Sanctuary Camp in Santa Cruz Discussion

Activist Brent Adams has proposed a Sanctuary Camp in Santa Cruz, which is being discussed at https://www.indybay.org/santacruz/  with a specific thread at https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/10/10/18744678.php    I reprint my comments from

https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/10/10/18744678.php?show_comments=1#18745233

by Robert Norse
Tuesday Oct 22nd, 2013 8:54 AM

Some valuable information is contained in this business plan. Yhose who are working on the Sanctuary Camp proposal need to be commended for their determination and energy in the face of a hijacked and hostile political climate. I’ve given the plan a reading, but it needs more careful analysis. Brent’s style of presentation, his repeated hostility to some of us who haven’t jumped on the bandwagon (alternating with New Age hugs), and his direct attacks on me personally and protesters generally has made objectivity difficult.

They also need to be aware that many concerned with the rights of homeless people–some homeless and some housed–have “concentration camp” and other concerns with the model.

Fresno activists have been funding homeless-created encampments with trash pick-up’s, portapotties, fresh water, and other services since they won A $2.3 million lawsuit in 2007 (because city authorities, like Santa Cruz’s SCPD and Rangers) were stealing and destroying homeless property.

There’s extensive history on this homeless civil rights struggle at http://fresnoalliance.com/wordpress/?p=1313 . (Scroll to bottom for the most recent story)

More recent encampment coverage:

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/10/10/18744664.php (Grain Silo Homeless Encampment Posted for Demolition)
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/10/09/18744608.php (City of Fresno Finds New Ways to Harass the Homeless)

While Fresno activists have tried repeatedly to appeal to the city to be reasonable, recognize how cost productive it would be to stop harassing homeless encampments and/or supply services to them (or perhaps establish Sanctuary type campsites), authorities have repeatedly hoarded or ignored funding specifically intended for homeless relief and continued its campaign of harassment.

The relief that Fresno activists were able to give was through documentary videoing, lawsuits, and then direct services as described above.

Ed Frey and Occupy Santa Cruz supplied toilet facilities here in Santa Cruz when the City would not. In both cases PeaceCamp2010 and the Occupy Santa Cruz San Lorenzo campground were destroyed by authorities (not by internal problems).

Direct support to campsites currently in existence is another avenue to consider here in Santa Cruz, while Sanctuary seekers struggle to persuade right-wing staff, frightened liberals, and an apathetic community to allow a very limited Sanctuary campground.

Another informative document from Fresno is this documentation of The Cost of Destruction in Fresno: http://helpfresnoshomeless.org/ . The business plan references local costs generally, but getting such documentation more specifically is important.

While it feels endless and overwhelming, it’s important to support homeless folks–their rights, their property, their dignity now as it is seized from them, legislated away by law, and snarled away by a rightwing riptide undertow. If they choose to protest, it’s wrong to ignore or–worse–denounce them as “alienating the community.”

It seems both cruel and delusional to suggest they wait for the toxic political establishment to be persuaded that a sanctuary camp is a good idea as they shiver in the shadows through the winter, facing an ever nastier set of “recommendations” from Bryant’s Citizens Task Force on Public Safety. See http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=34557 (meeting again 6 PM 10-23 in the Tony Hill Community Room of the Civic Auditorium).

There’s also the concern that pushing a plan for a select number of homeless to be allowed a special sanitized segregated area where they will not be allowed the rights that anyone indoors takes for granted (drinking alcohol for instance) is both paternalistic and unrealistic. It also goes against the wisdom of the Housing First model which seeks to provide the most basic housing before imposing sobriety.

No one doubts the need for campgrounds. But we must support those who are struggling now. Not turn aside and censor our efforts and websites in the hope of teasing out a smile on Pamela Comstock’s face. Waiting for Don Lane to find a backbone and other progressives scuttling to find protective cover from the phony Public Safety scare is self-defeating. (See, however, http://santacruz.patch.com/groups/don-lanes-blog/p/why-are-they-here-or-is-it-why-are-we-here for Lane’s defense of social services to the Task Force, as he remains silent–as he has for decades–on the vital need for safe places to sleep)

ACLU in the Sentinel: The Charade Continues

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/santacruz/ci_24253770/santa-cruz-countys-aclu-chapter-celebrates-50-years

What a laugh. The Santa Cruz ACLU has shown an impressive, persistent, and oppressive indifference to civil and human rights violations in Santa Cruz. This is particularly true around the “liberal” Santa Cruz City Council’s institutionalized abuse of the rights of homeless people.

In the hands of politicians like Mike Rotkin and like-minded constitution-clippers like Chair Peter Gelblum, it’s a no-win game for the poor outside. Even abuses roundly condemned by other ACLU’s like the Sleeping Ban & the Downtown Ordinances receive no public criticism and are buried “for study” when they are brought up.

Rotkin was a frequent advocate of the Sleeping Ban when he was Mayor as well as a supporter of the Sitting Ban (even going to San Francisco to push for its version). That he could be such a power in the local ACLU tells the story.

More of a fund-raising machine for national causes (many of which are worthy if often classist), the local ACLU preens itself while police steal homeless property, destroy homeless camps, and harass homeless people all around the town.

Promising activists like Steve Pleich, once enmeshed in the power structure of the ACLU as he struggles to accumulate offices and titles, become silent and accommodating of bigotry pimps like Councilmember Pamela Comstock and Lynn Robinson.

The ACLU won’t even defend the right of its own petitioners in the parking lot next to Trader Joe’s, who’ve been cited or driven away for giving out literature.

Santa Cruz needs a real civil rights organization.

For more details on the sad story see:

“Earlier E-Mails to the ACLU on Denial of Civil Liberties to the Santa Cruz
Homeless” at http://www.indybay.org/newsite….
“Local ACLU Rides…er…Hides Again” at
https://www.indybay.org/newsit…
“ACLU Chair Closes Monthly Boad of Directors Meeting, Homeless Issues Off
the Agenda” at http://www.indybay.org/newsite…
For Pleich’s own copycat censorship of issues on his website, see “Open Letter to Steve Pleich of Citizens for a Better Santa Cruz” at https://www.indybay.org/newsit…

Portland Sanctuary Expanding?

