Tag Archives: Anti-Homeless Hysteria

Banning Art & Music will not make downtown “safer”

Posted on by

by Becky Johnson

Sept 22, 2013
Santa Cruz, Ca. — Today we gather in protest. Today we gather
to use first amendment rights that will be seriously curtailed
in a little over a month under the pretense of “public safety.”
Next month, we will likely lose vast areas of public space
greatly limiting our right to speak, to set up a political table,
to circulate several petitions at once, our right to seek redress of government
grievances, and our right to peaceably assemble in the center of
our community.
 For years, the City of Santa Cruz, at the urging of the Downtown Association
and carried out by the Santa Cruz Police Department, has continuously violated
the rights of artists & musicians to display & sell their works of art in a public
space. A pushback was made right here on Pacific Ave. by recording artist
& street performer, Mike True, who challenged his citation for displaying
his CD’s for sale on Pacific Ave. in court. He won.
Later, his case & others recently won a further victory which unambiguously
asserts that artists, writers, and musicians can display their works of art in public
spaces without the need for any kind of permit.
As you know, all rights are subject to time, place, and manner restrictions if
the State, in this case the government of the City of Santa Cruz, can prove their
is an overwhelming public health or safety hazard that justifies it.
Make no mistake, the public safety “emergency” that is so horrible that
Councilmembers Cynthia Mathews and David Terrazas have ordered our
government to limit the rights & freedoms of the citizens of Santa Cruz
to exercise our first amendment rights, is to continue to prevent
artists & musicians & political tablers to exercise our LEGAL, PROTECTED
first amendment rights.
The “emergency” is that artists & musicians now have the LEGAL, PROTECTED
right to display their art or music. The HORROR!!!!
People, this is about greed and hate, nothing else. A phony “trip-fall” hazard
was presented to urge the banning of blankets, tarps & ARTISTs.
The ordinance which bans PEOPLE who are presenting art, performing music,
or political tables protects trash cans, fences, and statues!
Please stop this backlash against the color and character of our community.
Don’t make Santa Cruz the City known for “Sing a song, go to Jail”
“Show a painting, go to jail” or “smoke a cigarette go to jail.”
Protect your first amendment….by using it.
Thank-you.
Our right to exhibit art or literature, with price tags
posted without the need to ask “permission” from police or other
government authorities.

Fiddling With the Sidewalk Snatchers in Berkeley

Posted on by
NOTES BY NORSE:   Carol Denney has been puncturing pompous panjandrums up in Berkeley monthly for nearly two decades with her Pepper Spray Times (which comes out monthly in the Berkeley Daily Planet on-line) as well as her work with the satirical Jolly Roger Comedy Troupe, which I occasionally play on the stream of Free Radio Santa Cruz ( (http://tunein.com/radio/FRSC-s47254/ )  down here.
Unlike Santa Cruz, Berkeley activists mounted a successful campaign against a Sitting Ban last year.  The last significant successes Santa Cruz has had were to overturn the original 1994 total sidewalk Sitting Ban, passed in the spring of that year by the Rotkin-Kennedy Council.  It resulted in a nearly-unprecedented local court victory when Judges Salazar and Barton both ruled the ordinance unconstitutional.    This was prompted by scores of arrests when hundreds of people flooded downtown to protest by sitting down at eating food with Food Not Bombs at Cathcart and Pacific.
Undeterred, the Council quickly passed a more limited Sitting Ban (6′ from buildings).
Essentially rubbberstamping and ratifying illegal police behavior that selectively enforced and arbitrarily expanded the Ban, the Council gradually expanding it in 2002 (14′ from buildings) to include all manner of other objects that created “No Sitting” zones  (buildings, street corners, intersections, kiosks, drinking fountains, public telephones, public benches, public trash compactors, information/directory signs, sculptures or artwork, ATM-style machines, outside street cafes, vending carts, and fences).
This reduced real Sitting space to less than 5% of the Pacific Avenue sidewalk and constitutes a total ban in other business districts where there are buildings adjoining with a sidewalk less than 10′ wide.
In a successful attempt to split street performers from the homeless people and peaceful panhandlers that were true targets of these laws, the Council agreed to limit “forbidden zones” to 10′ distances from all those objects.
At 3 PM on Tuesday September 24th, City Council (809 Center St.) will broaden its attack to include street performers, street artists, political tablers, & street vendors by expanding the forbidden zones to 14′ and  requiring an additional 12′ distance between all of these.   In addition all “non-free standing” display devices such as blankets and tarps will be banned as an aesthetically unappealing “trip and fall” hazard  (and far too easy to use)
This second reading of the Ordinance if passed will make it law on October 24th.
Perhaps Carol Denney will come down to Santa Cruz to do a little fiddling here.
More info at:  https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/09/12/18743122.php?show_comments=1#18743584 .

Sitting on a Chair Playing the Fiddle: A Crime? The PRC Hearing

Sitting on a Chair Playing the Fiddle

Carol Denney
Sitting on a Chair Playing the Fiddle

Berkeley’s last election had a contest between anti-sitting law proponents and those who opposed making simply sitting down a crime. “Measure S”, the anti-sitting law, was defeated at the ballot. It was considered a civil rights victory. But who really won?

