compassionman@hotmail.com; alex@alexdarocy.com; kimisheo@hotmail.com; killerleslie@yahoo.com; rboysen@cityonahillpress.com; gperry@santacruzweekly.com; citycouncil@cityofsantacruz.com; huffsantacruz@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Questions About the 180/180 Program in Santa Cruz
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 22:39:36 -0800

Phil:

One has to admire your temperate tone.

Numerous HUFF members went to your 180/180 December sitdown with a lot more positive hopes and expectations than mine.  The general consensus following the meeting was that your program:

(a) had no interest in fighting the destruction of homeless camps and/or the provision of emergency shelter for homeless folks displaced by that pogrom.   For a fraction of the money spent on social services and costly housing, large survival campgrounds with adequate sanitary facilities could be established that would actually meet the needs of people here and now.  Why not lobby for this?  Ah, because the liberal NIMBY element wants nothing to do with it and we must be “smart” and consider what “is possible” rather than what is right and what is necessary.

(b) relied on the faulty notion that the dealing with the visible  (that is, “the most vulnerable”), most troublesome to businesses, and most costly to social services homeless (5% at most) would somehow encourage more money to be spent on the remaining 95%.   In fact, it’s just as likely that the money “saved” would be diverted to other projects.   Municipalities want to get rid of hard-core cases that run up hospital costs, frighten tourists, and clutter up the streets visibly.   But why not simply drive the rest out of town with more police sweeps, “no sleep” laws (on public property and in public libraries), sitting bans, vehicular harassment, and other favorite Santa Cruz tactics?

(c) had no interest in supporting strong civil rights legislation like Ammiano’s Homeless Bill of Rights, which would allow a larger fraction of the homeless to actually shelter themselves until there’s a meaningful change in the national, state, and local priorities.  Nor was there any interest in those victimized by serious political persecution.  Linda Lemaster was made a figleaf poetry speaker and denied any meaningful forum for talking about her upcoming trial. Could it be that Martinez, Lane, and other fear offending the new right-wing Council cretans running the show and seeing their funding cut or challenged?

(d) accordingly also tended to shut up and shut down any discussion of these more immediate shelter/housing issues (as illustrated by what happened at the WILPF meeting when Ed Frey tried to raise the issue).  This results, of course in the kind of elitist censorship, lack of transparency, and bureaucratic doubletalk that I’m surprised you seem to be indulging in.

(e) bleeds and diverts support from protest and alternate encampment projects that actually aim to deal with real homeless survival issues for the majority of homeless people.  This happens both because such projects fly against the agenda of right-wing pressure groups, city council staff, SCPD, and (in part) the social service bureaucracy–who can’t even seem to squeak up when fanatics are creating a health hazard by frightening City Council into banning needle exchange in the city limits, conflating trash, dirty needles, and “illegal camps”.

(f) raises suspicions that keeping the membership of the “leadership council” secret is a way of limiting access and participation to those who share the very financial special pleading that is going on here, to the broader detriment of the homeless community.

(g) seems sadly consistent with your personal policy of ignoring important questions like how much money has been taken in, from what sources, who is managing it, how much has been spent, and on what?   Your salary last year?   Activists are not as naive as they used to be, Phil.  You may have forgotten the lessons learned at Occupy, but I trust that others have not.

Still waiting for answers.

Thanks, Robert

Three Flyers & Two Petitions from HUFF [6 Attachments]

Posted on by
[Attachment(s)from Robert Norse included below]

These are recent flyers I wrote.

Two for the 180/180 program presentation by Councilmember Don Lane and Monica Martinez at the Women’s International League for Peace & Freedom in Santa Cruz last Tuesday (2-19) which ignored all other abuses against the homeless to panhandle for more money for the very limited Housing First! program.  HUFF supports Housing First, but not at the expense of watching police destroy homeless survival camps and ignore the need for immediate facilities.

More recently, I wrote two flyers to distribute to homeless people at the Monday “Red Church” meal.  The flyers are self-explanatory.

I’m also including a rather weak “we’d like needle exchange somewhere in the city” petition presented by Councilmember Micah Posner.  It’s in two pages.

