HUFF discusses picking up the cudgels for Small Claims Court action to end the Sleeping Ban and restore basic Human Rights for Homeless Folks; plots a return to the City Attorney’s Office to demand disability allowances for those crippled by the Move Along law; considers another go-around with City Council on 11-18 when Stay-Away orders and Performer Pens get a final vote. Among cups of coffee and dropping temperatures outside. If you can’t come, give us a call to help! 423-4833.
Tag Archives: Homeless
Drown Your Post Election Sorrows in HUFFland 11 AM 11-5 Sub Rosa 703 Pacific
With simultaneous events going on at UCSC (Volunteer Fair) and Watsonville (Project Homeless Connect) where HUFF is tabling in search of volunteers and contacts, I predict a scaled down meeting. Still, Baldwin Park attorney Paul Cook will be rolling through town next Monday and offering to help train people in filing Small Claims Court claims. We’ll be following up on the “Performance Pens” coming up at City Council next Tuesday, sending out symbolic support to homeless activists and foodservers being harassed in For Lauderdale, FL, and planning a HUFF-in at the City Attorney’s office to get a written “yes” or “no” to “Push Back” Pat Colby’s request for a disability dispensation to the Move Along law on the mall. Make it if you can. We’ll supply the coffee and the cranky.
Florida Freeze-Out for Foodservers
NOTES BY NORSE: Ft. Lauderdale is following in the pawprints of Santa Cruz with enhanced anti-homeless laws. The impact of the federal Pottinger settlement of 15 years ago still resounds. It required that shelter beds be made available before criminal action is taken against the homeless for “life-sustaining misdemeanors” like sleeping, sitting, crapping, and pissing. Santa Cruz has no such protection for the poor.
There’s the infamous Sleeping Ban (MC 6.36.010a \) , prohibiting homeless survival sleeping from 11 PM to 8:30 AM on any public and much private property. The unconstitutional 1 day Stay-Away Bans from the massive Parks ad Recreation controlled areas of town, passed unanimously by City Council in 2013 [MC 13.08.100] has impacted hundreds of homeless people and cash-poor travelers. The “homeless as pests ” ‘Mosquito’ Noise devices are designed to drive homeless people away from areas under bridges, at the Boardwalk, and in the Harvey West. Using “profane” language that “interferes” with the use of a City park, is also illegal, thanks to the Terrazas/Mathews City Council [MC 13.08.090]. On the morning after Halloween, police massive rousted folks sheltering under bridges and presented them with $158 camping citations–though there’was no legal shelter that night.
And on Tuesday November 11th, City Council is scheduled to do a final reading to an explosive expansion of Stay-Away orders that have no court oversight, giving City Manager Boss Bernal and Parks and Recreation Czarina Shoemaker massive powers to ban those violating rules [MC 1 they have implemented without Council vote for a week, a month, six months, even up to a year]. Downtown, the new “performers pens” law–also up for final vote on November 11th–will “generously” expand usable public sitting, vending, sparechanging, tabling, and musician space to 3% of the public sidewalk, continuing to make its use outside those areas a $200-300 crime with a “Move Along” requirement every hour [http://scsire.
All regular outdoor feeding operations have been driven indoors with the exception of the militant Santa Cruz Food Not Bombs, which continues to provide vegan meals every Saturday and Sunday 4-6 PM near the main post office. Food services at the Circle Church have been sharply curtailed; the Red Church now has imposed Public Assembly restrictions, banning homeless sitting on its lawn from 5-6 PM.
Lauderdale weighs new homeless crackdown
By Larry Barszewski, Sun Sentinel September 2 2014
FORT LAUDERDALE It’s OK to be homeless in the city, as long as you don’t panhandle drivers at busy intersections, catch some sleep on a downtown bench, go to the bathroom outdoors or store your belongings on public property.
The city has been cracking down this year on homeless-related activities that bother many of its residents, visitors and businesses. Commissioners have already passed a law allowing police to confiscate unattended belongings left on public property and they’ve toughened one that outlaws defecating in public.
On Wednesday, they will consider a downtown “camping” law prohibiting people from sleeping on public property there with their belongings. They will also debate a ban on solicitations along the city’s busiest roadways, something a number of Broward cities have already done.
Each offense would be punishable by up to 60 days in jail or a $500 fine, or both.
City Manager Lee Feldman said the proposals address quality-of-life concerns that give residents “a diminished sense of safety” and “threaten the viability of businesses.”
Advocates for the homeless say it is a relentless barrage.
“It looks like the city is choking out every avenue for the homeless to survive in the city,” said Haylee Becker of the group Food Not Bombs, which has opposed the city’s efforts. “I think that they’re all terrible ordinances, but coupled together, it’s a death sentence.”
City leaders disagree, saying the proposals are one part of a comprehensive approach to the homeless. The city this year is using a $440,000 federal grant to provide apartments to those most at risk of dying on the street. So far, 16 people have been placed in the program, Feldman said.
The city has bought one-way bus tickets to reunite homeless with their families elsewhere in the country and the police department has a homeless outreach team.
City officials say they face issues other cities don’t because homeless people picked up for infractions in other cities are taken to the county jail downtown and released into the area after a court appearance, adding to the downtown homeless population.
The Broward County Homeless Initiative Partnership counted nearly 500 homeless people in the county during a Jan. 23 survey, with about half living between Oakland Park Boulevard south to State Road 84.
The city’s latest proposed laws have been tailored to withstand legal objections. All solicitations on high-traffic streets would be banned, including those by nonprofit and charitable groups.
But it may be hard for people to know exactly where they can solicit.
That’s because the ban relies on county calculations that divide major roadways into segments and rates each portion from A to F based on their traffic levels. Solicitations would be prohibited only in segments with failing D, E and F levels.
For instance, soliciting would be prohibited on most portions of Sunrise Boulevard but would be permitted on the section between Northwest Seventh Avenue east to where it connects to U.S. 1.
It would not be legal to solicit along busy Southeast Third Avenue at Las Olas Boulevard, but it would be permissible to solicit along Las Olas at the same intersection because it has better traffic flow.
The anti-camping law applies only to the downtown area, which generally extends from Sunrise Boulevard south to Southwest Seventh Street, between Southwest Seventh Avenue and Federal Highway. It doesn’t include nearby Holiday Park, which is heavily used by the homeless.
Before an arrest can be made or citation issued under the proposed camping law, officers must first determine whether the person needs medical or human services assistance, including mental health treatment. Violators can be issued a citation only if they aren’t in need of help or if they refuse needed help.
Confiscated belongings under the law can be recovered at the police department for up to 30 days, except items in an “unsanitary condition.”
Fort Lauderdale commissioners ended a marathon meeting early Wednesday by giving final approval to new restrictions on where and how charitable groups can feed the homeless in the city.
October 22, 2014 http://www.sun-sentinel.com/
The commission didn’t take up the issue until 2 a.m. and passed the new law at 3:30 a.m.
Commissioners heard from the opponents most of the night, as several dozen chanted outside the glass walls of the commission chambers — making it hard for people inside to hear the discussion on other agenda items.
Volunteers from Love thy Neighbor, feed homeless people Sunday, Oct. 5, 2014, at Stranahan Park in Fort Lauderdale. (Joe Cavaretta / Sun Sentinel)
Homeless advocates put together a “mass solidarity food sharing” in front of City Hall prior to the meeting Tuesday evening, and several dozen held up signs facing the chambers in protest.