Tent city planned in fancy Portland neighborhood

By STEVEN DUBOIS, Associated Press
Updated 10:36 am, Sunday, October 6, 2013
  • In this Oct. 4, 2013, photo, a person walks by the Right 2 Dream Too homeless camp in Portland, Ore. Opponents of a city plan to put 100 people under a century-old bridge in the Pearl District are carefully choosing their words when complaining about the prospect of new, down-on-their-luck neighbors. Rather than express concern for their financial investments, they have criticized the city's expedited process and worried for the welfare of those willing to live in a parking lot under the west ramp of the Broadway Bridge. Photo: Don Ryan
    In this Oct. 4, 2013, photo, a person walks by the Right 2 Dream Too homeless camp in Portland, Ore. Opponents of a city plan to put 100 people under a century-old bridge in the Pearl District are carefully choosing their words when complaining about the prospect of new, down-on-their-luck neighbors. Rather than express concern for their financial investments, they have criticized the city’s expedited process and worried for the welfare of those willing to live in a parking lot under the west ramp of the Broadway Bridge. Photo: Don Ryan

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — One of the toniest areas of Portland might soon be home to a tent city.
If this were another town, the owners and developers of high-end homes and condominiums would scream to high heaven about diminished property values.

But this is Portland, where the citizens try their best to be tolerant of everything except intolerance — and gluten.

Opponents of a city plan to put 100 people under a century-old bridge in the Pearl District are carefully choosing their words when complaining about the prospect of new, down-on-their-luck neighbors. Rather than express concern for their financial investments, they have criticized the city’s expedited process and worried for the welfare of those willing to live in a parking lot under the west ramp of the Broadway Bridge.


Tiffany Sweitzer, the president of Hoyt Street Properties, a realty and development firm that — over the course of 15 years — has helped transform a dying industrial area into a sparkling urban neighborhood, said “throwing a bunch of people under a bridge” should not be the city’s solution to helping the estimated 2,000 residents who sleep outside each night.
“It’s embarrassing, because that is not how you would treat anybody,” she said.

Mayor Charlie Hales and city commissioners plan to decide Oct. 16 whether to move the camp to the Pearl District from its current home near the entrance to Chinatown. If approved, a coalition of property owners promises to sue.

The camp known as Right 2 Dream Too was established in October 2011 during the Occupy Portland movement. Four years earlier, the city forced an adult bookstore to close because of code violations. The building was later demolished and the lot remained empty for three years until the aggrieved owner allowed the homeless to lease the property for $1 a year.

Each night for two years, roughly 100 people have slept on prime downtown real estate — in tents shielded from passers-by with a barrier of old, colorful doors fashioned into an artsy wall. During that time, landowner Michael Wright racked up more than $20,000 in fines because of violations associated with operating a campsite without a permit. He responded with a lawsuit.

To extract Portland from this mess, city Commissioner Amanda Fritz brokered a deal in which the fines would be waived, the lawsuit dropped and the homeless campers sent to the Pearl District. It all happened in a matter of weeks, angering homeowners and developers who say the city was so desperate to settle Wright’s lawsuit that it bypassed zoning laws.
Fritz, a former psychiatric nurse, acknowledged that the camp is not the ideal answer to homelessness. She said there is not enough money to provide housing to all, and Right 2 Dream Too has provided a much safer alternative than the street.
“It’s been an option that’s been better than nothing,” she said.

Scores of people spoke for and against the proposal at a recent five-hour hearing. Though some older women testified their safety would be jeopardized, most Pearl District residents completely ignored quality-of-life and financial issues and repeatedly griped that the city did the deal in secret and delegitimized the zoning code. Not everyone in the neighborhood is rich, they added, and the fight has been unfairly cast as the greedy against the homeless, or “us against them.”

“It’s a sad, confrontational, divisive atmosphere because communication was intentionally closed,” said Julie Young, a retired social worker who lives in the Pearl.

Besides condominiums and the low-income apartments for older residents, there are businesses nearby and a Marriott is scheduled to open next year. Those who have spoken to the potential financial impact of Right 2 Dream Too say hotel guests won’t want to stay near a shantytown and commercial rents could fall by more than 15 percent.

Ziba Design spent $20 million to build its headquarters in the Pearl District. Its real estate adviser, Greg Close of Wyse Investment Services, said in a phone interview that his client represents a large Chinese apparel manufacturer that is considering Portland.

“What does my client tell the executive of that manufacturer when it asks: ‘How can we trust you, Ziba, with our brand when we come to Portland and see you invested $20 million next to a homeless camp?'”

Homeless people, meanwhile, ask their prospective neighbors to give them a chance. Right 2 Dream Too (or R2D2) has an excellent safety record, and supporters say the camp — they call it a rest area — has helped people get back on their feet and into permanent housing.

“We’re not there to bring property values down,” said Ibrahim Mubarak, the R2D2 leader. “We’re there to get people from sleeping on your sidewalk. We’re there to stop people from sleeping in the doorways. We’re there to stop the drug dealing. We’re there to stop the drug use by our friends.”

http://www.sfgate.com/news/us/article/Tent-city-planned-in-fancy-Portland-neighborhood-4873496.php

Court Decisions Uphold the Right to Beg in Flagstaff, AZ

NOTE BY NORSE:

Santa Cruz “homeless get out of sight, get out of town” groups and their fans at City Council  have recently used phony Public Health & Safety pretests to make Santa Cruz a “less welcoming city” for poor, unconventional, and homeless travelers as well as long-time residents.  These have included Take Back Santa Cruz’s “positive loitering” events, pressuring convenience stores to remove payphones, & spending city and county money on a $100,000 + security gate at the Homeless (Lack of) Services Center.