It was the most expensive campaign in Berkeley history. It was funded by well-heeled real estate interests and supported by merchant associations, most of the Berkeley City Council, and the Chamber of Commerce. Criminalizing the simple act of sitting down was described by otherwise intelligent people as a humane response to human need, since living on the streets was so hard.

So can you sit on the street and watch a cloud go by? The results are still not in.

I worked on the campaign opposing the anti-sitting law. A large part of our work was simply educational. Misleading pro-anti-sitting law materials in expensive, shiny colors were everywhere. But once people found out the extremity of the anti-sitting law, they generally opposed it. Most people realized that the law would most probably be used against some people but not others; it’s hard to ignore the Cheeseboard pizza eaters sitting undisturbed by the “Don’t Sit on the Median” signs on Shattuck in North Berkeley.

Two days before the election on Sunday, November 4, 2012, I put poetry opposed to the anti-sitting law from poets all over the Bay Area up on the fence near the corner of Haste and Telegraph and sat down with some musicians to play. We were trying to illustrate that simply sitting on a chair playing music, perfectly legal behavior under the law, would become a crime in two days if Measure S were to pass.
I got a ticket.

Artists were inside the fence perimeter touching up the mural facing Haste Street. People trickled by, enjoying a sunny day. We sat close to the fence, so there was seven feet of unobstructed nine-foot wide sidewalk in front of each of us, more than enough space for two wheelchairs to pass without issue. Our instrument cases were beside or under us, out of the way.

A few people stopped and asked about the “This Is Legal” sign and its significance, but our demonstration was pretty unobtrusive until Berkeley Police Officer Heather Cole rode up on her bicycle. She accused us of obstructing an empty sidewalk, and since I had carefully researched both the ordinance and the best place on Telegraph to make sure to cause no hardship for merchants or passersby, I found it pretty funny.

This wasn’t civil disobedience. This was carefully planned obedience to illustrate the absurd overreach of the proposed anti-sitting proposal. I had checked the law, checked with attorneys, planned every aspect of the demonstration so that no one and no one’s instruments would be jeopardized.
Officer Cole continued to threaten us, arguing that we were in the way despite there being no complaining party. The muralists were amazed. News that someone was getting a ticket for sitting on a chair playing the fiddle traveled fast up and down Telegraph. A reporter snapped pictures for the local paper. A Channel Two news crew began filming.

Officer Cole kept insisting that other people had no right to be on the sidewalk, either. She moved a nearby plein air painter to the curbside and hassled a guy about twenty feet away collecting signatures.

I had heard about this police harassment from friends on the street and people who worked at the Homeless Action Center and the East Bay Community Law Center, but it never occurred to me that an obviously political demonstration would be targeted, especially with Channel Two News cameras running.

We kept playing. Officer Heather Cole kept shouting “I’ll take you to jail if you don’t stop playing,” while we played Soldier’s Joy, a moment which made the news that night. But it was turning into a strange scene. People were shouting at the cops. Two attorneys showed up who tried to explain to Officer Cole that she was misapplying the law. Officer Cole’s supervisor showed up and argued with them. I finally said, fine; give me a ticket, hoping to get back to playing.

But our effort to illustrate legal behavior was in ruins. I still don’t know what Officer Cole’s problem was that day. Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O’Malley dropped the case against me after a couple of court dates.

I filed a complaint with the Police Review Commission which was not sustained. Can you sit on the sidewalk? The law is pretty clear about it, but no one else seems to be. A couple of the police review commissioners asked questions which implied that someone could be accused of obstructing the space one occupies with one’s body, a patent absurdity which, if true, would put us all in jail.

You can’t accidentally block a sidewalk under Berkeley’s law as written and clarified by former Police Chief Meisner’s memos. People can’t be accused of blocking a sidewalk for just being there, or for having a backpack or other personal items beside them, the law makes clear. But the police either don’t realize that or realize it and don’t care what the law actually says or what it was intended to do. The Police Review Commission, the Police Department, the City Council all look the other way as people continue to get these absurd tickets which at some point, if unaddressed, turn into jail time and court costs for which the public picks up the bill.

My ticket cost me at least three days of work, about ten cumulative hours of police officers’ time both in and out of court, court time for several pre-trial dates, and baffled a boatload of reporters, students, and Channel Two News watchers who are probably as confused as I am about why Berkeley would conduct the most expensive campaign in its history against sitting down if it is already against the law.

Is sitting down against the law? Maybe it depends on who you are. The Cheeseboard pizza eaters obviously get a pass. Maybe it depends on whether or not you are demonstrating against something like Measure S, a kind of content-based provision. Or maybe Officer Heather Cole hates traditional old-time music, a kind of fiddle-based objection.

It’s an Alice in Wonderland world up there on Telegraph. The hookah smoking caterpillar can’t figure it out, and neither can I. The muralists painted me into the mural after that day, for which, I suppose, I should thank Officer Heather Cole.