“Blood, blood, blood on your hands. Shame, shame, shame on [Mayor Jack] Seiler,” they called in unison as the commission discussed an unrelated issue.
“Hey, Jack, what do you say? How many homeless did you starve today?” they continued.
By 9 p.m., with the outdoor protesters still going strong, Seiler asked police officers to move the group back 20 feet to make it easier to hear inside.
The feeding restrictions are the latest in a series of measures enacted by the city. Officials describe them as “public health and safety measures,” but opponents have labeled them “homeless hate laws.”
The new rules say that feeding sites cannot be within 500 feet of each other, that only one is allowed in any given city block and that any site would have to be at least 500 feet away from residential properties.
Commissioners agreed to permit most churches to have indoor feeding programs, even those close to residential neighborhoods.
But the exception did not apply to outdoor programs. Organizations distributing food outdoors would also need the permission of the property owner and would have to provide portable toilets for use by workers and those being fed.
The rules could force organizations such as Love Thy Neighbor, which has been providing weekly meals to the homeless on the beach and at Stranahan Park downtown, to cease those operations.
Irene Smith, who is active with Love Thy Neighbor, told commissioners the weekly feedings give workers a chance to network with the homeless and maybe help them to a better situation.
“The feedings are just considered an eyesore to you guys,” Smith said. “We see these meals as a starting point.”
Earlier in the day, commissioners heard from Ron Book, a city lobbyist who is also chairman of the Miami-Dade County Homeless Trust, who told them they were doing the right thing.
“Feeding people on the streets is sanctioning homelessness,” Book said. “Whatever discourages feeding people on the streets is a positive thing.”
The commission voted 4-1 in favor of the new regulations. While Commissioner Dean Trantalis voted no, he said his opposition wasn’t with the feeding restrictions but with other parts of the law that would greatly concentrate social service facilities in Flagler Village and a few other downtown neighborhoods.
Commissioners said they will look at reworking those zoning portions and instructed staff to bring back proposed revisions in 90 days.
Besides enacting the feeding restrictions, the commission this year followed the lead of a number of other South Florida communities and banned the homeless and others from soliciting at the city’s busiest intersections. It has outlawed sleeping on public property downtown, toughened laws against defecating in public and made it illegal for people to store personal belongings on public property.
Commissioners say they’re also working to assist the homeless. In January, the city became part of a grant to provide permanent housing to 22 people identified as chronically homeless. It also runs an outreach program through its police department and supports the homeless assistance center run by the Broward Partnership.
The city’s new budget includes $25,000 to buy one-way bus tickets for homeless people who want to reunite with their families in other parts of the country.
Staff writer Ariel Barkhurst contributed to this report.
lbarszewski@tribpub.com or 954-356-4556
Copyright © 2014, Sun Sentinel
Some homeless worried about changes
Michael Schroeder, 61, sits on a park bench at midnight in Fort Lauderdale’s downtown Riverwalk area. (Photo by Joe Rondone)
By Joe Rondone, Forum Publishing Group contact the reporter
October 23 2014
Michael Schroeder has lived in Fort Lauderdale for 12 years, the last four of them homeless. The 61-year-old has become accustomed to tough nights sleeping, often being rustled awake and asked to move along.
“You keep moving, you know; you move from one spot to another every night, so you’re not a target,” he said.
He’s among those concerned about recent laws passed by the city and criticized by the homeless and their advocates, including a ban on panhandling at busy intersections, of sleeping on public property, and of outdoor storage of personal belongings on public property.
Asked how he’ll be able to find a safe place to sleep with the new rules, Schroeder replied: “That’s a hell of a question. You just keep moving until you’re out of sight; you settle in somewhere. If you get people out of Fort Lauderdale, the next city down the road will pass the same rules. You get bounced around like a ping pong ball.”
Enforcement will focus on the downtown area that runs roughly from Northwest Sixth to Southwest Seventh streets and Federal Highway to Seventh Avenue. It’s an area that the city’s Downtown Development Authority has outlined a plan to “establish, maintain and preserve aesthetic values and preserve and foster the development and display of attractiveness.”
“The ordinances address the downtown development association, focusing primarily on the business in their association area,” said Officer Thomas Stenger, who works the midnight shift in District 3, which includes downtown. “When it gets to the other areas, then what? You’re never accomplishing anything; you’re just trying to find the best balance for the complaints that are being made. The DDA is very boisterous with the city right now. The city is taking those comments and suggestions and trying to find a solution.”
Jason Lee has lived on the streets since 2003. He’s particularly concerned about the anti-solicitation rules.
“If I go to the homeless task force and ask them to place me and they tell me they have no bunk beds available, they give me a one-way bus pass and place me in the [Broward Outreach Center] in Pompano,” he said. “Then when they kick me out at 6 a.m., I’m out panhandling to get back to Fort Lauderdale. Why can’t I ask for help?”
City officials have said the new rules are needed to prevent car accidents involving panhandlers and to boost downtown revitalization efforts, which are undermined by homeless people living and sleeping on public property there.
Stenger said the rules’ ultimate impact remains to be seen.
“Ultimately, none of these ordinances will solve the problem, but they will alleviate the problem in this area,” he said. “… Ultimately, [fighting] crime always ends up being pushing it from one place to another.”
Joe Rondone can be reached at jrondone@tribune.com.
Police shut down Stranahan Park homeless feeding site, cite activists for breaking new law
Homeless advocate Arnold Abbott gets a citation for violating new law banning feeding homeless in Stranahan Park. (Mike Clary)
By Mike Clary, Sun Sentinel contact the reporter
Police swoop in to shut down Fort Lauderdale homeless feeding effort Sunday
Three people cited for violating new law by feeding the homeless in Fort Lauderdale
Uniformed police shut down an effort to provide lunch to scores of homeless in Stranahan Park on Sunday, enforcing a law passed recently that puts new limits on outdoor feeding sites.
At least three people were cited for violating the new ordinance, including two members of the clergy and a 90-year-old advocate who has handed out food to the homeless for more than 20 years.
Arnold Abbott, who heads the group Love Thy Neighbor, said he had served only three or four of about 300 meals he had prepared when police ordered him to stop.
Homeless advocates say new Fort Lauderdale laws won’t silence them
Larry Barszewski and Ariel Barkhurst
Abbott, the Rev. Mark Sims, of St. Mary Magdalene Episcopal Church in Coral Springs, and the Rev. Dwayne Black, pastor of The Sanctuary Church in Fort Lauderdale, were each cited for willfully violating a city ordinance. Police issued them notices to appear in court, where they could be asked to explain their actions.
The ordinance, approved by the city commission Oct. 22, is one of several recent efforts by officials to crack down on the city’s burgeoning downtown homeless population.
The latest law, which took effect Friday, limits where outdoor feeding sites can be located, requires the permission of property owners and says the groups have to provide portable toilets.
Abbott, who has won past legal battles with the city over feeding restrictions, has vowed to go to court again.
“We are simply trying to feed people who are hungry,” said Sims. “To criminalize that is contrary to everything that I stand for as a priest and as a person of faith.”
Mayor Jack Seiler defended the law and its intent.
“I’m not satisfied with having a cycle of homeless in city of Fort Lauderdale,” said Seiler. “Providing them with a meal and keeping them in that cycle on the street is not productive.”
