LOWER OCEAN BLOCK PARTY/BBQ/MUSIC

I wholeheartedly agree that more police presence instead of community interaction is only going to make a bad situation worse. The Neighbors of Lower Ocean and Take Back Santa Cruz stance of call the cops first creates an endless attitude of suspicion and fear of our neighbors, especially when so much of this neighborhood sees so much out of town traffic.

Thanks for whoever got on the ball with putting this together, I'm looking forward to it.

While I freely acknowledge that I'm posting anonymously....I can't help but notice that you're dissing the goals and agenda of a group that's willing to publicly show their names and membership.

In comparison, would you be so kind as to tell us who you/your group are, and what your tactics for making the neighborhood better are?

Because barring that, I'm inclined to go with the Take Back Santa Cruz group. They've already shown me positive goals and accomplishments with the Almar Ave. and Evergreen Cemetary cleanups.

It would be nice to be able to compare your goals/tactics to theres so that I and others could decide who has the more constructive agenda and plan.

I live on Ocean. Lower Ocean is is not a safe place to walk around at night. Drug dealing and prostitution are common. I think any sane person will agree it needs more police presence. Who in the right mind would protest against this? It is the criminals, that's who! I question the ulterior motives of whoever posted this "BBQ."

Thanks for the heads up! Wasn't aware of the Take Back Santa Cruz event, but will be there to support them. Wilbur, will see you there.

Lower Ocean is a mess.

So the people who read Indybay and like to comment on the blogs are into the system as it is and feels safe with police presence around. Hummm.
And all this time I thought this was an alternative news site and the people who read the articles are truly looking for a better world full of trust and helping humanity and it's ills. And against putting people in prison and more into creating a more intelligent world that includes compassion.
Well, now I know who these bloggers are.
Sorry, if you haven't gotten the message by now that we need to work for a more humane way to deal with each other. You insist on fear and distrust of others.
When we all want more love in the world...then this world will get rid of it's problems.

This BBQ is about WHAT? Making sure that there continues to be illegal activity in the neighborhood. Take Back Santa Cruz is about safety, not ICE. I can't understand why anyone wouldn't want a safer community. Have your BBQ, I question your motives...

"When we all want more love in the world...then this world will get rid of it's problems."

-Agreed. What is it about what these people are doing that is in contrast to that? Watch the video.

http://www.takebacksantacruz.com/recent-news/almardrugareacleanupcompleted

No fascists here, no police state. In fact, it is totally in line with the concept of something like Free Skool and DIY in general. Just people of all ages, races, genders, abled and disabled working together to clean up their community. No tax money, no police, no city workers bossing people around, no drones with cameras. What is the problem?

There have been 4 deaths since 1/1/2010 in that area, surely some positive energy is needed. Why on earth would you want to counter protest that. And where are you getting your info from? Nobody is suggesting the police should enter your home without cause.....What are you afraid of? If what you had been doing was working to keep you and your neighborhood safe Take Back Santa Cruz would not need to get involved. Try being grateful that people actually care about your well being.

Looks to me like you are the ones pushing fear. No intelligent fair minded person could look at what the community and Take Back Santa Cruz are doing and see what you describe. Your true colors are showing. You want negative hateful interactions between people because that is the only way you know how to operate. How horrible to try and scare our community from showing up by mentioning ICE. They have thousands of supporters and you don't. Obviously, because you have to offer free food and music. Take Back Santa Cruz just has to offer an open heart and hand. Thank You Take Back SC! I will be there now that this has been brought it my attention. Larga vida a una comunidad segura!

Sad reader,

When the anarchists stop posting on non-anarchist sites, you might expect the same courtesy from non-anarchists posting here.

But that aside? Some responses to your queries.

1) Yes, I feel a lot safer with police around than I do with heroin dealing cartel members or heroin consuming homeless vagrants.

2) I am looking fora better world full of trust. And once I can trust heroin addicts and think they are working toward that same goal, I'll be happy to partner with them. Until then? I'd rather drive them out of our community. There are places for help, and I invite them to seek it. Barring that? Bar them.

3) I'll be humane with drug addicts and anarchists who like to vandalize stuff in the name of social justice when they show me some humanity. Stop vandalizing my community, littering my parks, and turning my open spaces into shooting galleries.

4) I don't have fear for them; it's rather that I have no more tolerance for them.

I support your right do do your thing and proceed as you see fit; appreciate your doing the same!

To those who have responded thus far:

The reason that this community bbq is being thrown is because the tactics being used by Take Back Santa Cruz are not fundamentally addressing what the problem in these neighborhoods or Santa Cruz as a whole are. The group lacks the necessary analysis and approach to fundamentally reshape the ills they are addressing.

