Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Vice-Mayor Bans Activists from Bookshop Santa Cruz
Becky Johnson sends Vice-Mayor Ryan Coonerty an e-mail accusing him of adopted bigoted policies such as those espoused by a Sentinel hateletter writer. Coonerty promptly responds to Johnson's inquiring letter by banning her and Bernard Klitzner, HUFF activists, from his sister's Bookshop Santa Cruz. Johnson analyzes Coonerty's response.
A SENTINEL HATE COMMENT AFTER THE SUNDAY SENTINEL SMEAR STORY
from: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2007/August/19/local/stories/03local.htm
KICK THEM OUT OF SC 8/19/2007 9:51 AM
These vile pieces of garbage that are taking over the city need to be shown the town line. We need someone in office whose sole platform is to rid SC of every vagrant beggar scum.
It's unreal they call these subhumans "activists" in the article. They are nothing more than professional bum, homeless by choice pieces of crap.
The other amazing this is that this "city" let the festering pustules stay at city hall for the time they did. They should have been ticketed within 5 minutes of setting up camp, asked to leave immediately after being ticketed and if they refused gotten a billy club to the head and a one way ticket to jail.
WE the people need to make it so uncomfortable for every vagrant in SC that they flee for somewhere else.
BECKY JOHNSON'S E-MAIL TO VICE-MAYOR RYAN COONERTY
From: Becky Johnson [mailto:becky_johnson222 [at] hotmail.com]
Sent: Sat 8/25/2007 7:56 AM
To: Ryan Coonerty
Cc: huffsantacruz [at] yahoogroups.com
Subject: Your policies treat homeless people like "vagrant beggar scum"
Aug 25, 2007
Dear Vice-Mayor Ryan Coonerty,
This is a comment from one of your constituents who, like you, support arresting homeless people for the acts of sleeping at night and for covering up with blankets. You, and your police spokesman, Zach Friend, are demonstrating bigotry, hostility, dehumanization, demonization, and are inspiring vigilante justice against those folks who, because they lost their housing, are on the streets. You might not use the same language as this anonymous poster, but your policies are the same. The Sleeping Ban is illegal under the Jones Decision of the 9th Circuit Court. It is cruel and unusual punishment to deny a person who is unfortunate enough to have lost their housing the ability to sleep at night or to stay warm with a blanket. Note that the last line of his message summarizes the exact police policy for the City of Santa Cruz.
You are no better than this constituent of yours.
Sincerely,
Becky Johnson of HUFF
309 Cedar St. PMB 14B
Santa Cruz, Ca. 95060
(831) 479-9291
becky_johnson222 [at] hotmail.com
VICE-MAYOR RYAN COONERTY'S E-MAIL RESPONSE TO BECKY JOHNSON
----- Original Message -----
From: Ryan Coonerty
To: Becky Johnson
Cc: huffsantacruz [at] yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 10:32 AM
Subject: RE: Your policies treat homeless people like "vagrant beggar scum"
Dear Becky,
I find it hard to believe that you could seriously consider comparing my position on homelessness to the hateful comments below. In my time on the council, I have consistently supported increased funding for social services (even in difficult economic times). In my family's business, as your literature points out, we go far beyond any other business downtown in providing bathrooms and a place to sleep for the homeless population, not to mention donations to the Homeless Garden Project, the Homeless Services Center, etc. I volunteer once a month to bring food to the shelter through the Mazon Project at the Temple.
While I fully support your and HUFF's right to First Amendment activity in the community and in front of Bookshop, you should know some of the possible impacts. Since your protest has begun, our bathrooms have been repeatedly vandalized, including shoving clothes down the toilets, smearing excrement on the walls, and cutting the straps from the baby changing table. As you know, maintaining these bathrooms is difficult and expensive and increasing the costs will likely lead to the business having to close them. While I don't think you or HUFF is directly responsible for these acts, I do believe that by connecting my sister's business (I work 20 hours a week there and receive a small salary) to my council acts, you create a climate where people think an act against the bookshop is a political act.
Because of this, I want to make clear that you and Bernard (Robert already is) are permanently banned from stepping foot in Bookshop Santa Cruz. If I, my sister or one of our managers see you enter the store, we will have you arrested.
Sincerely,
Ryan Coonerty
PS If you reprint this letter, have the courage to reprint it in full.
Ryan Coonerty
Vice Mayor
City of Santa Cruz
BECKY JOHN'S FINAL NOTE TO READER:
Ryan Coonerty thinks that volunteerism, some dollars for social services and token examples of "allowing" a few homeless people to sleep on BSSC doorstep in violation of the Sleeping Ban (which is being ruthlessly enforced citywide against literally thousands of people) gives him a free pass for these anti-homeless policies and practices. He is responsible for SCPD's Zach Friend's smear job against the Homies for the Homeless protest at City Hall. He should either refute Friend's claims or investigate them. His silence is complicity.
But, in fact, he chooses to add new claims ---that vandalism done to his sister's(!!) bathrooms (shoving clothes down the toilets, smearing excrement on the walls, and cutting the straps from the baby changing table) is somehow HUFF-inspired.
What is more true is that if the Coonerty's and other city leaders would open up enough bathrooms for the people here who need them, their store wouldn't be so impacted.
HUFF has never advocated nor incited others to commit either violence or vandalism against any individual, business, or institution. We condemn those who have done so, and are unaware of any act of violence committed against Bookshop Santa Cruz by any of our members. HUFF has always used open lobbying, protest, and nonviolent civil disobedience as methods to achieve our ends. Coonerty's solution? To ban Robert Norse, Bernard Klitzner, and myself from using his "sister's" restroom. (Can a part-time employee do this without cause? hmmm)
Zach Friend called a hopscotch board "vandalism". He and City Staff cooked up the feces-smearing incident that no one at the protest saw. They cooked up the "sexual harassment" claim and the "sex in the recycling area" and the generic "drugs" claim for the use of medical marijuana on the same steps where earlier the City had overseen bags of medical marijuana dispensed to patients. No citations were issued for public defecation, lewd behavior, harasment, vandalism or illegal drug use. Yet Coonerty let the comments stand.
The City has surveillance cameras at City Hall which the protesters knew about and left undisturbed. These claims by SCPD seem highly suspect and are bound to incite an anti-homeless backlash as we saw in the Sentinel comments on the article containing Zach Friend's charges. Homeless people will be harmed by those who take it on themselves to "rid" Santa Cruz of a class of people they characterize as "subhuman."
The final line in the anti-homeless bigot's post said this: "WE the people need to make it so uncomfortable for every vagrant in SC that they flee for somewhere else."
Isn't this exactly what Ryan Coonerty's Sleeping Ban is meant to do? --- Becky Johnson of HUFF
AFTERNOTE BY NORSE:
I attempted to reach the Vice-Mayor by phone at his home (which he gave out as a publicly accessible number) at 831-429-8939, but failed to be able to do so. He has not returned phone calls from me for the last few weeks.
I urge people NOT to vandalize the bathroom facilities he keeps open for the community, if anyone angry at Coonerty's support for the Sleeping Ban is doing that.
from: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2007/August/19/local/stories/03local.htm
KICK THEM OUT OF SC 8/19/2007 9:51 AM
These vile pieces of garbage that are taking over the city need to be shown the town line. We need someone in office whose sole platform is to rid SC of every vagrant beggar scum.
It's unreal they call these subhumans "activists" in the article. They are nothing more than professional bum, homeless by choice pieces of crap.
The other amazing this is that this "city" let the festering pustules stay at city hall for the time they did. They should have been ticketed within 5 minutes of setting up camp, asked to leave immediately after being ticketed and if they refused gotten a billy club to the head and a one way ticket to jail.
WE the people need to make it so uncomfortable for every vagrant in SC that they flee for somewhere else.
BECKY JOHNSON'S E-MAIL TO VICE-MAYOR RYAN COONERTY
From: Becky Johnson [mailto:becky_johnson222 [at] hotmail.com]
Sent: Sat 8/25/2007 7:56 AM
To: Ryan Coonerty
Cc: huffsantacruz [at] yahoogroups.com
Subject: Your policies treat homeless people like "vagrant beggar scum"
Aug 25, 2007
Dear Vice-Mayor Ryan Coonerty,
This is a comment from one of your constituents who, like you, support arresting homeless people for the acts of sleeping at night and for covering up with blankets. You, and your police spokesman, Zach Friend, are demonstrating bigotry, hostility, dehumanization, demonization, and are inspiring vigilante justice against those folks who, because they lost their housing, are on the streets. You might not use the same language as this anonymous poster, but your policies are the same. The Sleeping Ban is illegal under the Jones Decision of the 9th Circuit Court. It is cruel and unusual punishment to deny a person who is unfortunate enough to have lost their housing the ability to sleep at night or to stay warm with a blanket. Note that the last line of his message summarizes the exact police policy for the City of Santa Cruz.
You are no better than this constituent of yours.
Sincerely,
Becky Johnson of HUFF
309 Cedar St. PMB 14B
Santa Cruz, Ca. 95060
(831) 479-9291
becky_johnson222 [at] hotmail.com
VICE-MAYOR RYAN COONERTY'S E-MAIL RESPONSE TO BECKY JOHNSON
----- Original Message -----
From: Ryan Coonerty
To: Becky Johnson
Cc: huffsantacruz [at] yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 10:32 AM
Subject: RE: Your policies treat homeless people like "vagrant beggar scum"
Dear Becky,
I find it hard to believe that you could seriously consider comparing my position on homelessness to the hateful comments below. In my time on the council, I have consistently supported increased funding for social services (even in difficult economic times). In my family's business, as your literature points out, we go far beyond any other business downtown in providing bathrooms and a place to sleep for the homeless population, not to mention donations to the Homeless Garden Project, the Homeless Services Center, etc. I volunteer once a month to bring food to the shelter through the Mazon Project at the Temple.
While I fully support your and HUFF's right to First Amendment activity in the community and in front of Bookshop, you should know some of the possible impacts. Since your protest has begun, our bathrooms have been repeatedly vandalized, including shoving clothes down the toilets, smearing excrement on the walls, and cutting the straps from the baby changing table. As you know, maintaining these bathrooms is difficult and expensive and increasing the costs will likely lead to the business having to close them. While I don't think you or HUFF is directly responsible for these acts, I do believe that by connecting my sister's business (I work 20 hours a week there and receive a small salary) to my council acts, you create a climate where people think an act against the bookshop is a political act.
Because of this, I want to make clear that you and Bernard (Robert already is) are permanently banned from stepping foot in Bookshop Santa Cruz. If I, my sister or one of our managers see you enter the store, we will have you arrested.
Sincerely,
Ryan Coonerty
PS If you reprint this letter, have the courage to reprint it in full.
