Tag Archives: Anti-Homeless Hysteria

Responding to the Destruction of Homeless Survival Camps in Santa Cruz

Posted on by
“Less is More” Leslie responds to an anti-homeless article from the Boulder Creek Bulletin  titled “Local Environment Gets Impacted by Homeless in SLV [San Lorenzo Valley]; Law Enforcement Sweeps Shanti Towns & Encampments”.

The original article is posted at http://www.mountainbulletin.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Issue_2_Vol_2_BC_Bulletin.pdf  (pp. 1 & 3).

Leslie’s reaction:


What Kind of Community Do We Have?

Perusing the very local newspaper produced in Boulder Creek, my ire was aroused by a top of the page headline on the trash produced by “the homeless” in the community.  I am moved to ask, “What kind of community do we have here in the San Lorenzo Valley?  Does it only care about trash, or does it care about people?”

I want to try to tell my homeless neighbors up in the redwood forest here that they are not alone.  Not everyone wants them to disappear without a trace.  In my small circle of acquaintances in town, one had a family living in a motor home in their back yard, and another was helping his son “get back on his feet” after a car accident by having him live on his property in a small outbuilding.  We have folks who need a little help, and we have compassionate community members helping them by offering them a place to sleep at night.  We have church and community programs helping in organized programs as well.

Providers of homeless services have been promoting a new vision of service for the people that need the most help: permanent supportive housing for those chronic homeless, many of whom have untreated mental health issues or substance dependencies or both.  Many people support this model of providing help, but it is more expensive than another model that homeless advocates are now discussing.  If there were enough community support, either through charities, government, or private entrepreneurship, this community could house people in a campground where trash could be collected, sanitary facilities provided, and a sense of interdependency could be created, with peers helping peers.  Other communities have found that this helps people “get back on their feet.”

Currently, we have many paths leading nowhere.  People sleep in their cars.  People sleep in the woods.  Those who have drawn attention to the problem in creative non-violent political protest have been sent to jail or fined.  A fraction of the homeless population are sheltered at night in the city of Santa Cruz, another fraction in spare bedrooms and backyards all over the county.  The community can do better by coming together, finding those that agree with our project, creating new partnerships amongst those that are already caring for people in need, listening to our critical rivals, and finally by taking action.

Occupy Santa Cruz will be discussing a “Sanctuary Camp” this Saturday in front of the downtown Santa Cruz Post Office.  You may meet at 4 PM for a vegan meal shared by Santa Cruz Food Not Bombs, and stay for the General Assembly at 5:30 PM.  Decisions are made through a consensus process open to all.  I look forward to seeing you there.

NOTE BY NORSE:  A follow-up meeting will be held Tuesday March 5 at noon in Laurel Park next to Louden Nelson Center and another meeting noon Wednesday March 6 at the Sub Rosa Cafe at 703 Pacific Ave.–both locations in downtown Santa Cruz.

HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom) meets 2-6 10 AM to noon at the Sub Rosa as well.

San Jose plans cleanup of homeless encampment that’s grown to 100 residents – San Jose Mercury News

Posted on by

NOTE FROM NORSE:  By “cleanup”, of course, the San Jose Mercury News and the San Jose Police Department mask the darker reality: the destruction of homeless survival camps.  City authorities provide no alternatives, but simply destroy protective structures, confiscate survival gear, and drive people out of a protective community.

Homeless survival is apparently an “eyesore” to some, but that doesn’t amount to a public health or safety problem–which is the real issue.

It’s amazing how baldly brutal the statements by public officials are, candidly talking about “fences” and “keeping them out” and citing the needs of tourists and airport customers to a sunny view on their drive to and from San Jose.

Another bit of hypocritical window-dressing is the 1000 Homes Campaign program (somewhat similar to Santa Cruz’s 180/180 figleaf, which seeks to provide shelter (actually to lessen the financial cost) of a small percentage of the most visible and intractable homeless folks.

Prior “destroy the encampment” programs in other cities at least would make token efforts to provide temporary shelter for the folks they were displacing (usually for a few days).   Authorities apparently feel more shameless these days in the absence of strong protests.