The City’s slimey solution to cracking down on panhandling, once it was ruled constitutional in California by a federal judge in the early 90’s in the Blair decision, was to use “time, place, and manner” restrictions.   The only valid justification for limiting peaceful beggins is if it becomes truly threatening or obstructive of pedestrian (or vehicular) traffic.  Santa Cruz’s “Aggressive Solicitation” ordinance (MC 9.10  See http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaCruz/) is misnamed to cover its real intent–to give police selective enforcement tools to run off any sparechanger they consider unsavory, or to harry that person from place to place.  Panhandling, even silently with a sign, is forbidden entirely at night, on 95% of the downtown sidewalks and on 100$ of sidewalks elsewhere where there are any buildings.  It is akin to creating “protest pens” far from where public officials actually appear (something Santa Cruz officials have also done by establishing curfews around City Hall,  County Building, and the Court Buildings–this by decree rather than legislative vote after public debate).

Recently a disabled woman in a wheelchair (Glenda) was harassed on the sidewalk out near Kosko’s where she had a perfect right to be–even though abiding by the letter of the panhandling prohibitions–with deputies and SCPD thugs colluding to remove her at the request of some anonymous bigot.   This followed threats up at a sidewalk near Safeway on the Westside, even though Glenda reported being in a legal place, okayed previously by police authorities–where police responded to a “get out of town” TBSC-type by falsely demanding she move on, though she was legal right where she was.  The examples of repression are becoming more flagrant & more numerous.  Check my twice-weekly radio show archives at http://www.huffsantacruz.org/brb-descriptions.html for many many instances and specific stories.

The Santa Cruz ordinances have never been taken to court in their entireity.  The only section that was taken to court was thrown out a decade ago as unconstitutional (See “Powdering The Crooked Nose of The City’s Anti-Homeless Panhandling Law ”  at https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/06/19/18281363.php).  Santa Cruz awaits a new generation of citizen legal activists who will take on the abusive law and others that criminalize for the homeless what ordinary housed citizens take for granted (far too complacently considering NDAA, Guantanamo, NSA, and Patriot Act abuses that have become standard in the last decade).

Flagstaff, Arizona, to halt its crackdown on panhandling

The Flagstaff City Council agrees to settle a lawsuit that claimed an Arizona law against panhandling and the city’s aggressive enforcement of it were unconstitutional.

Flagstaff panhandling lawFlagstaff Police Cpl. Mike Rodriguez issues a citation to a homeless man who gave his name as James. The man was cited for camping within the city limits. (Josh Biggs / Arizona Daily Sun)
By Cindy CarcamoSeptember 24, 2013, 10:33 p.m.

FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. — An Arizona city that led the nation in its aggressive stance on panhandling reversed course Tuesday night, setting in motion the apparent demise of a century-old state law that criminalized begging.

The Flagstaff City Council voted to settle a lawsuit launched this summer by the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona on behalf of a 77-year-old woman who had been arrested after asking an undercover police officer for bus fare. The ACLU argued that the state law and Flagstaff’s enforcement of it were unconstitutional.
The council agreed and voted unanimously to stop enforcing the statute, promising that city officials would no longer interfere with a person peacefully begging in public spaces. But the council left the door open to imposing other restrictions.
The ACLU lawsuit challenged a policy Flagstaff adopted six years ago to remove people from downtown areas by jailing them early in the day on suspicion of loitering to beg. The city had invoked an Arizona statute that makes it a crime to beg in public spaces.
Flagstaff police had arrested an estimated 135 people on suspicion of loitering to beg during one year. In some cases, those people were jailed, said Mik Jordahl, a Flagstaff attorney who is serving as ACLU co-counsel in the lawsuit.
A spokeswoman for state Atty. Gen. Tom Horne said Monday he would not contest the ACLU’s effort to have a federal judge declare the law unconstitutional.
The Flagstaff situation mirrors a national trend of localities and states enforcing or creating laws to deter panhandling and control the movements of the homeless, said Heather Maria Johnson, civil rights director at the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, based in Washington.
Some states have passed similar statutes against begging. Others have invoked old laws, but Flagstaff’s efforts were an example of extreme enforcement, Johnson said.
Courts across the country have ruled that laws against aggressive panhandling and harassment are constitutional. But they’ve also ruled that peaceful begging is protected by the Constitution and cannot be outlawed by states or municipalities.
In March, after the ACLU sued Colorado Springs, Colo., the city scrapped nearly every aspect of an anti-panhandling law it had passed four months earlier.
An anti-panhandling law in American Fork, Utah, met a similar fate after a homeless man filed suit. He had been cited several times for holding a sign on public sidewalks. The city agreed to pay him $750 in damages and more than $5,300 in attorney fees and court costs.
Salt Lake City officials took notice and stopped enforcing a statute that made it illegal to sit, stand or loiter on or near a roadway in order to solicit a ride, money, employment or other business. A federal judge later ruled that law unconstitutional.
Jordahl, the ACLU attorney, lauded the outcome in Flagstaff.
“We are pleased that the hundreds of desperately poor persons arrested under this unconstitutional law in the last several years will no longer face arrest and jailing for simply exercising their right to free speech in a peaceful manner,” he said in a statement.
Flagstaff Police Chief Kevin Treadway said the city had opted to enforce the statute in response to hundreds of residents’ complaints about people loitering or begging for money.
“In our city, this is really a prevalent issue,” Treadway said. “We have citizens contacting us on a regular basis who are intimidated.”
Flagstaff is a tourist hub, with shops, restaurants and university students. The city is also a gateway to the Grand Canyon, with several highways intersecting in town.
Tensions tend to peak during hot months, when the homeless population swells with transients who come to the mountain community to escape the sweltering desert heat.
Treadway said city officials were in the process of developing a new ordinance. This time, he said, it would target aggressive panhandlers.
cindy.carcamo@latimes.com

MORE COMMENTS AT:  http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ff-flagstaff-homeless-20130925,0,6561745.story

‘Begging is not a crime,’ ACLU says in suit against Flagstaff

By Cindy CarcamoJune 26, 2013, 6:30 a.m.