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

Posted on by

CUT AND PASTE VERSION OF THE LATEST FLYER:

SAVE VIBRANT STREET LIFE DOWNTOWN !

PROTEST, CHOW-DOWN, AND SPEAKOUT !

SUNDAY SEPTEMBER 22nd 1:30 PM

on Pacific Avenue in front of Forever Twenty-One

SING BACK AT CITY COUNCIL

TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 24th 3 PM

Council Chambers 809 Center St.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Attachment(s) from Robert Norse

1 of 1 File(s)

Playing Pattycake with Crime Stats in Santa Cruz

Posted on by

NOTE BY NORSE:  My comments are below.

Ramping up hysteria against “the crime wave” seems to be SC Patch’s Brad Kava’s favorite dish.

I see this kind of hysteria being turned to target homeless people–who are far more often victims of crime.

Even worse  is te offiicially-sanctioned and funded criminal practices such as destruction of homeless property, abusive ticketing for life-sustaining activity, and discriminatory treatment in coffee shops (Coffee Roasting Company, Starbucks, Verve), grocieries (New Leaf Market), other businesses (CruzioWorks), and public facilities (parks, the library, City Hall) not to mention exclusion from the Boardwalk for appearance.

Santa Cruz Crime is Worst in the County

Check the comparison to other county cities here.

Posted by Brad Kava (Editor) , September 18, 2013 at 06:53 PM
patch

Property crimes in Santa Cruz took a big bite in 2012, according to recent FBI statistics for the year. There were 59 cases of theft or burglary for every 1,000 people in the city of 61,000 people.

There were three murders in the city; 433 violent crimes; 34 rapes; 83 robberies; 313 assaults; and 3,585 property crimes.

For comparison in 2012 Watsonville had a violent crime rate of 4.8 known offenses per 1,000 residents. Santa Cruz reported a higher violent crime rate: 7.1. Capitola’s violent crime rate was similar to Watsonville’s, at 4.6 known offenses per 1,000 people.

The FBI releases annual reports here every year. See current Santa Cruz crimes here.

For Brad Kava’s “Crime Chart” go to http://santacruz.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/santa-cruz-crime-is-up-watsonville-is-lower?ncid=newsltuspatc00000010 .

Robert Norse September 19, 2013 at 11:38 AM
As with the hysteria roused by Take Back Santa Cruz and The Clean Team in their destructive and agenda-heavy Needle-Shaking before City Council, this comparison ignores a more crucial analysis as to whether crime has increased from a decade or two ago.

When I spoke with Chief Kevin Vogel at City Council a few months back, he denied this. Now, there may be a certain cosmetic or defensive element involved there, but I’ve not seen stats indicating a rise in crime in Santa Cruz.

Which gos to whether this is all a “crisis”–the claim of the Comstock-Robinson majority on City Council. This mythology justifies the escalating scapegoating attacks on homeless people, the paranoid police state mentality and the absurd and misnamed “Public Safety Task Force”.

The Task Force seems designed to lay the groundwork for the favorite NIMBY/Downtown Association mythology–that Santa Cruz is too welcoming to hippies, travelers, and homeless people. The crime scare mythology (pushed regularly by the Sentinel) seems designed to create the rationale for further (futile and abusive) crackdowns on homeless people.

I’m sorry Brad and SC Patch have bought on to this calculated b.s., which is the kind of right-wing nonsense that feeds a crypto-fascist populist agenda.

It is, of course, the criminal behavior of the rich and the powerful (we can see this most clearly at the national level) that needs to be fought not economic fall-out like survival sleeping bt poor Santa Cruzans driven to the edge.

Brad Kava (Editor) September 19, 2013 at 08:55 PM
Robert…Don’t the numbers speak for themselves? And if you break them down further, you’ll find this isn’t happening to everyone in town, but a lot of the same people are causing the problems, many of them transients. Simple numbers show this. No opinion or spin needed.
Brad Kava (Editor) September 19, 2013 at 08:55 PM
Plus, for all the heat Watsonville gets, it’s numbers are considerably lower than those in Santa Cruz.
Brad Kava (Editor) September 19, 2013 at 08:56 PM
As for paragraphs..requested and waiting. Need to think in short bites.
Andi Sanchez September 19, 2013 at 10:36 PM
It’s beyond “just numbers” and “city council propaganda”. It’s CLEAR that transient crime has increased. We can all still have immense sympathy for the homeless while being incredibly angry at crime. Robert Norse, whose work I admire except when his blinders are on, is misguided here. And “right wing” just because we are concerned about the significant and measurable increase in violent and personal property crime? Robert, that is just so lame. You lost me.
Perhaps Brad can provide us with property crime stats. And not just comparisons with other cities, but with Santa Cruz at points in the past.

It’s true and infuriating that bike theft has increased. And as for “homeless crime”, it, of course, depends on your definition.

If you’re a member of the ludicrous “Task Force on Public Safety”, it looks like sleeping, camping, drug possession, trespass, violating the Downtown Ordinances, etc. are the kind of “crime” you’re interested in using as a pretext to drive homeless people away.

If you have sympathy for the homeless, then look at real crime not defining the homeless as criminals because of their real needs. I notice the property stats are missing even in comparison with other cities.