Ryan Coonerty
Vice Mayor
City of Santa Cruz
BECKY JOHN'S FINAL NOTE TO READER:
Ryan Coonerty thinks that volunteerism, some dollars for social services and token examples of "allowing" a few homeless people to sleep on BSSC doorstep in violation of the Sleeping Ban (which is being ruthlessly enforced citywide against literally thousands of people) gives him a free pass for these anti-homeless policies and practices. He is responsible for SCPD's Zach Friend's smear job against the Homies for the Homeless protest at City Hall. He should either refute Friend's claims or investigate them. His silence is complicity.
But, in fact, he chooses to add new claims ---that vandalism done to his sister's(!!) bathrooms (shoving clothes down the toilets, smearing excrement on the walls, and cutting the straps from the baby changing table) is somehow HUFF-inspired.
What is more true is that if the Coonerty's and other city leaders would open up enough bathrooms for the people here who need them, their store wouldn't be so impacted.
HUFF has never advocated nor incited others to commit either violence or vandalism against any individual, business, or institution. We condemn those who have done so, and are unaware of any act of violence committed against Bookshop Santa Cruz by any of our members. HUFF has always used open lobbying, protest, and nonviolent civil disobedience as methods to achieve our ends. Coonerty's solution? To ban Robert Norse, Bernard Klitzner, and myself from using his "sister's" restroom. (Can a part-time employee do this without cause? hmmm)
Zach Friend called a hopscotch board "vandalism". He and City Staff cooked up the feces-smearing incident that no one at the protest saw. They cooked up the "sexual harassment" claim and the "sex in the recycling area" and the generic "drugs" claim for the use of medical marijuana on the same steps where earlier the City had overseen bags of medical marijuana dispensed to patients. No citations were issued for public defecation, lewd behavior, harasment, vandalism or illegal drug use. Yet Coonerty let the comments stand.
The City has surveillance cameras at City Hall which the protesters knew about and left undisturbed. These claims by SCPD seem highly suspect and are bound to incite an anti-homeless backlash as we saw in the Sentinel comments on the article containing Zach Friend's charges. Homeless people will be harmed by those who take it on themselves to "rid" Santa Cruz of a class of people they characterize as "subhuman."
The final line in the anti-homeless bigot's post said this: "WE the people need to make it so uncomfortable for every vagrant in SC that they flee for somewhere else."
Isn't this exactly what Ryan Coonerty's Sleeping Ban is meant to do? --- Becky Johnson of HUFF
AFTERNOTE BY NORSE:
I attempted to reach the Vice-Mayor by phone at his home (which he gave out as a publicly accessible number) at 831-429-8939, but failed to be able to do so. He has not returned phone calls from me for the last few weeks.
I urge people NOT to vandalize the bathroom facilities he keeps open for the community, if anyone angry at Coonerty's support for the Sleeping Ban is doing that.
For more information:
http://www.huffsantacruz.org
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
About a year and a half ago, Bookshop Santa Cruz tried to over-charge me $30 on a purchase. They put $30 more on my credit card than on my receipt, so there would have been no way to correct it had I not caught the error in real time. I guess it is a nice way to supplement their income.
Anyway, I did catch it, and they immediately got me back. One of the books I purchased set off their alarm. I showed them my receipts, including the one corresponding to the $30 over-charge, but they kept insisting I return to their store. When I did not, they called 911. Two police cars arrived within seconds, their dome lights flashing.
Since I had the receipts, the police apologized and sent me on my way. The bookstore people screamed at me that I had been banned from ever shopping there again. Like I would ever want to.
I have no idea why people consider that place to be progressive. They treated our children like shit for several years. Now we shop at the big corporate bookstore or buy from Amazon.com.
As a University professor, I buy a lot of books. Their loss.
I urge everyone to boycott the place.
Anyway, I did catch it, and they immediately got me back. One of the books I purchased set off their alarm. I showed them my receipts, including the one corresponding to the $30 over-charge, but they kept insisting I return to their store. When I did not, they called 911. Two police cars arrived within seconds, their dome lights flashing.
Since I had the receipts, the police apologized and sent me on my way. The bookstore people screamed at me that I had been banned from ever shopping there again. Like I would ever want to.
I have no idea why people consider that place to be progressive. They treated our children like shit for several years. Now we shop at the big corporate bookstore or buy from Amazon.com.
As a University professor, I buy a lot of books. Their loss.
I urge everyone to boycott the place.
I've seen that last story elsewhere and it smacks of slander and libel. I'm amazed that Bookshop doesn't simply ban ALL the "activists". Mind you, HUFF's goal is to hurt this business. That's about as malicious as you can get. And it's not like kicking out Robert, Becky and Bernard is going to stir up a groundswell of discontent in their client base. On the contrary, they'd get a standing ovation. Just look at how much goodwill Lulu's got when it did the same thing.
I encourage William Scott to get in touch with HUFF (423-4833).
Our objective is to encourage the community to let downtown merchants and particularly merchants who have become politicians and policymakers like the Coonerty's that laws against the poor will not be tolerated, however amiable the owners or however mellow their personal store policies are.
Unfortunately it seems to be true that the only way to get these politicians is by encouraging customers to vote with their pocketbooks.
For the record, we asked potential customers to turn in slips to Coonerty asking that he explain his pro-Sleeping Ban policy (which he won't do even as a City Councilmember and our next Mayor). The objective was to be able to shop at the Bookshop without feeling they were contributing to a kind of Social Apartheid being created in Santa Cruz with the Coonerty anti-homeless laws.
It's not a personal issue; it's not an issue for me of how the bookshop it's run.
It is, of course, a matter of hypocrisy too--since the Coonerty's claim to be progressive yet give the police tools to jackboot the homeless.
Kicking us out, of course, doesn't address the issue. But then, they can't address the issue to a progressive community with a straight face. It simply isn't possible.
Our objective is to encourage the community to let downtown merchants and particularly merchants who have become politicians and policymakers like the Coonerty's that laws against the poor will not be tolerated, however amiable the owners or however mellow their personal store policies are.
Unfortunately it seems to be true that the only way to get these politicians is by encouraging customers to vote with their pocketbooks.
For the record, we asked potential customers to turn in slips to Coonerty asking that he explain his pro-Sleeping Ban policy (which he won't do even as a City Councilmember and our next Mayor). The objective was to be able to shop at the Bookshop without feeling they were contributing to a kind of Social Apartheid being created in Santa Cruz with the Coonerty anti-homeless laws.
It's not a personal issue; it's not an issue for me of how the bookshop it's run.
It is, of course, a matter of hypocrisy too--since the Coonerty's claim to be progressive yet give the police tools to jackboot the homeless.
Kicking us out, of course, doesn't address the issue. But then, they can't address the issue to a progressive community with a straight face. It simply isn't possible.
I've kept the receipts, which at least proves the overcharge part. They called 911, so I assume that is part of the public record.
Robert, calling these perfectly reasonable ordinances the "Coonerty laws" isn't personal? Really? Sounds to me like you are up to your old passive-aggressive games. HUFF is too marginalized to dictate whether this community will "tolerate" such laws. As you may recall, when you and Coral ran for Council, you had to nominate each other and second those nominations yourselves, so minute is its membership. One needs an electron microscope to spot even a semblance of relevance to the group.
All of this activism would be more meaningful if HUFF wasn't involved and if you weren't picking on one of the most progressive businesses in town. You're just being pompous jerks, and you don't care, because it makes you feel important to screw up other people's lives. Shame on all of you. That's Becky, that old tweaker Bernard and of course, you.
All of this activism would be more meaningful if HUFF wasn't involved and if you weren't picking on one of the most progressive businesses in town. You're just being pompous jerks, and you don't care, because it makes you feel important to screw up other people's lives. Shame on all of you. That's Becky, that old tweaker Bernard and of course, you.
I grew up in Chicago. I first heard of Santa Cruz in a Mike Royko newspaper column written on Nov. 26, 1984. It was entitled "Life Turns Mean for Street People." Here are some excerpts from Royko's column:
And now we're seeing a new and weird twist to the struggle between the haves and the have-nots. Like anything new and weird, it is happening in California.
In Santa Cruz, groups of well-off, middle-class young people have taken to attacking the less fortunate. They call it "trollbusting." They even wear T-shirts showing some down-and-out person.
The targets of these youths are homeless street people--beggars, bag ladies, bag men, derelicts, the kind of people who are part of that growing population that lives in cardboard shelters, under bridges, in doorways or in a sanitation department salt box.
The existence of these people in their city offends the offspring of those who live in ranch homes. So they've been threatening them, kicking them around and occasionally whacking them with baseball bats.
One young man, a twenty-year old security guard, explained to a reporter why his friends are going in for bashing the poor and homeless. "My friends resent the way the 'trolls' go begging around while they have to work and pay taxes.
If these young goofs were sincere about defending their allegedly hard-earned money, they would be on the prowl for a four-star general or a defense contractor. Or one of the President's merry budgeteers.
Nineteen years later, the thugs in Santa Cruz might not be employing the same tactics, but their war on the poor has escalated to an attack on a large percentage of the population, including what has traditionally been termed the middle class. Although some of the circumstances are unique to this town, and the situation is perhaps extreme, the general trend certainly is not at all unique.
During the 1995-2000 economic expansion, housing prices in Santa Cruz nearly tripled. A modest 3 bedroom home now costs about $800,000 and rents peaked at over $2,000 per month for two-bedroom apartments. The Clinton economic miracle, the liberal one in which "everyone got rich," resulted in a decline in the (inflation-adjusted) median (middle point) family income over this period in New York and California, even though the average income increased. For such a thing to happen, the gap between the rich and everyone else needed to be increased. The gap between the haves and the have-nots in the United States is the widest of any industrialized country, and continues to grow. Following the expansion, the current recession has served to greatly accelerate the widening of this gap, which is unlikely due to coincidence, but rather Bush administration economic policy.
All this has left Santa Cruz one of the most unaffordable places to live in the United States, where a Step 1, tenured, UCSC Associate Professor making $57K cannot possibly hope to purchase a family home, let alone the average working person. Only 6.9 percent of Santa Cruz County residents can afford to buy a median-priced home here.
This means, in essence, that 93.1 % of the population of Santa Cruz are now effectively "trolls." Perhaps it will only be a matter of time before the "middle class" wakes up to the fact that a one-sided class war has been launched against them, along with the more traditional inhabitants of salt boxes and doorways. Perhaps this is beginning to happen, for in this most expensive, unaffordable of locales, the school system is going down the toilet, and other social services, such as the regional stroke rehabilitation center, are joining it in a downward spiral. The poor, the homeless, the handicapped, and the disadvantaged will pay the highest price, but this time it looks like they will receive a lot of company.
And now we're seeing a new and weird twist to the struggle between the haves and the have-nots. Like anything new and weird, it is happening in California.