IF YOU HAVE DIFFICULT DOWNLOADING THE ATTACHMENTS, LET ME KNOW AT rnorse3@hotmail.com, and I’ll send you the text.

Needle Exchange Petition p. 1. – pdf
Needle Exchange Petition p. 2. – pdf
Flyer 2-16a. – pdf
Flyer 2-16b. – pdf
HLOSC Flyer. – pdf

Homeless man jailed until trial for stealing flowers from SCPD Cop Altar

Posted on by
NOTE TO READER: Judge John Gallagher sets bail at $5000 and orders homeless man held until trial

for stealing flowers from SCPD Baker/Butler memorial because he had money to ride in a taxi.

                                                          –Becky Johnson of HUFF

Man who allegedly stole flowers from fallen officers memorial appears in Santa Cruz courtroom

Posted:   03/05/2013 07:37:01 PM PST


SANTA CRUZ — In a tense hearing Tuesday — which drew a courtroom full of indignant Take Back Santa Cruz members — a 53-year-old man appeared to face charges for allegedly stealing a basket of flowers from the memorial to fallen officers outside the Santa Cruz Police Department.
Kenneth Eugene Maffei, a transient, stood in the “box” reserved for in-custody inmates during the short hearing. He was calm at times and other times somewhat frantic as he strained against his handcuffs while talking with his attorney about what happened Friday afternoon when he was reportedly seen picking up the flowers and walking away with them.
In a courtroom crowded with misdemeanor cases and other troubled inmates, Maffei’s attorney, public defender Jack Lamar Jr., made a careful pitch to have Maffei released from custody.
Conflicting Stories
Lamar told Judge John Gallagher that his new client had a good history of coming to court, except for one time.
Lamar said he was making the request respectfully and that there “might be some confusion” about why Maffei was at the memorial.
Maffei had been near the spot where Sgt. Loran “Butch” Baker and Elizabeth Butler were gunned down by suspect Jeremy Peter Goulet last week, intimating that was why he stopped at the memorial Friday, he said.
Maffei was carrying a floral arrangement he had bought for a “lady friend” from a vendor near Burger King on Soquel Avenue when he stopped at the memorial and set the flowers down, and then picked them up again, Lamar said.
But the prosecutor was quick to step in and refute that account and the bid to release Maffei.
“The people absolutely object,” prosecutor Jennifer Hutchinson said. “The people in this community are mourning the loss of these two officers … And Ms. Sparks here (pointing to a woman behind her in the audience) saw him steal the flowers and jump into a taxi.”
The witness, Leigh Sparks, stood and told Gallagher that seeing Maffei walk away with the flowers “broke her heart.” She said she followed in a car, while calling police on a cell phone, and saw him get into a taxi about 1 p.m. on River Street. She said he told police he was going to another memorial in Scotts Valley. He was unable to explain anything about that memorial.
The Judge rules
Gallagher said the information he had Tuesday showed Maffei has the ability to travel significant distances, plus an extensive history of property crimes, including a felony. He said Maffei has “a severe alcohol abuse problem.”
“And the conduct you exhibited in this case — which I can assume to be true for custodial purposes — is incredibly disrespectful to this community and the officers who gave their lives,” he said. “So you’ll stay in custody until the matter is resolved.”
“Yes, your honor,” Maffei said, sitting down and visibly agitated.
He sat back in his seat, drew a deep breath and said, seemingly to himself, “OK.”
Gallagher set bail at $5,000, the standard amount for the charges facing Maffei — a misdemeanor allegation of being drunk in public and a felony allegation that he vandalized a law enforcement memorial.
Maffei is due back in court March 21 for a pre-trial conference.
Outside court, Take Back Santa Cruz co-founder Analicia Cube and others gathered, cheering Sparks when she walked out of the courtroom. Before court, Cube said the group had researched Maffei’s background and found he had run-ins with the law in Arizona and Nevada and in Capitola.
“We’re tired of these criminal coming into town and doing things like this,” Cube said.
OTHER HEARINGS
Back in Department 2, which typically handles misdemeanor cases, a man who appeared to be affiliated with a gang, with a large star tattoo on his neck and others on his face, twitched a bit while sitting there. He stood at attention when his case was called, speaking in a strong voice to Gallagher as they tackled his problems of violating probation on a resisting arrest charge and then “picking up” a new burglary charge.
A few seats over, Jason Matthew Gerety was facing the music for allegedly trying to head-butt a detention officer in County Jail over the weekend, after being arrested on suspicion of being under the influence. So Gerety “picked up” a possible felony assault on an officer charge too, though it appeared it would be treated as a misdemeanor battery. Per jail records, Gerety was “charged in the alternative,” meaning he is now charged with both crimes for that alleged attempted head-butt.
A prominent defense attorney offered a quick reply when an onlooker at the back of the courtroom mentioned the gang member’s appearance and behavior.
“You should be a nurse,” he quipped.