Perhaps CHAM (The San Jose Community Homeless Alliance Ministry) or the Occupy San Jose movement will do  some documenting of this massive attack on poor people.

San Jose plans cleanup of homeless encampment that’s grown to 100 residents

By Carol Rosen, Correspondent
Posted:   02/28/2013 08:01:47 PM PST
Updated:   02/28/2013 08:01:47 PM PST
A homeless encampment on Spring Street near the Mineta San Jose airport has been targeted for a full cleanup during the week of March 4. Cleanup of the site will include removing trash and debris, eliminating all structures and storing all property and belongings for 90 days.

The site has become an eyesore, according to city officials, who report that the camp started with a few tents and tarps but grew to more than 100 residents in about a month. In early January, Caltrans cleaned up a camp on the Guadalupe River north of Coleman Avenue. The people living there joined what at the time was a small homeless camp on Spring Street’s undeveloped parkland, adding tents and tarps, fire pits and other semi-permanent structures.

One of those structures was built on a plastic-covered mattress to keep cold and wet out of the tent, according to a local news program. As more homeless moved in, groups that reach out to the homeless brought them food, clothing and other items to make those living there as comfortable as possible.

The city is concerned not only for the welfare of those living in the encampment, but also because it is visible from passing cars, and by business people and tourists flying into Mineta San Jose airport.

The city in mid-February began notifying the camp’s residents that a cleanup would take place within 30 days.

The city’s housing department, in conjunction with Parks, Recreation and Neighborhood Services,

the police department and environmental services are involved in the cleanup. At the beginning of the week the city will issue a warning, followed 72 hours later by the cleanup, which is estimated will take one or two days. The four departments also will coordinate with outside contractors including the Conservation Corps for trash and debris removal, Santa Clara County household hazardous waste and Tucker Construction to remove the structures.Typically, once a camp has been cleaned up, the homeless drift back, sometimes within hours. This time the housing department plans to keep them out.

“There are a number of possible deterrent options that we’re evaluating at this time,” Ray Branson, homeless encampment project manager, said in an interview.

The police are committed to respond to the site on an as-needed basis, but other options include hiring a security company or using the city’s park rangers to patrol.

While numbers from the 2013 homeless census, taken in January, are not yet available, the census two years ago estimated about 18,000 live on the streets or in encampments, according to Branson. This continual challenge to the San Jose community has resulted in a long-term plan to slowly but eventually get people off the streets.

San Jose’s 1,000 Homes Campaign is working to get the 1,000 most vulnerable homeless into permanent homes. Homeless people will be interviewed as to the length of time they’ve been on the streets, their age, physical illnesses or disabilities and mental health. Those determined to be most vulnerable will be moved into homes and given a case manager to follow their progress.

The city is finding help for the program with Destination Home and local nonprofit groups. “We won’t have an answer that will end homelessness in a month or a year, but in the long run we believe our work will yield positive results,” Branson said.

An encampment in San Jose Council District 9 on the Guadalupe River is on the priority list for the program, according to Branson. While the first step will be Spring Street, other areas will follow. As the camps are cleaned up, deterrents, such as access barriers, fences and an on-site security presence, will be used to keep the homeless out.

“We’re not just picking up trash and letting [the people who were living here] come back; we’re hoping to utilize barriers to keep them out. The goal of our program is to have a long-term impact for the community,” Branson said.
At the same time, the project is working to create housing units so the homeless won’t have to camp out. Options include looking at different methods of developing units, ordinance modifications for existing units, master leasing and developing housing and policy methods to add housing units to the community, Branson added.

“The key issue is for the city to make positive progress. This is a complex problem and there’s no question this is a tragedy that hits everyone.”

Talk Back at Looney Bigotry Showcased as Angry “Activism”

Posted on by
A drumbeat of right-wing vitriol is now being lionized in the media.  Ken “Skin-Dog” Collins has his guts in the right place but his head in a tv show starring citizen cops and homeless villains.