In Santa Cruz, groups of well-off, middle-class young people have taken to attacking the less fortunate. They call it "trollbusting." They even wear T-shirts showing some down-and-out person.
The targets of these youths are homeless street people--beggars, bag ladies, bag men, derelicts, the kind of people who are part of that growing population that lives in cardboard shelters, under bridges, in doorways or in a sanitation department salt box.
The existence of these people in their city offends the offspring of those who live in ranch homes. So they've been threatening them, kicking them around and occasionally whacking them with baseball bats.
One young man, a twenty-year old security guard, explained to a reporter why his friends are going in for bashing the poor and homeless. "My friends resent the way the 'trolls' go begging around while they have to work and pay taxes.
If these young goofs were sincere about defending their allegedly hard-earned money, they would be on the prowl for a four-star general or a defense contractor. Or one of the President's merry budgeteers.
Nineteen years later, the thugs in Santa Cruz might not be employing the same tactics, but their war on the poor has escalated to an attack on a large percentage of the population, including what has traditionally been termed the middle class. Although some of the circumstances are unique to this town, and the situation is perhaps extreme, the general trend certainly is not at all unique.
During the 1995-2000 economic expansion, housing prices in Santa Cruz nearly tripled. A modest 3 bedroom home now costs about $800,000 and rents peaked at over $2,000 per month for two-bedroom apartments. The Clinton economic miracle, the liberal one in which "everyone got rich," resulted in a decline in the (inflation-adjusted) median (middle point) family income over this period in New York and California, even though the average income increased. For such a thing to happen, the gap between the rich and everyone else needed to be increased. The gap between the haves and the have-nots in the United States is the widest of any industrialized country, and continues to grow. Following the expansion, the current recession has served to greatly accelerate the widening of this gap, which is unlikely due to coincidence, but rather Bush administration economic policy.
All this has left Santa Cruz one of the most unaffordable places to live in the United States, where a Step 1, tenured, UCSC Associate Professor making $57K cannot possibly hope to purchase a family home, let alone the average working person. Only 6.9 percent of Santa Cruz County residents can afford to buy a median-priced home here.
This means, in essence, that 93.1 % of the population of Santa Cruz are now effectively "trolls." Perhaps it will only be a matter of time before the "middle class" wakes up to the fact that a one-sided class war has been launched against them, along with the more traditional inhabitants of salt boxes and doorways. Perhaps this is beginning to happen, for in this most expensive, unaffordable of locales, the school system is going down the toilet, and other social services, such as the regional stroke rehabilitation center, are joining it in a downward spiral. The poor, the homeless, the handicapped, and the disadvantaged will pay the highest price, but this time it looks like they will receive a lot of company.
A newspaper column from 24 (not 19) years ago is hardly relevant to the current state of affairs in Santa Cruz, especially one written by a midwesterner. People from outside this area are usually prone to the most egregious misconceptions about its people and culture. Also, if 7% of people can afford a median-priced home, it doesn't make 93% trolls or homeless. It just means many people have to settle for houses priced below the median. Nothing new around here. It's what you deal with as part of living in such a uniquely naturally endowed place with limited space and a highly restrictive growth agenda. So, all in all, poor logic for a tenured professor.
This ridiculous "activism" isn't about the middle class. It's about drug abusing transients (passing through to take advantage of the area's extraordinary tolerance for anti-social and sociopathic behavior, as practiced by the Huffsters) and their sense of entitlement with regard to our public land and monies. There are many deserving working poor in this county who do deserve our help. The group represented by these "activists" are not among them. Hell, many of them are homeless by choice, priviliged children of middle class white families who have chosen to live this "lifestyle" until they get bored with it or their inheritances are threatened.
Hmmm, maybe it is about the middle class...
This ridiculous "activism" isn't about the middle class. It's about drug abusing transients (passing through to take advantage of the area's extraordinary tolerance for anti-social and sociopathic behavior, as practiced by the Huffsters) and their sense of entitlement with regard to our public land and monies. There are many deserving working poor in this county who do deserve our help. The group represented by these "activists" are not among them. Hell, many of them are homeless by choice, priviliged children of middle class white families who have chosen to live this "lifestyle" until they get bored with it or their inheritances are threatened.
Hmmm, maybe it is about the middle class...
The simple, inescapable fact is that no homeless person near your bookstore (or anywhere else for that matter) has ever tried to steal $30 from me.
The same can not be said of one of your employees. At the time I assumed he was just trying to supplement his minimum wage and got caught with his hand in the till, and thus tried to make a distraction. Unfortunately, for him, I was comparatively well-off, clean-cut, and white, and had all the receipts and documentation, so the police simply wished me a good evening. Had I been among those you consider undesirable by phenotype, I imagine the outcome would have been quite a bit different.
The reason you recognize the story is because I mailed a complete description, along with the evidence, to you, twice.
Please feel free to check the veracity. You have my name. You therefore have access to all my transaction records that were completed on my credit card, including the overcharge of $30 and the subsequent reversal of the $30 overcharge. It will be easy to find, since I was spending hundreds of dollars per year on books in your store up to that date, and nothing afterwards.
All I wanted then was a simple apology. But your arrogance is such that you assume I must be committing "slander" or "libel." You have complete access to all the relevant records. Why not simply check and see if what I am trying to tell you is consistent with the evidence? Are you that afraid of what you will find? Are you that convinced that someone who has spent thousands of dollars at your bookstore is lying to you? Think about it.
Now, back to the homeless. I cut and pasted the above from something I wrote 4 years ago, sorry. But it is absolutely pertinent, because it shows that beneath the liberal facade, the war on the homeless in Santa Cruz has been ongoing for at least a generation.
I don't particularly enjoy hanging around homeless people any more than I enjoy hanging around Jehovas witnesses. But that does not mean they should be arbitrarily persecuted. The courts have ruled (the Jones case), and the ruling is quite clear to anyone who does not have his head in the sand.
Since taking our kids to the Border's children section, by the way, no one has screamed at them. It is really a refreshing break from the progressives.
The same can not be said of one of your employees. At the time I assumed he was just trying to supplement his minimum wage and got caught with his hand in the till, and thus tried to make a distraction. Unfortunately, for him, I was comparatively well-off, clean-cut, and white, and had all the receipts and documentation, so the police simply wished me a good evening. Had I been among those you consider undesirable by phenotype, I imagine the outcome would have been quite a bit different.
The reason you recognize the story is because I mailed a complete description, along with the evidence, to you, twice.
Please feel free to check the veracity. You have my name. You therefore have access to all my transaction records that were completed on my credit card, including the overcharge of $30 and the subsequent reversal of the $30 overcharge. It will be easy to find, since I was spending hundreds of dollars per year on books in your store up to that date, and nothing afterwards.
All I wanted then was a simple apology. But your arrogance is such that you assume I must be committing "slander" or "libel." You have complete access to all the relevant records. Why not simply check and see if what I am trying to tell you is consistent with the evidence? Are you that afraid of what you will find? Are you that convinced that someone who has spent thousands of dollars at your bookstore is lying to you? Think about it.
Now, back to the homeless. I cut and pasted the above from something I wrote 4 years ago, sorry. But it is absolutely pertinent, because it shows that beneath the liberal facade, the war on the homeless in Santa Cruz has been ongoing for at least a generation.
I don't particularly enjoy hanging around homeless people any more than I enjoy hanging around Jehovas witnesses. But that does not mean they should be arbitrarily persecuted. The courts have ruled (the Jones case), and the ruling is quite clear to anyone who does not have his head in the sand.
Since taking our kids to the Border's children section, by the way, no one has screamed at them. It is really a refreshing break from the progressives.
Wrong guy Scott. Coonerty I'm not. You posted thst suspicious story on Indybay before. Even if it's true, let it go. We get it. You don't like Bookshop Santa Cruz and you feel your money is better spent at Borders or Amazon. Okay.
Again, you're preaching to the choir about the dispossessed. We specialize in caring about them around here, and have since long before you arrived on the scene. Why, Neil and the late Candy practically invented the cottage industry of caring for the poor. It's wildly amusing to hear anyone lecture their kids on this subject.
I know the Bookshop people, so I'll go ask them about you. I imagine they have a reason for throwing you out. If so, I'll post it here. Don't expect quick service, though. I'm busy. But I'll do it as soon as I can.
Again, you're preaching to the choir about the dispossessed. We specialize in caring about them around here, and have since long before you arrived on the scene. Why, Neil and the late Candy practically invented the cottage industry of caring for the poor. It's wildly amusing to hear anyone lecture their kids on this subject.
I know the Bookshop people, so I'll go ask them about you. I imagine they have a reason for throwing you out. If so, I'll post it here. Don't expect quick service, though. I'm busy. But I'll do it as soon as I can.
Why was I banned from Bookshop Santa Cruz? Because I wrote a letter to the Vice-Mayor complaining about statements made by the SCPD spokesman? Because I complained about the policy of the City towards homeless people?
This is a violation of my right to redress government grievances without consequence. I had no idea that my letter about City business to the Vice-Mayor would result in my banishment from a store he works in part-time. And a PERMANENT ban too! No chance for a reprieve or negotiation.
A precursor to what the mayorship of Ryan Coonerty will be like?
This is a violation of my right to redress government grievances without consequence. I had no idea that my letter about City business to the Vice-Mayor would result in my banishment from a store he works in part-time. And a PERMANENT ban too! No chance for a reprieve or negotiation.
A precursor to what the mayorship of Ryan Coonerty will be like?
For more information:
http://www.huffsantacruz.org
Interesting, isn't it, that bigots frequently hide behind anonymous monikers in their trolling?
"Bigot": i.e. one who passionately and irrationally justifies invidious discrimination against a whole class of people claiming negative characteristics in the group justify treating them as less than human (by denying them the right to sleep legally somewhere at night).
Bigot supports a lawyer/politician, soon to be our next mayor, who supports the Sleeping Ban--which empowers and directs the police force to deny sleep at night from 11 PM to 8:30 AM to that entire class of people
--essentially internal economic refugees.
Does Bigot own his own house? How many of his friends do? How many people who work in Santa Cruz can actually afford to do so?
Reread the specifics of the Sleeping Ban (MC 6.36.010a) at http://nt2.scbbs.com/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID= 271387234&infobase=procode-1&softpage=Browse_Frame_Pg
Check out the specifics of what percentage of the homeless population is local according to census surveys and CAB (Community Action Board) studies.
Then read Bigot's language again: "drug abusing transients (passing through to take advantage of the area's extraordinary tolerance for anti-social and sociopathic behavior, as practiced by the Huffsters) and their sense of entitlement with regard to our public land and monies"
Thousand of registered voters signed initiatives to decriminalize sleeping in non-residential, non-beach front areas of Santa Cruz. Thousands more elected andidates who promised to end the Sleeping Ban in 1998. We were betrayed, because power listens to power.