Still Unanswered Questions for Councilmember Posner

Posted on by
Micah:

While I appreciate the quick response time, your willingness to address issues isn’t encouraging.

I’m not asking you whether you agreed previously to answer these questions.  I’m asking you questions as a City Councilmember who I believe has an obligation to be publicly responsive.  I believe the nature of your election campaign also led supporters to believe you would be clear and direct in your answers rather than “I didn’t promise”, “I’m working on it”, “somewhere down the road”, etc.

As a Councilmember, you have the power to refer these questions to the appropriate staff and get them answered more quickly and easily (and with less staff time spent than forcing the public to go through Public Records Act requests).

To summarize the unanswered questions:

Real Change meters:  How many new ones in the last year?  How much money generated?  How often vandalized and repaired?

Police policies around homeless sweeps:  Do police instruct homeless people on a legal place to go?  Any spcific instructions, reports or written documents around this practice?  How much money and police time has been spent in the last year on this?  (And, for good measure, how much do they anticipate spending this year?)
Property confiscations:   Is property found vacant at homeless camps destroyed–yes or no?   How much property is currently in police impound from the sweeps?   What agency does the dumping, how frequently, at what cost, and how many trips have been made?
Targeted enforcement to determine if most of these offenses are charged against homeless people whose address is recorded as “transient” or 115 Coral St:  A report on police enforcement downtown of MC 5.43  (The Move-Along Law), MC 6.04 (The Smoking Ban), MC 6.36 (The Camping/Sleeping/Blanket Bans), MC 8.14 (Homeless Dog Ban), MC 9.10 (The Panhandling Ban), MC 9.20 (The Chalking Ban), MC 9.36 (The “Offensive Music” Ban), MC 9.40 (The ‘Amplified’ Sound Ban), MC 9.50.012 (The Sitting-on-the-sidewalk Ban), MC 9.50.020 (The Sitting on Most Public Property Ban), MC 13.04 (The “Entering Forbidden Zones Designated as No Trespass” Ban),  And whether the police make any exception for disabled people (not to do so arguably violates the ADA).
SCPD Freeze-out on Bike Distribution:  How many bikes have reached non-profits from the SCPD in the last half year, either through the Bike Dojo or anywhere else?
Documenting That You Have or Haven’t Made These Requests:  Sounds like this won’t be necessary since you don’t indicate any willingness to do any of them, but it would be more candid to actually make it clear that you are refusing to make these requests of staff.  So  I  ask again, are you?
Thanks,
Robert

From: MPosner@cityofsantacruz.com
To: rnorse3@hotmail.com
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 22:48:20 -0800
Subject: Re: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)

Dear Robert,
I don’t recall agreeing to do the below with the exception of number 2. I’m going to take up to 4 weeks to accomplish that, given where the city staff are at right now.
I mailed in my endorsement of the homeless bill of rights.
I am mostly working on supporting the police and other city staff and preparing to create a narrative around public safety through compassion and civility that can counteract the kind of fear based scapegoating that is sure to reach a fever pitch in the weeks to come.
Hopefully, HUFF can be part of this very different version of a reality for Santa Cruz.
Micah

On Mar 5, 2013, at 8:06 PM, “Robert Norse” <rnorse3@hotmail.com> wrote:

–Forwarded Message Attachment–
From: rnorse3@hotmail.com
To: micah@peoplepowersc.org; mpleaner@gmail.com
Subject: FW: Local Civil Liberties Issues
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 19:11:28 -0800

I’m going to a HUFF meeting tomorrow and would like to give an update on these questions and the ones in the companion e-mail.   Feel free to show up there and respond personally, or provide some written guidance.