 

TUCSON — The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona filed suit Tuesday against the city of Flagstaff, accusing municipal leaders of unconstitutionally driving beggars off the streets and criminalizing peaceful panhandling in public places.

“Begging is not a crime,” Arizona ACLU Legal Director Dan Pochoda said in a statement. “To appease local business interests, Flagstaff has sacrificed the fundamental rights of individuals and is throwing people in jail for simply for asking for a dollar or two for food.”

The complaint challenges a policy adopted by the city six years ago to remove people from downtown areas by jailing them early in the day on suspicion of “loitering to beg.” City officials have used a state statute that makes it a crime to beg in all public spaces.

Flagstaff police made 135 such arrests from June 2012 to May 2013, according to the ACLU.

Flagstaff Police Chief Police Kevin Treadway did not return a call for comment.
City Atty. Michelle D’Andrea said Flagstaff officials could not comment until they had reviewed the lawsuit and drafted a response.

“The city typically does not comment on pending litigation and will file a response to the lawsuit in a timely manner,” D’Andrea said in a statement.

The three plaintiffs named in the suit include Marlene Baldwin, a 77-year-old Hopi woman who ACLU officials said is disabled and losing her eyesight. She was arrested in February on suspicion of loitering to beg after asking an undercover police officer if he could spare $1.25 for bus fare, according to the complaint.

Mik Jordahl, a Flagstaff attorney who is serving as co-counsel in the lawsuit, said that although laws against aggressive panhandling and harassing solicitations have been found to be constitutional, states and cities cannot legally outlaw peaceful begging.

“When the most downtrodden among us are arrested and punished for the peaceful content of their speech, then none of our free speech rights are guaranteed,” Jordahl said.

MORE COMMENTS AT http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-ff-aclu-lawsuit-flagstaff-panhandlers-20130625,0,652527.story

HOMELESS DEPORTATION MASQUERADING AS “SMART COMPASSION”:

Even in Beverly Hills, helping homeless is a struggle

There are fewer homeless people in Beverly Hills than on skid row, but they too are entrenched street dwellers. Helping them takes persistence.

By Steve LopezAugust 20, 2013, 7:24 p.m.

 

Amy lives near a man named Bond, just down the street from Jennifer in a terrific neighborhood in the heart of Beverly Hills, where lollipop palm trees sway in celebration of high-living. But it’s been years since Amy, Bond or Jennifer had a home other than a park bench or a clearing in the manicured shrubbery.

Beverly Hills doesn’t have many homeless people — roughly 30, give or take. But the ones it does have are stubbornly inclined to stay right where they are, living in their own minds and on their own terms, practically in the shadow of multimillion-dollar mansions.
Why?

“It’s safe,” said Jim Latta, the city’s human services administrator, who knows every one of the city’s homeless people by name. People living on the streets don’t have to watch their backs the way they would on skid row or in Venice.
Kevin Conner, an outreach worker, offered another explanation as well.

“The residents of Beverly Hills give to the homeless,” Conner said.

Amy backed him up on that. She lives on a bench in the park that runs along Santa Monica Boulevard, and when I asked how she gets by, she pointed to the nearby church.

“I stand against that wall during Sunday Mass,” said Amy, a senior citizen. When Mass lets out, parishioners — lifted by the spirit — reach into their pockets. Amy said she makes enough to hop on a bus and go to the Farmer’s Market at 3rd and Fairfax, where she does her shopping.

But Conner said that only makes his job harder.

“If a parishioner gives her everything she needs, she doesn’t need me,” he said. Which is why he hands donors a card that says, “Positive Change, Not Spare Change,” and, “Please give to a charity, not a panhandler.”

It’s not as if City Hall doesn’t get complaints about homeless people from merchants and residents. But most of the gripes are about panhandlers, many of whom don’t live in Beverly Hills but drift in to tap locals and tourists.

The city banned so-called aggressive panhandling. But five years ago, it hired Step Up On Second, a Santa Monica nonprofit, to help look after homeless people and try to steer them into services. Only four people have been permanently housed in that effort, but many others have been cared for at least temporarily at People Assisting the Homeless, a Hollywood nonprofit that provides six beds nightly for Beverly Hills’ street dwellers.

That might make it sound as though the goal is to push the homeless beyond the borders of Beverly Hills, and I’m not holding my breath waiting for the city to open a Step Up On Rodeo. But after a day of making the rounds with Latta and the Step Up outreach team — Conner and his partner Annie Boyd — it looked to me as though the goal is to make regular contact with a very sick population, earn some trust and jump on any opportunity to offer life-changing help.

Latta said that when he speaks to local groups about his work, he points out that his subjects are a little harder to help than Nick Nolte‘s lovable vagabond character in the movie “Down and Out in Beverly Hills.” That chap ends up sleeping with the maid of a rich, dysfunctional family and enjoying the city’s fine dining. Latta’s people, meanwhile — like many entrenched street dwellers in any community — are fighting severe mental illness and barely hanging on. Some of them tip a bottle to ward off waves of despair, only to sink further into the depths.

Latta, a career mental health and social worker, keeps a photo of a guy named Al in his office. Al was a steady, benign presence near the Gap store on North Beverly. Though he didn’t ask for money, passersby gave him enough to survive despite mental and physical illness, and he resisted efforts by the outreach team to get him treated and housed. By night, he lived behind a dumpster in an alley with the blessing of a merchant, until he became so physically ill that he finally agreed to go to a hospital. A few days after being admitted, he was dead.

“Many want help but struggle to make a change,” Latta wrote in a letter to the editor at the time of Al’s death. “It took more than two years for our gentleman to decide whether to stay with his miserable but known world or try the alternatives provided by the outreach team.”

When we met up with Amy, who is very sick physically and otherwise, Latta was wrestling with memories of Al and wondering whether — if Amy continues to refuse help — the humane option might be an involuntary commitment.

A few blocks away, we met with a man who finally accepted housing recently, only to land back on the streets. “If I can get the church to come up with the money, I’m going to come by and see if I can take you to an apartment,” Latta told the man, who nodded in approval.