HUFF is a small group. But the issue is a large one that impacts thousands of people. Across the country, similar NIMBY bigotry not only brutalizes and dehumanizes the homeless but makes hypocrites out of millions of ACLU-type liberals who prate about Bush's violations, but do nothing about their own city's institutionalized criminal activity towards the poor.
Like slavery, racial discrimination, women's oppression, this issue will not die, no matter how many times activists are dissed, dismissed, or denounced.
Thanks to those contributing to this discussion (I guess that includes Bigot).
"Bigot": i.e. one who passionately and irrationally justifies invidious discrimination against a whole class of people claiming negative characteristics in the group justify treating them as less than human (by denying them the right to sleep legally somewhere at night).
Bigot supports a lawyer/politician, soon to be our next mayor, who supports the Sleeping Ban--which empowers and directs the police force to deny sleep at night from 11 PM to 8:30 AM to that entire class of people
--essentially internal economic refugees.
Does Bigot own his own house? How many of his friends do? How many people who work in Santa Cruz can actually afford to do so?
Reread the specifics of the Sleeping Ban (MC 6.36.010a) at http://nt2.scbbs.com/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID= 271387234&infobase=procode-1&softpage=Browse_Frame_Pg
Check out the specifics of what percentage of the homeless population is local according to census surveys and CAB (Community Action Board) studies.
Then read Bigot's language again: "drug abusing transients (passing through to take advantage of the area's extraordinary tolerance for anti-social and sociopathic behavior, as practiced by the Huffsters) and their sense of entitlement with regard to our public land and monies"
Thousand of registered voters signed initiatives to decriminalize sleeping in non-residential, non-beach front areas of Santa Cruz. Thousands more elected andidates who promised to end the Sleeping Ban in 1998. We were betrayed, because power listens to power.
HUFF is a small group. But the issue is a large one that impacts thousands of people. Across the country, similar NIMBY bigotry not only brutalizes and dehumanizes the homeless but makes hypocrites out of millions of ACLU-type liberals who prate about Bush's violations, but do nothing about their own city's institutionalized criminal activity towards the poor.
Like slavery, racial discrimination, women's oppression, this issue will not die, no matter how many times activists are dissed, dismissed, or denounced.
Thanks to those contributing to this discussion (I guess that includes Bigot).
At the request of DeMon and Jeremy, two activists with Homies for the Homeless, I went to City Hall Monday morning with Bernard Klitzner, an advocate with the Human Rights Organization to be present at a scheduled meeting with Mayor Reilly.
The HRO is one of the groups fund-raising for the lawsuit to overturn the Sleeping Ban and force local authorities to respect the federal court's L.A. Jones decision, which stops police nighttime ticketing in towns that have inadequate shelter.
DeMon and Jeremy slept out at City Hall for six nights until police unconstitutionally drove them away with $97 citations and threats of jail. They tabled, fliered, and gathered signatures for petitions during the days of the protest.
On Monday they had several hundred signatures with them, as well as two or three other homeless people who had come to support them. They also reported that sleeping tickets continue to be issued in defiance of the constitution and the federal courts.
Mayor Emily Reilly, you may recall, came into office after supporting months of protest to end the Sleeping Ban. She even engaged in a "sleep fast" organized by activist David Silva in early 2000 where middle-class people committed themselves to spending one night a week awake in their homes from 11 PM to 8:30 AM (which the homeless are required to do within city limits, to be legal) or spend the night without a blanket (another requirement of the city's Camping Ordinance--MC 6.36.010b).
Once her election campaign was under way, she abandoned her activist position and supported anti-homeless laws making it illegal to park a vehicle overnight in many neighborhoods, illegal for a homeless person to walk into a public parking garage in the rain, and doubling the "forbidden zones" where homeless people were banned from sitting on the public sidewalk. She never met a police budget she didn't like and added 7 additional personnel to Chief Ranger John Wallace's homeless hit squad in the Pogonip (3 CSO's, an SCPD sergeant, and 3 rangers).
She muzzled activists at City Council raising homeless issues by scheduling Oral Communciation at uncertain times and supporting reduced time to discuss Consent Agenda items. She turned off the microphone when the successful Maurer lawsuit was raised because it involved arresting a man who protested police harassment with a small sign "Fuck the Pigs". She excluded criticial comment on homeless-harasser SCPD Officer Jim Howes from the agenda when the Council was giving him an award and refusing to correct these and other abuses when presented with Brown Act complaints.
And when homeless protesters the week of August 12th through 18th asked her to open up the city council bathroom at night, she refused. When asked to meet with the protesters, she scheduled the meetings two weeks later (for August 27). Then, on that date, she was a no-show, though she was in town and near City Hall.
Reilly did make a celebrity appearance at the ACLU fund-raiser the day before, where her fellow Councilmember Mike Rotkin, whom many regard as the real or shadow Mayor of Santa Cruz, attempted to have me arrested for bringing in a cardboard sign detailing Sleeping Ban abuses (and the ACLU's failure to address that issue). [see http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/08/26/18443532.php]
Homies for the Homeless went to City Hall Monday morning to attend scheduled meetings with Mayor Reilly. Though City Clerk Leslie Cook spotted Reilly on her way to City Hall (twenty minutes late), Assistant City Manager Martin Bernal emerged and told me she would "not be available" this morning. When I told him I didn't have an appointment, but he should talk to the people twenty feet away who did, he continued to address me as though I were the one being stood up, and then retreated into the Council offices. He added before leaing that folks couldn't reschedule by waling up to the Council staff inside and doing so, but would have to telephone back at a future time since "the Mayor keeps her own calendar".
Homeless people declined to accept this, and went in to demand they be scheduled (the usual procedure). Megan, the secretary on duty, did so.
She also, for the first time, gave out a copy of the page of the Mayor's calendar (the page that documented the Mayor had scheduled and then stood up the homeless folks). Reilly, echoing Rotkin and Mathews before her, has claimed that the state's Sunshine Law, requiring Mayors to make their public meeting schedule and appointment calendars public, does not apply to her.
Some members of Homies for the Homeless will be at the HUFF meeting Wednesday (9:30 AM to 11:30 AM in the breezeway between County Building and Courthouse next to the Coffee Cart ("the Espresso Cafe") at 701 Ocean St. The public is invited. HUFF has been discussing a planned Teach-In and renewed Sleep-Out at City Hall for early September when the well-rested Council returns from its vacation.
The HRO is one of the groups fund-raising for the lawsuit to overturn the Sleeping Ban and force local authorities to respect the federal court's L.A. Jones decision, which stops police nighttime ticketing in towns that have inadequate shelter.
DeMon and Jeremy slept out at City Hall for six nights until police unconstitutionally drove them away with $97 citations and threats of jail. They tabled, fliered, and gathered signatures for petitions during the days of the protest.
On Monday they had several hundred signatures with them, as well as two or three other homeless people who had come to support them. They also reported that sleeping tickets continue to be issued in defiance of the constitution and the federal courts.
Mayor Emily Reilly, you may recall, came into office after supporting months of protest to end the Sleeping Ban. She even engaged in a "sleep fast" organized by activist David Silva in early 2000 where middle-class people committed themselves to spending one night a week awake in their homes from 11 PM to 8:30 AM (which the homeless are required to do within city limits, to be legal) or spend the night without a blanket (another requirement of the city's Camping Ordinance--MC 6.36.010b).
Once her election campaign was under way, she abandoned her activist position and supported anti-homeless laws making it illegal to park a vehicle overnight in many neighborhoods, illegal for a homeless person to walk into a public parking garage in the rain, and doubling the "forbidden zones" where homeless people were banned from sitting on the public sidewalk. She never met a police budget she didn't like and added 7 additional personnel to Chief Ranger John Wallace's homeless hit squad in the Pogonip (3 CSO's, an SCPD sergeant, and 3 rangers).
She muzzled activists at City Council raising homeless issues by scheduling Oral Communciation at uncertain times and supporting reduced time to discuss Consent Agenda items. She turned off the microphone when the successful Maurer lawsuit was raised because it involved arresting a man who protested police harassment with a small sign "Fuck the Pigs". She excluded criticial comment on homeless-harasser SCPD Officer Jim Howes from the agenda when the Council was giving him an award and refusing to correct these and other abuses when presented with Brown Act complaints.
And when homeless protesters the week of August 12th through 18th asked her to open up the city council bathroom at night, she refused. When asked to meet with the protesters, she scheduled the meetings two weeks later (for August 27). Then, on that date, she was a no-show, though she was in town and near City Hall.
Reilly did make a celebrity appearance at the ACLU fund-raiser the day before, where her fellow Councilmember Mike Rotkin, whom many regard as the real or shadow Mayor of Santa Cruz, attempted to have me arrested for bringing in a cardboard sign detailing Sleeping Ban abuses (and the ACLU's failure to address that issue). [see http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/08/26/18443532.php]
Homies for the Homeless went to City Hall Monday morning to attend scheduled meetings with Mayor Reilly. Though City Clerk Leslie Cook spotted Reilly on her way to City Hall (twenty minutes late), Assistant City Manager Martin Bernal emerged and told me she would "not be available" this morning. When I told him I didn't have an appointment, but he should talk to the people twenty feet away who did, he continued to address me as though I were the one being stood up, and then retreated into the Council offices. He added before leaing that folks couldn't reschedule by waling up to the Council staff inside and doing so, but would have to telephone back at a future time since "the Mayor keeps her own calendar".
Homeless people declined to accept this, and went in to demand they be scheduled (the usual procedure). Megan, the secretary on duty, did so.
She also, for the first time, gave out a copy of the page of the Mayor's calendar (the page that documented the Mayor had scheduled and then stood up the homeless folks). Reilly, echoing Rotkin and Mathews before her, has claimed that the state's Sunshine Law, requiring Mayors to make their public meeting schedule and appointment calendars public, does not apply to her.
Some members of Homies for the Homeless will be at the HUFF meeting Wednesday (9:30 AM to 11:30 AM in the breezeway between County Building and Courthouse next to the Coffee Cart ("the Espresso Cafe") at 701 Ocean St. The public is invited. HUFF has been discussing a planned Teach-In and renewed Sleep-Out at City Hall for early September when the well-rested Council returns from its vacation.
For more information:
http://www.huffsantacruz.org
Tuesday, Aug 28, 2007
Dear Mayor Emily Reilly,
I wrote to Vice-Mayor Ryan Coonerty re: the Jones decision and the Sleeping Ban. I was also critical of recent comments made by SCPD spokesman, Zach Friend, smearing homeless protesters at City Hall with outrageous and undocumented claims of criminal activity at the Homies for the Homeless protest Aug 12-19.