Thanks,

R

From: rnorse3@hotmail.com
To: mposner@cityofsantacruz.com
CC: huffsantacruz@yahoogroups.com; steve@santacruzhub.org
Subject: Local Civil Liberties Issues
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:26:57 -0800

Councilmember Posner:

At the HUFF meeting, members asked you numerous questions.  This is a follow-up to those questions and to my previous e-mails and phone calls as well as your responses.  If you find the number of specific questions daunting–please indicate which of these you will  prioritize.  I believe they are all important and actually only don’t require extensive work on your part.


1  Have any new insulting “Imagine Real Change” meters been set up in the last year?  How much money has actually been generated by these meters since they were put in?   How often were they vandalized and repaired?


2.  What is the response of the City Attorney to your question about whether the SCPD is being advised to respect the White v. City of Sparks decision protecting artists and writers selling their work downtown?  
3.  Please request a staff report on police policies around homeless sweeps–i.e. whether homeless people who they accost  in the middle of the night are given a legal place to go sleep.  Ask for the specific instructions given to beat officers, any written documents or reports around this practice, and how much money and police time is being spent on this.
     Additionally please request a report on property confiscation:  what the policy is, whether survival material found at camps left vacant during the day are stored or destroyed (the latter is what is being reported to me),  how much property is currently in police impound or storage, and how many trucks full of homeless property have been taken to the dump for destruction–by what agency, how frequently, and at what cost?

4.  I’d also like to see a report on the “addresses” of those cited in the downtown core around such ordinances as the Sitting Ban, the Panhandling Ban, and the Performing/Tabling Ban  (where ‘Ban” means severe restriction).  This would go a distance towards indicating whether the chief targets of these laws are homeless or disabled people.   The City, of course, faces legal vulnerability here, which would be a good motivator to halt such practices.

5.  What is the status of your public support for Ammiano’s Homeless Bill of Rights?

6.  Please ask to see the direction given SCPD officers in the downtown core regarding enforcement on MC 5.43.020 (“Move-Along Every Hour if you’re a political tabler, panhandler, artist, or performer”) &  MC 9.50.012 (Sitting Ban).

7..  Are any bikes being delivered to non-profits from the SCPD, either via the Bike Dojo, the Bike Church, or any other mechanism?  The response that this issue is “under discussion”–which has been the City’s line for the last year while poor people via non-profits are being denied bikes is not a helpful one.  Please provide specifics regarding how many bikes have been delivered in the last six months and then passed on as was previously the case at the Bike Church.

Please clarify  when and to whom you have made these information requests and send me a copy in writing of such communications.
Thanks,
Robert Norse

Santa Cruz Library Board Votes On Sleeping Ban Tonight

Posted on by
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/03/04/18733085.php

Sleeping Ban Back For All Santa Cruz Libraries: Decision Tonight in Aptos
by Robert Norse ( rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com )
Monday Mar 4th, 2013 9:33 AM

The Library Joint Powers Authorities Board meets tonight (Monday March 4th) at the Aptos Public Library at 7695 Soquel Drive to give another tool to the Homeless Haters.

Item 8F on the Agenda of the Library Joint Powers Authority Board is a deepening and darkening of the Patron Code of Conduct and Suspension Policy Update to reestablish a clear Sleeping Ban in all public libraries in Santa Cruz and the surrounding county.

MORE TOOLS IN SEARCH OF VICTIMS
The Agenda is posted at http://www.santacruzpl.org/media/pdf/ljpb/20130304_agenda.pdf . The relevant pages are 26-28.

There are no complaints on file as far as I can determine in the current monthly update of problems involving people sleeping in the library (pp. 45-48, 54-55). There are two complaints of people sleeping in the library parking lot (presumably the one in the back of the library) with their stuff “spread out”. It seems unclear why there is a need to make rules harsher in what has been one of the few remaining legal public places for homeless people to be unmolested.

A story on an Iowa library banning sleeping (pp. 49-50) has the usual omission of whether city law bans homeless people sleeping in public places generally–which Santa Cruz law does–and whether it has utterly inadequate shelter space (ditto with Santa Cruz).

