Homelessness Up For Discussion or Diversion? 7-9 PM Tonight–Monica Martinez & Don Lane

NOTE FROM NORSE:   Tonight Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom hosts a talk at the Quaker Meeting House, 225 Rooney St., east of Morrissey Blvd., in Santa Cruz (next to the freeway) 7-9 PM.Speaking are former Mayor and Board President of the Homeless Services Center (which some of us call the Homeless Lack of Services Center) Don Lane and Monica Martinez, its Executive Director.Their topic is “the current state of homelessness in Santa Cruz and calling for action in support of the 180/180 Initiative which provides permanent supportive housing for the most at-risk and vulnerable of our homeless citizens.”The 180/180 program seeks to raise government and private funds to house a fraction of the most costly homeless folks (i.e. those who scare the merchants most) with  no provision for the rest of the community and no let-up in the criminalization of the other 95%.  It seems to be a successor program to the Housing First! program and the Continuum of Care (“End Homelessness in Ten Years” shuck and jive) that got federal funding for the last decade and a half.

It’s not that providing housing and supportive services for 180 people in Santa Cruz county is a bad idea.  Obviously it’s not.  But focusing all attention and energy on a fanciful grant-magnet 180/180 program is done at the expense of immediate shelter and human rights needs.  It seems largely a self-justifying project for bureaucrats.  Meanwhile the same leaders (Lane and Martinez) counsel colluding with police and courts in their campaign to drive away and criminalize a whole class of people.  Focusing exclusively on 180/180 diverts the public’s attention from the recent smear campaign of anti-homeless warriors on the right led by Councilmembers Comstock and Robinson.  The massive “needles = homeless = illegal camps = crime” rage given unjustified credibility were recently echoed by the Mayor of the City (See http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/opinion/ci_22606878/hilary-bryant-public-safety-is-our-top-priority ).

Unfortunately Santa Cruz has several thousand homeless people (Santa Cruz County even more)–currently under rabid attack by vigilantes, police, sheriffs, rangers, security guards, city council, hired clean-up crews as well as courts and D.A.’s.   It is illegal to sleep in Santa Cruz after 11 PM at night, illegal to set up a survival camp site at any time.  The City Council (with Lane voting in favor and Martinez silent) has made “unattended” camping tickets into misdemeanors punishable by a year in jail and $1000 fine.

A prior “Homelessness Summit” on December 1st out at Cabrillo College, masterminded by the backers of the 180/180 program completely sidelined the real issue of the need for immediate shelter, campsites, legal support now and has resulted in no further action.

These “feel good” psuedo-positive initiatives sacrifice human dignity and human lives for what some politicians seem to consider the “politically possible”.  Fresno and D.C. are apparently experiencing similar problems as the stories below seem to indicate.

Fresno Activist Mike Rhodes writes:
This is from a Washington Post article published last Friday.  It is painfully obvious that the local government (both the city and county of Fresno) has had many of the same problems.  But, that does not stop them from continuing to push one program after another, even though they are doomed to fail. 
The current plan to build housing (The Renaissance project) houses a small percent (perhaps 5%) of the homeless population, with the vast majority of people left to fend completely for themselves. 
The city and county won’t even provide them with drinking water, portable toilets, or trash pick up.  I believe the reason they (city and county officials) do this is to give people (in the broader community) the illusion that they have a plan to end homelessness, but the bureaucrats in their cynical hearts, know what they are doing is not going to work.  Unfortunately, people who are not paying close attention have the hope that something is being done to solve the problem, when in fact they are being mislead.  In the meantime, the vast majority of homeless people are the ones who suffer, while the bureaucrats collect their fat salaries.
Why does D.C. still have so many homeless?By Colbert I. King, Published: February 15

More than 900 people, including 600 children, crammed into a makeshift D.C. homeless shelter? Things weren’t supposed to turn out this way. By now, we were told, homelessness in our nation’s capital would be a thing of the past. Let’s take a trip down memory lane.
In 1993, the Clinton administration persuaded Mayor Sharon Pratt Kelly to enter into a partnership, called the D.C. Initiative, with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
The idea, hatched under HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros and Assistant Secretary Andrew Cuomo, was to make the District a national model for local governments on ending homelessness.
To get the city’s buy-in, HUD dangled a $20 million grant and other federal bucks, provided that the District kicked in some of its own funds for homeless services.
After weeks of meetings stretched into months, the cash-strapped District signed an agreement in 1994 transferring the city’s responsibility to an entity known as the Community Partnership for the Prevention of Homelessness.
In 1994, according to city estimates, approximately 3,400 single adults used the District’s shelter system. They represented about 60 percent of the people in the system.
It was thought that 1,200 to 1,500 of those 3,400 lived on city streets and used the shelters or public space intermittently or interchangeably.
About a fifth of shelter residents were families who turned to the system repeatedly because of their precarious and unstable situations.
Some had drug addictions or major health problems; some were victims of domestic violence.
The D.C. Initiative’s solution? Transition from a shelter-based system to a “continuum of care” approach that entailed creating a community network of agencies and programs to tackle not only housing needs but also the root causes of homelessness.
Over time, The Post ran a series of cautious editorials about the feds’ push for the initiative.
The District had been used before as a federal test case — with city officials often left holding the short end of the stick.
Vincent C. Gray, the director of the D.C. Department of Human Services under Mayor Kelly, testified before the House subcommittee on housing and community development on Oct. 26, 1993, as to the D.C. Initiative’s goal.
Yes, Gray has been at this for a long time.
He promised Congress that with HUD money the District would try “to create real, permanent, enduring solutions for families and singles who are homeless . . . and make a contribution to . . . the Nation in how to resolve, once and for all, the problem of homelessness in this Nation.” That was nearly 20 years ago.
The Post tracked the D.C. Initiative through the departure of Cisneros and Cuomo from the Clinton administration, and through Pratt’s leave-taking from the District government.
By 2000, the D.C. Initiative was over and done. But the homeless were still here.
In June 2004, Mayor Anthony A. Williams presented with fanfare: “Homeless No More: A Strategy for Ending Homelessness in Washington, D.C. by 2014.” He billed it as a “client centered” approach focused on bringing to the table all the key service providers to create a system that prevents and ends, rather than maintains, the problem of homelessness.
Williams left office. The homeless remained.
In April 2008 Mayor Adrian M. Fenty introduced the “Housing First” fund. “What we are proposing is a new approach to serving our chronically homeless neighbors,” Fenty said. “The systems of the past have not brought us closer to ending this humanitarian crisis.”
Fenty proposed moving chronically homeless people from the streets and shelters to housing where they could be provided comprehensive services to solve the problems that contributed to their homelessness.
Sound familiar?
Fast-forward to 2013.
Today, millions of dollars later and after years upon years of government, nonprofit and private-sector efforts, homeless families are still in the defunct D.C. General hospital shelter, in motels or on the streets.
Is it a question of funding or underfunding, management or mismanagement, commitment or lack of concern? Does part of the problem also rest with those without roofs over their heads? Is the answer some or all of the above?
The Post’s Annie Gowen reported this week that Jim Graham (D-Ward 1), chairman of the D.C. Council’s Committee on Human Services, said he would conduct hearings on conditions at the hospital shelter. That’s too limited a focus.
There is no better time to take a sober look at the persistent problem of homelessness in our nation’s capital, its causes, what has worked and failed, and what can realistically be done to get people beyond their plight to greater independence.
That may be a better D.C. initiative.