The Vice-Mayor responded by banning me permanently from Bookshop Santa Cruz, a business owned by his father and aunt, and where he is employed as a part-time cashier.
Is this a reasonable response to a public communication with a city councilmember re: City business?
Why am I being punished for using my right to redress government grievances? Will I now be banned from your bakery as a result of this e-mail?
--- Becky Johnson
479-9291
Attachment: e-mail from Ryan Coonerty, Vice-Mayor of Santa Cruz
Sunday, August 26, 2007 10:32 AM
Dear Becky,
I find it hard to believe that you could seriously consider comparing my position on homelessness to the hateful comments below. In my time on the council, I have consistently supported increased funding for social services (even in difficult economic times). In my family's business, as your literature points out, we go far beyond any other business downtown in providing bathrooms and a place to sleep for the homeless population, not to mention donations to the Homeless Garden Project, the Homeless Services Center, etc. I volunteer once a month to bring food to the shelter through the Mazon Project at the Temple.
While I fully support your and HUFF's right to First Amendment activity in the community and in front of Bookshop, you should know some of the possible impacts. Since your protest has begun, our bathrooms have been repeatedly vandalized, including shoving clothes down the toilets, smearing excrement on the walls, and cutting the straps from the baby changing table. As you know, maintaining these bathrooms is difficult and expensive and increasing the costs will likely lead to the business having to close them. While I don't think you or HUFF is directly responsible for these acts, I do believe that by connecting my sister's business (I work 20 hours a week there and receive a small salary) to my council acts, you create a climate where people think an act against the bookshop is a political act.
Because of this, I want to make clear that you and Bernard (Robert already is) are permanently banned from stepping foot in Bookshop Santa Cruz. If I, my sister or one of our managers see you enter the store, we will have you arrested.
Sincerely,
Ryan Coonerty
PS If you reprint this letter, have the courage to reprint it in full.
Ryan Coonerty
Vice Mayor
City of Santa Cruz
Dear Mayor Emily Reilly,
I wrote to Vice-Mayor Ryan Coonerty re: the Jones decision and the Sleeping Ban. I was also critical of recent comments made by SCPD spokesman, Zach Friend, smearing homeless protesters at City Hall with outrageous and undocumented claims of criminal activity at the Homies for the Homeless protest Aug 12-19.
The Vice-Mayor responded by banning me permanently from Bookshop Santa Cruz, a business owned by his father and aunt, and where he is employed as a part-time cashier.
Is this a reasonable response to a public communication with a city councilmember re: City business?
Why am I being punished for using my right to redress government grievances? Will I now be banned from your bakery as a result of this e-mail?
--- Becky Johnson
479-9291
Attachment: e-mail from Ryan Coonerty, Vice-Mayor of Santa Cruz
Sunday, August 26, 2007 10:32 AM
Dear Becky,
I find it hard to believe that you could seriously consider comparing my position on homelessness to the hateful comments below. In my time on the council, I have consistently supported increased funding for social services (even in difficult economic times). In my family's business, as your literature points out, we go far beyond any other business downtown in providing bathrooms and a place to sleep for the homeless population, not to mention donations to the Homeless Garden Project, the Homeless Services Center, etc. I volunteer once a month to bring food to the shelter through the Mazon Project at the Temple.
While I fully support your and HUFF's right to First Amendment activity in the community and in front of Bookshop, you should know some of the possible impacts. Since your protest has begun, our bathrooms have been repeatedly vandalized, including shoving clothes down the toilets, smearing excrement on the walls, and cutting the straps from the baby changing table. As you know, maintaining these bathrooms is difficult and expensive and increasing the costs will likely lead to the business having to close them. While I don't think you or HUFF is directly responsible for these acts, I do believe that by connecting my sister's business (I work 20 hours a week there and receive a small salary) to my council acts, you create a climate where people think an act against the bookshop is a political act.
Because of this, I want to make clear that you and Bernard (Robert already is) are permanently banned from stepping foot in Bookshop Santa Cruz. If I, my sister or one of our managers see you enter the store, we will have you arrested.
Sincerely,
Ryan Coonerty
PS If you reprint this letter, have the courage to reprint it in full.
Ryan Coonerty
Vice Mayor
City of Santa Cruz
For more information:
http://www.huffsantacruz.org
Just came across this glowing blurb for Ryan Coonerty and his State Assembly ambitions:
"If elected, the three areas I'll concentrate on are: the environment, education and economic security for working families. In terms of the environment, I think California needs to continue to lead the nation in raising mileage standards and developing alternatives to fossil fuels."...
"We also must protect our coast and ocean by making sure that pollutants are removed from our storm water before it reaches the ocean." And how would he do that? "From a combination of incentives and regulation.""
Now, this is the same Ryan Coonerty who has repeatedly voted for an energy-sucking, brine-spewing desalination plant at Long Marine Lab and who has participated in the delivery of over $4 million dollars of city (taxpayer) money to the firm Camp Dresser Mckee, who, we might add, was recently involved in a Katrina rebuilding scandal involving giving thousands of dollars in lobbying and campaign fees to Mississippi governor Harry Barbour - read all about it at
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aG1fHyzJA56A
"Last Oct. 18, Henry Barbour registered to lobby for Camp Dresser & McKee Inc., a Cambridge, Massachusetts-based engineering firm that had also been a client of his uncle's firm in Washington. A week later, seven CDM officials each gave the governor's re-election campaign $1,000.
One of the projects recommended by the governor's reconstruction commission was a $3 million study of water management systems in six Mississippi counties affected by Katrina. Camp Dresser and Waggoner Engineering, another client of Henry Barbour's firm, worked on that project. CDM paid Henry $15,000 for the final quarter of 2006, according to state lobbying records.
Officials at Waggoner didn't return calls, and a CDM spokeswoman wouldn't comment."
CDM is also a war-profiteering contractor in Afghanistan
"CDM was awarded a US$41.3 million task order to perform urban water and sanitation engineering in Afghanistan." - pretty good payback for their $9,900 donation to the Bush campaign. I wrote a brief piece on this, but the above is new information. (War profiteering and the City of Santa Cruz)
As is also clear, Coonerty's 'support for working families' is evident in his opposition to the living WAJE initiative for Santa Cruz County and his assaults on basic rights for the homeless (most homeless people are invisible), and his 'support for biofuels' is clearly demonstrated by his refusal to pressure the Metropolitan transport district or the University of California to switch to biodiesel... (see my previous article on this topic UCSC lies about biodiesel use, Aug 2006, indybay
The hypocrisy of elected officials in this country is at truly epidemic proportions. It's actually worse at the level of local politics, because there is no national media spotlight to expose their blatant dishonesty. Ryan Coonerty isn't actually as bad as some of the other members.
If Mr Coonerty wants to ban me from his bookstore, that's fine by me. They treat their employees like disposable rags, and fire them after they get too many raises. Logos is a far better place to spend your money.
"If elected, the three areas I'll concentrate on are: the environment, education and economic security for working families. In terms of the environment, I think California needs to continue to lead the nation in raising mileage standards and developing alternatives to fossil fuels."...
"We also must protect our coast and ocean by making sure that pollutants are removed from our storm water before it reaches the ocean." And how would he do that? "From a combination of incentives and regulation.""
Now, this is the same Ryan Coonerty who has repeatedly voted for an energy-sucking, brine-spewing desalination plant at Long Marine Lab and who has participated in the delivery of over $4 million dollars of city (taxpayer) money to the firm Camp Dresser Mckee, who, we might add, was recently involved in a Katrina rebuilding scandal involving giving thousands of dollars in lobbying and campaign fees to Mississippi governor Harry Barbour - read all about it at
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aG1fHyzJA56A
"Last Oct. 18, Henry Barbour registered to lobby for Camp Dresser & McKee Inc., a Cambridge, Massachusetts-based engineering firm that had also been a client of his uncle's firm in Washington. A week later, seven CDM officials each gave the governor's re-election campaign $1,000.
One of the projects recommended by the governor's reconstruction commission was a $3 million study of water management systems in six Mississippi counties affected by Katrina. Camp Dresser and Waggoner Engineering, another client of Henry Barbour's firm, worked on that project. CDM paid Henry $15,000 for the final quarter of 2006, according to state lobbying records.
Officials at Waggoner didn't return calls, and a CDM spokeswoman wouldn't comment."
CDM is also a war-profiteering contractor in Afghanistan
"CDM was awarded a US$41.3 million task order to perform urban water and sanitation engineering in Afghanistan." - pretty good payback for their $9,900 donation to the Bush campaign. I wrote a brief piece on this, but the above is new information. (War profiteering and the City of Santa Cruz)
As is also clear, Coonerty's 'support for working families' is evident in his opposition to the living WAJE initiative for Santa Cruz County and his assaults on basic rights for the homeless (most homeless people are invisible), and his 'support for biofuels' is clearly demonstrated by his refusal to pressure the Metropolitan transport district or the University of California to switch to biodiesel... (see my previous article on this topic UCSC lies about biodiesel use, Aug 2006, indybay
The hypocrisy of elected officials in this country is at truly epidemic proportions. It's actually worse at the level of local politics, because there is no national media spotlight to expose their blatant dishonesty. Ryan Coonerty isn't actually as bad as some of the other members.
If Mr Coonerty wants to ban me from his bookstore, that's fine by me. They treat their employees like disposable rags, and fire them after they get too many raises. Logos is a far better place to spend your money.
Ryan Coonerty came on the scene in 1998 with bond measures E and H to raise money for needed infrastructure repairs and improvements at area schools. The City Council set up the committee, and no doubt, due to nepotism, Ryan was put in as the chair. He didn't have to do anything.
The group didn't have to gather signatures to make it to the ballot because the City Council voted to put it on the ballot themselves. They opted for a special election ---which is much more costly to the taxpayers. Then, with little advertising or publicity, on election day, they targeted only those voters who they knew would vote for it. The Bond measure passed in an election with a very low turn-out, (64, 593 registered voters and 17,073 ballots cast) and Ryan Coonerty had his (largely undeserved) leadership credential, handed to him on a silver platter. I'm sure it matches the silver spoon he was born with.
So he will be mayor soon and, now you say, he has ambitions for higher office?
Oy.
The group didn't have to gather signatures to make it to the ballot because the City Council voted to put it on the ballot themselves. They opted for a special election ---which is much more costly to the taxpayers. Then, with little advertising or publicity, on election day, they targeted only those voters who they knew would vote for it. The Bond measure passed in an election with a very low turn-out, (64, 593 registered voters and 17,073 ballots cast) and Ryan Coonerty had his (largely undeserved) leadership credential, handed to him on a silver platter. I'm sure it matches the silver spoon he was born with.
So he will be mayor soon and, now you say, he has ambitions for higher office?
Oy.
For more information:
http://www.huffsantacruz.org
Here's how Merriam-Webster defines "bigot": "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices"
Sound familiar?