Beverly Jermyn, an L.A. resident, told me that this kind of persistence paid off in the case of her brother. John Jermyn, who was homeless for 30 years and would often dance his days away on Robertson Boulevard, moved into an apartment at Step Up On Vine in April.

“He had no hope of getting off the street until this wonderful outreach team worked with him,” Beverly Jermyn said.

John Jermyn, who played minor league baseball in the Dodgers‘ farm system 40 years ago, sleeps in his Hollywood apartment by night but still can’t resist Beverly Hills by day. I met him at Will Rogers Memorial Park on Sunset, where he said he couldn’t talk long because he had lots of dancing to do.
I asked what it was like to live indoors after so many years under the stars.
“It has its benefits,” he said, and then he was lost in motion.
steve.lopez@latimes.com

Eugene Activists Force City to Act on Homeless Sanctuary Camps

NOTES BY NORSE:  Eugene pioneered the Safe Parking/Camping Zones, in part because of pressure from homeless activists there two decades ago and recently from SLEEPS (Safe Legally Entitled Emergency Places to Sleep) as well as an active leftist and anarchist community.
Meanwhile Santa Cruz drops deeper into paranoia and anti-homeless hysteria with the Take Back Santa Cruz-inspired Needle-Free Zone homeless-aphobiacs.  The repression contagion has spread—now street performers, vendors, artists, and political activists are under attack downtown.
New laws go into effect in Santa Cruz October 24th that will limit performance spaces to a 12′ square area and make traditional assembly and political activity illegal on 95% of the downtown sidewalks.  These laws follow earlier ones that make it illegal to hold up peace signs on city medians (to outlaw panhandling there) and empower park officials to issue 1-day stay away orders prior to trial for “crimes in the park” like “trespass after dark” “smoking” and “sleeping after 11 PM”.   An expansion of the Smoking Ban downtown targets homeless people (in a recent New England Journal of Medicine study, 17% of the general population smoke as distinguished from 75% of the homeless population).
Instead of opening existing bathrooms for 24-hour use, authorities are setting up a fenced off segregated portapotty as well as funding a $100 “Security” gate and fence around the Homeless (Lack of) Services Center.  Activist Brent Adams has put forward a Sanctuary Camp plan disdained by the City Council majority.   Instead Mayor Hillary Bryant’s  band of bumbusters is backing  a “Citizens Public Safety Task Force” which defines homeless survival activity like sleeping outside, camping in parks, and urinating and defecating in the woods as “criminal behavior”.
Though the City has announced multi-million dollar surplus in their budget this year, none of it will be going to fund campgrounds or restrooms or showers for the most needy.  Eugene soars on, while Santa Cruz descends into a darker period.

Eugene Government

City OKs homeless camps

If the first 15-person site works out, others could be added on lots approved by the City Council


Legal camping advocate Alley Valkyrie speaks to the Eugene City Council in support of a proposal to create legal camping sites in Eugene on Monday, September 23, 2013. (Chris Pietsch/The Register-Guard)


By Edward Russo

The Register-Guard

Published: 12:00 a.m., Sept. 24


A proposal that could allow Eugene to establish small homeless camps on yet-to-be-­chosen sites was approved by the City Council on Monday night.


Councilors voted 6-2 to pass an ordinance recommended by City Manager Jon Ruiz that would allow the council to authorize more than one volunteer-­run homeless camp of up to 15 people apiece — if the first camp works well.

Councilor Claire Syrett — who represents a ward that includes the Whiteaker, River Road and Santa Clara areas — said the proposal, which would allow camps to operate until next March, is not a cure for homelessness in Eugene.

But the camps will be better for some of the “hundreds of people” who have been sleeping for years in city parks and other public land, she said.


“It won’t fix all of the problems,” Syrett said. “It won’t fill all of the need, but it’s better than the status quo.”

Joining Syrett in voting for the proposal were councilors Alan Zelenka, Betty Taylor, George Brown, Chris Pryor and Greg Evans. Voting against were Councilors George Poling and Mike Clark.


Under the proposal, volunteers or nonprofit groups would manage the camps, and they would provide garbage service and portable toilets at no cost to the city. The council would control the number and location of camps, with the expectation that there would be little or no other costs to the city.


Potential sites could be located on city-owned parcels in commercial or industrial areas, or those offered by religious institutions, nonprofit groups or a business located on commercial or industrial-zoned property.


Until Monday, the council had been considering a proposal introduced by Zelenka to let the council authorize a single “rest stop” or overnight camp for up to 15 homeless people.


Under that proposal, the first camp would have been tried for 90 days to see how well it worked before other sites could be started. The proposal also would have required campers to pack up their belongings and leave the site each day.


But the concept was criticized at previous council meetings by homeless people and activists. Critics said a single site isn’t enough for the many homeless people in Eugene, and that requiring homeless people to pack up their belongings each day is impractical.


Ruiz, the city manager, on Friday made changes to a draft ordinance that could allow the establishment of more than one camp in the near future. He also added flexibility to the ordinance so that, depending on the site, campers wouldn’t necessarily have to pack up their belongings and leave each day.


Poling said he objected to the rest stop proposal being changed so that homeless people could stay on a site all day and night.


“That is no longer a rest stop,” he said. “That is a campground.”


Poling also faulted the proposal because the city would not be helping people to get out of homelessness.

“All we are doing is warehousing them and not working with them to end their homelessness,” he said.

Instead of establishing camps, Clark favored having the city act as a referral service to connect homeless people with property owners who would be willing to let homeless people camp on their property.


The camps proposed by Ruiz would be managed by “hosts” and the areas would be run according to site agreements between the site operators and the city. The camps could be terminated if the agreements are violated.


Previously, when city officials had begun working on the homeless camp idea at the direction of the council, they compiled a list of 19 possible sites that included undeveloped parkland in residential areas. That raised so much concern by nearby residents that the council eliminated potential sites in residential areas or those located close to a school.