Clean Needle and Syringe Distribution is a Necessity not a Menace

Penelope Jernberg, a former intern with Santa Cruz needle exchange, is independent of that group now and speaks as a free agent.   She is currently working to decriminalize syrine possession to start operating syringe services in Nevada. I received the following letter from her on Sunday February 17th.

Hi Robert,
First, I would like to address the confusion about “best practices” for syringe access and public health recommendations.  The current recommendations for syringe access are to provide as many unused syringes as possible.  The reason for this is that for each injection a person should be using a new syringe, for every time.  That means if a person injects 4 times a day, they need 4 needles a day, not reusing one.  The health concern for this is that reusing makes the syringe dull, this can tear skin more than needed.  The more pressing reason is that reusing a syringe exposes the syringe to many bacteria, that bacteria is then injected straight into blood or tissue which frequently causes or puts them at higher risk of other health problems such as MRSA (drug resistant staph), necrotizing fasciitis (flesh eating bacteria), and a host of other disease.
This is not even including sharing syringes.  As I’m sure you know sharing syringes is the number one cause of Hepatitis C in our country, which estimates that over 70% of IDU’s (injection drug users) contract it.  This is what fuels me.  I’m not sure at what point any person should be condemned to a slow death of liver failure due to their own preferences.  Some drugs are legal and some are not.  People are prescribed serious opiates by doctors and those that can not get them use heroin, which in its pure form is actually safer and better for your health than fentanyl, morphene, and oxycontin.
To not have access to syringes is the primary reason that people share theirs with others while using drugs. this is not just the first cause of transmission for HCV it is also the third cause of HIV transmission in our country. Another life long and deadly disease.
 The current CDC recommendations are that an IDU use a new syringe for every injection.  That implies they would need as many as they use personally.  To have a one for one policy restricts the amount that an individual has access to at any given time.  If they only have one and the exchange is not open for another two days and they inject five times a day…that’s only simple arithmetic to know they do not have enough to inject safely every time.  The previous exchange at the drop in center had a one for one policy.  I urge those that are against it to think about the repercussions of not giving enough syringes. On a human note, without regards to literature it just makes sense.  I recall on one such occasion working at the drop in center when an individual was trying to get just one needle and I could not give it to him because he did not have one.  He told me he was on his way to the metro to fish one out of the biohazards, likely to contract some disease. Why would we do this to someone just because we don’t agree with a policy?  We as a community condemned him to that because we couldn’t accept a one for one plus program.  This occasion and the many others that were similar broke my heart, and they push me every day to do more research, to try harder, to help those that can not help them selves.
To go back to resources and policy.  There are numerous federally funded studies that prove with significance that one for one is not an effective policy.  The Surgeon General endorses syringe access and the federal government has such loose language for oversight or recommendations that you could throw unused needles out of a window and that would follow federal guidelines.  So when anyone says it does not follow guidelines, I’m curious which ones?  There are none.  http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/guidelines/PDF/SSP-guidanceacc.pdf (a copy of the most up to date federal guidelines) Syringe access has been passed on to state and local governments as a policy, way too large of a policy for a small government to regulate.  When the Santa Cruz City Council first claimed SOS did not have the correct paperwork to operate a syringe access program I can address that: There is NO paperwork, there are no permits, there are very few to no regulations discerning what a syringe access program can and can not do.
Several years ago when I was more involved and helped to establish the exchange we filed an MOU with the HSA that recognized us as a viable program, to this day they support us completely, including following a one for one plus model. During this time I tried to connect with the police department to establish some agreement with them.  What happened was appalling at best.  I tried to have a conversation with Steve Clark who immediately cut me off and suddenly was yelling at me over the phone, thank goodness I did not try to go in there.  I was and still am offended.  This man clearly should not be in a public position as I experienced him loosing his temper in a matter of minutes.  He then went on to say he did not and would not support our program because we did not follow federal guidelines.   Obviously I tried to address the fact that there are NO federal guidelines. He used his same tactic, and barely let me talk.  So, we never established anything with the police department, but boy we tried.
The only grounds that the City Council legitimately has on SOS is that they were operating without consent of the laundromat owner, we also tried to contact him when we first took over, I do not even know who he or she is.
To address discarded syringes: the primary reason people improperly discard their syringes is police harassment.  It is currently legal to posses up to 30 unused syringes and any amount that are containerized.  This has not changed with law enforcement practices.  People are going to jail for possession of paraphernalia laws that no longer exist! For fear of arrest they are throwing them where they can (in general). As my previous anecdote states, I’m sure police practice won’t change since Dick Clark er, Steve Clark won’t even talk about needles without yelling.  I for one hope never to talk to him again.
Finally, to address the current laws, they are both current and correct.  Let me specify a few points of them both.  Pharmacists are allowed to provide up to 30 syringes without a prescription.  http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/aids/Pages/OASAOverview.aspx (law here)
The downsides to this law:
  • Sale is at the discretion of the pharmacist, if you look dirty they probably won’t sell to you
  • The pharmacy has to opt in to selling this to start with
  • syringes cost money, if you need money to get your fix or food more money is hard to get
  • you can only get 30, what if you are exchanging for multiple people and inject frequently.
  • the pharmacist does not provide other works which by sharing also lead to infection
  • the pharmacist does not provide referrals to other services (shelter, food, medical services)
  • the pharmacist most likely does not know health complications specific to IDUs
  • in general, listening and being a non judgmental advocate as SOS volunteers are, is lost in this process

This law is definitely a step in the right direction, but it is no solution.  There are still many limitations to this law.

In regards to the other, yes California legally permits Syringe Access Programs.  This law allows specific counties or jurisdictions to allow Syringe Access Programs in their community when they see fit.  It is still not an oversight law or regulation though, the county or area has to allow it.  Santa Cruz allowed it decades ago, and I do not know the specifics of that. It is my understanding that an MOU is sufficient to allow an SAP to function.
I know this was long, but I have a lot to say about Syringe Access. It is from my experience that what is preventing these programs from functioning to their fullest across the nation is stigma of IDUs and drug use (primarily), a lack of understanding public health, and a lack of better regulation.  There is a lot to overcome before we can rest at night knowing we are preventing HIV or HCV to the best of our abilities.
Robert, thank you for your interest in syringe access and the Santa Cruz program, and for being an advocate. I hope I addressed your questions, please let me know if you have any further questions.  I would like to add that I write this as an individual and with no representation, perhaps only as a student at this point.
Thank You,
Penelope Jernberg
University of Nevada, Reno
MPH Graduate Assistant

From: Robert Norse <rnorse3@hotmail.com>
To: Steve Pleich <spleich@gmail.com>
Cc: David Silva <greensurfer1@netzero.net>; Penelope Jernberg <pjernberg@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 7:21 AM
Subject: Needle Exchange Question

A story in the L.A. Times about the Fresno Needle Exchange attracted my attention after I read this comment on your post at indybay:

Steve…

by Observed

Wednesday Feb 13th, 2013 6:02 PM

…first of all I support needle exchange!

That means a 1 for 1 policy.

Obviously that was the policy of the SC exchange when you were involved. But equally obvious is the fact 1 for 1 is no longer the policy. That has created unintended consequences. Until the exchange is more manageable things need to be put on hold.