One alternative, he said, was the homeless assistance center run by the Broward Partnership.
Black said he understood that large groups of homeless persons are considered undesirable by city officials, downtown residents and business owners. “But let’s just feed them,” said Black, “and then deal with other issues.”
mwclary@tribune.com
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/
Continue reading
Fresno Victory: Spanking City Hall For Destroying Homeless Survival Gear
NOTE BY NORSE: This Fresno victory around the confiscation of homeless property should speak to us in Santa Cruz.
Destroying homeless encampments has been the intensified practice in Santa Cruz for the last three years under Mayors Lane, Bryant, and Robinson and the all-powerful City Manager Martin Bernal. Among activists there has been some talk, but no action.
As is often the case in reactionary times, court action is the most visible sign of effective resistance to the endless creep of the abuses of the wealthy 1% and the 30% who trail along after them.
In Santa Cruz, though I haven’t heard the most recent report, Homeless Persons Legal Assistance Project advocate Steve Pleich, MHCAN Executive Direcctor Sarah Leonard, and out-of-town attorney Judy Bari have been gathering info for a Sacramento-style lawsuit to both recover property destroyed by the SCPD and Parks and Recreation as well as deter such thefts in the future. In Sacramento the Lehr decision (http://www.scribd.com/doc/
The Santa Cruz ACLU had no problems with “the cop as court” Stay-Away orders a year ago in City Parks (See “Round Two–The New Anti-Homeless Laws Return for a Final Reading” at https://www.indybay.org/
This time the ACLU actually came out with a statement against it [“Local ACLU Issues Stong Statement in Opposition to “Stay Away” Ordinance” at https://www.indybay.org/
In response the Santa Cruz City Council and its attorney-for-life John Barisone, caught with their fingers in the Constitutional cookie jar, have put off a final vote on supersizing the Stay Away orders until November 11th [“Santa Cruz City Council Delays Second Reading of Stay Away Ordinance” at https://www.indybay.org/
However the tightening iron glove beneath the velvet “Public Safety” fist continues to tighten its grip around the throat of the poor outside. Prison-like conditions are being implemented in the Homeless [Lack of] Services Center with a “security” gates and ID cards the “new normal”. The rabidly reactionary Deputy police chief Steve Clark is given a long leash by police boss Kevin Vogel as he smears even the mildly liberal City Council candidate Leonie Sherman (who has declined to stand up for an end to the city’s anti-homeless Sleeping Ban). A homeless recycler reports the imminent closure of the only remaining Recycling Center in Santa Cruz. Homeless-ophobic locals near the Circles Church at Woodrow and California are moving to petition for restrictive Permit Parking–in a hearing coming up November 17th. The Circles Church, in response to both right-wing bigotry and the influx of service-seeking homeless driven out of parks and the downtown, has shut down its Sunday meal, its thrice-weekly warming center (“the Sunrise Hangout Cafe”) and other services. The Red Church (Cavalary Episcopal) now no longer allows homeless people to sit on their lawn except during the 6-7 PM meal on Monday.
Once prejudice-pleasing election season is over on November 4th, will those who quieted their voices so as not to stir up the homeless-haters, be willing to take more militant action to defend homeless survival camps in the parks, make use of vacant buildings, and take other obvious actions that restore the public space to the community as well as those who live outside?
Keep watching.
Homeless Lawsuit against the City of Fresno Ends in Settlement
By Mike Rhodes
In October and November of 2011, the City of Fresno and Caltrans bulldozed homeless encampments in downtown Fresno. Thirty-six lawsuits were filed by the homeless alleging that their property had been taken and destroyed. Those lawsuits were all settled in October 2014.
The smile on the faces of homeless people as they cashed their checks left no doubt about who was victorious in the lawsuit against the City of Fresno. The lawsuits, filed by 36 homeless people, followed the October and November 2011 bulldozing of homeless encampments in the downtown area.
Angelita Soto was one of the homeless people who filed a lawsuit and received a check in October. Soto had lived in an encampment near E and Santa Clara streets. On the morning of Nov. 7, 2011, city crews arrived at Soto’s shelter. After forcing her out, they searched inside her shelter, removed her chest of drawers, a chair, a bookshelf and other household furnishings. Those items were put on the curb next to the road. Soto watched as a bulldozer drove by, grabbed her furniture and put it into a garbage truck. Next, the bulldozer returned and destroyed her shelter.
As a result of being without shelter and sleeping on the street in November and December, Soto contracted pneumonia. During this time, several homeless women died in the area. Big Sue, a well-known homeless woman, died on the sidewalk in front of the Poverello House. Her shelter had also been destroyed by city workers, and she suffered because of her exposure to the cold.
Central California Legal Services and the Arnold & Porter LLP law firm represented the homeless in this case.
Chris Schneider, executive director of Central California Legal Services, said, “My hope is that the settlement represents the city recognizing that the Kincaid v. City of Fresno case made clear that all residents of Fresno, including the homeless, have constitutional rights, and that if those rights are violated, there will be consequences.
“The city clearly hoped to wear down the plaintiffs and their attorneys through tens of thousands of pages of discovery demands, hundreds of hours of depositions and the passage of time. The city wanted to send a message that it is futile for homeless residents to insist on their rights and to demand dignity. They were unsuccessful in that.”
Homeless people harmed by the city’s bulldozing of the encampments that I talked to said they would use the money to get an apartment, a couple of them will use the money to continue their education and at least one will buy a used car so he can get back and forth to work.
The city’s defense of its actions largely consisted of claims that everything destroyed was trash. Attorney James Betts, who represented the city in this case, attended the 2011 demolitions and inspected many of the shelters before they were destroyed. In video of these “cleanups,” city workers can often be heard saying that homeless people’s property was trash and smelled of urine or feces. City video also documented the destruction of Soto’s property.
The definition of what property is of value and what is trash was a critical factor in the recently settled lawsuit. The Kincaid decision mandated that the city save any property found during these “cleanups” and store it for 90 days. Was the city’s uncertainty about its ability to convince a jury that Soto’s furniture was trash a factor in its willingness to settle? To prevail, the city would have had to convince juries in 30+ trials that no property of any value was destroyed. That is a pretty high bar to clear.
I asked Schneider if there were any surprises in this lawsuit. He said, “I was shocked to find that a number of the city officials believe that the Poverello House, is ‘part of the problem’ of homelessness in Fresno. They basically view the Pov as a magnate for the homeless and think that if the Pov was closed the homeless would magically disappear.
“I was also surprised to find out how adamantly opposed they are to even consider any idea about addressing homelessness other than Mayor [Ashley] Swearengin’s ‘First Steps Home’ program. It seems that city and Housing Authority officials both have an inability to recognize that the housing first approach at its present pace can only help a few dozen individuals per year or they know its limitations and just don’t care about the thousands of people who will continue to be on the streets for decades.”
Paul Alexander is senior counsel with Arnold & Porter and the lead attorney representing the homeless. I asked him the same question. He said, “There were two surprises for most of us on the legal team. The first of these centered on the Renaissance at Santa Clara. This is a project developed by Penstar Corporation and its executives basically using federal money. It houses only 69 homeless residents, but the total cost of this project exceeded $14,000,000. What’s more, of this enormous amount, the Penstar Corporation took $1,000,000 off the top in a ‘consulting fee.’