My reaction to the Santa Cruz Weekly article below:

”

Cleaning up trash is one thing, talking trash and treating people like trash is another.




Recognizing politicians ducking issues and holding them to account is one thing, pressing a


violent senseless Drug War is another.



Calling for the resignation of powerful top-salary institutional bureaucrats like Martin Bernal is



one thing, calling for a search-and-destroy policy against homeless people destroying



homeless services and bulldozing homeless camps–is another.



Step back and consider who the real culprits are as the war, surveillance, and bankster


economy crushes us all.

Santa Cruz’s Angriest Man

Big-wave surfer Ken Collins has become a public-safety activist and controversial figure

Ken Collins, a Santa Cruz big-wave surfer turned controversial activist, talks to an officer while cleaning up at Harvey West.

Ken Collins has been talking nonstop for fifteen minutes. His voice is getting hoarse, and the cold he fought off a day earlier sounds like it’s coming back. “This is a small surf city with big city problems. It should never have gotten this bad,” he says, sitting at a picnic table about thirty yards from the Harvey West Park woods where he played hide-and-seek as a kid. These days, Collins wouldn’t let his children on the playground.
Collins has with him an empty plastic milk carton of cigarette butts and used syringes he found on the ground. When he goes to a city council meeting, he brings the same carton with him, and shakes it like a rattle in between public commenters.
Collins, better known as “Skindog” to the extreme sports world, is one of the world’s premiere big-wave surfers. He competed in the Mavericks Surf Competition last month—and from the looks of it, probably hasn’t smiled since. Collins took up this local cause after a long Tuesday walk in November when he and about 20 others found a bunch of trash on the railroad tracks and stormed into the city council chambers to give the politicians an earful.
Collins isn’t the only person angry about used needles and homeless addicts around Pogonip City Park, the San Lorenzo River and Cowell Beach, which ranked as the worst beach in California last year. But he might be the most

“Santa Cruz is a supermodel with AIDS,” he says. “It’s this beautiful place that’s completely diseased.”
Collins calls the Homeless Services Center a “crack house.” (HSC director Monica Martinez says the shelters have a no-drug policy.) He says the city manager should be fired for failing to address Santa Cruz’s public safety, and accuses city councilmembers of not doing their jobs, even though two of them began their first terms less than two months ago. Collins is a little short on patience.
Volunteers Craig Lambert and Gary Young are working nearby in the Harvey West’s baseball field to build a batting cage. Last season, the two men, both of them fathers, showed up early before little league games to clean trash off the field. They say someone has to do what Collins is doing.
“When I was a kid,” Young says, “we’d play outside until we got hungry and come home for dinner. You can’t let your kids play out until dark anymore. You have to practically drive them everywhere.”
It’s tough to deny that Collins, regardless of what anyone thinks of what he spouts, embodies the frustration that erupted after fellow surfer Dylan Greiner made a YouTube video in November about three tons of trash in the caves near Cowell Beach.
Collins says he’s not just harping on problems, but also has solutions. He suggests the city build public restrooms with surveillance cameras out front, while also hiring a ten-member group to pick up trash and a four-member team of police officers with all-terrain vehicles and horses to “harass” homeless people and chase drug dealers out of town. The city is looking at healthy reserves for the first time in years, and Santa Cruz might hire new cops, but plans like Collins’ would be no small expense for a city.
“There are good homeless people,” Collins says. “I have compassion for the homeless people that are down on their luck and need help, and they’re seeking help. But there are junkies who use the homeless population to hide themselves and camouflage themselves to do their dirty seedy work.”
There’s no evidence that Santa Cruz’s recent high-profile crimes—two shootings, a grocery-store robbery, and a rape at UCSC—were committed by homeless people. But Santa Cruz Police Captain Steve Clark says a “playful attitude” about drug use has plagued Santa Cruz for years, and leads to more crime.
At a recent city council meeting, councilmember Don Lane cautioned against dividing homeless people into different camps.
“Those are all people who are homeless, and they may have different needs, and the community may want to deal with them differently, but we do need to deal with them,” Lane said at the Feb. 12 meeting. “The fact that someone’s homeless and a drug addict does not make them a non-human being in our community. And we need to deal with those folks in a constructive way, too.”
“Skindog” is not backing down. “My approach has been very aggressive. I’m very aggressive,” he says. “I don’t pussyfoot around this. I don’t tread lightly trying to be polite, because that’s not going to work.”

