Tag Archives: Sleeping Ban

Words or Deeds? An Exchange of Letters with the City Council

Posted on by

 

The “Search for Sleep” Protest will begin on July 4th at 6:30 PM in front of the Main Post Office after the Saturday Food Not Bombs Meal. Councilmember Micah Posner sent the following letter of support for the protest. I responded with the letter that follows (slightly expanded and clarified for publication here) demanding actual action on his part and the part of other Councilmembers rather than pretty words.

COUNCILMEMBER POSNER’S LETTER TO CONSTITUENTS ON THE EVEN OF THE 4TH OF JULY PROTEST

To: Rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com
Subject: the dilemna of homelessness
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 22:21:07 -0700
From: micahposner [at] cruzio.com

Dear Constituents,

Well, I can’t say I have really taken a break from City politics. In fact, activists whom I respect are pushing me to work for change whether it is summer or not. In the Good Times that came out on June 24th, activist/ journalist John Malkin exposed the unscrupulous way that myself and a dozen other community leaders have been bullied and threatened by Police Deputy Chief Steve Clark. This hasn’t made it easy to sleep at night, despite the fact that I’m riding my bike a lot.

Now my father, Rabbi Phil Posner, is leading a sleep-out on July 4th to protest the fact that there is not a legal place for homeless people to sleep at night in Santa Cruz. My father, age 77, is a freedom rider who spent 39 days in a Mississippi prison in 1961 for sitting in bus stations with black people. Having moved to Santa Cruz about a year ago, he is shocked by the way we treat the homeless. “At least in the South,” he wrote in a piece to the Sentinel, “black people could sleep in a park.” While I know it is a difficult issue to solve, I agree with him.

This is not to say that I am happy with the behavior of all homeless people. Unlike blacks in the South, many individuals end up homeless due to irresponsible choices. However, the basic phenomenon of homelessness is due to our economic system and our society. We are not responsible for the individual circumstances of each homeless person, but we are responsible for homelessness. We have tried to evade that responsibility by making it illegal to be homeless. Specifically it is illegal for homeless people to sleep at night anywhere in the City of Santa Cruz and most other cities in California. And sleeping at night is a basic function of human beings.

In doing so, we have exacerbated a problem that effects those with homes and without. I completely agree with residents who tell the Council that they are fed up; who tell us that, “We have to end this.” Homelessness is a huge drain on the police, on the courts, on the emergency rooms and on our parks and open spaces. The lack of a place in society for the homeless is not a result of compassion or its lack. It is result of denial and disorder.

There is a light at the end of this tunnel. A plan to largely end homelessness by housing the people who are terminally unhoused has been ratified by the entire City Council and Board of Supervisors. This represents a real solution and I entirely support it. If we were not criminalizing the homeless via the anti-sleeping ordinances, it would be reasonable to simply work on the plan as quickly as resources would allow. As we reorient our resources to this real solution, however, where do we expect the homeless to go? Our one walk-in shelter, the Paul Lee Loft, will soon reopen specifically for transitional housing and will be open only to those who expect to have a home within 90 days. What about those without this expectation?

My intention is to place the issue on the City Council’s agenda this Fall by asking the Council to either repeal the anti- sleeping ordinances or begin a process to identify a place in the City for homeless people to sleep. I invite your feedback: If you don’t want to locate a place for them in the City what makes you think that they will disappear? If you do support a legal place, what would it be like?

To meet my patriotic papa and be part of this latest struggle for civil rights, go down to the Main Post Office on Front and Pacific on July 4th for a free meal from 4 to 6PM or join them at 7PM to walk to a nearby open space where people with and without homes will be camping out for the night. To get ongoing updates on the action, to volunteer or help to defray costs, call the cell phone of super activist Steve Pleich: 466-6078.

Your Concerned Council Member,

Micah Posner

MY RESPONSE TO POSNER AND HIS FELLOW COUNCILMEMBERS

Micah:

This is good rhetoric–better than Mayor Lane’s, in fact.

However the proof is in your actions.

You haven’t advised me whether I can tell folks tomorrow at the General Meeting that you have sought and obtained agreement from the Mayor to put the issue on the agenda in August or September. Or that you have gotten a guaranteed second so it can actually be debated. What gives here? PLEASE ANSWER CLEARLY WHETHER YOU’VE DONE THIS.