“It isn’t hard to imagine how much good could really be done for this enormous expenditure of federal money, and how little was actually done. Maybe we shouldn’t have been surprised. The rich do get richer.
“Second, some of us were surprised that the City of Fresno’s executives testified that making some provision, however small, for the homeless is ‘not our job.’ The city leaves this to others, such as the Penstar executives, while turning its back on far less expensive and more meaningful alternatives such as the Eco Village concept.
“What this means is that, for the most part, the city provides no sanitation facilities, no garbage pickup, no fresh water, not even a porta potty, much less any shelter, for any of its homeless residents. All this does is make the problem worse. Then, the City spends large sums, including Sanitation Department overtime, police supervision, extra heavy machinery and the like, to destroy homeless encampments.
“Fresno can do better, spend less, and over time have a positive impact in reducing homelessness and its impact on the community. This should be the job of city government.”
It is probably not a coincidence that Penstar CEO Tom Richard is a big contributor to Swearengin’s campaign for state controller, giving $6,800 in 2014. Other Penstar executives made significant contributions to Swearengin’s run for mayor in 2012.
The mayor’s Housing First program, which is intended to benefit the homeless, ends up enriching wealthy developers and not surprisingly, some of that money ends up back in Swearengin’s campaign accounts. It is a small world after all.
Since the demolition of the homeless encampments in 2011, city policy has shifted. There is a dedicated Fresno Police Department task force that focuses on preventing the reemergence of groups of homeless people living together in encampments. The police issue citations to homeless people for a wide array of alleged crimes (like having property, which they claim is littering the streets), and they have removed an enormous number of shopping carts from the possession of homeless people.
When an officer in the homeless task force sees a shopping cart without the owner nearby, the city’s Sanitation Department is called, which then confiscates the cart and the property inside it , and takes it to a storage facility. A notice is put up nearby advising the owner how to reclaim the property. Homeless people now can’t go into the Poverello House to get a meal, with their shopping cart outside the gate, without it being confiscated by city employees.
The outcome of this pressure on homeless people in the downtown area is that many of them are moving to other parts of the city. There are now large numbers of homeless people throughout Fresno, but without someplace for them to live, ending homelessness will remain an elusive goal.
Housing First is only able to provide housing for a lucky few; local government has no plan for how to humanely meet the needs of the homeless living on the streets of Fresno, and more people will probably die this winter from a lack of shelter and public services.
A homeless man on Santa Clara Street, near the Poverello House, holds up a handmade sign to express his displeasure with the demolition of homeless people’s shelters.
Progressive homeless advocates say that a policy shift toward establishing safe and legal locations for the homeless to live would be a move in the right direction. If those places have drinking water, trash pickup and bathrooms, homeless people could survive and live with some decency.
Alexander, the lead attorney representing the homeless, says the legal team has “learned what we always knew—that litigation is long, difficult and expensive for all concerned. The city was well represented and fought hard. In the end, the city was wise to settle. We would all be better off if this process did not repeat itself. We don’t get paid for bringing this litigation. We do it only when we feel it is absolutely necessary. Who knows—maybe everyone involved can learn some lessons for the future. Hope springs eternal.”
Schneider said, “I would hope that city officials have this time actually learned a lesson and will pursue a proactive approach to addressing homelessness. Such an approach would cost the city a lot less both financially and morally. The city needs to realize that there are plenty of people and organizations in the community ready to work together to find collaborative solutions. We would much prefer that over further lawsuits.”
*****
Mike Rhodes is a frequent contributor to the Community Alliance newspaper. Contact him at mikerhodes@comcast.net.
NOTE BY NORSE: A wealth of articles on the Fresno homeless dating back a decade can be found at http://fresnoalliance.com/
Responding to the New ‘Doo-Doo’ Not Due Process in the Homeless ‘”Stay Away” Law 2
This comment is part of a longer article on the City Council’s new anti-homeless law massively expanding “stay-away” orders for homeless people from all areas of Santa Cruz controlled by the Parks & Recreation Department. The rest of the article can be found at https://www.indybay.org/
HUFF ACTIVISTS WILL BE VISITING THE CITY COUNCIL OFFICES TO VIEW THE LAST YEAR’S STAY AWAY ORDERS 11 AM TODAY OCTOBER 16TH. WE INVITE ANYONE INTERESTED IN THE COMMUNITY TO JOIN US. THE ADDRESS OF THE OFFICES IS AT 809 CENTER ST. BRING STRONG STOMACHS.
by Robert Norse
Thursday Oct 16th, 2014 2:08 AM
Some HUFFsters and I will be going in to City Hall later today to count all stay-away orders since July of 2013 whenthe law went into effect after being passed for a final reading at the first City Council meeting of June 2013. Those citations are available for anyone to view after finally being released in response to a Public Records Act request I made in August. Dannettee Shoemaker was not immediately forthcoming.
Last month, I requested all the Parks and Recreation Department [P & R] citations for MC 6.36 (the camping ordinance) during the 2013-2014 period and was simply given bundles of all citations for all offenses to look through. Apparently this department does not index its citations or at least did not provide them to us on request.
Interestingly enough, the SCPD initially insisted it too had no such index. After repeated prodding and showing up in person to view the tickets, the department eventually provided us with a listing of all citations in the downtown area.. It took repeated requests to get the addresses of the people cited (so as to calculate the attention given to homeless folks). You can view an example of the SCPD’s matrix–for Officer Barnett’s citations–below. This something the P & R won’t or can’t provide requiring us to examine the citations individually. I’ve also requested Micah Posner request staff to make this information available, but similar requests in the past have fallen on deaf ears.
It seems pretty important in creating an ordinance this severe and unprecedented to get some sense of what the cost, the extent, the target, and the effectiveness of stay-away orders has been over the last year. Stay-away orders are traditionally issued by a court after a conviction and only from a very particular place. Given P & R’s broad authority over much city property, these orders could be issued routinely and repeatedly with increasing severity for the most minor offenses.
Considering that most homeless people smoke (70+% compared with less than 20% of the general population), it’s no wonder that the “crime rate” is rising. Creates more demand for more cops and more enforcement. Since more is illegal. Not to mention sleepcrime citations.
Note that race is not included in the SCPD records–except on the citations themselves (and presumably in the inaccessible police reports), so we will still be returning to the SCPD to examine more closely the racial component of the citations, which apparently the SCPD doesn’t think enough of to add to its matrix (strange, since I’d imagine such stats may be required by the FBI or other federal agencies).
For the matrix of Officer Barnett’s citations downtown–to get any idea of how heavily weighted they are against homeless people, go to http://www.indybay.org/
COUNCIL SLOUCHES ONWARD
The vastly expanded City Council law will be going into effect on November 28th or thereabouts if it passes again as it’s likely to on October 28th with a 5-2 vote.
Some pointed out at last Tuesday’s meeting (myself included) that their proposed law law mandates the stay-away’s prior to any court charge, hearing, trial, or conviction. What was not noted is that any stay-away is an additional action which is completely discretionary. This discretionary loophole allows rangers and cops to pick and choose who they’ll issue the orders to with no guideline as to when to do it. It is police state authorization in its purest form–leaving the matter entirely up to the officer. And, of course, completely beyond court review–even if the officer’s victim is never tried, had charges dismissed, or is found not guilty.