RESPOND TO THIS MISPLACED AGGRESSION WITH YOUR OWN COMMENT AT

Demonizing the Sparechangers

Posted on by
NOTE FROM NORSE:   The “It’s a Racket”,  “The Homeless are Scamming”, “It’s All for Drugs” paranoia is alive and well in Santa Cruz.  I share some of it myself.  But I think this article talks both compassion and common sense about trusting your own instincts in whether to give or not to give to any particular person.   Legitimate doubts and genuine concerns are often much more loudly trumped by a merchant agenda which simply wants to remove visible poverty period.
               Thus in Santa Cruz we have the “give money to the Imagine Real Change” meters (large red parking meters that also serve as “no homeless sitting within 14 feet” markers) placed offensively up and down our main street, Pacific Avenue, as a deliberate urging for people to mistrust poor people, ignore pleas for help, and funnel money to bureaucrats.

February 25, 2013  http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/25/homeless-in-february/

An Open Letter to Two Women on the Subway

Homeless in February

by ALYSSA GOLDSTEIN

It’s February, early evening. I’m on the Q train heading home. A young man in a beat-up, threadbare coat with a large backpack gets on at Union Square. “I’m sorry to bother you,” he announces. “It’s your money, and I know you’ve worked hard to earn it. You don’t have to give it to a homeless guy. There’s a hostel I’m staying at, and it’s going to be cold tonight. If I get twelve more dollars, I can afford a room.” I give him a dollar before he can finish his spiel. He smiles. “God bless,” he says.


I’m standing next to two young women, about my age. “Bullshit,” one of them says loudly to her friend. “He’s just going to get wasted. That’s what they do. They make so much money on these trains. I know it for a fact because my boyfriend used to do it. None of them actually sleep on the street, they just stay at their friends’ houses and get wasted all day.” The other woman nods enthusiastically. I say nothing to them. I go home and write them this letter instead.


Dear women on the subway,


I know you are having your own conversation, but I don’t think it’s a stretch for me to assume that you are, at least a little bit, talking to me as well. You probably think I’m a shmuck for giving a dollar to the homeless guy, and you may assume that I will be embarrassed to overhear your expertise on the true motivations of subway panhandlers. You’re not the first people I’ve heard talk this way, and I’m sure you won’t be the last. It’s true that most people don’t go into as much detail as you do; they are content to say “they’ll spend it on drugs” and leave it at that. But for you and all those others, the possibility that you will bequeath your spare change and little bits of pocket lint unto an undeserving person is worse to you than the monstrous reality that there are 50,000 people in this city who actually don’t have homes to live in. And for that, you are assholes.


This may seem harsh, but it needs to be said. While it is true that I think you both are assholes, I don’t mean to imply that you are the only assholes in the world or particularly worse than all the others. Nor am I including in my definition of “asshole” those who fail to give money to every homeless person they see–only those who are smug jerks about it. I also don’t consider myself to be better than you. I have been an asshole countless times in the past, and I know that I will realize in the future that I am currently an asshole in ways that I have yet to comprehend. It is easy to give a dollar to a homeless guy and feel like a generous person who has done your part. I would like to avoid this. Charity in a capitalist society can block the drive for truly radical change by providing an easy, feel-good outlet that avoids striking at the roots of the problems it seeks to ameliorate. Giving a dollar to a homeless guy is not a good deed that deserves congratulation. It is the barest minimum of human decency to give a small token of help to someone who asks.