Fresno’s experience was that it was not a great idea to operate in or very near homes. Being in a regional park had its problems when used needles started turning up in a children’s play area. While it was likely NOT the fault of the exchange, it was still blamed for the problem. [emphasis mine]

To its credit, the Fresno took positive steps and so prevented a shutdown. Given its illegal status at the time it would’ve been very easy to justify closing it down completely. The county supervisors were very hostile towards the concept and the city simply looked the other way. The county had prosecuted volunteers in the late 1990s when the exchange operated in the Tower District.

When the used needles turned up, the exchange moved out of the park to a nearby commercial area. That relieved the community concerns and things kept on trucking.

Hopefully the SC exchange can resolve the problems it now faces. It better. Otherwise it may go away completely. That would be likely very unfortunate.

My questions is whether you have heard this was a problem (neighborhood needle exchange resulting in the unsafe disposal of needles nearby) here, in Fresno, or elsewhere ?

I then accessed the following story about Fresno from the L.A. Times

Needle exchange proudly flouts the law

at http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/19/local/la-me-fresno-needles-20110920.

The story includes the following info:

Two bills now on Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk could supersede Fresno’s prohibition on needle exchange. One would let doctors, pharmacists and workers at approved programs provide a limited number of syringes without a prescription. The other would direct the state Department of Public Health to sanction needle exchange when they believe there is a public health risk.

Did these bills pass?

Thanks,

R

Old, Female, and Homeless in San Francisco

Old, Female and Homeless

Life on San Francisco’s streets for women over 50 is filled with hardships, small and large.
January 25, 2013  |

This story was produced with support from the Economic Hardship Reporting Project, and first appeared in The Nation

The doors of the Mission Neighborhood Health Center in San Francisco don’t open until 7 am, but on the Saturday morning I was there, a dozen or so people were already lined up by 5:30. The group included a middle-aged white man who had lost his job managing a high-end restaurant and a black man wearing a crisp security guard blazer because he had to be at work by noon. Each was there hoping for a bed for the night. The city assigns most slots in its homeless shelters on a first-come, first-served basis by computer. The people had shown up here so early because they know through experience that every last bed will be claimed by 7:10 am.


When Marcia has no bed, she is left with precious few options, none of them good. She can ride the city bus, hoping for a kind driver who won’t boot her into the street. That’s what a 55-year-old woman I met named Dorothy used to do until she deemed that strategy too risky. “If you don’t get a nice driver, you have to get off every hour or so and wait for another one,” Dorothy said. “If you have to wait for a bus at three in the morning, you’ll be waiting a long time. Anything can happen.”   A 56-year-old woman named Marcia, who has been homeless for six years, was one of the unlucky ones. She arrived while it was still dark, but not early enough to secure a bed. Because it was the weekend, her bad luck also meant two days of killing time. “Saturdays and Sundays are hell for those of us who are homeless, because most walk-in centers are closed,” she told me. “I especially hate Sundays. That’s when I ride BART.” For Marcia, riding the Bay Area’s commuter rail system is a relatively cheap way to get some rest during the day. She often falls asleep on the train, and it’s not uncommon for her to wake up and find herself an hour or more outside San Francisco.


And then there were the plastic chairs at the Oshun Drop-In Center, a public facility run by the San Francisco Department of Public Health. Marcia usually chose the plastic chairs at Oshun. It was hardly ideal, but at least she felt safe there and could try to get some sleep. “You can’t lie down on the floor,” she said. “You try, but you’re not allowed.” After a night spent contorting herself into an uncomfortable chair, her back would be killing her. “But I try not to think about it,” she said. “After a while, you get used to it.”


It used to be that homeless women over 50 were blessedly rare. Marie O’Connor began helping seniors find housing in San Francisco’s Mission District in 1992. “To see homeless elders back then was shocking,” said O’Connor, a volunteer coordinator with the St. Anthony Foundation, a nonprofit providing the homeless with housing, meals and medical care. “Today, it’s the norm.”


How widespread is the problem? Every homeless advocate and shelter monitor I spoke with told me the older homeless population in San Francisco is exploding. The problem is bound to get worse as the price of housing reaches new heights. San Francisco is the most expensive city in the country for renters, according to a March 2012 report by the National Low Income Housing Coalition. Small studio apartments are going for as much as $2,000 a month, which requires a salary of at least $70,000 a year.


And it’s not just San Francisco. The cost of living in most major metropolitan areas is on the rise, while wages are down. In states like California, ongoing budget cuts to services like the Supplemental Security Income, In-Home Supportive Services and adult day healthcare centers are making it harder for elderly people to pay for housing. According to the latest numbers from Hearth, an organization working to end elder homelessness, the country had 40,750 homeless people 62 or older in 2012. As the nation’s population ages, that number is expected to more than double by 2050.


To homeless advocates in San Francisco, those numbers sound way too low, given the problems they see just inside the city limits. But whatever the figure, there’s no doubt that life is miserable for older people without a home. Lugging suitcases or bags for dozens of blocks to and fro, from a shelter to a reservation center to the place that serves free lunches, can be incredibly taxing if you’re young and able. Doing so with the disabilities and ailments common to those in their 50s or older, from chronic back pain and arthritis to swollen ankles and gout, is that much harder.

And then imagine those women’s lives, when feeling safe meant another night spent contorted into a hard plastic chair.


Longtime advocate for the homeless James Powell seemed relieved when I mentioned that I’d seen the plastic chairs: maybe now someone would do something about them. “We’re talking about women sleeping in chairs. It’s a travesty,” said Powell, a case manager with the Canon Kip Senior Center in San Francisco. Bevan Dufty, San Francisco’s homelessness czar, told me people sleeping in plastic chairs was “not optimal, but we have to have places where people can go. It’s not an optimal place, but it’s safe, which is important. There are people who thrive in shelters; there are people who refuse to go in shelters. It’s complicated.” 


Sometime after I talked with Powell and Dufty, the plastic chairs were quietly replaced at Oshun (now officially known as A Woman’s Place) by more comfortable cushioned chairs.


Located in the Mission District, the drop-in center is basically two large adjoining rooms, the otherwise bare walls brightened by a single big-screen TV. When I visited Oshun, I found a diverse group of forty-five women, each sitting or sleeping in a chair surrounded by her belongings. Some had old suitcases with broken zippers, while others had stuffed their things into ripped garbage bags. The lucky ones found a spot near a wall. They’d at least be able to rest their heads by putting a blanket against the wall behind them. The rest had no choice but to let their heads hang. 
Yet what choices do older homeless women have? Despite a spike in older homeless clients, says O’Connor of the St. Anthony Foundation, there are still precious few services to help women like Marcia and Dorothy. “If you’re a homeless woman, you’re guaranteed to be assaulted on the streets,” said Paul Boden, organizing director of the Western Regional Advocacy Project (WRAP), a West Coast coalition of homeless organizations. Boden, who was homeless himself at 16 after the death of his mother, also served as executive director of the city’s Coalition on Homelessness. “Women try to double up with guys to be safe, but they usually get beaten up by those guys, so their options are limited.”


One of the regulars at Oshun is an Argentine woman named Zulema. She’s a 65-year-old who, when I met her, had been sleeping in the plastic chairs there for six years. “I stayed in shelters for four months, but the process is inefficient and I never felt safe,” she said. “The shelters are very bad for women, especially older women.” She told me she had become accustomed to sleeping sitting up on hard plastic. “You have no control of your life at the shelter,” she said. “At Oshun, I can come and go.”