Also, none of those cities have two college campuses, a massive Beach Boardwalk, and a status as County Seat to contend with. Minor details, of course. We don’t want to interrupt the “War on Crime” narrative, now do we?

My sarcasm is directed at Brad Kava not at Andi Sanchez, incidentally. Kava’s been playing police PR sock puppet for some time. Sorry, Brad, but it’s true.

Further Notes on the City’s Attack on Non-Commercial Street Life

Posted on by
Members of the Public and City Council members:

City Council is scheduled to vote on the extended “forbidden zones” laws on September 24th.

Before they do, the public should know (and they are advised of) the follow:

CURRENT SMOKING BAN LAW IGNORED
An inconvenient fact not mentioned and an area not examined by staffers Hende and Collins in their no-input-from-smokers presentation on September 10th  was the current law:

Current law MC 6.04.060 (u)   provides:

    Areas which share their air space, including, but not limited to, air conditioning, heating, or other ventilation systems, entries, doorways, open windows, hallways, and stairways, with other enclosed areas in which smoking is prohibited. It shall be the responsibility of any person smoking outside where smoking is otherwise permitted to ensure that smoke does not enter any buildings where smoking is prohibited through open windows or doors; however, in no event shall smoking be allowed within twenty-five feet of any such door or open window or within twenty-five feet of any other air-intake facility through which air may flow into a building from outside that building. Notwithstanding the prohibition set forth in this subsection an employer may establish an outdoor employee smoking area within twenty-five feet of an employer’s service entrance door; provided, that said door is closed while employee smoking is taking place.
In other words, there’s a 25′ setback for smokers already on side streets and hence no need to create a total ban and thus a clustering on streets still further away.    Mentioning this inconvenient existing law might strip some of the wind from the sales of law supporters (though no clear evidence of complaints was presented by the SCPD or any other staffers around this issue and certainly no input from the affected group).
Additionally, as the tenor of the town turns more hateful under pressure from Take Back Santa Cruz and other hobophobic groups, recent accounts and common experience documents that  homeless people smoke at a significantly higher rate than the housed population (see http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/18/news/la-sn-homeless-smoking-20130718 ).   Hence this ordinance unduly impacts the poorest portion of our downtown community and seems likely to be used as another tool to move them out of the downtown, out of sight and out of town.
STREET PERFORMER IMPACT SEVERE; EVEN MORE SO FOR VENDORS
 this huge restriction of space (coming on the heels of an already sterilized sidewalk which irrationally excludes people from sitting, peacefully sparechanging, performing for donation, vending, and/or politically tabling from more than 75% of the sidewalk on Pacific Avenue (and 100% of virtually all sidewalks in other business districts—-which are less than 10′ wide.
Additionally, the notion that one street performer–much less two–can comfortably perform within a 4’X4′ are is ridiculous.  The notion that a vendor can do so and also have a chair and her or his personal possessions in that area is even more far-fetched.
And the notion that this all should be put on boxes or tables increases the burden on performers unnecessarily and to a ludicrous extreme in the interest of a hostile aesthetic–again imposed without any input from performers.
STREET PERFORMERS SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED NOT EXCLUDED
Collins and Hende (and City Attorney Barisone) misleadingly implied that street performers aren’t impacted by the display device provisions since they can “play anywhere on the avenue” (and that artists can “hold up their art with their hands” and so also not be impacted.
While it is true that a street performer without an open guitar case or cup or cap on the sidewalk is not limited as to where he or she may play, that’s only if they don’t have one of those items out to collect donations.  This, of course, ignores how street performers operate.  Cups, caps, guitar cases, etc. are indeed  “display devices”–as defined by the peculiar wording of the ordinance and have been treated as such by police for the last 19 years.
The specific definition of  MC 5.43.-000(b) defines display devices as “a table, rack, chair, box, cloth, stand, or any container, structure or other object used or capable of being used for holding or displaying tangible things, together with any associated seating facilities…”
In addition the few spaces left in the area street performers, political tablers, and vendors usually set up (between New Leaf Market and Locust St.)  are further constricted by the Move-Along law (another unique Santa Cruz DTA creation) which forbids using any particular space for more than 1 hour in any 24 hour period.    This means that even if a space is suddenly emptied of someone sitting, sparechanging, standing, performing, vending, or tabling, the person who used it before won’t be able to come back for a day.    Given the severe expansion of the “forbidden zones” (now covering 95% of the sidewalk), as well as the new 12′ distance required between display devices, this seems both likely and indeed designed to drive away those seeking to use the public space for any of those activities.

Santa Cruz Suffocation of Street Culture

Posted on by

NOTE by NORSE:  Apologies to those who received the first version of this addition to my indybay article at https://www.indybay.org/comment.php?top_id=18742960 .  This is a corrected and amended version of that e-mail.
Most of the following I e-mailed to City Council.

The question, of course, is whether the community is prepared to tolerate this crackdown on street performers, vendors, smokers, and homeless people downtown and what effective resistance strategies can be mounted.  Next Sunday’s 1:30 PM protest in front of Forever Twenty-One may provide some ideas.