Further your “light at the end of the tunnel” proposed by the Board of Supervisors to “end homelessness” appears to support another in a long line of “studies” and “intentions” designed to garner federal and state funds for very limited programs without focusing the real resources necessary to provide the housing starts (or building confiscations) that would actually be necessary. It is a lie designed to mislead the community and falsely reassure people reminiscent of Obama’s claims that “we’re getting out of Afghanistan”.

The Paul Lee Loft has never been open to more than 46 people. Even before application was further limited only those with a 90-day hence home, it had little to do with emergency shelter for the 1500-2000 out there. It has generally been true that only the Waiting List has been available and the Homeless (Lack of) Services Center ][HLOSC} has regularly declined to provide those on the list with written documentation to show the police to forestall ticketing. And now that grudging help will not be available to homeless people generally unless they meet the absurd HLOSC “90-day” requirements.

As a City Council member, please request that staff (a) draw up an amendment to MC 6.36.055 that states there will be no prosecution or ticketing of those sleeping outside unless a police officer determine with a phone call that shelter space is available that night; (b) determine just how many sleeping citations were forwarded from the City Attorney, the SCPD, and P &R to the courts for prosecution (i.e. were held not to be protected under MC 6.36.055); and (c) require Parks and Rec to summarize their infraction ticket stats each month instead of requiring those seeking to review them to go through them citation by citation. PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU’LL DO THIS AND WHEN.

If you bother to step outside your office and look at the recent tickets issued by the P & R–being held by Anna Brooks at the City Offices desk for us to pore over–you’ll see that (a) the overwhelming majority are for “camping”, “being in a park after dark”, and smoking, and (b) almost every single one has a stay-away order attached subjecting violators to 6 months in jail and/or $1000 fine (as a possible maximum). LET ME KNOW WHEN AND IF YOU’VE REVIEWED THIS GRI REALITY FOR ALL THOSE FOLKS YOU WRITE ABOUT. .

As for “identifying a place in the City for homeless people to sleep”, this phony search was done for six months in 1995 by Councilmembers Beiers and Scott when they were on the City Council, again in 1999 by Councilmembers Beiers, Krohn, and Sugar with the Council’s “Task Force to Examine the Camping Ordinance” when Beiers stated “there’s just no place for them”. ASK THE STAFF FOR THESE REPORTS OR CONTACT THESE FORMER MAYORS DIRECTLY AND FORWARD TO THE COMMUNITY THEIR CONCLUSIONS.

20 years ago, HUFF activist Becky Johnson, a former Board of Directors member of the Citizens Committee for the Homeless itemized a dozen places homeless people could sleep on city-owned property if bans were listed. PLEASE CONSULT HER AND REQUEST AN IMMEDIATE STAFF UPDATE ON THESE PLACES. If middle-class people were wandering around without homes because of a natural disaster, there would be immediate campgrounds set up as happened after the 19089 earthquake.

You can also move to demand authorities respect First Amendment requirements, eliminate curfews around City Hall, the libraries, and the parks that prohibit everyone, including activists, from even being in public areas–requirements imposed unilaterally by P & R boss Dannettee Shoemaker without any substantive justification. IMMEDIATELY REQUEST SHE LIFT SUCH RESTRICTIONS OR JUSTIFY THEM IN WRITING WITH SPECIFIC CONCERNS. MAKE YOUR COMMUNICATION IN WRITING.

If you really are providing more than lip service support, you’ll use your office to do what you can independent of vague and unsupportable promises. As well as FOLLOW UP ON PROMISES UNKEPT SUCH AS THE PROVIDING THE HLOSC BUDGET AND DOCUMENTING THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT RECENT 24-HOUR PARKING BAN NEAR THE HLOSC.

Flowery rhetoric means nothing without action. You don’t have to be sleeping out to take any of the actions above.

I am also cc-ing every other Councilmember this letter, since it is clearly their obligation to act as well if they claim to be progressive or liberal on these issues. I shall encourage activists and the community to hold the entire Council and each individual Councilmember responsible on these issues–particularly those who have voted for ordinances further persecuting homeless people in public places (on medians, in parks after dark, at Cowell’s Beach at night, sleeping anywhere after 11 PM at night), etc.