You’d have no idea Zulema was a homeless woman who slept in a chair each night if you saw her on the street. She has flawless golden brown skin and a shiny gray bob. She often wears burgundy lipstick, khaki pants, a white button-down sweater and a jean jacket. She rides her bike for exercise and earns $400 a month selling flowers she buys from a wholesaler. She often drinks tea and reads the Bible at Starbucks. Advocates describe her as one of the few Oshun regulars who haven’t had the spirit beaten out of them.


A case in point is the older woman I spoke with who had served in the military and said she’d been homeless for several decades. She warned me that every person I was talking to was lying. “Why would you believe any of them?” she screamed. “Not a damn thing has changed since 1931. It never will. You’re wasting your time.”  


Then there’s the physical toll the streets take. “Most homeless women in their 40s or 50s look like they are 70 or 80 because homelessness takes such a toll,” said O’Connor. “I no longer know if a homeless person is 50 or 80.”


Marcia, the homeless woman I met in front of the Mission Neighborhood Health Center, is 56 and looks her age. Maybe that’s because she only became homeless at 50. She’s a black woman who walks with a cane. She throws a large backpack over her thick green jacket and often wears jeans and a black bandanna. She learned the hard way about navigating the chaotic and stressful world of homelessness in 2005, when her mother died. She and her sister were supposed to share the money from the sale of their family home, but Marcia had a stroke that left her visually impaired, and her sister took the money and left the state. Talking about her life since that time, she paused, shook her head and admitted that she’s still shocked to find herself living on the streets.


“I didn’t even know this world existed before I became part of it,” she said. “When you’re homeless, you lose control of your environment. Most of the people I meet have mental illnesses. You never know when they’re going to snap. A quiet room can turn into chaos within minutes. I don’t sleep much.” Last year, Marcia testified in front of the city’s Shelter Monitoring Committee and offered a lengthy prescription for improvements, including an end to co-ed shelters so women feel safe. She also argued that the mentally ill should be kept separate from everyone else. But nothing changed. “Right now, we’re all lumped together,” she said. “It makes no sense.”


Marcia lived in a single-room occupancy hotel for six months. But the rent ate up half of her $900 Social Security check, and because SROs generally don’t have kitchens, she spent much of the rest on prepared meals. By the third week of the month, she often had less than $10 left on her debit card. “I’ve never been that poor,” she said. “I couldn’t deal with it. I also didn’t feel safe on the same floor as men. The walls were thin and it wasn’t clean, so I left.” Life got much worse when she was hit by a car and injured in 2009. She reached out to relatives and friends but never got a response.


“When you need something, everyone disappears,” Marcia said. She told me her goal at that point was to muster enough cash to buy a bus ticket to Reno, where she hoped to find an affordable place. Meanwhile, she tried not to think about suicide. “You get so depressed,” she said. “I’ve been able to maintain my sanity because I know how to withdraw. Like most homeless women I’ve met, I was molested as a child, so I know how to go inside of myself.” According to the National Center on Family Homelessness and the National Low Income Housing Coalition, a staggeringly high percentage of homeless women have experienced severe physical or sexual assault at some point in their lives.


Homelessness czar Bevan Dufty told me he was willing to talk with the women I’d met over the past few months, to explore their cases and contact their case managers about permanent housing options. The real problem, though, is the lack of affordable housing. “I can show you 27,000 individuals on the public housing list,” he said. “We’re dealing with a very big problem. We’re talking about a city that’s very expensive.”
Of 155,000 seniors living in San Francisco, according to a report by the city’s Department of Aging and Adult Services, roughly 19,000 live below the federal poverty line: $10,326 per year for a single person age 65 or older, or $13,014 for a two-person household. Based on the Elder Economic Security Standard Index, 61 percent of San Francisco’s seniors don’t have enough income to meet their basic needs. Meanwhile, the country has endured years of trickle-down economics, welfare cutbacks, rising income inequality, attacks on unions and the privatization of public services. Those are only some of the factors WRAP spelled out as causes of homelessness in its report “Without Housing.” And perhaps the biggest factor affecting older homeless women: the government turned housing over to the private market in the 1970s, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s budget was slashed by 77 percent between 1978 and 1983.


No wonder Paul Boden of WRAP said that the situation for the older homeless population has gotten progressively worse since the 1980s. “Back then, I could get a senior a nice room in an SRO hotel within the Section 8 program,” he told me. “Today, you can’t get them shit.”


The city is now looking into ways to house homeless individuals with medical needs that exceed the capacity of the emergency shelters to handle. “The most vulnerable can’t stand in line for hours at a time,” said Amanda Kahn Fried, policy director at HOPE, the city’s Housing, Opportunity, Partnerships and Engagement office. Some of these people, she noted, “are at the point in their life where they can’t take care of themselves. They’re either too old or too sick and can’t get out of bed or get to the bathroom.”


The city’s current efforts have some homeless advocates feeling hopeful. But for others, like James Powell at the Canon Kip Center, they’re a reminder of earlier attempts that ended in frustration. Ideas would be floated, meetings held, solutions discussed—and then nothing would happen. Maybe that’s the silver lining in a situation that has gotten so bad, Powell said.


“This is getting above the point of focus groups and closed-door meetings,” he added. “We’re on the verge of an implosion. We can’t continue to ignore all of these people who are suffering. We have no choice but to listen and act.”


Addressing the problems of the poor is the mission of Nation.com blogger Greg Kaufman’s This Week in Poverty. His latest dispatch: “An Anti-Poverty Contract for 2013?

Rose Aguilar is the host of Your Call, a daily call-in radio show on KALW 91.7 FM in San Francisco and KUSP 88.9 FM in Santa Cruz, and author of Red Highways: A Liberal’s Journey into the Heartland.Tip of the hat to John Cohen for alerting us to this story from his Santa Cruz Homeless Persons Disabled Advocacy page at http://www.facebook.com/groups/325916790824852/ .

Fresno: Burning Out a Homeless Encampment?

Fresno has no Heart – Will Evict the Homeless on Valentines Day
by Mike Rhodes ( editor [at] fresnoalliance.com )
Monday Feb 11th, 2013 5:43 PM

The photo below shows the north end of the Monterey and E street homeless encampment.

 

 

An eviction of a significant number of homeless people at a downtown encampment will probably take place on Thursday, February 14. According to residents of the homeless encampment, located near Monterey and E street, they were told by the owner of the property they are living on that they have until Thursday to “move on.” The owner was accompanied by several officers from the Fresno Police Department and a truck & crew from the Fire Department.One homeless man told me this afternoon (Monday, February 11) that the owner of the property said he would be bulldozing the vacant lot on Thursday and everything would be destroyed. “He told me to get the fuck out of here,” he shared with me as he sorted through recycled items sitting in several shopping carts on the property. When I asked if he was sure it was the owner, he said “well, he had the police with him, so it looked pretty convincing to me.”

Unlike other evictions by the City of Fresno, there are no signs posted to notify the residents of the demolition that is to come. Julie (not her real name), said someone had posted an eviction notice about a month ago, but those were torn down within an hour or two. The owner told her that he did not have to post notices because it is his property.