On Monday night, several homeless advocates thanked Ruiz for developing his proposal.


Michael Carrigan, of the Community Alliance of Lane County, said people who want to help the homeless “are excited about this proposal and are ready to roll up their sleeves to make this work.”


Alley Valkyrie, a south Eugene resident who has been helping the homeless advocacy group known as SLEEPS, said she was “really stunned” by the city manager’s proposal.


“It’s a huge step in the right direction,” she said.


Valkyrie suggested that a camp be allowed on city land under the Ferry Street Bridge, where several campers have pitched tents. Another camp has been set up on city land at Broadway and Hilyard Street, which Valkyrie said is an excellent site.


The Rev. Dan Bryant, president of Opportunity Village Eugene, a newly formed housing area for homeless on Garfield Street, urged the council to approve the ordinance to get as many of the camps “up and running as quickly as possible, and we will work with you to help make that happen.”

 

 

You are here: Home / 2013 / May / 08 / CITY COUNCIL UNANIMOUSLY INSTRUCTS STAFF TO MOVE FORWARD WITH SLEEPING ORDINANCE

CITY COUNCIL UNANIMOUSLY INSTRUCTS STAFF TO MOVE FORWARD WITH SLEEPING ORDINANCE

4.25.2013 Eugene, OR The Eugene City Council, which had dawdled unmercifully in coming to the table to discuss Safe Legally Entitled Emergency Places to SLEEP for those who are unhoused, arrived at the April 22 Council Work Session table with unprecedented determination to take immediate and purposeful action.  The Councilors were brought to the table by Councilor Greg Evan’s leadership in calling for an official Council Work Session. Councilor Evans called the session following ongoing testimony from both housed and unhoused people affiliated with SLEEPS, CALC, Occupy, Interfaith Occupy, CLDC, Nightengale, ACT and other groups, stating that the testimony led him to believe that Eugene’s current policies were, at best, “counterintuitive”.
In a surprisingly bold move, in the early minutes of the session, Councilor Alan Zelenka made a motion to authorize city staff to draft an ordinance to designate temporary safe and legal place to sleep from 9PM to 7AM on non-park, city owned land.  The motion passed unanimously, with Councilor George Poling absent.  The Council also directed staff to call a special Work Session on the first date at which all Councilors can be present to review and approve an ordinance.  Once approved, a Public Hearing will be held and the newly authorized “Rest Areas” can become a proud part of Eugene’s dramatically changing policies addressing issues surrounding those who are unhoused.  The Council backed up their voiced support of finding creative, financially feasible and effective new solutions with a clear sense of enthusiasm and commitment….and action.  At the next Session the Council will also seek to approve some of the four options proposed by city staff, most involving relationships between the city, religious, not for profit and private land owners.  The Council indicated agreement that a whole continuum of small, partial and temporary solutions are needed to meet the emergency needs and buy time to find longer term answers.
The Rest Areas, as proposed by Councilor Zelenka, will be on several selected, specially designated, city owned non-park land parcels.  They will offer a safe place to sleep from 9PM to 7AM, toilet access, garbage collection and lockers so that individuals can secure their items during the day, facilitating their ability to find work, housing, keep health appointments and conduct other personal business.
A major benefit of the Rest Areas is that they will draw people who now sleep downtown or in public parks away from those areas and into areas that are especially designed to meet the basic safety and sanitation needs of those who sleep in the areas.  Insufficient bathrooms, especially at night, has been a major health hazard to all citizens in Eugene’s downtown and public parks and the new Rest Stops will improve the public health of all citizens.  It establishes a new, more realistic and businesslike approach that will better meet the needs of the downtown and parks as well as the needs of those who need a place to sleep.  The City’s long term failure to address the problem has put those needs unnecessarily in conflict.
Another major business benefit is that the Rest Areas should save a great deal of the current $300,000 per year the Eugene city government is spending to clean up deserted camps, often vacated as individuals flee under police orders.  It will be far cheaper to take this preventive approach:  placing toilets and garbage/recycling resources in the Rest Areas so that people can clean up after themselves.  Not only has the City’s previous approach been a poor choice from a business perspectivie, it has posed health hazards for all and failed to meet the goal of chasing the unhoused out of Eugene.
Activists who have long been trying to persuade the Council to provide better solutions than in the past were impressed with the Mayor and Council’s obvious determination to do something substantive and to do it now.  “It took a long time to encourage them to actually TALK about this really gnarly problem….but once they decided to take it on, they took it on with gusto.  It us up to the rest of us, both housed and unhoused, to be certain that we give the Council the support they deserve for having the courage to admit that what we’re doing isn’t working and to start proving out better solutions”, said one activist.

 

Eugene council OKs small homeless camps operated by nonprofit groups outside neighborhoods

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
September 24, 2013 – 4:36 pm EDT

EUGENE, Oregon — The Eugene City Council has given the go-ahead for homeless camps for no more than 15 people each on land owned by the city, churches or nonprofit groups in commercial or industrial areas.


The sites haven’t been designated. Activists have been demonstrating for months in favor of allowing homeless people to camp on city property.


The Council’s action Monday expands the proposal it had been considering, which would have been limited to one camp. Campers would have had to pack up their belongings and leave every day.
Instead, more than one camp will be allowed if the first one works, and some camps could allow residents to remain during the day.


City Manager Jon Ruiz said they would be managed by “hosts” and run according to site agreements between the site operators and the city.


Volunteers or nonprofit groups would provide garbage service and portable toilets at no cost to the city.


The Council would control the number and location of camps, with the expectation that there would be little or no other costs to the city.


The camps could be terminated if the agreements are violated, Ruiz said.


Alley Valkyrie, a south Eugene resident who has been speaking for the homeless advocacy group known as SLEEPS, said she was stunned.


“It’s a huge step in the right direction,” she said.


Demonstrations for homeless camps have been marked by arrests in recent months and a legal dispute over a free speech area outside the county courthouse.