But that burden lies heaviest on those who claim to be supporters of civil rights and services for poor people.

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

Continue reading →

Right2Rest Legislation Update and 2015 R.I.P.

Posted on by

 

NOTES BY NORSE;  The Right2Rest Law has been laid to rest (for this year at least).   Perhaps pressing for action in a particular city would be a good focus for unhoused activists all over the state, instead encouraging the massed wealthy power all the bigoted city governments to shower legislators with lobbyists.

Contact Councilmember Micah (poo on “poopoo”) Posner, the man whose credo has been “one portapotty-but-let’s-not-disturb-the-staff-by-pressing-to-get-the-already-existing-bathrooms-open-at-night”.  He has scheduled an 11 AM meeting on Friday if anyone wants to come.  But you have to call him at 420-5028 beforehand to schedule it.

Meanwhile in Santa Cruz, crackdowns continue–individually and institutionally.  The Red Church (Calvary Episcopal) has not only withdrawn its lawns from 2-hours-a-week sanctuary to 0-hours-a-week as Pastor Joel Miller, reportedly under pressure from “there goes the neighborhood!” neighbors as well as ecclesiastical superior, called in the police night before last to remove “criminal sleepers” on the property.  Cops and security thugs steadily ignore the right to use public sidewalks around Cafe Pergolesi by giving “obstructing the sidewalk” tickets to at least two people who asked why they didn’t have the right to stand non-obstructively on the sidewalk.   Standing while homeless is apparently the crime involved.  Or questioning the inflated authority of guys in uniforms with badges and guns, perhaps.

Has the Homeless (Lack of) Services Center [HLOSC] okayed the collusion between Harvey West Businesses, the SCPD, and the Public Works Department to create the first-in-Santa-Cruz “no parking at any time without a permit” zone up and down Coral, Fern, and Limekiln streets?   Call them up at 420-5020 and ask them.  I can’t get through.   Or perhaps shoot an e-mail to longtime HLOSC-backer (and Mayor) Don Lane at dlane@cityofsantacruz.com  or 831-420-5022.

We’ll be out there gathering signatures, complaints, and concerns today at 2:30 pm at 115 Coral St. (See “Fighting the Homeless Parking Ban–Day 2” at https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/05/07/18772010.php ).  Hot coffee and heated discussions.  Join us, or contact HUFF at 423-4833 and/or rnorse3@hotmail.com to be alerted for future protests.

Proponents of the Right to Rest bill — including a busload of advocates of homeless people from San Francisco and Oakland — turned out in great numbers. Supporters outnumbered opposition lobbyists from business alliances and city governments by 6 to 1 during legislative hearings in Sacramento.

by TJ Johnston

The Right to Rest Act, California Senate Bill 608, which would decriminalize sleep, rest, the sharing of food and prayer, was pulled from committee without a vote. But the struggle for the bill in California will continue next year.

For now, SB 608 has been delayed after State Sen. Carol Liu (D-La Cañada-Flintridge) asked the Transportation and Housing Committee to hold off a vote on April 7 when it appeared there weren’t enough votes to advance the legislation.
“Today wasn’t a defeat,” said Paul Boden, director of the Western Regional Advocacy Project, one of the homeless advocacy organizations sponsoring the bill. “It was step one in a long process.”

SB 608, known as the Right to Rest Act, will still be active next year, he said. The state legislature still has up to two years to act on proposed legislation.

If passed by both the Senate and Assembly, the bill would ensure all Californians — regardless of housing status — the rights to rest, move freely in public, share food, pray, and sleep in a legally parked vehicle.

In effect, it would make local sit-lie and anti-panhandling ordinances that cities use against their homeless residents unenforceable throughout the state.

At the hearing, proponents of the bill — including a busload of advocates of homeless people from San Francisco and Oakland — turned out in great numbers. Supporters outnumbered opposition lobbyists from business alliances and city governments 6 to 1 during public comment.