There was an eviction that took place in the spring of 2012 at another homeless encampment, behind the grain silos near Palm and H street, that was similar. This was private property, the owner made numerous attempts to force the homeless to move, and eventually put a fence around the property to force the eviction. Many of the homeless people from that encampment moved about 200 feet south and occupied a different vacant lot. They have not been threatened with eviction again, as far as I know.

Most of the residents at the Monterey and E street homeless encampment who are being threatened with eviction said they were planning on moving, but I was told that not everyone would pack up and move. I was told that it is only the north end of the encampment that has been threatened with eviction. The dividing line is Monterey street. Everything north of Monterey street will likely be destroyed on Thursday. Everything south of Monterey street is said to be safe from the demolition.

Can the owner of a vacant lot take and immediately destroy homeless peoples property? Did the City of Fresno threaten the owner with legal action if he did not move against the homeless? Will FPD officers participate in the demolition or arrest anyone if they resist? Observers are needed starting early Thursday morning. If you can help, meet at the encampment starting at 7 a.m. on Thursday. Bring your video or still camera to document what takes place. If you can’t come until later, let me know so we can coordinate having someone there all day.

Demolitions of homeless encampments in October and November of 2011 resulted in over 30 lawsuits against the City of Fresno claiming that the city violated homeless peoples legal rights by taking and immediately destroying their property. Those cases are working their way through the court. Without this litigation it is likely that the city would have been more aggressive in their attacks on the homeless. A new strategy of forcing property owners to evict the homeless may be emerging as City Hall seeks to avoid additional lawsuits.

###

Mike Rhodes is the editor of the Community Alliance newspaper. He can be reached by email at editor [at] fresnoalliance.com .

§Another view of the norht end of the encampment

by Mike Rhodes Monday Feb 11th, 2013 5:43 PM

 

§This shows the entire area impacted by the evictions

by Mike Rhodes Monday Feb 11th, 2013 5:43 PM

 

§Typical Shelter in the Area

by Mike Rhodes Monday Feb 11th, 2013 5:43 PM

 

§This is the center of the homeless encampment looking north

by Mike Rhodes Monday Feb 11th, 2013 5:43 PM

 

 

Burning the Homeless out

by Mike Rhodes ( editor [at] fresnoalliance.com )
Sunday Feb 17th, 2013 7:10 PM

This is a follow up to an earlier Indybay article about an eviction of homeless people at the Monterey and E street encampment in Fresno.

 

 

As I drove toward the Monterey and E street homeless encampment on Valentine’s Day, I could see a huge plume of smoke rising into the sky. When I got a little closer I could hear and then see the fire trucks screaming towards the smoke. They got there about 5 minutes ahead of me, but they already had most of the fire under control by the time I arrived.I was going to the encampment to check out reports that the owner was going to bulldoze the vacant lot, inhabited by about 100 homeless people in downtown Fresno. See: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/02/11/18731822.php

After taking a few photos of the scene I headed over to the police and what looked to be the fire department supervisor. I asked the officer if there was anything suspicious about the fire. He looked puzzled. I told him that the owner of the property had told the residents that he was going to bulldoze the encampment today. More puzzlement in the eyes of the two guys I was talking to. I said, “have you looked into the possibility that the owner started the fire to force the homeless from this area?” This the police officer seemed to understand and he assured me that nothing like that had happened. “How do you know that?” I asked. “Well, these people out here would make a complaint if something like that had happened. Oh, they do all kinds of things themselves, but if something happens to them they will file a complaint.”

Seemed to me that the officer had some bias against the homeless and unlike any other house fire in this town, there would be no investigation of what happened here. After all, these were just homeless people, squatting on somebody’s land. Arson? An attempt to evict the people that lived there? Obviously, the police or the fire department were not going to be bothered to investigate what had happened.

This is one of the realities of the homeless encampments in Fresno. There are a lot of fires, some of which are caused by candles and other light or heat sources. Sometimes, as Gloria (a homeless woman who used to live in the area) told me, there are people who will burn your house down because you owe them $10.

Several people told me that the fire on Valentine’s Day was not due to the vigilantism of the property owner, but was the result of a personal dispute.

The eviction by the owner, who told everyone he was going to bulldoze their property, did not happen. This is not unusual and has become a pattern in Fresno. What usually happens is that you have a property owner who may or may not care that homeless people are living on his property. He or she is contacted by someone from the City of Fresno (usually code enforcement or the police) and they are told they have to do something about the homeless encampment on their property.

If the owner does not move to dislodge the homeless the city official will ratchet up the pressure. This could be in the form of telling the owner that if they don’t remove the homeless, the city will do it and send them a bill for the clean up. Another approach I have seen them use is to threaten the owner, saying that if they don’t remove the homeless, they will make life more difficult for them. In one case they told a home owner with obvious code violations that if they did not remove the homeless people from their property they would come and do an inspection. If the homeless people move, then there will be no pesky government officials turning over every stone at your house to make sure you are in 100% compliance of all local, state, and federal laws. You get the idea.

In this case, the owner came out to the encampment on Monterey and E streets, with the fire department and the police watching his back (from a safe distance) as he threatened them with eviction and a bulldozer on Valentine’s Day. This created enough anxiety among the homeless that at least ½ of them moved away. That was the desired result. If the city and property owner can get the homeless to leave, without bringing out the bulldozer, that is a win for them.

Most homeless people don’t want to be a part of a confrontation and they will move on when threatened with the destruction of their property. Of course, they usually just move over to the next vacant lot and the process starts all over again.

§Why was their no investigation of this house fire?

by Mike Rhodes Sunday Feb 17th, 2013 7:11 PM

 

 

 

 

All photos by Mike Rhodes

Berkeley Levels Restrictions on “Unattended Property”–Copying Santa Cruz Bigotry?

Norse’s Notes:  Is there a contagion of homeless-ophobia?   Are Berkeley gentrification folks watching Santa Cruz and taking their cure from the right-wingers here?   The Berkeley library’s “unattended property” rule change seems suspiciously close in time and content to the Santa Cruz November change banning unattended property.  Other changes included trying to tighten rules on service animals, and increasing penalties drastically for repeated violation by many months.

Those who want to examine the records of complaints and evictions from the Santa Cruz Library should contact the City Council staff at 420-5020 and ascertain whether they are still holding the public records I requested there.

PASS ON REPORTS OF HARASSMENT IN THE LIBARY BY THE LIBRARY STAFF, SECURITY GUARDS, OR OTHER “INTERESTED CITIZENS” TO HUFF AT 831-423-4833.  AS “NEEDLE-HYSTERIA” RAMPS UP AND ATTACKS ON HOMELESS CAMPS AS “TRASH” MOUNT, DEFENDING HOMELESS PEOPLE BECOMES EVEN MORE VITAL.

Has it gotten harder to be homeless in Berkeley?

January 2, 2013 2:45 pm by Emilie Raguso

New policies at the Berkeley Library prohibit bringing in items larger than 24 inches. One reader wondered if the change were related to the failure of Measure S to pass. Photo: Emilie Raguso



After the failure of Measure S to pass in November, we heard from one reader who said there seemed to have been harsher enforcement around town of violations related to homelessness. The reader said a homeless friend had been hassled by police when trying to sleep in a regular spot, and also wanted to know about new rules at the library that limit the size and type of items that can be brought inside.


The reader sent us an email in December detailing the changes, and asked Berkeleyside to learn more.