Eugene Homeless Camp Broken Up In Free Speech Plaza

AP | Sept. 05, 2013 7:56 a.m. | Eugene, Oregon

Share
1
AP

A three-week-old camp-in protest at the Wayne Morse Free Speech Plaza in downtown Eugene was broken up Wednesday after Lane County commissioners enacted an emergency closure of the plaza.


The Eugene Register-Guard reports the Board of Commissioners voted 4-1 on the emergency closure. Protesters were given until Wednesday afternoon to clear out the camp. Four individuals later refused to leave and were cited for trespassing by Eugene police.


Officials say the closure will be used to clean all of the areas and work on further restrictions.


The group behind the makeshift campsite, Safe Legally Entitled Emergency Places to Sleep, or SLEEPS, is protesting the lack of legal camping areas for homeless people in Eugene.
___
Information from: The Register-Guard, http://www.registerguard.com

Homeless camps dot Central Oregon

In this Sept. 5, 2013 photo, Mike Miller, of Bend, Ore., poses for a photo at a transient campsite, where he once spent several nights at during a year of living and camping outside. “This is survival for some people. I know it was for me,” Miller said. (AP Photo/The Bulletin, Joe Kline)

BEND, Ore. (AP) — Mike Miller had hit bottom.

Roughly eight years ago, he and a brother from San Jose, Calif., moved to a house in Bend for work. About two years later, Miller lost his job and took up drinking. His brother left for Nevada, and Miller was left alone.

Before he knew it, he was scouting secluded places to put up a tent to replace his lost home.

“I didn’t want to camp out,” Miller said. “It’s a part of my life I didn’t think I would go through. But, the things I was doing and the choices I made brought me here.”

Usually unseen or overlooked, homeless camps around Bend provide a temporary home for scores of homeless people. The camps may appear, be vacated and be re-established in a matter of days, according to Miller and others who’ve worked with or policed the homeless. Or they may quietly persist for months. They range from one person in one tent to several people in upward of 10 tents, according to Bend Police spokesman Lt. Chris Carney.

Nearly 2,200 people are experiencing homelessness in Central Oregon, according to the annual point-in-time count conducted in January by the Homeless Leadership Coalition. Of those 2,200 people, Miller feels most are down on their luck, just as he was.

But he knows that’s not everybody. Some choose to live that way, he said. “I was never threatened. But I know it does happen out there. I had one guy who watched my back as I watched his. It’s about surviving.”

Carney said the department deals with homeless camps all around Bend. For example, at least six camps lie within a five-mile radius of The Bethlehem Inn, a homeless shelter on U.S. Highway 97 in north Bend, according to managing director Chris Clouart. Most campers keep to themselves and hide from view, but sometimes events propel them into the forefront of public attention.

Saturday, Bend Police reported an attempted rape at a transient camp on Northeast Fourth Street. An alleged witness at the camp, Don Wichmann, performed a rare act and reported the incident to police. As a result, Jacob Schoenborn was held in Deschutes County jail on suspicion of first-degree rape, fourth-degree assault and two counts of first-degree sexual abuse.

“Most of the time, these people are camping because they want to be left alone,” said Carney. “Getting them to report incidents is always a tough thing to do.”

Crimes at these camps are not infrequent, Carney said. But they aren’t everything the camps are about. A fire in July that charred 4 acres in east Bend started with a homeless campfire. Two people — a mother and daughter — were cited in that incident. In addition, Carney said, stabbings and a shooting have occurred at homeless camps around the city within the past five years.

“It’s difficult to distinguish between the types of people who are out there,” he said. “Most of the people in these camps are people down on their luck — they can’t afford housing or something. But there are the others who choose that lifestyle and can sometimes cause problems.”

Residential camping in city limits is illegal, according to Bend affordable housing manager Jim Long. His department attempts to work with local nonprofits and businesses to find affordable housing for those whose income was diminished or demolished after the recession.

“Most people are one or two paychecks from tragedy anyway,” Long said. “If there’s 100 homeless people, there are 100 different stories. I don’t have rose-colored glasses — they aren’t all saints. But they aren’t all evil, either.”

He said the city attempts to move homeless camps as humanely as possible. Before calling the police, Long said, he would call the Central Oregon Veterans Organization or the Deschutes County Mental Health division in order to give the affected homeless a warning. If COVO and Deschutes County are unsuccessful, the police are called in.

“As a police department, we just go in there and tell them they have to camp outside of the city,” Carney said. “They typically pick up and move to a new spot. It’s about all we can do; we don’t have the time or resources to go out and force these people to move.”

Clouart said community calls to clean up homeless camps are routine following violent incidents like the one Saturday.

“It won’t solve anything,” Clouart said. “You’re just moving them from one place to another. To fix it, we need to become a society and a culture that doesn’t judge these people.”

Organizations around Bend attempt to keep judgment out of rehabilitation. The Shepherd’s House, a homeless men’s support shelter, offers a bed, food and shelter to applicants who are clean and sober. In emergency situations, it offers the same services to men for seven days. For those who need camping supplies, the shelter may provide them as well.

The Bethlehem Inn is open to men and women, offering the same “get back on your feet” services. COVO started a homeless outreach program, donating camping and survival supplies to ex-military men in need. “Feed the Hungry” hosts a breakfast and lunch at Bend’s Community Center every Sunday, and the center is getting ready to hand out survival gear to the “Keep Them Warm” program again.

Miller said he got so comfortable with camping that he was able to fashion a shower in his tent so he didn’t have to interact with people at camp showers. He said he notices others have taken up residence at the sites where he once camped.

“Some people just stay in that mindset of camping,” he said. “Some don’t want to stop doing that. I just realized that life wasn’t for me, and I was ready for a change.”

Miller, now 27 months free of alcohol, has lived at The Shepherd’s House for almost a year. He’s getting ready to move to Portland soon for an internship with a religious homeless-assistance organization and hopes to go to school later for addiction studies. Miller said he hopes to use his future education to help others in his former position, paying forward the help he received.

But no matter what, he won’t forget his time in the tent.