Sound familiar?
That I cannot walk my vaccinated and licensed dog on the Pacific Avenue mall makes me wish I had not moved to Santa Cruz. I regret having bought a condo downtown, where I had looked forward to shopping and visiting cafes with my Pomeranian, Zsa Zsa. I am invited to walk my dog down the adjacent streets, many of which are filthy and reek of the dumpsters belonging to the restaurants and bars on Pacific Avenue. No thanks.
Why not have common-sense laws requiring decent behavior — such as picking up after your licensed, vaccinated pet — and punish those who don't comply? Instead of banning dogs outright, sell permits to responsible dog owners, if necessary, to cover the cost of enforcement and dog bags.
Only a few streets are kept clean here; I guess the ones that are frequented by tourists and those where the influential reside. Have a look at the northwest corner of Ocean and Water. There are layers of disgusting unknown substances on the sidewalk. Since I moved here a year ago, that area has never been cleaned.
What are the priorities in this town? There is a newly refurbished lawnbowling court next to the government center. How many people use that — 10-15 maybe? I walk by it twice a day and rarely see anyone there. It should be a dog park, which many more people would use. But I was told by a city employee that a private citizen donated $100,000 for its upkeep. I didn't know government was supposed to operate on a quid pro quo basis like that.
Unless things change here, when I am able, I am going to sell my condo and move to a clean, pet-friendly place like Palo Alto or Los Gatos.
Santa Cruz could be weird and clean. Start expecting, and even requiring, people to act as civilly as my dog and I do. I see people throw trash and break bottles on the ground. I even saw a guy throw an entire microwave oven into the river, which I chewed him out for. And I get the feeling the homeless, transient, disenfranchised, whoever, generally are not held accountable for their actions. I guess it's supposed to be what makes Santa Cruz cool and weird. Well, you can be weird and be considerate of others and the environment. Many understand perfectly well what they're doing. I know, because I let them know I don't appreciate whatever inconsiderate act they are committing, and they are generally apologetic as well as surprised.
You guys continue to amaze... someone else pointed it out, but it has to be reinforced: you are accusing Coonerty of personalizing the issue, and then spend hours after hours of research time finding every little thing about him and posting it, including a picture just in case people want to see what he looks like (for those who don't already know). Why don't you post his home address, and hypothetically wonder what would happen if people camped out at his house? Why not tail his entire extended family, taking pictures and making posts, meanwhile screaming about how a councilmember has made an issue "personal" against you?
Are you guys so absolutely lost in your own misguided convictions that you don't see what you're doing?
No, I think you do. It's just that, as with all of your other mini-crusades, what matters most is what YOU have to say, not what anyone else has to say. Unless it fits exactly within your paradigm.
Oh, and that if someone disagrees with your position in any way you equate them to some of the most hateful, vile speech on a freeform post. That's a class act. Then I guess, in the same respect, Becky must want to wipe all arabs off the face of the earth, since someone who somewhat shares some of her views has probably expressed that at some time as well. Nice. Guilt by association, then fall back on the "I'm just expressing my opinion" defense.
You guys are truly sickening.
Are you guys so absolutely lost in your own misguided convictions that you don't see what you're doing?
No, I think you do. It's just that, as with all of your other mini-crusades, what matters most is what YOU have to say, not what anyone else has to say. Unless it fits exactly within your paradigm.
Oh, and that if someone disagrees with your position in any way you equate them to some of the most hateful, vile speech on a freeform post. That's a class act. Then I guess, in the same respect, Becky must want to wipe all arabs off the face of the earth, since someone who somewhat shares some of her views has probably expressed that at some time as well. Nice. Guilt by association, then fall back on the "I'm just expressing my opinion" defense.
You guys are truly sickening.
People post what they choose to on this site (critics included).
Vice-Mayor (soon to be Mayor) Coonerty has made a choice to continue criminalizing 1500-2000 homeless people in Santa Cruz each night, defying the Jones decision precedent.
That's not a personal attack, it's a political fact.
His supporters as well as his critics are welcome to call in and let him know how they feel, as members of the community about this choice.
He has made himself inaccessible on this issue to critics. He has supported police harassment of those trying to sleep legally--somewhere not everywhere. Is it not appropriate to confront him, his counsel, his police force, and NIMBY businesses who support this kind of class discrimination. That's what we call democracy, that distant hope which we may someday achieve.
Vice-Mayor (soon to be Mayor) Coonerty has made a choice to continue criminalizing 1500-2000 homeless people in Santa Cruz each night, defying the Jones decision precedent.
That's not a personal attack, it's a political fact.
His supporters as well as his critics are welcome to call in and let him know how they feel, as members of the community about this choice.
He has made himself inaccessible on this issue to critics. He has supported police harassment of those trying to sleep legally--somewhere not everywhere. Is it not appropriate to confront him, his counsel, his police force, and NIMBY businesses who support this kind of class discrimination. That's what we call democracy, that distant hope which we may someday achieve.
Why not call the downtown ordinances the Norse-Johnson Laws? Nothing personal guys. Just a reflection of the fact that they are largely a result of the actions of Robert and Becky over the decades. Their holier-than-thou soapboxing about drug abusing, anti-social transients that masquerades as "civil rights activism" is just as much a root cause of the townsfolks' disgust with the state of affairs downtown as any other social issue. Thanks for being such a toxic influence Huffsters. Nothing personal, of course.
As for who owns a house around here, I imagine Bigot owns one the same way Robert does. Only difference is he presumably paid for it with money he earned himself.
As for who owns a house around here, I imagine Bigot owns one the same way Robert does. Only difference is he presumably paid for it with money he earned himself.
What "distant hope that we may someday achieve"? Robert, you guys have had any number of opportunities to work with society to advance these things they you supposedly care about. You simply can't be bothered because the hands-on spadework required to achieve anything in life is too much trouble. I imagine this is also the reason you and Becky went home to real beds at night when all of your "homies" were, at your instigation, camping at City Hall.
How is that able-bodied white males toting guitars at 8 in the morning and sparechanging around town are an oppressed class anyway? Why is it that we never see working poor at your brouhahas? Or any real minorities?
Nothing personal, of course. Just a statement of fact.
How is that able-bodied white males toting guitars at 8 in the morning and sparechanging around town are an oppressed class anyway? Why is it that we never see working poor at your brouhahas? Or any real minorities?
Nothing personal, of course. Just a statement of fact.
DISBELIEF WRITES: "Why don't you post his home address, and hypothetically wonder what would happen if people camped out at his house? Why not tail his entire extended family, taking pictures and making posts, meanwhile screaming about how a councilmember has made an issue "personal" against you?"
BECKY: HUFF has never targeted a Mayor or councilmembers home for a protest. SEIU has. We believe that, while warranted, it would generate more ill-will than positive publicity. Howard Zinn, commenting on Santa Cruz' Sleeping Ban said "I think we should disrupt the sleep of people who pass such laws. " "Just Kiddin" wrote "Maybe we should sleep on the Mayor's lawn" so it's been thought of before, and by others who are more renown than me.
Don't condemn us for something we could do but haven't.
As for Ryan's history, that was pretty much off the top of my head. My point is he is NOT deep, or seasoned, or knowledgeable. He was handed his position on a silver platter and now is affecting the lives of thousands of homeless people with a false authority.
I'm glad you understand that it's not right for a Vice-Mayor to "get personal" by banishing an activist from a business his daddy owns, just because those activists are rightfully questioning his public policy as Vice-Mayor.
The right to redress government grievances implies the right to be free of vindictive consequences if that grievance is made.
BECKY: HUFF has never targeted a Mayor or councilmembers home for a protest. SEIU has. We believe that, while warranted, it would generate more ill-will than positive publicity. Howard Zinn, commenting on Santa Cruz' Sleeping Ban said "I think we should disrupt the sleep of people who pass such laws. " "Just Kiddin" wrote "Maybe we should sleep on the Mayor's lawn" so it's been thought of before, and by others who are more renown than me.
Don't condemn us for something we could do but haven't.
As for Ryan's history, that was pretty much off the top of my head. My point is he is NOT deep, or seasoned, or knowledgeable. He was handed his position on a silver platter and now is affecting the lives of thousands of homeless people with a false authority.
I'm glad you understand that it's not right for a Vice-Mayor to "get personal" by banishing an activist from a business his daddy owns, just because those activists are rightfully questioning his public policy as Vice-Mayor.
The right to redress government grievances implies the right to be free of vindictive consequences if that grievance is made.
For more information:
http://www.huffsantacruz.org
Bernard Klitzner, who did not write the offending e-mail to Vice-Mayor Ryan Coonerty, did picket
for our 1 1/2 hr per week protest. He also handed out flyers.
for our 1 1/2 hr per week protest. He also handed out flyers.
For more information:
http://www.huffsantacruz.org
Who knew that the Huffsters were concerned about only accruing "positive publicity"? Could have fooled me! Yes, Ryan is perhaps not as deep and seasoned as you, Becky, but silver platters certainly are not his alone. I believe Robert knows something about such things. Hasn't it been a while since you last held a paying job also? Ryan perhaps has put his platter to better use, eh?
You don't have the "right" to not be thrown out of someone's business. It's called a "consequence". If there were more owners like Ryan and the guy from Lulu's (the smartest business guy I know), I'd think about going downtown again.
You don't have the "right" to not be thrown out of someone's business. It's called a "consequence". If there were more owners like Ryan and the guy from Lulu's (the smartest business guy I know), I'd think about going downtown again.
DOUG ENNS WRITES: "How is that able-bodied white males toting guitars at 8 in the morning and sparechanging around town are an oppressed class anyway? Why is it that we never see working poor at your brouhahas? Or any real minorities?Nothing personal, of course. Just a statement of fact."
BECKY: To be a "fact" it has to be true. Doug Enns has obviously never been to a HUFF meeting before where we have housed activists, working people, people on fixed incomes, and homeless people attending. Enns somehow thinks that an able-bodied homeless person is open season to cite and arrest for the "crimes" of sitting down, sleeping at night, staying warm using a blanket, or asking for a dime. Since that able-bodied homeless person is most likely either working or looking for work (see: "The Eichhorn Decision" in Santa Ana which documented that typically only 8% of the able-bodied homeless population is neither working nor seeking work) your "charge" is truly without merit. In Santa Cruz, 40% of our homeless population are employed and 10% are working full time, yet cannot afford housing. This is not their fault, but the fault of City and County leaders who have failed to keep wages up or to shepherd community resources into provide sufficient housing for those who live here.
To create a police culture where homeless people are daily harassed with a series of punitive and petty laws selectively enforced against them, as a method for dealing with the "eyesore" of poor and homeless people on our streets, is draconian and ILLEGAL public policy. Selective enforcement is illegal. And under the Jones Decison, the entire camping ordinance, as enforced, is illegal.