There’ll be an additional gathering at City Council on the afternoon of the 24th when Council votes pn the 2nd reading.

I played some of the staff’s defense of the proposed amendments on my show–archived at http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb120915.mp3 (about 2 hours into the audio file).

In response to what I heard, I wrote the following–some of which has already been detailed in the main article:

CURRENT SMOKING BAN LAW IGNORED
An inconvenient fact not mentioned and an area not examined by staffers Hende and Collins in their no-input-from-smokers presentation on September 10th  was the current law:

Current law MC 6.04.060 (u)   provides:

Areas which share their air space, including, but not limited to, air conditioning, heating, or other ventilation systems, entries, doorways, open windows, hallways, and stairways, with other enclosed areas in which smoking is prohibited. It shall be the responsibility of any person smoking outside where smoking is otherwise permitted to ensure that smoke does not enter any buildings where smoking is prohibited through open windows or doors; however, in no event shall smoking be allowed within twenty-five feet of any such door or open window or within twenty-five feet of any other air-intake facility through which air may flow into a building from outside that building. Notwithstanding the prohibition set forth in this subsection an employer may establish an outdoor employee smoking area within twenty-five feet of an employer’s service entrance door; provided, that said door is closed while employee smoking is taking place.

In other words, there’s a 25′ setback for smokers already on side streets and hence no need to create a total ban and thus a clustering on streets still further away.    Mentioning this inconvenient existing law might strip some of the wind from the sales of law supporters (though no clear evidence of complaints was presented by the SCPD or any other staffers around this issue and certainly no input from the affected group).

Additionally, as the tenor of the town turns more hateful under pressure from Take Back Santa Cruz and other hobophobic groups, recent accounts and common experience documents that  homeless people smoke at a significantly higher rate than the housed population (see http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/18/news/la-sn-homeless-smoking-20130718 ).   Hence this ordinance unduly impacts the poorest portion of our downtown community and seems likely to be used as another tool to move them out of the downtown, out of sight and out of town.

STREET PERFORMER IMPACT SEVERE; EVEN MORE SO FOR VENDORS
This huge restriction of space comes on the heels of an already sterilized sidewalk which irrationally excludes people from sitting, peacefully sparechanging, performing for donation, vending, and/or politically tabling from more than 75% of the sidewalk on Pacific Avenue.  It also (currently) impacts 100% of virtually all sidewalks in other business districts—-which are less than 10′ wide.

Additionally, the notion that one street performer–much less two–can comfortably perform within a 4’X4′ area is ridiculous.  The notion that a vendor can do so and also have a chair and her or his personal possessions in that area is even more far-fetched.

And the notion that this all should be put on boxes or tables increases the burden on performers & vendors unnecessarily and to a ludicrous extreme in the interest of a hostile aesthetic–again imposed without any input from performers.

STREET PERFORMERS SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED NOT EXCLUDED IN THE ATTACK
Staff members Collins and Hende (and City Attorney Barisone) misleadingly implied that street performers aren’t impacted by the display device provisions since they can “play anywhere on the avenue”.  There was also the absurd suggestion that artists can “hold up their art with their hands” and so also not be impacted.

While it is true that a street performer without an open guitar case or cup or cap on the sidewalk is not limited as to where he or she may play, that’s only if they don’t have one of those items out to collect donations.  This, of course, ignores how street performers operate sine the point of the performance usually is to collect donations.  What collects donation?    Cups, caps, guitar cases, etc.   These are indeed  “display devices”–as defined by the peculiar wording of the ordinance and have been treated as such by police for the last 19 years.

The specific definition of  MC 5.43.-000(b) defines display devices as “a table, rack, chair, box, cloth, stand, or any container, structure or other object used or capable of being used for holding or displaying tangible things, together with any associated seating facilities…”   Could anything be any clearer (or more sweepingly inclusive)?

In addition the few spaces left in the area street performers, political tablers, and vendors usually set up (between New Leaf Market and Locust St.)  are further constricted by the Move-Along law (another unique Santa Cruz DTA creation) which forbids using any particular space for more than 1 hour in any 24 hour period.    This means that even if a space is suddenly emptied of someone sitting, sparechanging, standing, performing, vending, or tabling, anyone who’s “set up a display device” during that day won’t be able to come back and use that space for a day.

Given the severe expansion of the “forbidden zones” (now covering 95% of the sidewalk), as well as the new 12′ distance required between display devices, the new laws seem both likely and indeed designed to drive away the “unsightly” cluttered scene that so offended Mathews, Comstock, & Robinson–who are essentially imposing their own aesthetic dictates upon the entire community.

SIGN-MAKING TOMORROW (Monday September 16th)  AT THE RED CHURCH 5-6 pm at Lincoln and Cedar Streets.  The Occupy Santa Cruz Homeless Justice Working Group and HUFF will be making signs for the September 22nd and 24th protests tomorrow at the Red Church.  Come on down and mingle with those who will be affected.