But the discretionary provision explicitly authorizes and hence encourages selective enforcement depending on the preference of the citing officer. Easy enough to decide that an homeless person sleeping gets a “stay-away” order while a more well-dressed smoker gets off without one (though a high fine for both).
Driving the Destitute Out of Public Spaces–the War in Santa Cruz Heats Up
| Title: | Nasty Anti-Homeless Stay-Away Laws to Get Exponentially Worse |
| START DATE: | Tuesday October 14 |
| TIME: | 3:00 PM – 3:30 PM |
| Location Details: | |
| 809 Center ST. City Council Chambers Santa Cruz At the afternoon City Council meeting. The item is the third of three other Public Hearings scheduled, so it may come up significantly later than 3, and perhaps (though it’s unlikely) earlier. |
|
| Event Type: | Meeting |
| Contact Name | Robert Norse |
| Email Address | RNORSE3 [at] HOTMAiL.COM |
| Phone Number | 831-423-4833 |
| Address | 309 Cedar #14B |
| CRACKING DOWN ON THE POOR Agenda Item #21 is a staff-generated proposal to vastly increase the amount of time those given low-level infraction tickets in city parks can be forced to stay away from the park. The ordinance expanded to monstrous proportions is MC 13.08.100 described as “ORDER TO VACATE ANY PROPERTY MAINTAINED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT”. STAY-AWAY ORDERS WILDLY EXPANDED The proposed penalty for violating such an order is a misdemeanor conviction (up to a year in jail or $1000 fine). Specifically, according to the staff report: “The proposed amendment provides for incremental increases in time that a person receiving a citation in a City park, beach or any other property maintained by the Parks and Recreation Department must stay away from the property where the arrest was made or citation issued. (a) First offense (existing ordinance): Twenty-four hours from the time of the citing/arresting officer’s order. (b) Second offense within one week of the first offense: One week from the date of the citing/arresting officer’s order in response to the second offense. (c) Third offense within thirty days of the second offense: Thirty days from the date of the citing/arresting officer’s order in response to the third offense. (d) Fourth offense within six months of the third offense: Six months from the date of the citing/arresting officer’s order in response to the fourth offense. (e) Fifth offense within one year of the fourth offense: One year from the date of the citing/arresting officer’s order in response to the fifth offense.” HOMELESS REMOVAL–NO DUE PROCESS REQUIRED! Note that one doesn’t have to be convicted of any offense, even charged in court with any offense, simply cited for an offense for this law to go into effect. Since the original 13.08.100 was passed in 2013, many have been given one-day stay-away’s along with their smoking, camping, or “park closed” citations. This law is designed to punish and exclude homeless people without the need to go to court and actually prove a crime. FUN FOR THOSE STALKING THE HOMELESS–NOT JUST IN THE PARKS! Also note that the sway of this new law goes far beyond the city parks, since it also applies to “any other property maintained by the Parks and Recreation Department.” This apparently includes, according to MC 13.04.0111, “without limitation all city parks and greenbelts, all city park trails and roads, all city park facilities and buildings, including Lighthouse Field State Beach, DeLaveaga Golf Course, Main Beach, Cowell’s Beach, Steamer Lane, Harvey West Pool, the Beach Flats Community Center, the Louden Nelson Community Center, the Teen Center, the Civic Auditorium, City Hall Courtyard, Mission Plaza, the Town Clock, the Natural History Museum, the Surfing Museum, Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf, Pacific Avenue, West Cliff Drive (Pelton Street to Swanton Boulevard), the San Lorenzo River Levee and bike path, the San Lorenzo Benchlands, the inner banks of the San Lorenzo River within the City limits, the Branciforte and Cabonera Creeks within the city limits, Jessie Street Marsh, plus any other facilities or areas assigned to the parks and recreation department by the city manager.” CRIME WAVE! The specifically stated crimes of “chronic violators” includes “smoking, possession of alcoholic beverages, camping, public urination and entering a closed area”. Folks apparently commit these dangerous behaviors and return 24-hours later (which is the limit of stay-away orders under the current law). The purpose–the report continues-is to give the police more tools. There is no indication of any increase in real “crime” in the parks, simply a determination to drive travelers and local homeless people away. The statistics provided claim 21 subjects violated the order returning to the park within 24 hour and were subsequently arrested. 77 subjects returned to the parks or beaches after to 24 hours were up however, were given a second order to vacate for continuous unlawful behaviors. 26 subjects received three orders to vacate. 12 subjects received 4 orders to vacate. 1 individual received 13 orders to vacate. MISSING FROM THE REPORT However they give no indication of what these people were cited for, whether they were actually charged in court, nor whether the individuals charged were actually convicted of those “crimes”. Bathrooms in the parks close at dusk or earlier. There are, of course, no sleeping areas in the City for the vast majority of those outside where it is legal to be. And only one 24-hour portapotty in the downtown area (the Posner Pooper). WHY BOTHER TO TALK TO THE VICTIMS OR INFORM THE PUBLIC? It is not clear that any homeless or social service agencies have been consulted. I’ve not heard that any out reach has been done to the homeless community. This is the 21st century equivalent of Sunset Laws where blacks were told to be “gone by sundown” from many towns in the country. There has been no mention of this proposed Council deportation of homeless people in the kept media (Sentinel, Good Times, City on a Hill. READ THE REPORT, THEN ROAR BACK Staff reports and ordinance can be found at Council’s agenda athttp://scsire. City Council members need to be e-mailed at citycouncil [at] cityofsantacruz.com . Individual council members can be reached by taking the first initial and last name of the Council member and adding @cityofsantacruz.com to it (e.g. mposner [at] cityofsantacruz.com. Dannettee Shoemaker and Martin Bernal are two of the highest paid officials in the City earning over $200,000 a year (not counting their benefits). They have signed their name to this police state measure–need to be horsewhipped and put in the stocks for this latest attack. TOWN-WIDE IMPACT The consequence of the massively increased policing downtown, expanded stay-away orders, anti-median ordinance, and authority-encouraged bigotry against those outside has been pressure on the churches who do provide services. The Circles Church has closed down its warming center and some of its meal services. The Red Church no longer allows people on its lawns prior to the meal. COST OF THE MANUFACTURED CRISIS? UNKNOWN. There is no indication of the cost in manpower and tax expense for the increased “drive ’em out” policies of the Robinson-Mathews City Council during the last two years. Nor any estimation of how much the increased penaltes will cost–especially if contested in court. Already the city is facing a potential class-action lawsuit from activists gathering data about the amount of homeless property destroyed by police and rangers. The repeated citations are obviously taking police and ranger attention away from other areas and aren’t free. Apart from the immorality and futility of the whole thing, there’s no indication of the expense involved. REAL CRIMINALS ARE THOSE IN POWER Dannettee Shoemaker head of Parks and Recreation and Martin Bernal, City Manager, are two of the highest paid officials in the City earning over $200,000 a year (not counting their benefits). They have signed their names to this police state measure. The class war on the poor is advancing relentlessly under color of law. |
|
Read and leave comments at https://www.indybay.org/
Oakland Mayoral Candidate Proposes Homelessness Policy That Makes Sense
NORSE’S NOTES: Though not a fan of everything Siegel of Oakland does, what he presents below is miles ahead of Smart Solutions, 180/180, the Downtown Accountability Project, or any of the other “rush -em out of sight/drive ’em out of town” policies adopted here in Santa Cruz–from high-frequency noise generators to “security” gates to ID cards to stay-way-from-the-park-even-
> Dan Siegel Releases Homelessness Policy Paper
>
> ——————————
>
>
> September 25, 2014
> Contact: April Thomas, media@siegelforoakland.org, 206.321.3850
> Mayoral candidate Dan Siegel commits to doubling Housing First Investments
>
> Siegel outlines his innovative and compassionate approach to homelessness (Oakland, CA) – Today, Oakland mayoral candidate Dan Siegel released his 8th policy paper, detailing his agenda on homelessness in Oakland. The paper lays out four areas that Siegel will innovate in his approach to both increasing access to permanent housing and supporting people without shelter in their daily lives:
>
> Housing First: The simplest strategy is also proven the most effective: give chronically homeless people a home with no strings attached. Siegel
will double Oakland’s current investment in the Permanent Access to Housing program in order to serve twice as many chronically homeless individuals.