“You just learn how to blend in,” he said. “In fact, at one point, you get comfortable blending in. Once you get that comfortable, you don’t have a desire to stop blending in. And, by then, you’ve run out of options to get out.”

___

Information from: The Bulletin, http://www.bendbulletin.com

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press

Bike Boycott and Homeless Harassment at City Council

https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/07/10/18739596.php

A Teapot Tempest or Two at Oral Communications
by Robert Norse ( rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com )
Wednesday Jul 10th, 2013 3:13 AM

Bike Church supporters lined up to urge City Council to end the SCPD’s political boycott of The Bike Church and restore the flow of abandoned and damaged bikes stopped a year and a half ago. Bike Dojo bozo Rob Mills, the new Bike Mafioso who’s the SCPD’s designated dumpsite for bikes, spewed fire and brimstone at critics of his business. I played the infamous Ken Collins video showing Collins poking a homeless man in a sleeping bag as part of a Clean Team “clean up” operation.

COLLINS VIDEO BACK–BRIEFLY– IN PUBLIC EYE

Four months after the actual incident, and two months after it hit You-Tube (via Santa Cruz Patch) and was then removed, I played the Ken Collins video showing the fiery Ken and his Clean Team bigotistas harass a homeless man in a red sleeping bag.

Though the video has been repeatedly removed from You-Tube, it is still posted along with a lengthy story on Santa Cruz Indymedia at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/05/15/18736901.php (“Video of Take Back Santa Cruz-supported Clean Team Harassing Homeless Forced Off Internet”).

Councilmember Comstock responded by denouncing me and attempting to distance her own Take Back Santa Cruz organization (of which she is co-founder) from The Clean Team.

Councilmember Robinson was not there, though reportedly was part of The Clean Team clean-up the day that Collins decided to abuse and denounce the homeless man in the video. She has made no statement on that expedition so far.

A tip of the hat to City Clerk/Administrator Bren Lehr, who assisted me in setting up the video after initially alarming me with requests that I allow “pre-viewing” so Mayor Bryant could “warn parents” to cover their childrens eyes and ears. Something the Council has been pretty good at doing generally regarding its abuses against the homeless.

Videos like this one are vital to show the public what’s really happening beneath the “Public Safety” pontificating and Needle Hysteria of The Clean Team, Take Back Santa Cruz, the SCPD, and associated right-wing groups.

Brent Adams’ video of Officer Vasquez dropping Richard Hardy face-first to the sidewalk in handcuffs is still a shocker (and still unexplained by the ever-evasive SCPD) (See “Use of force investigation not complete in videotaped arrest in Santa Cruz” at http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_23185274/use-force-investigation-not-complete-videotaped-arrest-santa)

SCPD BIKE BOYCOTT TO BE LIFTED? MAYBE.

The main action of the afternoon was a series of Bike Church supporters asking that the Council direct the SCPD to resume distribution of bikes cut off in a right-wing retaliatory move eighteen months ago and stalled by higher-up’s in the SCPD and City Manager’s office (specifically Assistant Manager Tina Shuul).

Bike Church supporters were on their best behavior, making little mention of the hostile and unjustified actions of the SCPD, the failure of Councilmembers Lane and Posner to take strong public action on this issue, or the complicity of the Bike Dojo in signing on to this “punish the lefties” action.

I suspect the decision by the SCPD was taken under cover of the Terrezas, Bryant, Mathews majority. See http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/07/07/18739482.php
(“Help Restore City Youth Bicycle Distributions”) and http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/06/11/18738278.php (“A Year Later, Youth Programs Still Waiting on City Bicycles”).

Steve Schnaar raised the issue nearly a year ago (“City Ends Successful Bicycle Distribution Program in Secret Back-Room Deal”at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/09/03/18720895.php).

Micah Posner claimed victory by noting that (a) the Bike Dojo was no longer receiving bikes from the City, and (b) there was now an open process to apply for that status. The question of why the bikes were stopped in the first place and why this issue was stalled for over a year and a half was “diplomatically” ignored. So apparently the SCPD will suffer no consequences for what appears to be abusive and arbitrary intervention denying distribution of bikes for over 18 months without warning or explanation.

Rob Mills and Paul of the Bike Dojo insisted that they were distributing hundreds of bikes to kids. Mills, however, had no problem with the SCPD’s using his group to steer bikes away from The Bike Church, even though Sandino of Barrios Unidos testified that bikes piled up undistributed over a period of months at the Bike Dojo. Dojo Bozo Mills (who kept insulting activists in a steady stream of invective both during and after the Council meeting) reportedly refused to allow the bikes to be distributed when a Watsonville group tried to wrest them from his clutches. This according to Sandino and Schnaar.

While it’s nice to hear prospects of the bikes being distributed again (Mills insisted the bikes had continued to go out over the last few months)–and potentially via the Bike Church–the failure of Posner, the Bike Church, and the Council to reveal the full extent of SCPD interference here allows them to walk away with clean hands from what seems to me like a rather dirty backroom business.

Mayor Bryant continues to violate the Brown Act by denying the public the right to speak on Consent Agenda items. She had no answer to my recent request as to why she is treating members of the public differentially (See “Mayor Cuts Off Comment in Consent Agenda Crackdown; Brown Act Complaint Rejected” at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/06/01/18737797.php). It’s hardly worth the public’s time to show up for the Consent Agenda unless they have an “in” with the City Council to have an item removed as a “favor” from a particular Council member.

However, to her credit, Bryant did allow all the speakers who wanted to speak do so at Oral Communications (when relatively few people were in the room compared to the normal session)–even though this meant spending 40 minutes or more (the usual time is half an hour) and giving each speaker 3 minutes. The Mayor may also have been more sensitive to this issue because an organized group (the Bike Church supporters) was present. Still, I thanked her for it afterwards.

It was all far too genteel to deter any repetition of SCPD/TBSC mischief in the future. And glossy flyers bemoaning the deaths of Butler and Baker were still stacked in piles to remind members of the community about who’s running the show at City Council.