We are taught that the poor must be scrupulously well-behaved to deserve any sort of assistance. We hold them to higher standards than we hold ourselves. The rich, meanwhile, do not come under such cruel scrutiny, even when they spend their money on drugs (or fancy cars, or extravagant vacations). It’s possible that both of you spend hours quaking with rage over corporate tax cuts and bank bailouts, but I doubt it. We live in a society that encourages this kind of thinking. There’s even an announcement that you hear on the subway all the time, “Soliciting money in the subway is illegal. We ask you not to give. Please help us to maintain an orderly subway,” as if the abstract idea of “order” is more important than the fact that there are actual human beings who don’t have enough food and have to sleep outside in the cold.


Let’s assume for the sake of argument that everything you said about this homeless man is true. He sleeps not on the streets but in his friends’ houses, and he will spend my dollar on beer. You know what? Big deal. If panhandling on the subway were my chosen career, I would want a drink too. It’s possible that both of you are frugal teetotalers, but it’s a lot more likely that both of you, at least occasionally, enjoy hanging out with friends and getting wasted. I wouldn’t be surprised if both of you, like me, think that getting together with your buddies, watching Sex and the City 2, and chugging cheap champagne every time one of the characters makes a bad Orientalist pun is the very definition of a good time (ok, well…you get the point). If both of you had the misfortune to find yourself jobless, homeless, and without the support of family, you would still have the right to enjoy getting wasted with your friends. If your life sucked enough that panhandling on the subway seemed like the best option, you would deserve every bit of fun and joy you could come by.


No matter their background or life story, a person who carves out a living from accumulated tiny acts of kindness from strangers is a thousand times more commendable than a person who gains their wealth from the exploitation of others. A person who sits around and drinks beer with their friends all day hurts no one, yet it is the CEOs, the bankers, the celebrities, the present-day equivalents of the “Captains of Industry”– those who hoard so much wealth that they impoverish others–who earn our society’s admiration. What else is expected from a capitalist system that is collapsing under the weight of its own nightmarish cruelty? Until we can work together to radically transform it, do us all a favor. Don’t be an asshole.


Alyssa Goldstein is a contributing writer at Jewish Currents magazine and an intern at Verso Books. She graduated from Bard College with a degree in Sociology. She can be reached at alyssa.d.goldstein@gmail.com.

Fresno: Burning Out a Homeless Encampment?

Posted on by
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?

Posted on by

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/ . 

City Council Inflicts Take Back Santa Cruz Agenda on the Town

Posted on by

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.

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

Posted on by
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

Fresno Homeless Evictions Loom…on Valentine’s Day

Posted on by
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/02/11/18731822.php

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

Destruction of Local Homeless Survival Camps in Felton: Another Disgraceful Episode

Posted on by

Norse’s Notes:  Instead of ordering that the campsites be cleaned up, the real motivation of the vigilantes and sheriffs seems to be to drive away any and all homeless survival campers.
Too bad no one documented the three truckloads of “trash” with video.  When that was done in Fresno, the City lost a two million dollar lawsuit, and actually had to start at least giving token acknowledgment of state law regarding seized property.
More to the point would be establishing emergency campgrounds for folks who need to be outdoors (95% of whom have no legal shelter).  Even more addressing the underlying conditions that create this crisis.
If folks were serious about clean-up’s, the county would provide portapotties, dumpsters, trashbags, and legalization of clean camps.  If they were serious about ending unsafe needle disposal, they’d take local initiatives to end the insane Drug Prohibition war and at the very least expand (rather than contract) harm-reduction programs like needle exchange.
While it’s always encouraging to see community members getting together to clean-up areas that the city and county decline to address, that must not involve scapegoating a whole class of people.  T.J. Magallanes, who created The Clean Team website, has said and written this repeatedly.  But “Take Back Santa Cruz” type hardliners prefer to use the homeless as a political football here and blame them as a means of attacking a power structure (that deserves to be attacked, incidentally).
Screaming about “tolerance for drugs” and “illegal” homeless camps (when virtually all survival camping is illegal) is just blind bigotry and the kind of desperation that ensues when folks fail to identify the real enemies who run the show.
The KSBW news brief on this suggests the sweeps are “controversial” only in that they “aren’t effective” and folks seem to keep coming back.  Sort of reminds me of the homeless = vermin approach, used to describe insurgents, terrorists, 1930’s Jews, etc.  Dehumanizing people is a nice way of covering your fascist ass.
It’s also a pity that the “service providers” in the area didn’t speak out against this destruction of homeless survival camps.  Maintaining the illusion that there are shelter alternatives when there are not.  The sheriffs don’t even pretend there are.  And won’t be even if the pretty-pretty 180-180 program gets fully funded.
There are thousands of homeless in the county.  Is the plan to drive them all out into the rain and make them internal refugees?
I wrote more in the comments that follow this article, which is primarily window-dressing for the sheriffs and demonization of the campers, though as of yet those comments haven’t appeared (other than one brief sentence).  See http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/rss/ci_22545061?source=rss for more comments and to make your own.  Or comment on this article on the HUFF blog at http://huffsantacruz.org/wordpress/ .