“Since the no-sit measure failed, the city has begun new, more aggressive treatment of the homeless. My homeless neighbor … has been told he could sleep in the doorway of a movie theater but last night, a cop rousted him from his dry, out-of-the-rain perch in the theater’s doorway. The cop said the theater could face stiff fines for giving [my neighbor] permission to sleep in their doorway on a rainy night.”


The reader continued: “Is this really who we want to be as a city?”


According to police spokeswoman Officer Jennifer Coats, the Berkeley Police Department has not altered its general approach to the enforcement of violations associated with homeless residents.


“There has not been any new change in policy regarding our enforcement efforts after the failure of Measure S,” said Coats, via email, in December. “Officers have the discretion to enforce laws if needed.”


(She said she did not have details about the specific incident described above, as no additional information was available from the reader who contacted Berkeleyside about it.)

New rules at the library

The reader also noted a shift in policy at the Berkeley Public Library, with visitors — seemingly suddenly — forbidden from bringing in items larger than 24 inches.


“This new policy, which appeared overnight … is clearly targeted to keep homeless with their stuff out of the library. Um, if you are homeless, you have nowhere to leave your stuff.  I know that, for middle-class patrons, it can feel uncomfortable to be sitting at a library computer next to a guy who appears homeless and has some luggage with him. Geez, have compassion for that human being.”


Douglas Smith, deputy director at the Berkeley Public Library, said in December that the changes had not come out of the blue, and that library staff members were working with patrons to let them know about the changes and help come up with alternatives.


Smith said the library has rules of conduct that are regularly reviewed and updated. At the Nov. 14 meeting of the library board, members voted to approve the new rules. They went into effect Dec. 1. (See the agenda packet related to this item here.)


Smith said changes to the rules included now letting patrons charge phones and computers using library outlets, which previously had been forbidden, as well as the new limitation on the amount and type of items people can bring inside.


The rules now prohibit entering the library with containers or packages that, singly or collectively, exceed 16 inches by 18 inches by 24 inches. They also forbid leaving items unattended, blocking walkways, and entering the library “with items inappropriate to library use, including but not limited to bicycles, shopping carts, large trash bags, bedrolls, and strollers without children.”
Smith said that, since the last revision of the rules, three years back, there had been “an issue in some of our libraries of people coming in with large amounts of stuff in a variety of shapes and sizes. It does have an impact on other people’s ability to use the library comfortably.”


Unattended items can cause a range of problems, he said, adding that library staff had observed an increase in this behavior, especially at the central library in downtown Berkeley.


“It was at least a daily occurrence, usually more,” said Smith.


Some patrons had made a habit of leaving their possessions around, blocking access to collections and computers, and “walking away for the day,” he said. When items were left around the building, it also made it hard for staff to clear the building in a timely manner at the end of the day.

For the greater good

Smith said the library aims to be accessible to everyone, but that involves putting limits on conduct that might interfere with access to the facility.


“Our mission is to say ‘yes’ as much as possible, but we do have to make sure people follow the rules,” he said. “Part of our mission is to help create a space in the community where people want to come, where it can be a place for silent study, meeting with friends, using collections, using computers and getting information from librarians.”


Smith said Rules of Conduct policies like those adopted in November are “very common” for libraries in urban settings.


Penalties could range from receiving a copy of the written rules, for the first violation, to suspension of library privileges for up to a year, with the fourth violation. Suspensions would only result from more egregious offenses of the rules, such as fighting, Smith added.


He said, as of the first week of December, there had been “a couple of complaints” about the new rules, “but we’re working with people to try and get them alternatives.”


Smith said staff had tried to let patrons know about the new rules prior to Dec. 1 and was making efforts to be flexible as people learned about the changes.


Smith said he understood that the new rules would be a challenge for some patrons, but that they were necessary for the facility to work as a shared resource.


“A lot of businesses — and non-profits, government offices and other organizations — place these sorts of restrictions on what can happen inside their premises and what can be brought in,” he said. “It goes back to the full range of people we need to serve here, from babies to senior citizens, people from all social classes, and every facet of society.”

CRITICAL COMMENT FROM ALMOST TWO HUNDRED COMMENTS FOLLOWING THE STORY:

I was the anonymous reader. I never gave Berkeleyside permission to publish what I wrote. I wrote in and asked them to look into it. I had not written an opinion piece or a letter to the editor. I sent in a story suggstion and did not give permission. I retain the copyright to everything I write and my permission is required to publish it.
Keep in mind the spinmeister police chief we have who sent a police officer to a reporter’s home in the middle of the night. I do not trust anything any spokesperson from the Berkeley police says: its all spin, smoke and mirrors in a department run by a guy who dedicates lots of resources to his kid’s stolen iPHone and rousts journalists in the middle of the night and prioritizies demonstrations in Oakland over urgent calls in the Berkeley hills. I do not trust the Berkeley police public relations spokespeople and the spin they are ordered to spew.
In my email, I copied an email I got from one homeless friend and I did not give berkeleyside permission to quote me because I had shared my friend’s email without his permission. To the people who are active on the street, such as outreach workers, cops and the Downtown Business Assoc workers with police-like powers who routinely order the homeless around like they are less than the rest of us, few regular homeless/street people are unfamiliar. I had no right to give away my friend’s identify without his permission and neither did Berkeleyside.

My homeless friend actually does have legal representation and his attorneys (Yes, plural, he is a well liked and even loved member of our community, an unfortunate but sweetly loving human being) who are licensed are helping him.

This berkeleyside story, written by Ms. Raguso who was merely an intern quite recently and is now ‘senior reporter’ — whatever happened to cub reporters and periods of training and, um, actual training — Ms. RAguso simply regurgitated PR from the police and library. since when is PR statements reporting the news. I did not, keep in mind, force B-side to publish this story.

Did she go out and try to talk to some homeless folks at the library or around downtown? Most homeless folks in downtown Berkeley are warm and friendly.

It is just an irrational cultural bias to reject someone cause they don’t shave every morning cause they don’t have a sink. and the claims that the homeless smell are grossly overstated. Spend time with some and you will see.

I think people are afraid of the homeless, deep down, because for most of it, ‘there but for the grace of god, it would be us” so we villify ‘them’ to feel safe.

They are us. It is as simple as that.


