NOTES BY NORSE   It looks like Santa Cruz police, rangers, and city attorney are adopting the same deaf-to-reason, blind-to-compassion approach that Sarasota authorities use, as described in this mainstream article.  One woman at the Red Church reported tonight that police and rangers have begun using littering tickets instead of camping citations, under a state code which allows for arrests and jail to frighten homeless people into cleaning up areas and moving out.  She also reported railroad authorities using leaf blowers to harass homeless campers near the tracks.
Meanwhile the City Attorney’s office confirms that no sleeping ban citations were dismissed under MC 6.36.055 (the “get on a waiting list, get your camping ticket dismissed” provision) this summer.  That means hundreds of $157 citations went to court and then probably to “Failure to Pay” status with hundreds of dollars of extra fines added.   At the same time City Council declined to fund closing emergency shelter services (which were serving only a handful for shelter but more for food, showers, laundry, and bathrooms).  Santa Cruz city, the courts, et. al apparently have no decriminalization plan and should lose HUD funding (See “Local Officials Have Pushed To Criminalize Homelessness For Years. The Feds Are Starting To Push Back” at http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/08/18/3692251/homelessness-criminalization-doj-usich/ ).
Freedom Sleepers continue their spotlight on injustice tomorrow night at Santa Cruz City Hall (See “Freedom Sleepers 13th Community Sleepout ” at https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/10/02/18778354.php .

Homeless sue Sarasota, police

They also allege that the city unfairly enforces its panhandling ordinance by restricting the practice to certain locations in violation of their First Amendment rights of free speech, specifically, to solicit charitable contributions in a public forum.

The men seek a court order banning the city from enforcing those ordinances, unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs and any other relief deemed appropriate.

The complaint was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs by the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida in Sarasota County circuit court.

It’s the latest move in a years-long debate about Sarasota’s treatment of, and response to, the roofless residents who live in the city once named America’s meanest by the National Coalition for the Homeless.

City attorney Bob Fournier hadn’t yet seen the lawsuit but said he had anticipated it based on conversations with Michael Barfield, vice president of the ACLU of Florida. Fournier plans to discuss the matter with the City Commission on Monday.

“I expect the city and the Salvation Army to defend our practices vigorously,” said Doug Logan, Sarasota’s homeless services director.

At issue is Sarasota’s lodging ordinance, which prohibits individuals from sleeping outside on public or private property without the consent of the property owner. It also requires police to offer violators transportation to an available shelter. Those who accept the offer avoid arrest or citation; those who refuse face sanctions.

Police made four arrests and issued 175 complaint summons under the ordinance in 2014, and made one arrest and issued 50 summons so far this year, Police Chief Bernadette DiPino said.

“Our officers have offered every person they encounter resources and services, and they get turned down all the time,” DiPino said. “It’s not a crime to be homeless, but they can’t break the law.”

The lawsuit cites different numbers. It says Sarasota criminally prosecuted 192 individuals for lodging outdoors in 2014 and 62 so far this year. It also cited criminal prosecutions of individuals found in a park after hours — 139 cases last year and 40 so far this year.

In 2013, the lawsuit says, the city prosecuted 354 people for lodging outdoors and 127 for being in a park after hours for total of 882 people prosecuted under the ordinances since Jan. 1, 2013.

The lawsuit further alleges that police officers cite individuals even when the community’s primary homeless shelter, the Salvation Army, is full and can’t accept individuals.

But Salvation Army local Commander Major Ethan Frizzell said the shelter never refuses to lodge individuals brought in by police, even when they’re intoxicated.

The lawsuit claims current accommodations at the Salvation Army don’t meet the minimum standards for shelter and thus the city can’t reasonably enforce the ordinance.

The shelter can accommodate 260 people nightly. Some sleep on regular beds. The rest sleep on overflow mats arranged on the kitchen floor.

Those overflow mats, the lawsuit claims, exceed the shelter’s capacity as defined in its conditional-use permit issued by the city. It also says the kitchen and hallway where the mats are placed don’t provide adequate emergency ingress and egress, and that people sleeping on the mats don’t have the minimum 35 square feet of space required by city’s current zoning regulations.

“The Salvation Army does fantastic work, but they don’t have the resources or the facility to meet the needs of the chronic homeless,” Barfield said. “Until there’s a solution by the politicians, the city must stop with the criminal prosecutions. It’s morally and legally wrong for the city to use the criminal justice system to solve the problem. That practice doesn’t work because you can’t deter sleeping.”

Sarasota Fire Marshal John Reed said Wednesday that he recently visited the Salvation Army at the request of a concerned individual but that he won’t have any information about potential code and zoning violations until after a follow-up visit later this month.

For the city’s panhandling ordinance, the lawsuit claims that because it selectively bans the solicitation of donations based on location and other factors, it unconstitutionally singles out the homeless.

It notes that the city allows people to ask for charitable contributions or seek political support and questions the difference between that and someone asking for a personal donation.