Their refrain throughout the session was “stop criminalizing homelessness.” Several wore T-shirts with the words “Homeless Bill of Rights” and an image of a dove and a pair of hands breaking chains. This popular design comes from an image drawn by Ronnie Goodman, a homeless artist who has regularly lent his work to homeless people’s struggles.
Angel McClain, whom Liu invited before the panel, spoke in defense of SB 608. Now a senior advocate at St. Mary’s Center in Oakland, she spent 15 years on the streets, staying in tents, abandoned houses and by freeways — essentially, any place where she could find refuge.

She said that police officers targeted her for arrest simply because of her homeless status. “I was arrested for little or no reason because I was known as a homeless person,” she told the panel. “My cousin told me the police had a schedule to pick me up and put me back in jail.”

McClain also suffered dehumanizing treatment from the police. “I was treated like dirt, no consideration, like a piece of garbage that you discard,” she said.

Opposition to the Right to Rest bill came mainly from the League of California Cities, which argued that the bill would exempt homeless people from so-called “quality of life” laws that in theory apply to all people, but in fact are used almost exclusively against homeless people. The statewide association wrote a letter to Liu that the bill wouldn’t create or expand housing and social services.

But Boden said that is not the focus of the bill. It’s meant to remove legal barriers homeless people face because they have been arrested for the necessary acts of resting, sitting or lying in public.

“It’s not about ending homelessness, just decriminalizing it,” he said. “Everyone sleeps, eats and sits, but only some get tickets or go to jail for it. Criminalization only makes things worse for people living on the streets. And by not having to enforce crimes of status, law enforcement can focus on real public safety issues.”

However, senators on the committee and opponents of the bill said SB 608 would remove a tool from police in enforcing local ordinances (see sidebar).

Appearing before the panel, Matt Gray, a lobbyist for Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety and the California Small Business Association, painted a worst-case scenario of what would happen to communities if the bill passes.

“The answer is simply not to allow the rest of California to be like San Francisco,” he said.

Recently, the city of San Francisco was also used as a model of homeless criminalization in a report from the University of California at Berkeley law school. Of the 58 cities with anti-homeless ordinances it studied, San Francisco tied Los Angeles to lead all others in their overwhelming number of anti-homeless laws — 23 in San Francisco. Homeless people were given about 23,000 citations in a seven-year span for such nonviolent, poverty-related offenses as sitting, resting, camping and panhandling.

In the last five years, San Francisco further restricted homeless people’s activities with prohibitions on sitting and lying on sidewalks at certain times, staying in public parks overnight, and parking large vehicles on most city streets overnight.
Berkeley — which has 10 anti-homeless ordinances of its own — is considering adding many more, including setting one’s belonging by a tree, lying on planter walls, and panhandling within 10 feet of parking pay station.

On March 17, the City Council forwarded these recommendations to the City Manager for recommendation.

Homeless advocates demonstrate in Sacramento for the Right to Rest Bill which would end the enforcement of many anti-homeless laws. Janny Castillo photoHomeless advocates demonstrate in Sacramento for the Right to Rest Bill which would end the enforcement of many anti-homeless laws. Janny Castillo photo

Osha Neumann, an attorney with the East Bay Community Law Center, said the proposal would make Berkeley’s tree-lined and metered streets off limits to homeless people if it is enacted.

“Taken together with existing laws, these ordinances would essentially make it illegal for people who are homeless to have a presence on our streets and sidewalks,” he said.

Right to Rest bills are moving through legislatures in Oregon and Colorado.

Two years ago, a more expansive version of the legislation called the Homeless Bill of Rights passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee, but died when the Appropriations Committee declined to bring it up for a vote.

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

You Can’t Make This Stuff Up

Stupid Things California Lawmakers Say About Homelessness

by TJ Johnston

If there was any doubt that SB 608, the Right to Rest Act, would face any roadblocks in the legislative process, they were surely dispelled when State Sen. Cathleen Galgiani (D-Stockton) weighed in. Before Galgiani’s remarks, a few of the California state senators on the Transportation and Housing committee had already voiced reservations that would lead to a prospective “No” if SB 608 author Carol Liu asked for a vote on the bill on April 7.

Some were concerned about provisions in the bill such as a $1,000 fine to communities upon violation of the act. Others wanted clarifications on how the bill would affect those sleeping on public versus private property. (Liu said it would not apply to private property.)