FOR MORE EXTENSIVE COMMENTS–BOTH CRITICAL AND SUPPORTIVE–ON THIS  ARTICLE SEE http://www.berkeleyside.com/2013/01/02/has-it-gotten-harder-to-be-homeless-in-berkeley/

Hilary Bryant: Public safety is our top priority

Posted:   02/16/2013 05:17:29 PM PST


Hilary Bryant
Our Santa Cruz community is reeling. Residents, business owners and students have said “enough” to illegal campsites, needles strewn in our parks and beaches, and the recent spike in crime. Deteriorating conditions in our public spaces, along with the recent downtown homicide and the attempted homicide of a UC Santa Cruz student are completely unacceptable. These tragedies and safety concerns are a sharp reminder that we must actively protect our safe and vibrant community. Enough is enough.
As your mayor, I am fully committed to changing course. I want you to know that my fellow City Council members and the city staff are with me; we are all actively working to make Santa Cruz a safe and flourishing community by applying the following measures:
First, we are working diligently to fully staff our Police Department. The year 2012 marked our Police Department’s busiest on record. Santa Cruz police officers responded to over 104,000 calls for service and made 8,300 arrests (16 percent and 50 percent increases over 2011). Our police officers are doing more with less, as they grapple with filling vacant positions. In the meantime, the City Council will provide the department with all the resources and support it needs to be successful.
Second, we must address the illegally discarded needles, illegal campsites and degraded environmental quality of our public spaces. While the causes are complex, complete solutions to these issues require other community and government partners. For many years, city staff has been working on camp abatements; this past summer, they ramped up their efforts. At our Feb. 26 meeting, the City Council is poised to increase abatement funding and to explore further measures that we can take to improve water quality at our beaches.
Third, city staff members are working closely with Santa Cruz County to develop a model needle exchange program. This program must have county oversight, accountability and effective public reporting systems in place. It should provide a true 1-for-1 exchange in a manner that does not impact our neighborhoods, parks, open spaces and beaches. That also includes developing better mechanisms for safe needle disposal.
Once implemented, these tools should alleviate some of the immediate public safety and environmental concerns. We will measure their impacts and report regularly back to the community on our progress. However, we can neither arrest our way out nor clean our way out of the current state of affairs. Persistent drug addiction and drug-related crime factor heavily into our public safety issues. These complex problems require systemic solutions.
Therefore, the fourth and final part of our plan is to assess these systemic problems closely with our regional partners and a citizen task force to create meaningful and lasting solutions. While the city provides law enforcement, it is Santa Cruz County that has jurisdiction over public health, our justice system, courts and jails, and social programs. I believe strongly that only through enhanced city efforts and focused participation from our county sheriff, district attorney, courts, human services agency, and drug-treatment organizations can we develop solutions that address these long-term safety problems. These issues did not arise overnight in Santa Cruz, nor can we say with a straight face that we will resolve them overnight. However, the entire City is committed to this enhanced course of action.
My thanks go out to the community for raising awareness of these issues, and to our Public Safety Committee (Council members David Terrazas, Pamela Comstock and Cynthia Mathews) for developing the safety action plan.
Hilary Bryant is mayor of the city of Santa Cruz.

Latest Update in the Corrspondence Around the Rights of Street Artists with City Attorney Barisone

NOTE TO ALL:  I’ve just renewed my request to City Attorney John Barisone to clarify what I was told he clarified several years ago when he advised a street artist.  That artist brought him a copy of the White v. City of Sparks decision protecting the right of artists to sell their art on the street without permits, and Barisone reportedly agreed, stopping a potential lawsuit.
However, as mentioned in the earlier e-mail below, police have ramped up their campaign against performers and artists (or those they choose to disfavor), and a clear quick response has become more important.
Please let  me now if you’ve experienced or heard any problems with police/host/security guard harassment downtown for political, cultural, artistic, or musical activity in public spaces.  Give as many specifics as possible (time, date, cops names, conversation involved, citation (if any), place, etc. etc.).

Thanks,

Robert Norse


From: rnorse3@hotmail.com
To: rnorse3@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: City of Sparks v. White
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 11:09:29 -0800

John:   I just received word from the street artist who got the bogus panhandling citation that he wasn’t going to fight it, but would do community service.  However, he also intends to put price tags on his work, given the White v. City of Sparks decision.

Please let me know what your thoughts are before he gets another ticket.

Thanks,

Robert


From: rnorse3@hotmail.com
To: jbarisone@abc-law.com
Subject: RE: City of Sparks v. White
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 08:39:52 -0800

Thanks, John.


From: JBarisone@abc-law.com
To: rnorse3@hotmail.com
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 07:01:01 -0800
Subject: RE: City of Sparks v. White

I haven’t gotten to this yet.

 

From: Robert Norse [mailto:rnorse3@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 7:51 PM
To: John Barisone
Cc: Robin the rightsfinder; Jonathan (!) Gettleman; David Beauvais; lioness@got.net; Ed Frey; J.M. Brown; Alexis of Pier 5; Ricardo Lopez; Joe the strummer; Tom Noddy; Brent Adams; Coral (!!!) Brune; Free; John Malkin
Subject: RE: City of Sparks v. White

 

John:  Did you receive this e-mail?

If so, can you advise me of whether the SCPD current acknowledges and follows the City of Sparks v. White exemption of artists from permits and their right to display price tags on their work.

It’s been nearly a week.  I’m concerned you may have mislaid my e-mail.

Thanks,

R


From: rnorse3@hotmail.com
To: jbarisone@abc-law.com
CC: circulation999now@yahoo.com; jonathangettleman@yahoo.com; davebeau@pacbell.net; lioness@got.net; edwinfrey@hotmail.com; jammbrow@gmail.com; alexis@pier5law.com; riclopez35@yahoo.com; talljar@gmail.com; tnoddy@aol.com; compassionman@hotmail.com; coralbrune@hotmail.com; overthrowproperty@yahoo.com; jsmalkin@hotmail.com
Subject: City of Sparks v. White
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 11:05:27 -0800

John:

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

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

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

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

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

Hope you are well.

Robert
(831-423-4833)

City Council Inflicts Take Back Santa Cruz Agenda on the Town

The Sentinel’s police-puffing, sensationalist, and slanted coverage of Tuesday’s Santa Cruz  City Council meeting’s discussion of its “Public Safety” Committee report is at http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_22578351/santa-cruz-council-oks-spending-cleaning-up-illegal#top . The coverage outrageously shoehorns the recent Monday Westside robbery/shooting into the Martinez’s sweet-sounding but deceptive talk about drug use. If he were serious about his bogus “treatment solution”, his talk about “their medicine”, etc., he’d be calling for the money to go to addiction prevention, but no–he wants more cops. The police department has also played a complicit role in the shutdown of needle exchange at Barson by not speaking out on the issue.

Similarly, Posner and Lane did not publicly oppose it and have not called for immediate restoration of the long-used site This is a clear public health crisis waiting to happen when dumping bad needles is now likely increasing big-time. These are the gutless liberals elected and reelected in November.

SC Patch has its equally police-palsy coverage at http://santacruz.patch.com/articles/santa-cruz-to-hire-more-police-examine-needle-exchange (with no clarification on the specifics on the Council’s action).

What is made clear is that Robinson and Comstock are gunning for Needle Exchange even on the outskirts of the City. They made pointed attacks on the Emeline St. increased distribution “not being authorized” by the County. (It’s being done 3 times a week now rather than once.) This misguided attack savages an inadequate but obviously necessary attempt by the County to make up for the behind-closed-doors shut-down of Needle Exchange at Barson St. That closure was the only real action that City Council has taken–all behind closed doors, without public comment, and in line with the Take Back Santa Cruz agenda. The rest is blather, attempts to manage the situation through meaningless resolutions delayed into the future.

That absurd and politically-motivated move will probably at least double the number of discarded used needles. Beefing up the police force (instead of redirecting their priorities) is another bonehead psuedo-public safety move. It is, of course, again in line with TBSC’s “bigotry first” approach, holding homeless camps, homeless services, and “drug tolerance” responsible for crime and drug use. This J. Edgar Hoover approach is the 21st Century equivalent of Reefer Madness and deadly dangerous as well as being wildly irresponsible.