Three truckloads of trash hauled from Felton campsites

By Stephen Baxter

Santa Cruz Sentinel

Posted:   02/07/2013 07:05:45 PM PST

 

FELTON — Three deputies and four Santa Cruz County Jail inmates hauled out three truckloads of trash from illegal campsites near Zayante Creek and the San Lorenzo River on Thursday.

Responding to some residents’ complaints and a pile of garbage and human waste at the Graham Hill Road Bridge over the San Lorenzo River, deputies posted notices to vacate the campsites in January.
Since then, much of the debris was removed or swept down the river with last month’s rain, sheriff’s Sgt. John Habermehl said.
Thursday, they hauled out dirty clothing, alcohol bottles, bicycle parts and a broken kayak, among other items.
“It’s not so much that somebody decided to pitch a tent,” Habermehl said. “We try to address the criminal behavior — the illegal dumping, the drug and alcohol issues, and the waste in our rivers.”
He added that the cleanups are a matter of maintenance rather than a long-term solution: “If we don’t do something about what’s out there, it’s just going to get worse.”
The action follows similar Sheriff’s Office sweeps near Highway 9 in September and by Santa Cruz police during the fall and summer of 2012.
No one was cited and no syringes or other drug paraphernalia were found on Thursday, deputies said. The inmates who participated volunteered from the Rountree Detention Center, a medium-security facility.

At a second cleanup site under the Conference Drive Bridge at Zayante Creek, deputies were

surprised to find a relatively clean area with several trash bags left by campers.

Light rain fell on the crew as it loaded food wrappers and dirty clothing into a Santa Cruz County flatbed pickup and a truck loaned by the Mount Hermon Christian Conference Center.

Don Cox, a homeless 53-year-old Air Force veteran, watched the crew work in the rain. He said he camped in the Felton area for years and noticed new people who came from Santa Cruz because of recent cleanups in that city.

“A bunch of them who’ve come down here are drug addicts and thieves,” Cox said.

Having been a mechanic and tow truck driver, he said he is trying to attend job-training classes at Cabrillo College and find a place to live with his veteran benefits.

“It’s not like I’ve chosen to be out here and be a bum,” he said. “I’m too old to be on the streets.”

“They’re really kind of picking on us,” he said of Thursday’s cleanup.

Another woman, Amanda Livingston, 22, saw the deputies and inmates work under the Graham Hill Bridge.

She said one of the men went to Santa Cruz to collect a check Thursday morning, so she scrambled to round up his gear and a bag of prescription drugs before it was removed.

“I’ve been telling him that they’re going to clear the camp,” she said. “He didn’t believe me.”

Originally from Michigan, Livingston said the bridge offered her some shelter during the rain storms earlier in the winter. She and others cooked, drank and tried to stay dry, she said.

Above the bridge, some employees at nearby businesses said they appreciated the cleanup.

“I think it’s definitely necessary but it’s pretty lame that it has to be done in the first place,” said 21-year-old Adam Pomianowski, who works at Budget Truck Rental at 6440 Graham Hill Road. “This is a river running through our little town. I’m glad someone’s paying attention.”

MORE COMMENTS at:  http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/rss/ci_22545061?source=rss