But Galgiani’s rambling explanation of why she wouldn’t support the bill left some incredulous. While asserting that uneven application of anti-homeless ordinances aren’t a problem in her district, she said cops still need them for other reasons — such as thwarting gang warfare.

“You and I and law enforcement cannot tell who is homeless from someone who belongs to a gang,” she said. “If I dress down, I can blend in as well.”

She then recounted a recent incident that happened in her district.

“This last month,” she said, “we’ve had a drive-by shooting at a market just blocks away from where I used to live a few years ago, where three people were killed. Now it’s a known place where people loiter. How do you define ‘loiter?’ You can’t define it just by looking at someone or seeing that someone is spending time at a place for too long. That’s why we must rely on law enforcement for the judgments on behavior taking place. Law enforcement needs that tool to address the behavior.”

What Galgiani failed to mention is that the U.S. Supreme Court found anti-loitering laws to be unconstitutional in 1999 primarily because of their vagueness.

Galgiani also related another recent tale of an altercation among three motorcycle gangs near a strip club where gunfire was exchanged.

“These are the problems in my district,” she said. “Law enforcement in my district, they’re not bothering people who are homeless. I respect that is occurring throughout the state.” She added that the state should “do a broad blanket for everyone to abide by” if SB 608 becomes law.

Another addition for the file under “you can’t make this up” came from Matt Gray, who lobbied against the bill on behalf of two business organizations.

While he encouraged creating affordable housing and improving social and health services — at the same time, referring to homeless people as “transients, homeless or whatever you want to call them” — he ultimately said the overarching solution wasn’t “allowing the rest of California to be like San Francisco.” No city in California has more anti-homeless laws than San Francisco.

Continue reading →

Action Alert: Protest & Signature Gathering at Homeless (Lack of) Services Center 5-5 at 3 PM

Posted on by

 

“No Parking For Homeless Vehicles”?NO!

Without notice to or input from the Unhoused Community, the Public Works Department is planning to ban all parking on Coral Street, Limekiln Street, and Fern Street.

 

Currently there are already severe restrictions limiting parking during the day and banning it after midnight on those streets.

 

This will significantly impact unhoused and disabled individuals using the services of the Paul Lee Loft, the Page Smith Community House, the Rebele Family Shelter, the Homeless Persons Health Project, the River St. Shelter, and the Homeless Services Center.

 

There has been no documentation provided, nor public hearing held around this issue.

 

Regular users of these services will be significantly impacted by these changes in their attempts to secure life-sustaining assistance.

Has the management funded to provide for services and security for homeless people spoken up about this or quietly agreed to proceed with a homeless-vehicle-exclusion program?

JOIN US TUESDAY MAY 5th at 3 PM

to find out!

Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom will be serving coffee at Cafe HUFF and gathering signatures opposing the proposed Parking Ban.

 

We will also be collecting information on the flood of Sleeping, Blanket, and Camping tickets being issued, whether the Homeless (Lack of) Services Center []HLOSC] and River St. Mini-Shelter is issuing documentation for those on its waiting lists so that police and rangers can be encouraged not to harass, cite, and issue stay-away orders.

 

Under MC 6.36.055, such behavior is already illegal, but police have continued to do so–and the HLOSC have encouraged this practice by declining to regularly issue evidence that those who have signed up are on the waiting list.

 

In addition we will be investigating concerns that the HLOSCis refusing to put in badly needed storage lockers, created a jail-like atmosphere at the center, and ignored other problems.

Taking the Santa Cruz SleepBusters to Small Claims Court

Posted on by

Speech by Robert Norse to Community and City Council 2-10-15

Three homeless people have filed four claims against the City for being awakened at night and given citations for sleeping between the hours of 11 PM to 8:30 AM at night. This in a city where homeless camping is not only effectively illegally but regularly persecuted with seizure of homeless survival gear, tough treatment of homeless sleepers, and a habitual refusal to acknowledge basic human rights for the poor outside without options. Thnere has been a massive expansion of such citations. In two days the city’s additional Stay Away penalizations will be intensified against homeless people sleeping where they must—in the many areas overseen by Dannette Shoemaker’s Parks and Recreation Department…