>
> Tiny Houses: The potential of the “Tiny House” movement to address homelessness has been recognized nationwide. These houses, costing as little as $5,000 to build, require minimal amounts of land and need not be connected to the power grid.
>
> Homelessness is not a Crime: Siegel supports legislative approaches such as California’s Homeless Bill of Rights proposed by Senator Tom Ammiano. If the state is unwilling to outlaw discrimination against homelessness (Ammiano’s most recent attempt died in the legislature in January, 2014), the Siegel administration will propose a similar bill at the city level. “Oakland must also eliminate any ˜quality of life” laws that make life on the streets more challenging than it already is,” said Siegel.
>
> Shower Access: The City of Oakland, through its shelters and other facilities, should also ensure that shower and bathroom facilities are available for the homeless during the day, even if it is impossible to provide beds for all each night.
>
> The full paper can be accessed at http://siegelforoakland.
> .
>
> ——————————
>
>
> September 25, 2014
> Contact: April Thomas, media@siegelforoakland.org, 206.321.3850
> Mayoral candidate Dan Siegel commits to doubling Housing First Investments
>
> Siegel outlines his innovative and compassionate approach to homelessness (Oakland, CA) – Today, Oakland mayoral candidate Dan Siegel released his 8th policy paper, detailing his agenda on homelessness in Oakland. The paper lays out four areas that Siegel will innovate in his approach to both increasing access to permanent housing and supporting people without shelter in their daily lives:
>
> Housing First: The simplest strategy is also proven the most effective: give chronically homeless people a home with no strings attached. Siegel
will double Oakland’s current investment in the Permanent Access to Housing program in order to serve twice as many chronically homeless individuals.
>
> Tiny Houses: The potential of the “Tiny House” movement to address homelessness has been recognized nationwide. These houses, costing as little as $5,000 to build, require minimal amounts of land and need not be connected to the power grid.
>
> Homelessness is not a Crime: Siegel supports legislative approaches such as California’s Homeless Bill of Rights proposed by Senator Tom Ammiano. If the state is unwilling to outlaw discrimination against homelessness (Ammiano’s most recent attempt died in the legislature in January, 2014), the Siegel administration will propose a similar bill at the city level. “Oakland must also eliminate any ˜quality of life” laws that make life on the streets more challenging than it already is,” said Siegel.
>
> Shower Access: The City of Oakland, through its shelters and other facilities, should also ensure that shower and bathroom facilities are available for the homeless during the day, even if it is impossible to provide beds for all each night.
>
> The full paper can be accessed at http://siegelforoakland.
> .
> ==============================
> Paid for by Dan Siegel for Mayor, 2014
> 499 14th Street, Suite 300
> Oakland, CA 94612
> (510) 839-1200
Unanswered Questions for Santa Cruz Community & Upcoming Events
Upcoming Events and Unanswered Questions Flyer for Candidates & Public
by Robert Norse
Saturday Aug 16th, 2014 9:49 AM
Saturday Aug 16th, 2014 9:49 AM
With a load of forums, protests, and a court date upcoming, I’ve prepared a preliminary HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom)-ish series of questions for the public and the City Council candidates to consider. The Unanswered Questions flyer can be downloaded and distributed or picked up in hard copy at the Sub Rosa Cafe at 703 Pacific Ave. along with the accompanying list of events–possible distribution points for the flyer.
The Unanswered Questions flyer represents my opinions and not necessarily those of HUFF but I think most would agree. I encourage those with upcoming events linked to police or military abuse, human rights violations in Santa Cruz and elsewhere, or the political charades that go on around election time contact me by e-mail so that I can include them in future postings (rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com).
§
by Robert Norse Saturday Aug 16th, 2014 9:49 AM
Sacramento Stronghearts Challenge Panhandling Prohibitions; Santa Cruz ACLU Still Silent
NOTES BY NORSE: The Sacramento ACLU has moved to challenge its anti-homeless panhandling prohibitions. The legal eagles who put together the Sacramento County panhandling ban included an exemption for charitable groups which clearly discriminates against those begging for their own survival and/or that of their family and friends. Local Attorney Mark Merin has a history of standing up for homeless people in Sacramento both in court and even personally supporting a homeless encampment on private property (that was ultimately shut down by city bigotry). [See http://sacramentohomeless.
Santa Cruz’s panhandling law has had one successful court challenge: http://la.indymedia.org/news/
The local ACLU has so far declined to make any public statements about this law, overtly abusive though it is to the rights of poor people (and those who want to donate to their survival).
Homeless activists sue Sacramento County to block panhandling ban
By Brad Branan
bbranan@sacbee.com
Published: Thursday, Jul. 17, 2014 – 12:32 pm
Last Modified: Friday, Jul. 18, 2014 – 7:01 am
The Sacramento Homeless Organizing Committee filed a lawsuit Thursday challenging a new Sacramento County panhandling ordinance as unconstitutional.
Supervisors unanimously passed the ordinance in May, which prohibits aggressive panhandling anywhere in the unincorporated county and bans solicitation specifically at street medians, banks, ATMs and gas stations.
Supervisors unanimously passed the ordinance in May, which prohibits aggressive panhandling anywhere in the unincorporated county and bans solicitation specifically at street medians, banks, ATMs and gas stations.
The advocacy group, which publishes a bimonthly newspaper dedicated to homeless issues, is being represented in federal court by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California and local attorney Mark Merin. ACLU Legal Director Alan Schlosser said the plaintiffs want a hearing within a week for a temporary injunction to suspend the ordinance, which took effect June 13.
Schlosser said the new law violates the U.S. Constitution by allowing charities to collect money in public places but banning panhandlers from doing so.
Panhandling restrictions have been approved by local governments across the state, including Citrus Heights, Elk Grove and Sacramento. But Sacramento County appears to be unique in creating an exemption for a group of people, Schlosser said.
The exemption and a desire to stop the law from ever being enforced were reasons for the ACLU to challenge the law, he said.
“They were certainly not intending to limit aggressive panhandling,” Schlosser said. “They are trying to push the homeless out of town.”
County spokeswoman Chris Andis said it’s county policy not to comment about pending litigation.
However, Supervisor Roberta MacGlashan defended the ordinance.
“Staff went to great lengths to write a law that recognizes the constitutional right to panhandling, but also restricts its locations where people feel vulnerable,” she said.
Earlier this month, Rancho Cordova tentatively approved a similar restriction on “aggressive panhandling” that prohibits solicitation in places where people are a “captive audience” to pleas for money. The law must be approved a second time next week before becoming law.