There is also some discussion of this issue on Steve Pleich’s website at Citizens for a Better Santa Cruz facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/groups/463105420413280/ ).  Pleich posted that I was permanently banned from the page for posting a link to the revealing and abusive Ken Collins video (https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/05/15/18736901.php ) illustrating, I think, the mentality behind these anti-homeless laws and many of those who support them  (Collins was weighing in heavily on the issue and I felt the video of his threatening and harassing a homeless camper was pertinent; Pleich’s strong censorship response, I think, shows too much concern with offend Take Back Santa Cruz sensibilities.

Clearing Away Disposable People on Pacific Avenue

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some Thoughtful Comments

Posted on by

NOTE BY NORSE:  Doug Loisel is the former Director of the Homeless Services Center, who liberalized some rules there, provided the first 24-hour bathroom access in Santa Cruz, and was unusually accessible–in stark contrast to the current director–the poverty pimpstress Monica Martinez.
Martinez has colluded with police and neighborhood bigots in creating a “no impact” (i.e. no homeless) zone around what I now call the Homeless (Lack of) Shelter Center (since it doesn’t provide shelter to any significant number of homeless people).
She has failed to defend homeless people’s rights, dignity, and safety in the face of intensifying hostility from police and vigilante groups.  She is apparently accepting an ID program that will require police checks and plans to use over $100,000 to set up a “security gate”–or so the local Sentinel newspaper claims.
Loisel will be calling in to my Free Radio show Thursday night 9-12 between 6 and 8 PM.  The show streams  at http://tunein.com/radio/FRSC-s47254/   and archives at http://radiolibre.org/brb/  .   Call in at 831-427-3772 with comments and questions.

             Monterey County, Take A Page from Santa Cruz County

 by D.B. Loisel 9-11-13

In life there’s always a back-story, the private story that lies beneath the public story. With homelessness the back-story seems to be either forgotten or ignored in the service of finding a reason for our economic woes, public safety concerns and increased crime. The portrayal of the homeless as the primary cause for economic decline has become popular in cities like Santa Cruz and that is the sad public story. Santa Cruz has identified the homeless as it’s scapegoats, even though it’s irresponsible and inaccurate to blame the homeless for community problems. There is no research that indicates a link between the homeless and increases in crime, decreased public safety or economic hardship. This perception is a local government and media fabrication.

 

There is a mythological hope these problems would decline, in a cause and effect fashion, with the decline in the homeless population and so the crusade to rid the community of homeless persons is collectively justified. The sad crusade led by the media, local government, small businesses and law enforcement marches forward in a grossly expensive, ill conceived and poorly organized plan to decrease homelessness and thus fix Santa Cruz’s tribulations.

 

Monterey County officials are beginning to consider how to best manage the homeless in their community. The City of Santa Cruz, with it’s chronic and significantly higher homeless population appears to be at a place of unmanageable frustration with their ability to manage the homeless. The City of Santa Cruz, apparently believing they are replete of options, has initiated taking careless punitive measures against the homeless.

As the economy continues to meander along, Santa Cruz businesses pressure the City council to purge areas of commerce, such as retail stores, small businesses, restaurants and coffee shops, of the “scourge” of the homeless. It seems the homeless are considered a nuisance and drive patrons away. Despite the fact there isn’t any evidence that homeless folks negatively impact local economies, the pervasive belief persists that businesses are adversely affected.

 

Recently it seems this belief was reflected in the Salinas restaurant owner who nearly beat to death a homeless man who was spending too much time near his restaurant and received a nine year prison sentence for this act of violence (I purposely avoided using the pejorative term “loitering” – when a homeless person stays awhile in a park it’s called “loitering,” when a family stays awhile in a park it’s called a “picnic”). Unsure of whether to take a compassionate approach or a law-enforcement no sit no sleep protect the asphalt and medians approach, Monterey County is currently contemplating what direction to take.

 

In truth, we can’t even pinpoint why people become homeless or why they stay homeless, let alone estimate their impact on local economies. The tendency is to move forward with spit and vinegar to address and eliminate the homeless scourge.

 

This gung ho approach often leads to disaster and occurs when public policy is dictated by passion and emotion rather than sound research. When this occurs the potential for misguided decisions increases exponentially, often resulting in unanticipated human suffering. In the absence of sound research, extremely careful consideration needs to be given when leaders chart the direction of community public policy.

 

A study conducted by UC Berkeley regarding the homeless suggests, “no one believes there is a simple, single cause. Explanations fall into two main categories. One puts primary emphasis on the debilitating personal attributes of many of the homeless—alcoholism, crack cocaine addiction, and personality disorders—and the changes in social policy toward these illnesses.

 

Rapidly rising rents, rapidly declining numbers of low-income rental units, and deceleration in federal housing programs are noted but are not thought to be central. The other emphasizes the economics of the low- rent housing market while acknowledging the many debilitating personal attributes of many of the homeless. Neither camp denies the importance of making more housing accessible to the poor.” Befuddling.

 

So the front story is that personal attributes and the high cost of housing are the primary causes of homelessness, the back story is much darker and painful. The life histories of homeless persons reveal common shared experiences, including violent victimization, that contribute to their becoming homeless. A Toronto study of homeless persons found that 49% of women and 16% of men experienced childhood sexual abuse compared with rates of 13% and 4% in the general population. High levels of family violence, lack of care, and sexual abuse are common in the histories of homeless persons, suggesting these are also contributing factors.