…We will be helping victims of this law sue for sleep deprivation damages.   The four current claims request $2500 per incident of sleep deprivation.  Each time an officer violates a homeless person’s privacy, health, and safety–we shall help them hold the offender responsible.   If at first we failm, we will try again and again.  We’ll be there until it is no longer necessary and you have repealed this inhumane and abusive law, which materially injures people…

TO READ THE FULL TEXT OF THE SPEECH (SLIGHTLY MODIFIED), AND/OR VOLUNTEER TO HELP, GO TO:   https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/02/10/18768330.php   

ACLU Board Meeting Tonight (8/25) at Louden Nelson 7 PM

Posted on by
Title: ACLU Board of Directors Meeting
START DATE: Monday August 25
TIME: 7:00 PM – 9:00 PM
Location Details:
Louden Nelson Center at Laurel and Center Streets in Santa Cruz
Event Type: Meeting
The ACLU’s 2-hour long monthly chat-and-fundraise Board meeting features a 10-minute “oral communications” period.

The public may be given a slightly longer speaking period than at City Council. This really seems to depend on the mood of Chair Peter Geldblum and how timid the rest of the Board is feeling in challenging his “rulings”.

Depending again on Geldblum’s mood, if you’re not an ACLU member, you may be excluded from the rest of the proceedings. Joining costs $10, though fees may be waived in some cases, as I understand it.

Vice-Chair Steve Pleich has told me he’ll be informing the Board that he, MHCAN’s Sarah Leonard, and an out-of-town attorney will be working to prep and file a class action lawsuit to stop the seizure of homeless property. Pleich’s “Homeless Legal Assistance Project” is raising this issue.

He spoke at last Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors hearing (See “ACLU Santa Cruz Brings Statement of Principle to Board of Supervisors” at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/08/19/18760282.php

He’s also interested in a presentation to City Council in September to suspend all sleeping and camping laws at night.
As well as a press conference to announce the ACLU’s active interest in pressing this issue. (See “CLU Santa Cruz County Adopts Landmark Statement of Principle” at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/08/06/18759670.php)

He tells me the Northern California chapter of the ACLU–the regional chapter (far more active and liberal than the Santa Cruz local) has vigorously supported the ACLU’s recent “don’t bust homeless sleepers” resolution.

Pleich can be reached at 831-466-6078 for more details. He also can be found buttering bagels at the Red Church (Calvary Episcopal) at Cedar and Lincoln 6 PM-6:45 PM on Monday nights. As can many homeless people–who have plenty of concerns for the ACLU, if they take the time to listen and muster the energy to act.

 

Continue reading →

Speak-Out Leads to Historic Shift in Local ACLU Avoidance of Homeless Civil Rights Issues

Posted on by
by Robert Norse
Tuesday Jul 1st, 2014 9:12 PM

A crowd of homeless supporters showed up at last night’s ACLU meeting (outnumbering the Board by nearly 2-1 at one point). In a series of speeches (to be rebroadcast on Free Radio Thursday night), they urged the local ACLU to issue a policy statement against the Santa Cruz Sleeping Ban and other anti-homeless laws. It was the largest such homeless crowd ever to hit an ACLU Board meeting in my experience. In the hour and a half before the meeting more than twice that number signed petitions demanding action. Folks got there under their own steam without prior organizing after an announcement and flyering at the Red Church a scant hour earlier. Perhaps because it’s end of the month or perhaps because some of had enough, we may be seeing a significant rise in activism.

BOARD MAJORITY FINALLY BEATS BACK OLD GUARD
The ultimate 5-3 vote supported Steve Pleich’s resolution to suspend camping laws in the city and county came after several decades of ACLU indifference or hostility to this most basic of human rights. It was a marked change in policy for the Board, long dominated by the notorious Sleeping Ban Supporter former Mayor Mike Rotkin. Even if the change is only symbolic and unsupported by legal action or public lobbying. There is much toxic propaganda about “homeless crime” and the need to “curb our compassion” This breath of sanity is welcome and long overdue.

Voting in favor of the resolution were Pleich, Jay Campbell, Mithrell Bowerman, Daniel Etler, and Ron Pomerantz. Voting against were Mike Rotkin, Peter Geldblum and Keith Lezar.