A city staff report said the amendment is legal based on recent court decisions and “the regulations are content neutral, meaning the regulations do not treat individuals differently depending on their message.” The regulations must also “serve an important government interest.”
Pamela Poole, executive director of the Sacramento Homeless Organizing Committee, said she and other homeless members of the committee are worried that the county law will prohibit them from collecting donations in conjunction with the distribution of Homeward, which has a circulation of 8,000 to 11,000. Homeless people get copies of the newspaper free or for a nominal fee and then seek a recommended donation of $1 for each paper, which they keep.
Billy Murphy, a plaintiff in the case, said he has largely relied on panhandling for income since becoming homeless in October. He said he has stopped panhandling in Citrus Heights after being cited there in March, and he worries that Sacramento County’s ordinance will have the same effect on him.
Murphy said he generally panhandles on sidewalks and doesn’t solicit people verbally. Instead, he just holds signs, such as “Homeless Will Work Have Bike Will Travel … Please Help.”
“I just want people to know I need help,” he said.
A county spokesman said last week that the county is spending the first two months educating residents about the law and has not yet issued citations. Under the law, violations would be cited as an infraction, with three infractions in six months resulting in a misdemeanor charge.
Representatives of the Watt Avenue Merchants Association, the Fulton Avenue Association and the Florin Road Partnership told the board in May that they support the ban. They said panhandling seems to be on the rise in certain parts of the county.
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/07/
SANTA CRUZ’S PANHANDLING PROHIBITIONS
MORE NOTES BY NORSE: The especially egregious and unconstitutional sections of the ordinance are emboldened. However the massive sweep of the law so restricts the place, time, and manner of the laws as to make illegal peaceful non-threatening non-obstructive forms of sparechanging. The “forbidden zones”, for instance, created for panhandling both in time and space leave very little opportunity for making donation requests. Asking a friend for money is illegal, for instance (and has reportedly been charged in the past if the person looks homeless enough and the cop wants to drive the person away). People have spent months in jail panhandling. Particularly misleading is the title of the law “Aggressive Solicitation”. Only 3 of the 28 provisions of the law [MC 9.10.040 b, c and d] can be reasonably considered restrictions on “aggressive” panhandling. The rest seek to wash poor people from the sight of tourists and residents.
Chapter 9.10 AGGRESSIVE SOLICITATION
Sections:
9.10.010 Definitions.
9.10.020 Time of solicitation.
9.10.030 Place of solicitation.
9.10.040 Manner of solicitation.
9.10.050 False or misleading solicitation.
9.10.060 Misdemeanor.
9.10.010 DEFINITIONS.
For the purposes of this chapter:
(a) “Solicitation” means any verbal request, or any non-verbal request made with a sign, by a person seeking an immediate donation of money, food, cigarettes or items of value. Purchase of an item for an amount far exceeding its value, under circumstances where a reasonable person would understand that the purchase is in substance a donation, is a donation for purposes of this chapter. A person is not soliciting for purposes of this chapter when he or she passively displays a sign or places a collection container on the sidewalk pursuant to which he or she receives monetary offerings in appreciation for his or her original artwork or for entertainment or a street performance he or she provides. This chapter does not apply to peddling and soliciting activity governed by Chapter 5.40.
(b) “Person” means any individual person, group of persons or organizations.
(Ord. 2009-05 § 3, 2009: Ord. 2002-51 § 1, 2002: Ord. 2002-39 § 1, 2002: Ord. 2002-32 § 1, 2002: Ord. 94-10 § 1 (part), 1994).
9.10.020 TIME OF SOLICITATION.
Any person who solicits after sunset or before sunrise is guilty of an infraction.
(Ord. 94-10 § 1 (part), 1994).
9.10.030 PLACE OF SOLICITATION.
Any person who solicits in any of the following places, or any person who solicits when the person solicited is in any of the following places, is guilty of an infraction:
(a) At any bus stop;
(b) In any public transportation vehicle or facility;
(c) In any vehicle on the street;
(d) On private property, unless the solicitor has permission from the owner or tenant;
(e) Within fourteen feet of any building other than those buildings referenced in subsection (f). Where any portion of a building is recessed from the public sidewalk, the fourteen feet shall be measured from the point at which the building abuts the sidewalk;
(f) Within fifty feet of any bank building or other financial institution buildings, including their outdoor automatic teller machines;
(g) In the parking lot of any bank, savings and loan, or other financial institution;
(h) Within fifty feet of any ATM machine or cash disbursal machine, or any other outdoor machine or device which disburses or accepts coins or paper currency except parking meters and newspaper vending machines;
(i) Within fourteen feet of any fence that abuts a public sidewalk;
(j) Within fourteen feet of any drinking fountain, public telephone, public bench, public trash compactor, information or directory/map sign, sculpture or artwork displayed on public property, or vending cart;
(k) Within fourteen feet of any street corner or intersection;
(l) Within fourteen feet of any open air dining area or cafe extension; or
(m) Within fourteen feet of any kiosk.
(Ord. 2009-05 § 4, 2009: Ord. 2002-39 § 2, 2002: Ord. 2002-32 § 2, 2002: Ord. 94-10 § 1 (part), 1994).
9.10.040 MANNER OF SOLICITATION.
Any person who solicits in any of the following manners is guilty of an infraction:
(a) By coming within three feet of the person solicited, until that person has indicated that he or she wishes to make a donation;
(b) By blocking the path of the person solicited, or other pedestrians, along a sidewalk or street;
(c) By following a person who walks away from the solicitor;
(d) By using abusive language as part of the solicitation or following a refusal that is directed at the specific individual or individuals being solicited;
(e) By soliciting in a group of two or more persons;
(f) While under the influence of alcohol or any illegal narcotic or controlled substance; or
(g) By soliciting while in the immediate possession of a dog, by leash or otherwise.
(Ord. 2011-08 § 9, 2011: Ord. 2006-06 § 1, 2006: Ord. 94-10 § 1 (part), 1994).
9.10.050 FALSE OR MISLEADING SOLICITATION.
(a) Any person who knowingly makes any false or misleading representation in the course of soliciting a donation is guilty of an infraction. False or misleading representations include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Stating that the donation is needed to meet a specific need, when the solicitor already has sufficient funds to meet that need and does not disclose that fact;
(2) Stating that the donation is needed to meet a need which does not exist;
(3) Stating that the solicitor is from out of town and stranded, when that is not true;
(4) Stating that the solicitor is homeless, when he or she is not;
(5) Stating that the solicitor is soliciting on behalf of an organization which does not exist or which has not authorized the solicitor to seek donations on its behalf.
(b) Any person who knowingly solicits a donation stating that the funds are needed for a specific purpose and then spends the funds received for a different purpose is guilty of an infraction.
(Ord. 94-10 § 1 (part), 1994).
9.10.060 MISDEMEANOR.
Any person who violates one or more of the sections of this chapter twice within a six-month period is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(Ord. 94-10 § 1 (part), 1994).
Albuquerque “Trollbusters” Wrack Up Gruesome Toll; What’s Happening in Santa Cruz?
NOTES BY NORSE: A tip of the hat to Colin Campbell Clyde for passing on this story. Yesterday at the Food Not Bombs meal, a man claimed he and a female friend had been accosted by five youths (all white and male) as they came back from the Boardwalk and headed for San Lorenzo Park. The men had baseball bets and threatened the two with beatings if one of them didn’t give up his bike. He claims he refused and was able to leave without further injury. This guy is not always credible.