 

A history of family violence also predicted failure to exit homelessness. The quandary of the homeless: mental illness, high rent, drug addiction, and victimization as a child. These are the folks prohibited from laying down on sidewalks and medians, and this is the man that was nearly beat to death in Salinas for “loitering.” We are generous with ourselves when we perceive ourselves as an educated society.

 

In times of panic, communities try to find someone or something to blame for their troubles, and the homeless are an easy target. I think it’s important to

mention the recession of 2008 wreaked havoc on business in both areas with homeless persons and without homeless persons.

 

The 2008 economic collapse, in hindsight, was clearly a result of the deregulation of the banking institutions, mass-incarceration of non-violent drug offenders, corporate greed, the war in Iraq and the sub-prime mortgage scandal, all subsets of the Bush neo-con experiment. These problems were a trickle down result of the Bush mega-ignoramuses’, and we are still trying to recover. It’s easy to understand communities like Santa Cruz, feeling disempowered and frightened, trying to understand why their businesses have failed, would blame the homeless. Santa Cruz has sought to control the homeless population as a means to return their sense of control over their dim economic circumstances.

 

The immediacy and visibility of the homeless population breeds contempt. It’s a lot easier to target what’s presently visible than an abstract and infinitely complex federal monetary system based of obfuscation and deception. Corporations spend a lot of money on public relations. In other words, it’s hard for people to connect the financial anxiety they experience to derivatives but it’s easy to connect it to a dirty person sitting in front of a Starbucks asking for spare change.

 

Studies show that indoor and outdoor substance use occurs at about the same rate, yet for obvious reasons outdoor substance users are disproportionally represented in the legal system, thus it’s easy to focus on homeless substance use. Another angle Santa Cruz has taken to marginalize the homeless is to portray homeless substance use, particularly IV substance use, as a major public safety hazard. Through inaccurate media “exposés,” the homeless are depicted as miscreants wandering aimlessly leaking disease infected hypodermic needles for children to step on. This portrayal is at best completely irresponsible journalism and at worst a despicable willing misrepresentation of the facts.

 

The odds of actually being infected by any disease by stepping on a hypodermic needle are less than microscopic (the Center for Disease Control states that it is extraordinarily rare that HIV or Hepatitis is transmitted by a needle-stick injury by stepping on a needle outside a health care setting). This frenzied non-sense is akin to other completely false fear provoking media fabrications such as these gems: killer bees, weapons of mass destruction, Halloween razor blades in apples and the crack baby “epidemic”. An off shoot of this portrayal is that needle exchange programs, which radically reduce the number of needles that are irresponsibly tossed, are under attack as well.

 

Another wrinkle on the homeless back-story is that permanent, safe housing is totally inaccessible to the homeless. I recently moved from a small but functional studio apartment to a larger more lavish apartment with a fireplace (it’s good to be housed on those rainy winter nights). The move cost me $2,330 dollars in first and last months rent and the cable box. The steps to finding and obtaining an apartment are daunting even for the employed and housed person. For those who haven’t attempted to move lately here’s the drill:

 

Find a place on Craigslist (which means access to a computer and the internet), fill out the credit application (and pay the $25.00 non-refundable fee), provide a valid California ID, provide a mailing address, get a bank account, explain any negative credit issues, explain any past legal matters, provide three references, show your work history, provide your work number to verify employment, provide a phone number, buy pots,  pans, utensils, cleaning supplies, some food, a bed, blankets, sheets and stay sober. For the homeless the housing system is exclusive, making the transition from homeless to housed essentially impossible.

 

It seems that the City of Santa Cruz has decided the best way to handle their homeless predicament is by bullying through the use of extraordinary restrictive “safety” ordinances. Groups with names like Take Back Santa Cruz [TBSC] have an oddly combative tone and the momentum seems to be towards aggression. The over-zealous public safety laws seem to have led to law enforcement slipping its leash. This is evidenced by the Youtube video taken by Brent Adams on April 22, 2013 of a homeless man being thrown to the ground by law enforcement for public intoxication.

 

Although focusing on the homeless as a root problem sooths public fears, the reality is that Santa Cruz is not going to ordinance, citation or incarcerate its way out of its homeless dilemma. America has already tried that approach with the war on drugs and now we’re left with the highest rate of incarceration per capita than any other developed country and a nearly bankrupted State of California. Public policy that attempts to use law enforcement as the means to force the homeless out of their community will never work because people who have nothing to lose have nothing to lose.

 

When economic leverage fails the only option left is using violence and Santa Cruz has taken the low road. Santa Cruz’ strategy is to choke the homeless out of their community by appealing to the societies worst fears by the intentional marketing of the homeless person as a menacing, dangerous, drug addicted, filthy creatures with no redemptive qualities. Society makes obtaining private space for these folks nearly impossible, and yet concurrently and systematically closes down public space for those who have no private space.