SLEEP IS NOT A CRIME RESOLUTION
The resolution reads:
“Statement of Principle: The Santa Cruz County Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union supports in principle a limited time moratorium on enforcement of camping ban laws and ordinances within the City and County of Santa Cruz on the grounds that such laws and ordinances selectively criminalize the homeless community. While the chapter is mindful that such a moratorium raises practical problems within the community at large, we believe that the benefits of such an approach in terms of the opportunity for civic leaders, policy makers and stakeholders to reassess the efficacy of these laws and ordinances outweighs any temporary adverse impact.”

RECENT HISTORY OF ESCALATING HARASSMENT
Homeless folks have faced a steep escalation in destruction of their camps, seizure of the property, “move along” harassment as well as citations and arrests in the last few years as the economy continues to tank. New programs designed to paint lipstick on the endless goal of “cheaply” eliminating homeless people from the downtown and city generally by eliminating their civil rights.

These include the “100 Chronic Offenders” program, the Downtown Acountability Program, the “Real Change” Red Starve-Out-the-Panhandler meters, the outrageous constriction of public spaces for performers and the public on the sidewalks of all business districts, the prosecution of those unable or unwilling to deal with to their “no sleep” and “no sitting” tickets with misdemeanor charges, and the escalating Drug War under Take-Back-Santa-Cruz orchestrated Needle Hysteria.

Well-intended incremental legal efforts by Brent Adams’ Sanctuary Village group have been repeatedly rebuffed by city bureaucrats. Thuggish First Alarm Security guards have been promoted to positions as CSO’s on the SDPD (“Big John” being the example I’ve noticed). The “Happy Hosts” continue to retain an unmarked inaccessible office in the downtown area (if you can find it and determine when it’s actually open, please let us know!). Illegal commercial signs retain immunity from legal scrutiny but homeless backpacks and survival gear are fair game for seizure and harassment.

PRIOR ACLU SILENCE
The local ACLU has said nothing about any of these issues in spite of being repeatedly approached on them. [See “Expose the Local ACLU: No Help for Homeless Rights ” at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/12/01/18747111.php

Steve Pleich, who founded the “Homeless Legal Assistance Project” and is running for City Council for the 3rd time has been on the ACLU board for 3 years, and Vice-Chair for 2. Until last night he has not demanded any resolutions on these issues come up for a vote, in spite of having a host of allies appointed to the Board.

NUMBERS AND VOLUME MATTER
It is far too early to see if this is any kind of a turning point in either Pleich’s politick approach or ACLU timidity, but it seems clear that as Pleich himself agrees, having a significant number of people demanding change makes a difference.

In the presence of such numbers, previously timid and/or silent members of the Board may have gathered courage. The verbal commentary given by the angry and eloquent speakers will be on Free Radio Santa Cruz (101.3 FM, streams at http://audio.str3am.com:5110/listen.pls, archives at http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb140703.mp3 .

At one point Chair Geldblum seemed to have ordered the issue closed without a vote and demanded that the public leave. Though there was no objection by Pleich and the rest of the Board to this behind-closed-doors process, the word was passed down later that a vote was held and the resolution passed. .I’ve asked for more specific details from those permitted to remain and when more info, I’ll pass it on. ,

§Flyer Distributed June 30th

by Robert Norse Tuesday Jul 1st, 2014 9:12 PM

 

Petition and Flyer Which Prompted the Largest Homeless Presence at the ACLU Meeting in Years

Continue reading →

For the poor, affordable housing may be a vehicle.

Posted on by

NOTE BY NORSE:  I don’t think it requires a great deal of “research” to establish the obvious value–both to individuals trying to survive and to the broader community of vehicular residency (in the absence of truly affordable housing for poor people).   When I hear the word “research” on homeless Continue reading →

Poverty Crime in Ohio…and Santa Cruz

Posted on by
NOTE BY  NORSE:   Walter Lilly called me from jail several times in the last day, and whose account I’ll be broadcasting tomorrow at 10 AM on Free Radio Santa Cruz (101.3 FM http://tunein.com/radio/FRSC-s47254/)   His “crime” was failing to pay Sleeping Ban infractions and then being jailed under a Continue reading →