Some ideas for action: Going back to civil disobedient needle distribution (which originally established it as a legal option). Marches to the offices of Robinson and Comstock protesting their crazy attacks on needle exchange—which have “kill those addicted and infect the community” consequences. Mobile public pickets in front of businesses or at tourist locations advising tourists that not only are they visiting a homeless-hating town, but they’re also more likely to find needles in their soup.

One of the interesting things to notice about Deputy Vice-Chief Clark’s comments in recent Sentinel articles are his attempts to reassure people that Santa Cruz is a “safe” community, indicating the nervousness of the DTA and SCPD regarding the recent right-wing hysteria around the needle issue. They’d like to use it to buff up their force, increase police power–but not really address the real (and often valid) issues that the Needlemaniacs are raising–trash, bad police priorities (with crime in the neighborhoods), & inadequate needle disposal.

The toxic link here is of course with homeless people–who are being blamed (with no stats supporting the claim).

AN EARLIER VERSION OF THIS STORY AS WELL AS MORE BACKGROUND CAN BE FOUND AT http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/02/11/18731812.php AND THE COMMENTS THAT FOLLOW.

The Latest from Looneyland: S.C. City Council Goes Medieval

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/02/11/18731812.php?show_comments=1#18731896

by Robert Norse

Tuesday Feb 12th, 2013 9:44 PM

I had to leave the meeting because I wasn’t feeling well, but I did stay until the end of the Public Comment period on Item #15, The Public Bigotry Committee report. I’m hoping to review the video of the rest of the meeting on the City’s website when it gets posted.

From what I heard and saw, in spite of a few good questions from Lane and Posner, there was no challenging of the abusive behind-closed-doors decision to shut down 1/2 of needle exchange (the half on Barson St.). There were no stats justifying the shutdown presented (though the property owner gave one anecdotal incident where he said he found some clean needles near a point of break-in). No stats for the number of people actually injured by needles. No comparative stats of harm created by restricting needle exchange in terms of the spread of disease.

Just more cops, more drug war, and more stalling by City Council–in terms of any public discussion. It also seems that the Council majority without a vote is acting unilaterally through Terrazas in its planned selection of a Task Force–to be chosen by the Mayor and then operate without public hearings. Terrazas gave a long-winded evasive response to Lane and Posner’s questions, but he finally got the clear answer–it’ll meet in secret, probably selected by the Mayor.

Another issue that was left hanging was whether the Task Force would assume that needle exchange would not be in the downtown or residential area before it started. At this writing the Sentinel (useless sensationalist smearsheet that it’s been on this issue) hasn’t come out with a story.

The S.C. Weekly reporter, however, was so pissed at the steady pattern of prejudice and fearmongering that he got up and made a statement supporting accessible needle exchange himself.

“More conservative” liberals like Mike Rotkin and Steve Pleich declined to endorse needle distribution or “1 plus” needles exchange where more needles were given out than returned, one of the big demands of Analicia Cube, her rep Pamela Comstock on City Council, and Take Back Santa Cruz.

No one made any serious proposals for a shift in the Drug War mentality, though there was lots of meaningless talk about compassion, and drug treatment–but the money, of course, would go for more cops to jail more users to fill up more jails to be released again with no housing to pick up their drug activity, etc.

A number of people denounced the Homeless (Lack of) Services Center as a demonic drug den that had to be shut down. There were angry claims that “most needles and debris” were found within 1/4 mile (or a mile–pick your source) of the HLOSC. I think it was the last speaker, a woman claiming to be a social worker demanded that homeless services be available only to those who registered and were local. I guess tatooing folks on the wrist with ID numbers would be optional.

Not sure what a Strategy for Sanity looks like, but I’ll be pondering it.

And as for whether some drug abusers and needle droppers are homeless–sure. But to let that be the excuse to criminalize homeless survival camps generally is the kind of is a form of badly misguided hatecrime.

The recommendations naturally had nothing specific about putting in bathrooms, requiring pharmacies to have safe needle disposal facilities, or (shudder) establishing safe campgrounds. There was some talk (and that’s what it’ll remain–talk) about how without real housing options, there’s no real drug treatment programs.

And in spite of all the Lane-Martinez buzz about 180/180, this program will impact only a small number of folks.

Looks like homeless people will have to look to themselves and other allies for protection. If Ammiano’s homeless Bill of Rights isn’t too badly weakened (which I fear it may be), that may be a new avenue.

HUFF meets tomorrow 10 AM Sub Rosa Cafe 703 Pacific. Free needles…er…coffee.

FOR THE EARLIER ARTICLE AND SUBSEQUENT COMMENTS GO TO: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/02/11/18731812.php .

Drug War Paranoids Move To Cut Back Needle Exchange [3 Attachments]

Attachments from Robert Norse!
Santa Cruz City Council meets tomorrow (3 PM City Council Chambers 3 PM, agenda item #15) and is likely to rubberstamp recommendations made by its right-wing “Public Safety Committee” which met three weeks ago and in its turn rubberstamped the recommendations of a conservative staff report.  See “New Attack on Homeless Slated in City Counci’s ‘Public Safety’ Committee Meeting”

at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/01/29/18730942.php.

The recommendations can be found on-line at http://www3.cityofsantacruz.com/sirepub/cache/2/bzcl12553shhsji4oz3akzup/370818802112013094929120.PDF   as well as the original staff report at  http://www3.cityofsantacruz.com/sirepub/cache/2/bzcl12553shhsji4oz3akzup/370818902112013095000761.PDF .  If these aren’t accessible there, go to http://www3.cityofsantacruz.com/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=452&doctype=AGENDA and look under agenda item #15.

Most of these recommendations are a defensive response to an onslaught by right-wing pro-Drug Prohibition War, anti-homeless activist groups like Take Back Santa Cruz.  Homeless people and their “illegal” (i.e. survival) camps are being blamed for needles, break-in’s, endangering children, and all kinds of other bogus accusations completely unsupported by objective stats.  Cuts are being proposed in the paltry homeless services being provided.  Expansion of an anti-homeless SCPD is proposed.  And an absurd and misguided contraction of Needle Exchange is being used as the prime scapegoat.

I include the attached petition, which, while inadequate in not including opposition to the counter-productive 1-for-1 exchange, does push back  slightly against the paranoid mind set which is active locally.  I’m also including a guest editorial in the Sunday Sentinel that presents what sounds like a good case for opposing the 1-for-1 (no needles given out unless dirty needles returned) proposal.

There’s likely to be quite a crowd of misguided Drug War heavies down at City Council tomorrow, but it would be productive to show up anyway.  The city’s failure to provide public restrooms, adequate disposal facilities, refund and expand needle exchange, & establish safe and legal campgrounds is, of course, largely being ignored by city bureaucrats and politicians (though even some right-wing critics are calling for some of these services).

The Santa Cruz Sentinel has been ramping up the hysteria with various front-page “needle” stories with its main editorial on Sunday leading the charge.  Read it and heave:  http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/opinion/ci_22557015/editorial-county-must-oversee-needles .

Real solutions like Injection and Inhalation Centers (http://supervisedinjection.vch.ca/  … http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2011/09/30/vancouver-injection-center-legal-court-rules/  ) aren’t being proposed, though Santa Cruz pioneered (along with San Francisco) medical marijuana tolerance and distribution back in the early 90’s.   Time to take the lead again.

Homeless people are perhaps the most vulnerable population for the diseases likely to result from this latest Cold War-style attack on harm reduction measures.

R. Norse