 

Homeless concentrations are often explained by the “magnet theory of homelessness,” that providing services is an enticement to the homeless and draws them into communities that offer an elevated level of social services.

 

This theory suggests that providing less rather than more services to the homeless will reduce homelessness in a geographic area. I don’t believe this is true, or if it is true only it’s an added benefit to the four fundamental reasons why Santa Cruz has a disproportionately high level of homelessness.

 

The first reason is there is the easy availability of drugs, and people do drugs, and that is a fact. No matter what a person’s station in life is, reality is that people like to, at times, alter their natural state of consciousness and the homeless are no different. Some people prefer an altered state of consciousness and can’t stop themselves – we call this addiction. We don’t have a drug problem among the homeless, we have a drug problem among Americans, and the homeless are part of America. Santa Cruz has a high availability of drugs, and this keeps homeless persons anchored.

 

The second reason is that Santa Cruz it has an established homeless community. People are social organisms, and the homeless are no different. For those who cannot negotiate the barriers to finding permanent housing, they will seek out, find and partner with like persons. The third is the climate and scenery in Santa Cruz are distinct and attractive, the same features that residents enjoy, the homeless enjoy too. This reality contradicts our unspoken belief the homeless are emotionless, unmoved by art, beauty, relationships, human touch.

 

Shocking, as it may seem, homeless persons enjoy living in a beach community just as much as everyone else. Santa Cruz has 262 sunny days per year. If you want to know why the homeless live in Santa Cruz, then ask yourself why anyone lives in Santa Cruz – it’s gorgeous, “hippy-esk,” mild, quaint, temperate, easy to breath. Everybody wants to live in Santa Cruz. The fourth reason is there is easy access to areas of foot traffic and commerce. The homeless need money, even those who receive benefits from the government, and panhandling is the best and often the only way the homeless can get cash.

 

Another angle that Santa Cruz has adopted to justify the implementation of impotent ordinances is the casting of the homeless as a public safety threat. The creation of the Public Safety Citizens Task Force by its name alone indicts the homeless as a threat to housed persons. There is absolutely no research that supports this myth.

 

The homeless are simply not a public safety threat. Homeless persons tend to not perpetrate violence or any other imposition on non-homeless persons, other than asking for change. The homeless have higher rates of legal issues because they tend to acquire nuisance violations, such as loitering, public intoxication, petty theft, etc. Statistically, the homeless are no more prone to commit violent crime than a non-homeless person.

 

The overwhelming evidence is that violent homeless crime is almost always perpetrated against other homeless persons. My observation is that inter-homeless crimes occur and go unreported because the homeless are forced into isolated areas where law enforcement is unlikely to patrol. Rape is an on-going problem among the homeless so women involuntary partner with males solely for the reason of protection in exchange for providing these “protectors” sexual access.

 

The reality is the homeless are not going to leave our communities, the economic impossibility of the homeless procuring housing ensures this. Unless America decides to seriously commit to providing low and no income housing the homeless, without discriminating against people who choose to use substances or have criminal records, they will be will be inextricably embedded and woven into our communities.

 

With this in mind, we need to accept our responsibility in the homeless riddle. Homeless encampments are unsanitary because there’s no running water, no sewage system, no trash pickup. The homeless urinate and defecate in public because there are no bathrooms available. The homeless use drugs publically because there is no safe place for them to use drugs. The homeless sleep and sit on sidewalks, because there is no other safe place to sleep or sit. If the community wants the homeless to be clean, provide them with showers, and if the community wants them to wear clean clothes, provide them with laundry facilities.

 

People aren’t homeless; they suffer from a homeless condition. To say people are homeless is like saying that people suffering from cancer are cancer.

 

Homelessness doesn’t define the entirety of a person, it’s a part of a person’s story. A person suffering from homelessness has the same hopes, dreams, passions, interests, feelings and curiosity that we all have. The homeless are not soulless reptilian creatures wandering zombie-like among the living (a.k.a. – housed persons). They are us. We rob these individuals of dignity when we narrowly define them according to their living situation. Dehumanization is the first step to marginalizing a population and stereotyping is the second – we label the homeless as lazy, mentally ill, drug addicts, exploitive, violent, etc. Apparently there is a push in Santa Cruz to force the homeless to carry I.D. cards, which is eerily analogous to having a number tattooed on a wrist and would only further widen the divide. A civilized society includes all its citizens, not just those who happen to have the good fortune to be housed.

 

Monterey County should make a close study of Santa Cruz and with any luck realize its the attributes of Santa Cruz that draw and keep the homeless there. The hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on hiring private security, handing out nuisance tickets (which will never be paid and only creates more barriers to housing for the homeless), incarceration, leveling heavy handed law enforcement which leads to exorbitant law suites is wasted money. There is no return on investment in trying to force the homeless out and their strategy isn’t working.

 

Monterey should look closely at the decisions it makes and be prudent as they move forward with creating compassionate effective public policy regarding the homeless.

Santa Cruz Street Performers Crushed In Under New Ordinances

Posted on by

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

by Robert Norse

Wednesday Sep 11th, 2013 9:46 AM

Street performers will be severely impacted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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