An estimated 1,460 single homeless adults live in Sarasota County, which has a shortage of at least 1,187 beds to accommodate them, according to a November 2013 report by a consultant hired by the city and county, Robert Marbut.

Although they had initially collaborated on plans to address the community homeless population, city and county officials have been at odds to find a common solution.

The county wants to build a come-as-you-are shelter, ideally somewhere within the city where most of the homeless people congregate; the city wants to implement a “Housing First” solution that finds homeless people permanent lodging.

They are set to resume the discussion after two years at a joint meeting set for Nov. 6.

Barfield said homeless residents don’t have time to wait. They need relief now.

“I’m pleased the community is going to have these conversations,” Frizzell said. “It may be unfortunate they’re having them in a lawsuit.”

MORE COMMENTS AT http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20150930/ARTICLE/150939964/2416/NEWS?p=4&tc=pg

On 9-22, I received a brief e-mail from City Manager Martin Bernal regarding the recent escalation of police force and First Alarm security guard violence against the Freedom Sleepers–a group protesting the City’s criminalization of homeless people. I present the following correspondence for public review so the community can decide what needs to be done next around this cruel repression of the most basic of human rights–the Right to Sleep at night without harassment. In a city which has essentially closed all accessible emergency shelter. Recent tallying of citations by police and rangers reveals nearly 1000 citations have been issued under MC 6.36 (Camping, Blanket, and Sleeping Bans) in the last three months. Nearly an equal number have been issued for MC 13.04.011 (“being in a closed area”–meaning being in a park, greenbelt, or at City Hall after dark). Fines for these offenses range from $157 to $198. The River St. Shelter refuses to voluntarily provide information to the courts documenting that their shelters were full on nights when people got citations.

Police intensified repression at our Tuesday 9-1 peaceful Freedom Sleepers protest demanding the Right to Sleep at night for those outside.

On 9-1 (and all subsequent Tuesdays) we were greeted with Security Guards, high-intensity klieg lights, a ‘no parking’ zone established around the protest area and harsher police behavior leading to unjustified arrests and First Alarm violence.

On 9-8 we sought to present a compromise proposal to Bernal regarding our willingness to leave City Hall if there were two weeks of good faith no-ticketing under the Sleeping Ban and other anti-camping ordinances, given the complete lack of emergency shelter.

We also tried to deal with vague staff accusations of activist misconduct undocumented by any specific complaints and contradicted by the reports of security guards and city employees. Several of us met with City Manager Martin (pronounced marTEEn) Bernal the morning before the 9-8 City Council meeting. Bernal dismissed our compromise proposal (which also included asking police to contact the River St. Shelter to determine if there were any beds before issuing a Sleeping Ban citation) but agreed to respond to certain other concerns. Police repression intensified with the false arrest of myself, Kevin Rothwell, and Lucero Luna. Our arrests were followed on 9-15 by that of Abbi Samuels for walking across the street with a thermos of coffee for the protest and that of Christina Barnes for talking back to a First Alarm Security Guard.

When Bernal had not responded as promised, I wrote to him.

FIRST LETTER FOLLOWING UP ON 9-8 MEETING BETWEEN FREEDOM SLEEPERS AND CITY MANAGER MARTIN BERNAL

From: rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com To: mbernal [at] cityofsantacruz.com
Subject: Following Up on 9-8 Meeting
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 09:49:50 -0700

Martin:

At the meeting you had with Rabbi Phil Posner, Steve Pleich, Steve Carter and me on 9-8, you agreed to follow up on assessing whether MC 13.04.011 allows us to be on the the City Hall grounds on access pathways according to the clear language of the statute. And whether the language of this statute was going to be respected in the future, unlike in past incidents where it has not been.

Many of us face citations for being on the City Hall grounds “after closing hours” which will shortly be going to court. I expect these citations to either be dismissed (and to advise us of this fact) or let us know you intend to proceed with prosecution–so that we can prepare the requisite subpoenas. I suggest the simplest approach is for you to direct police to acknowledge their error and proceed with a clean slate and a respect for the presence of peaceful protesters at City Hall.

You also agreed to determine whether we will be provided clear access to the City Council agendas–as we were not last night when there were at least 4 posted agendas of Commissions or Committees meeting in the next 48 hours.

You’ve also declined to provide any written evidence of complaints or concerns about past Freedom Sleeper sleep-out’s, though these undocumented “concerns’ have reportedly been used to intensify harassment of peaceful protesters. Is your position still unchanged on this issue?

Your First Alarm Security–present in unusually heavy force last night (5 of them)–recently assaulted an African-American woman, Christina Barnes, whose screams of pain lasted for five minutes. The First Alarm guards involved covered their badges and name plates and refused to give their superior’s name. What if anything will you be doing about this?

Please advise me at your earliest, since I’m meeting with HUFF members today at 11 AM. And it has been more than a week.

Thanks,

Robert Norse
HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom)831-423-4833

BERNAL’S REPLY AND SUBSEQUENT CORRESPONDENCE ARE AT https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/09/20/18777872.php?show_comments=1#18777950