As for my employment, I assure you that I am a member of the working poor. Manthri Srinath of "Lulu Carpenters" also accused me of being unemployed. He was wrong too.
Kudos for Doug Enns for using his real name (I assume its your real name). Those other posters using anonymous names from which to hurl insults are cowards. Readers should discard their comments.
BECKY: To be a "fact" it has to be true. Doug Enns has obviously never been to a HUFF meeting before where we have housed activists, working people, people on fixed incomes, and homeless people attending. Enns somehow thinks that an able-bodied homeless person is open season to cite and arrest for the "crimes" of sitting down, sleeping at night, staying warm using a blanket, or asking for a dime. Since that able-bodied homeless person is most likely either working or looking for work (see: "The Eichhorn Decision" in Santa Ana which documented that typically only 8% of the able-bodied homeless population is neither working nor seeking work) your "charge" is truly without merit. In Santa Cruz, 40% of our homeless population are employed and 10% are working full time, yet cannot afford housing. This is not their fault, but the fault of City and County leaders who have failed to keep wages up or to shepherd community resources into provide sufficient housing for those who live here.
To create a police culture where homeless people are daily harassed with a series of punitive and petty laws selectively enforced against them, as a method for dealing with the "eyesore" of poor and homeless people on our streets, is draconian and ILLEGAL public policy. Selective enforcement is illegal. And under the Jones Decison, the entire camping ordinance, as enforced, is illegal.
As for my employment, I assure you that I am a member of the working poor. Manthri Srinath of "Lulu Carpenters" also accused me of being unemployed. He was wrong too.
Kudos for Doug Enns for using his real name (I assume its your real name). Those other posters using anonymous names from which to hurl insults are cowards. Readers should discard their comments.
For more information:
http://www.huffsantacruz.org
I'm not going to dispute your numbers there Becky. Of course, my point is that the only people involved with HUFF are the 8% of people who are NOT bothering to look for work. Your association with the other 92% of the homeless population appears to be non existent, however much you want to co-opt their situation for your own benefit. They want nothing to do with your toxic agenda.
I didnt know you worked. Where?
I didnt know you worked. Where?
But not this time!!
If you ever came to a HUFF meeting, you would find that many different people from all walks of life attend. We've had lawyers. We've had Native Americans. Working poor people. People stop by on their way to and from court. We have homeless people quite regularly. And we have Robert who is neither homeless or poor. Why you condemn him for doing this work when he doesn't have to, is not paid to, and could be doing other things strikes me as an odd form of criticism. What would be an acceptable occupation for you for Robert to have?
Should he be yacht racing with playboy playmates? Or perhaps, if he was slinging hamburgers at McDonalds, then YOU would be satisfied. I mean, what is your issue for attacking us?
That we live in houses? That we work or don't work? I mean, how is that relevant?
Citizens are supposed to stay informed, keep track of what their public officials are doing, and to communicate their concerns to said authorities. I don't see why Robert or I should be villified for pressing issues that are causing human suffering every night.
Why did you assume I don't have a job? Was it your bias that caused you to conclude something, despite the fact that you had no evidence whatsoever, that I was unemployed and not interested in finding work.
You obviously know next to nothing about the make-up of HUFF and you know even less about me.
If you ever came to a HUFF meeting, you would find that many different people from all walks of life attend. We've had lawyers. We've had Native Americans. Working poor people. People stop by on their way to and from court. We have homeless people quite regularly. And we have Robert who is neither homeless or poor. Why you condemn him for doing this work when he doesn't have to, is not paid to, and could be doing other things strikes me as an odd form of criticism. What would be an acceptable occupation for you for Robert to have?
Should he be yacht racing with playboy playmates? Or perhaps, if he was slinging hamburgers at McDonalds, then YOU would be satisfied. I mean, what is your issue for attacking us?
That we live in houses? That we work or don't work? I mean, how is that relevant?
Citizens are supposed to stay informed, keep track of what their public officials are doing, and to communicate their concerns to said authorities. I don't see why Robert or I should be villified for pressing issues that are causing human suffering every night.
Why did you assume I don't have a job? Was it your bias that caused you to conclude something, despite the fact that you had no evidence whatsoever, that I was unemployed and not interested in finding work.
You obviously know next to nothing about the make-up of HUFF and you know even less about me.
But comments keep getting deleted. Not that you answer the questions in any substantive manner or anything.
If you find your comments deleted on this thread, feel free to e-mail me directly with a question. I shall respond with an answer, if I have one. I'm at rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com
Robert, you can answer two questions here. Why not call the downtown ordinances the Norse-Johnson Laws in your honor, instead of the "Coonerty Laws", as you do? Second, is Norse-noosin' really more fun than Coonerty-catchin', as you call it? We can perhaps exchange emails later. Thanks! Dougie
Neal Coonerty when he was on the Santa Cruz City Council and the Downtown Association initiated the Downtown Ordinances in 1994 in response to widespread protests (mostly not mine) against the Sleeping Ban in the wake of the Tobe decision throwing out the camping laws in southern California. Rather than respond to the issue, Coonerty and the Council went after the protesters (something some Coonerty supporters on this thread continue to do).
Ryan Coonerty is carrying on the Coonerty tradition by pushing for laws constricting the rights of poor people (of the whole community actually) to use the Public Parking lots for traditional conversing, gathering, and socializing. (See "Law Banning Public Meetings in Parking Lots on Downtown Commission Agenda September 27th ?" at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/09/06/18445965.php).
He still won't release or call for the release of the City Attorney's opinion that back the SCPD
s assertion of power and privilege that Los Angeles, San Diego, and Richmond have abandoned under court order, court settlement, or court pressure. Instead the City will get to pay off hefty legal fees when this matter is successfully resolved in court. And homeless people get to suffer in the meantime.
Ryan Coonerty signed the e-mail to Becky Johnson announcing she was banned from the Bookshop using his title "Vice-Mayor", indicating he feels that protest against his store is something he has a right to respond to in his official capacity.
The banning e-mail also gives away that Coonerty is more than a mere employee. This is a pretext he uses when he declines to recuse himself and improperly votes at City Council on issues downtown that impact the Bookshop. Coonerty, in spite of what he has said to me in other phone calls, seems to actually be in a familial managerial position. Otherwise why would he, an employee, be announcing a ban?
Banning your critics may be a tactic he's picked up from Councilmember Rotkin(who decided to ban me from the ACLU meeting for carrying in signs until persuaded otherwise, with sizzling irony, by the UCSC police).
Neither Rotkin nor Coonerty nor any of the Council have any reasonable response. Treating homeless people like refugees or dogs is not acceptable to the majority of the Santa Cruz community. And even more unacceptable to the courts.
These are bullies who have abandoned civil liberties for the poor, but still like to wrap the Progressive cloak around themselves, both for their own self-esteem and to get votes at election time.
Support the lawsuit. Support direct action sleepouts. Spread the word!
Ryan Coonerty is carrying on the Coonerty tradition by pushing for laws constricting the rights of poor people (of the whole community actually) to use the Public Parking lots for traditional conversing, gathering, and socializing. (See "Law Banning Public Meetings in Parking Lots on Downtown Commission Agenda September 27th ?" at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/09/06/18445965.php).
He still won't release or call for the release of the City Attorney's opinion that back the SCPD
s assertion of power and privilege that Los Angeles, San Diego, and Richmond have abandoned under court order, court settlement, or court pressure. Instead the City will get to pay off hefty legal fees when this matter is successfully resolved in court. And homeless people get to suffer in the meantime.
Ryan Coonerty signed the e-mail to Becky Johnson announcing she was banned from the Bookshop using his title "Vice-Mayor", indicating he feels that protest against his store is something he has a right to respond to in his official capacity.
The banning e-mail also gives away that Coonerty is more than a mere employee. This is a pretext he uses when he declines to recuse himself and improperly votes at City Council on issues downtown that impact the Bookshop. Coonerty, in spite of what he has said to me in other phone calls, seems to actually be in a familial managerial position. Otherwise why would he, an employee, be announcing a ban?
Banning your critics may be a tactic he's picked up from Councilmember Rotkin(who decided to ban me from the ACLU meeting for carrying in signs until persuaded otherwise, with sizzling irony, by the UCSC police).
Neither Rotkin nor Coonerty nor any of the Council have any reasonable response. Treating homeless people like refugees or dogs is not acceptable to the majority of the Santa Cruz community. And even more unacceptable to the courts.
These are bullies who have abandoned civil liberties for the poor, but still like to wrap the Progressive cloak around themselves, both for their own self-esteem and to get votes at election time.
Support the lawsuit. Support direct action sleepouts. Spread the word!
Nice to finally hear from you Robert. Of course, more sizzling irony is that you were dossing in bed while your homies were camping out on city property at your instigation. Another sizzling irony is that you, a trust-funded homeowner with all the privilege of unearned money, claims to know one whit of what it means to be poor. Yet another one is that you freely call other people bigots, while pig-headedly insisting that your view of things is all that matters.
What amazes me is that every merchant and grocery store in town doesn't throw all of you Huffsters out. Lord knows you make things difficult enough for every one of them. The garages are not " traditional places" for people to converse and socialize, Robert. This is only true for drug dealers, car thieves and people who carry guitars around at 8 am. The rest of us go to work and do these things there, when the boss isn't looking.
As for Ryan, you know he's an owner of the Bookshop. Save the disingenuous passive-aggressive rhetoric for your breezeway shindigs with the other two Huffies. The rest of us can put these things in context without your help, thank you very much.
You didn't answer my questions, either. Could you please try to do this when you have time? Thanks! Dougie
What amazes me is that every merchant and grocery store in town doesn't throw all of you Huffsters out. Lord knows you make things difficult enough for every one of them. The garages are not " traditional places" for people to converse and socialize, Robert. This is only true for drug dealers, car thieves and people who carry guitars around at 8 am. The rest of us go to work and do these things there, when the boss isn't looking.
As for Ryan, you know he's an owner of the Bookshop. Save the disingenuous passive-aggressive rhetoric for your breezeway shindigs with the other two Huffies. The rest of us can put these things in context without your help, thank you very much.
You didn't answer my questions, either. Could you please try to do this when you have time? Thanks! Dougie
Robert, YOU and the Huffsters have tied Coonerty's family business to his political position by camping out in front of Bookshop. Why don't you protest at his office at City Hall instead? You have no business now complaining that the two things should be unrelated. This must be the passive-aggressive thing Doug Enns is talking about. Good lord, you people are so disingenuous.
Brief Update:
Vice-Mayor Coonerty has not been responding to phone calls or invitations to come on Free Radio.
He has not deigned to speak with protesters outside the Bookshop, moved to release the Barisone memo, or explained his position on the Sleeping Ban.