Recently Berkeley has adopted a similar NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) policy regarding bringing property into the library (necessary for homeless people who have no place to store their stuff and need to bring it with them). See http://www.berkeleyside.com/2013/01/02/has-it-gotten-harder-to-be-homeless-in-berkeley/ and the comments that follow.

Currently if someone is blocking the stacks, or snoring, or impeding traffic through being sprawled out, all these issues can be (and presumably have been) addressed without sending around the “sleep police”. There’s currently a burly First Alarm Security guard who has been patrolling the library and surrounding grounds who creates what some regard as an intimidating presence (in all candor, some don’t).

EXTINGUISHING THE LIBRARY AS A SHADOW OF A SANCTUARY
In an unexpected pushback against the county-wide attack on homeless people (ranging from destruction of campsites to crackdowns on Pacific Avenue), the Board voted 5-4 in early December to specifically delete the Sleeping Ban from library policy. With nasty changes in personnel (MacPherson, Friend, Mathews, to name only a few), the blast of bigotry is chilling.

While the language seems genteel (“Refrain from sleeping in the library”), it is backed by a Draconian Policy of Enforcing Suspension.

That policy, made much harsher late last year, specifies that First Violation results in a reading of the rules, 2nd Violation a 1-day suspension, 3rd Violation a 30-day suspension, and 4th Violation up to 6 months. No formal hearing process for anything under 31-days (appeal to the mercy of Teresa Landers, the woman who pushed these policies). Even more telling, in all cases, a person so charged has only 1-day to file a written request for an appeal, or the appeal will not be considered. (See p. 31 E, 7: “To submit a written appeal, the patron must complete the “Appeal of 30-Day Suspension” document. The patron must return the completed form to the suspending library within one working day from the date the suspension is issued.”).

None of the incident reports are actually included in the Agenda. It took me over a month to get past such reports with a Public Records Act request.

There are no exceptions for children falling asleep. The law provides broad opportunity to be selectively enforced–either based on the desires of the staff to be “dutiful”, but also the prejudices of certain library users who want to “clean up” the library.

This looks like a slamdunk for the Bigot Bunch, but e-mail them anyway:

LINE-UP OF PERPETRATORS

Contact the following Board members

Citizen Dick English
117 Union Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Home: 831-539-3299 rpenglish [at] sbcglobal.net

Citizen Martha Dexter
117 Union Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Home: 831-600-8834 mmdexter [at] gmail.com

Citizen Nancy Gerdt
117 Union Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Home: 831-335-3130 ngerdt45 [at] gmail.com

Councilmember Cynthia Mathews
City of Santa Cruz
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Office: 831-420-5020
Fax: 831-420-5011 cmathews [at] cityofsantacruz.com

Councilmember David Terrazas Chair
City of Santa Cruz
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Office: 831-420-5020
Fax: 831-420-5011 dterrazas [at] cityofsantacruz.com

Councilmember Jim Reed
225 Navigator Drive
Scotts Valley, CA 95066 Home: 831-461-0222 jimreedsv [at] gmail.com

Councilmember Michael Termini
Vice Chair
City of Capitola
420 Capitola Avenue
Capitola, CA 95010 Office: 831-476-6206 michael [at] triadelectric.com

Supervisor Bruce McPherson
County of Santa Cruz
701 Ocean Street, Room 500
Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Office: 831-454-2200
Fax: 831-454-3262 bruce.mcpherson [at] co.santa-cruz.ca.us

Supervisor Zach Friend
701 Ocean Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Office: 831-454-2200
Fax: 831-454-3262 zach.friend [at] co.santa-cruz.ca.us

THE STRUGGLE CONTINUES
More background on this struggle can be found at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/12/29/18729056.php (“Lost in Lander’s Library Labyrinth…” and http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/11/30/18726836.php (“Library to Consider Restrictive New Policies”).

There will be a meeting noon tomorrow at Laurel Park next to Louden Nelson Center (Tuesday March 5th) to discuss a Sanctuary Campground for the homeless. A second meeting on the subject will take place the next day at the Sub Rosa Cafe (703 Pacific) at noon after the HUFF meeting (10 AM to noon).