However another woman reported on my Sunday Free Radio show that several nights before she saw several policeman using what she considered excessive force on a man who appeared homeless to her at Ocean and Water St. near a bus stop there. She was driving in her car, she reported, and heard the victim screaming help. She stopped the car, got out and watched, and was concerned that a third police officer a woman–had her knee on the back of the prone man behind held down.
I am concerned to hear (and particularly to see, if anyone has video or other documentation) accounts of threats, assaults, and similar intimidations that are happening. Please call me at 831-423-4833, e-mail me at rnorse3@hotmail.com, or post an account at www.indybay.org/santacruz .
Photo
Alex Rios, 18, is one of three suspects being held on $5 million bond in the killing of two homeless people. He was arraigned by video from jail. Credit Roberto E. Rosales/Albuquerque Journal, via Associated Press
ALBUQUERQUE — Jerome Eskeets’s last sight before he fell asleep on a soiled mattress late on Friday, on an empty lot speckled by shards of liquor bottles and discarded syringes, was the stars that glistened up above — “a beautiful thing,” he recalled this week, drunk, already, at 9:30 a.m. A cousin lay next to him that night, their bodies warmed by the cheap vodka they had shared. It had been “a good night,” Mr. Eskeets said, until he felt a dull pain on the bridge of his nose, a punch by one of the masked assailants that surrounded them.
“Cowards,” Mr. Eskeets exclaimed on Tuesday as he stood by the scene of the crime.
The assailants kicked and beat them, Mr. Eskeets said, using their hands and whatever else they could find — a metal pipe, wooden sticks, cinder blocks. Mr. Eskeets eventually broke free and ran away. His cousin, whose name he said was Al Gorman, and another homeless man he knew only as Cowboy, ended up dead. The police said they had both been disfigured beyond recognition by the thrashing, which included having their heads smashed repeatedly with the cinder blocks.
Photo
Two men were beaten to death in a litter-strewn lot in Albuquerque, attacks the police said were staggering in their brutality. Credit Mark Holm for The New York Times
Someone directed the officers to a stucco house on the other end of the lot, where a 15-year-old boy came to the door wearing shorts splattered in blood. Later, the boy told detectives that he, his 16-year-old half brother and their friend Alex Rios, 18, had taken turns assaulting the men. According to a criminal complaint, the teenagers had been “randomly attacking homeless people for over a year” and, by the 15-year-old’s estimates, they had beat up more than 50 since moving to the stucco house some months ago, as if it were a distraction, or a sport. As far as anyone could tell, though, this was the first time the beatings had resulted in deaths.
The killings exposed some of the profound social ills — alcoholism, abject poverty, neglect — that have long plagued New Mexico, a place best known for its stunning landscape. Since 1997, the state has led the nation in the number of alcohol-related deaths, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. There is a large homeless population and, in a strange twist, a man named Victor Prieto, who identified himself as the father of the two boys, told KOB-TV in Albuquerque that he and the boys had been homeless at one point. (No one came to the door on Tuesday or Wednesday at the apartment where the family lives.)
Still, for all the dangers of living on the streets, the police said that such a vicious attack by teenagers was staggering and callous in its brutality — the only motive the teenagers supplied for the attack was that one of the boys was angry because he had just broken up with a girlfriend. According to the complaint, the 16-year-old threw dirt on the victims’ faces and said, “Eat mud.” When speaking to the police, the teenagers could not agree on how long the episode lasted: One said it went on for an hour, another said 20 minutes. After it was over, they went home and fell asleep, according to the complaint. The 16-year-old told the police that “he looked at himself in the mirror and saw the devil.”
Officer Simon Drobik of the Albuquerque Police Department said detectives had been combing through reports of assaults on homeless people to see if any may be linked to the three suspects accused of the weekend’s killings. He said that the younger boys had “minor stains” on their juvenile records, mostly for truancy and marijuana possession, and that Mr. Rios “had never been in too much trouble.”
“They just seemed to be lost kids,” Officer Drobik said.
The two juveniles had both dropped out of school — the 16-year-old after finishing eighth grade, and the 15-year-old after a middle-school suspension in February 2013, a spokesman for the city’s public school system said. Mr. Rios, for his part, was not enrolled in the school system, and it is unclear if he had been going to any school at all.
The half brothers lived with their father in one of the apartments at the stucco house, in a slice of Albuquerque’s west side known for its limited choices: Some struggle to get by, keeping their heads low and their mouths shut to avoid trouble, and some are lost to dysfunction and addiction. Chayo Perez, pastor at the Door Christian Fellowship, a Pentecostal church across the street from the lot, described his congregation as “a herd of exes — ex-drunks, ex-addicts, ex-cons.”
In court on Monday, the two juveniles confronted the accusations they face: Certified as serious youthful offenders, they could be tried as adults if a grand jury indicts them on first-degree murder charges, which carry a mandatory life sentence. Judge Linda Rogers of Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court set bond for them and Mr. Rios, who was arraigned by video from jail, at $5 million.
Photo
Jerome Eskeets was able to break free and run from the attack that killed his cousin and a man he knew only as Cowboy. Credit Mark Holm for The New York Times
In an interview, Mayor Richard J. Berry described the killings as “the saddest, most tragic thing I’ve seen” and said they “bring to light the plight of the homeless and just how dangerous it is out there on the streets.” The crime also highlights the confounding challenges facing the city, he said, like the lack of a centralized system listing the number of beds available in emergency shelters on any given night.
A survey by Heading Home, a nonprofit organization that has housed 328 chronically homeless people in Albuquerque since 2011, found that three in five of the 1,300 respondents had been assaulted at some point while living on the streets. Most, however, never notified the police, said the group’s director of development, Megan McCormick.
“There’s a fear of retaliation, a sense that the police sometimes can re-victimize them,” Ms. McCormick said.
Albuquerque has been struggling to overhaul its police department, castigated this year by the Justice Department for its excessive use of force. Particularly divisive was the police’s fatal shooting this year of James Boyd, a mentally ill homeless man. On Tuesday, officers fatally shot a man wanted on parole violations during a foot chase, making him the 27th person killed by the police since January 2010. One of those shootings, on Aug. 30, 2011, happened on the same lot where the homeless men were beaten to death over the weekend.
Mr. Eskeets — who said he was Navajo, like the men killed over the weekend — said that the teenagers had set upon him once before, last week or maybe the prior week, but that he had threatened them with an empty beer bottle and they had fled.
“I never told no one because no one cares,” he said flatly.
Since the attack, Mr. Eskeets has struggled to make sense of what happened. “Those boys knew me,” he said, his eyes filling with tears. “They called me Skeets.”
Officer Drobik said there was no evidence that the teenagers had targeted the homeless men because they were American Indian.
Pastor Perez said he held Christian music concerts and cookouts in the church’s parking lot on Saturday mornings, attracting addicts, prostitutes and homeless people, and also neighborhood youths. He recalled seeing the teenagers there sometimes.
Jesus Garza, one of the volunteers at the Church of Christ, not far from the lot, said he used to see them often, roaming the streets. “They didn’t carry themselves as if they were thugs or gangsters,” Mr. Garza said. “I always thought of them as average kids.”
Continue reading