He has also not followed up on a request that his Public Safety Committee meetings (the City Council committee that "oversees", i.e. facilitates, the SCPD and Fire Dept.), usually held at odd times in the afternoon be tape recorded and the tapes put in the library so folks can hear what the Committee is (and, mostly, is not) doing.
Coonerty's "easier to reach" phone number (which he advises people to use since he only checks his office once a week) is 429-8939.
Bookshop Santa Cruz has been ostentatiously tossing notes to Vice-Mayor Coonerty in the trash.
Bookshop Santa Cruz is where the Vice-Mayor works regularly. It is also a business, whose interests, he seems to hold in higher regard than the rights of citizens and particularly poor people.
A protest on Pacific Avenue is more likely to get the attention of Coonerty, his allies, his potential customers, the visiting public, and the community generally than at a closed City Hall office several blocks off the main street.
But of course, critics making personal attacks on this thread know that already.
Vice-Mayor Coonerty has not been responding to phone calls or invitations to come on Free Radio.
He has not deigned to speak with protesters outside the Bookshop, moved to release the Barisone memo, or explained his position on the Sleeping Ban.
He has also not followed up on a request that his Public Safety Committee meetings (the City Council committee that "oversees", i.e. facilitates, the SCPD and Fire Dept.), usually held at odd times in the afternoon be tape recorded and the tapes put in the library so folks can hear what the Committee is (and, mostly, is not) doing.
Coonerty's "easier to reach" phone number (which he advises people to use since he only checks his office once a week) is 429-8939.
Bookshop Santa Cruz has been ostentatiously tossing notes to Vice-Mayor Coonerty in the trash.
Bookshop Santa Cruz is where the Vice-Mayor works regularly. It is also a business, whose interests, he seems to hold in higher regard than the rights of citizens and particularly poor people.
A protest on Pacific Avenue is more likely to get the attention of Coonerty, his allies, his potential customers, the visiting public, and the community generally than at a closed City Hall office several blocks off the main street.
But of course, critics making personal attacks on this thread know that already.
So Coonerty is blowing you off Robert, and throwing your insults in the trash. Heaven forbid that anyone ignore the almighty Norse. Again, why shouldn't they respond as business owners when YOU drag their business into your supposedly political fight with them? The wonder to me is that they haven't thrown the lot of you out sooner. I guess Neal has a soft spot for this nonsense that you parade around as "activism".
Remember Robert, you made this personal, not Coonerty. The only reason anyone is ignoring you is because it's YOU. And the other Huff-a-Trons. I'm pretty sure I would get a call back if I tried getting a hold of Ryan. Of course, I'm not trying to hurt his business or his hardworking staff. I guess that's the difference.
We are all bored silly with this charade, Robert. Just because Magik, the Gathering doesn't fascinate you like it used to is no reason to subject us to this all day long.
Remember Robert, you made this personal, not Coonerty. The only reason anyone is ignoring you is because it's YOU. And the other Huff-a-Trons. I'm pretty sure I would get a call back if I tried getting a hold of Ryan. Of course, I'm not trying to hurt his business or his hardworking staff. I guess that's the difference.
We are all bored silly with this charade, Robert. Just because Magik, the Gathering doesn't fascinate you like it used to is no reason to subject us to this all day long.
Maybe Ryan Coonerty won't go on Radio Free Santa Cruz because it's an illegal organization.
Just a thought.
Sure has been cold the last few nights. So Mr. Kahn...how many homeless people have you let sleep at your house?
Just a thought.
Sure has been cold the last few nights. So Mr. Kahn...how many homeless people have you let sleep at your house?
DOUG ENNS WRITES: "...(sic) dossing in bed while your homies were camping out on city property at your instigation.
BECKY WRITES: "A good point. Of course where were YOU, Mr. Enns on the night of August 12th between 11PM and 8:30AM? YOU insist that homeless people must walk around all night long and also stay cold as using a blanket is forbidden during those hours, and you have the temerity to accuse Robert Norse, one of the 6 or 7 organizers of the Homies for the Homeless protest last summer, that they are guilty of sleeping under a roof?
HUFF only scheduled the event for one night, as a token gesture, to proverbially "camp on the Mayor's lawn" to raise awareness about the issue. But so many homeless people showed up, and THEY wanted to stay!! HUFF continued to support the protest and members came down daily with food, blankets, tarps, garbage bags, coffee, etc. as well as our endless propaganda. The event provided safety and shelter for between 25 and 30 people every night for 6 nights. In social service provider-speak, that means HUFF facilitated homeless people self-providing 180 shelter spaces.
While anyone of us housed people might be moved to commit an act of civil disobedience and sleep outside WITH the homeless people (and both Robert and I have done so at times) we HOUSED people can't use our tickets to show the courts that we had no choice. That we had to sleep outside for lack of shelter. For obviously we do have a choice. And homeless people don't need housed people coming out and sleeping with them as much as they need to have housing where they can go inside and sleep. What you and Ryan Coonerty are forgetting is that this is what we ALL need. A shelter over our heads. and the ability to sleep at night. The law won't make people stop sleeping or stop using blankets at night. People must do what they must do to survive.
Six citations were issued. Police allowed people to grab up their gear and move instead of being cited. One man, John Brandon insisted on staying despite repeated albeit polite requests from the SCPD to pack up and leave. His was the first citation issued.
John was a Vietnam Vet. His PSTD had led to alcohol. Then his family life fell apart. He eventually became homeless and alienated from all of his family members. Eventually he fell apart and had a heart attack. He was rushed to the hospital.
The heroic doctors and nurses saved his life with a triple-bypass coronary surgery. And John faced the harsh reality that if he kept drinking, he would die. He chose life. He got into AA and went daily, sometimes twice daily. His doctors advised him that if he didn't walk every day, he would die. He walked every day.
He became heavily involved with Veterans issues. He attended meetings at the Vets Hall in Santa Cruz and others at the Vets Hall in Monterey where he sometimes stayed. He was upset to find that the benches in front of Veterans services had been removed at the request of the management at the Vets Hall. He and his friend, also in recovery, slept in a van illegally every night. When he heard about the Homies for the Homeless protest on Mayor Emily Reilly's "front lawn", he was there the first night, and brought his buddy along too.
John would have been a great plaintiff in a lawsuit against the Sleeping Ban in Santa Cruz. This is a suit that I, HUFF, and others are putting together. With the Tobe decision, the Eichhorn Decision, and in 2006, the Jones decision, the courts seem a more likely remedy than four votes on the Santa Cruz City Council.
John was an activist. He was outspoken. And his heart was fully in it.
But John Brandon is no longer with us. He went to sleep, still homeless, in his van and never woke up. Despite his sobriety and despite all his walking, he had a massive coronary. The stress of being homeless, and the inability to sleep regularly are no doubt a factor in his death. His many new friends in Monterey sought in vain for a relative to notify of John's death. They found none. As a final irony, John Brandon missed his court hearing on his Sleeping ban citation on August 12th, due to being dead. A warrant has now been issued for his arrest.
BECKY WRITES: "A good point. Of course where were YOU, Mr. Enns on the night of August 12th between 11PM and 8:30AM? YOU insist that homeless people must walk around all night long and also stay cold as using a blanket is forbidden during those hours, and you have the temerity to accuse Robert Norse, one of the 6 or 7 organizers of the Homies for the Homeless protest last summer, that they are guilty of sleeping under a roof?
HUFF only scheduled the event for one night, as a token gesture, to proverbially "camp on the Mayor's lawn" to raise awareness about the issue. But so many homeless people showed up, and THEY wanted to stay!! HUFF continued to support the protest and members came down daily with food, blankets, tarps, garbage bags, coffee, etc. as well as our endless propaganda. The event provided safety and shelter for between 25 and 30 people every night for 6 nights. In social service provider-speak, that means HUFF facilitated homeless people self-providing 180 shelter spaces.
While anyone of us housed people might be moved to commit an act of civil disobedience and sleep outside WITH the homeless people (and both Robert and I have done so at times) we HOUSED people can't use our tickets to show the courts that we had no choice. That we had to sleep outside for lack of shelter. For obviously we do have a choice. And homeless people don't need housed people coming out and sleeping with them as much as they need to have housing where they can go inside and sleep. What you and Ryan Coonerty are forgetting is that this is what we ALL need. A shelter over our heads. and the ability to sleep at night. The law won't make people stop sleeping or stop using blankets at night. People must do what they must do to survive.
Six citations were issued. Police allowed people to grab up their gear and move instead of being cited. One man, John Brandon insisted on staying despite repeated albeit polite requests from the SCPD to pack up and leave. His was the first citation issued.
John was a Vietnam Vet. His PSTD had led to alcohol. Then his family life fell apart. He eventually became homeless and alienated from all of his family members. Eventually he fell apart and had a heart attack. He was rushed to the hospital.
The heroic doctors and nurses saved his life with a triple-bypass coronary surgery. And John faced the harsh reality that if he kept drinking, he would die. He chose life. He got into AA and went daily, sometimes twice daily. His doctors advised him that if he didn't walk every day, he would die. He walked every day.
He became heavily involved with Veterans issues. He attended meetings at the Vets Hall in Santa Cruz and others at the Vets Hall in Monterey where he sometimes stayed. He was upset to find that the benches in front of Veterans services had been removed at the request of the management at the Vets Hall. He and his friend, also in recovery, slept in a van illegally every night. When he heard about the Homies for the Homeless protest on Mayor Emily Reilly's "front lawn", he was there the first night, and brought his buddy along too.
John would have been a great plaintiff in a lawsuit against the Sleeping Ban in Santa Cruz. This is a suit that I, HUFF, and others are putting together. With the Tobe decision, the Eichhorn Decision, and in 2006, the Jones decision, the courts seem a more likely remedy than four votes on the Santa Cruz City Council.
John was an activist. He was outspoken. And his heart was fully in it.
But John Brandon is no longer with us. He went to sleep, still homeless, in his van and never woke up. Despite his sobriety and despite all his walking, he had a massive coronary. The stress of being homeless, and the inability to sleep regularly are no doubt a factor in his death. His many new friends in Monterey sought in vain for a relative to notify of John's death. They found none. As a final irony, John Brandon missed his court hearing on his Sleeping ban citation on August 12th, due to being dead. A warrant has now been issued for his arrest.
For more information:
http://www.huffsantacruz.org
If you all think this is a way to get some one on your side ........ Its really no wonder why they would have you or your compatriots banned. I AM A FORMERLY HOMELESS RESIDENT OF THIS COUNTY! I was homeless for almost 20 years and have now had a home for 3 months. I just don't think that you are going about these thing in the right way. Courtesy and kindness in the face of hatred and violence go much further. Hell if someone did this in front of my store I would do every thing in my power to see that they never came into my shop again.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$75.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network