The tactic that is going to be used by TBSC on Friday is one called "positive loitering". This is a tactic that this group has used in the past to get the word out about drugs, violence and "illegal activity" taking place in Santa Cruz (or more specifically the neighborhood they are demonstrating in) as well as to inform people about their newly formed organization. I question how exactly this builds community and extends the discussion to those that this demonstration is intimidating. Positive loitering as intimidation (ready to call the police at any sight of something out of the ordinary) to those TBSC calls criminals does nothing to build or rebuild community - it doesn't understand why given activity takes place, but like the police seeks a quick solution to a thick and systemic problem.

As someone mentioned TBSC was formed in the wake of a murder that happened on Laurel st. earlier this year by men reported to be involved with gang activity. This murder, like all murders (especially the ones that have happened in the Lower Ocean already this year) are tragedies that must be addressed and dealt with. With the appearance of a group that "builds community" and would have a community response to the murders TBSC gained a lot of support - which is totally understandable. The problem is that it is not in fact a group that nurtures and builds community but in fact stands in opposition to the principles of community by alluding with the police. This is strikingly evident on it's website if you look at their steps to "empower yourself" :

"What can you do? 1. Vote in every election. Know the candidates, understand the issues and make your vote count. Check back on this page for updates.2. Report illegal activity. Santa Cruz has some of the finest law enforcement officers in the country, but they can't be everywhere at all times. If you witness illegal or abusive behavior, report the incident by calling 911. If y0u wish to remain anonymous you can call the police tip line at 831-420-5995 or submit an anonymous tip at http://www.santacruzpolice.com 3. Tell your friends and neighbors about Take Back Santa Cruz. The plan is simple: mobilize every responsible citizen in Santa Cruz. Everyone can contribute if everyone knows what he or she can do."


This mentality of "callling the police first and asking questions later" is the exact kind of behavior that destroys communities and prevents them from realizing their full potentials as places where people shape and create the kind of community they want to live in. Without building real, living, breathing relationships with and between members of a given community there is no possibility of seeing or creating a new and radically different world. We already live atomized existences, separated from each other in every imaginable way. How does nurturing a culture of fear of other people, veiling this mentality as "pragmatic" "cautionary" and "safe" actually help a community? Or Santa Cruz? Or society at large? On the same page as mentioned above TBSC has this on their website:

"Empowering every responsible member of our community is one of the most significant ways of promoting positive change. By supporting our government agencies like the city council, police and judicial system, we can all contribute to a very clear message that illegal and abusive behavior will not be tolerated"

The last time I checked these public institutions were anti-thetical to empowerment. In fact this conception of empowerment is the kind of empowerment we must avoid like the plague that it is if we are going to see any kind of change in society, our communities or our own personal lives. People deemed criminals by the very institutions that TBSC has listed as a tool of empowerment are very often the most disempowered individuals in society. How can we build relationships and change our communities at large to see the empowerment as individuals and community members those who are already the most disenfranchised? It is by now common knowledge that police act as a violent outer-community force that does nothing towards this goal. Prisons and the court system produce reoffenders because this method of handling conflict in society reproduces the same conflict it supposedly stops and molds social and economic relationships to become dependent on this conflicts very existence. We must resist this logic.

To anyone in TBSC I implore you to join us at this BBQ. This will be an opportunity to step outside of the answers you claim to know you have, step outside of the fear of others you inject into people and step into the long project of community building which can create the solutions to the problems with those who are affected by them outside of the alienating and violent institution of the police. This BBQ is open to anyone and isn't founded upon intimidation or having the answers - it's about the discovery of solutions through the sharing of experiences and ideas with the hope of building relationships and networks more prepared to deal with problems than the police.

so says the logic of totalitarianism.

"why fear the police? they are just here to protect is from the bad people who would hurt us". unless of course the bad people are the same ones who poison the air, water and soil, who have forced the world to labor for their benefit, who run this whole crazy disaster we call a society. unless the bad ones are the police themselves shooting down civilians as they do hundreds of times a year across the u.s.

plus, everyone knows that local police departments work with i.c.e. whether or not they do so *officially* and *publicly* is beside the point, they are, they will or they would, it's one of those 3. anyone who has ever been to a protest for instance or witnessed some other really egregious form of police behavior knows how quick they are to cover up their identities when they're fucking someone up. for instance, after mehserle shot oscar grant and all the other cops he was with started ripping people's cell phones out of their hands that they were taking pictures and video with. this shit happens all the time.

trust the police? what do you take us for? they're here to protect property and capitalist social order, not human life. anyone who disagrees is simply not paying attention to anything aside from the crudest and most authoritarian mainstream propaganda, no matter how noble they try to sound.

"This mentality of "callling the police first and asking questions later" is the exact kind of behavior that destroys communities and prevents them from realizing their full potentials as places where people shape and create the kind of community they want to live in"

-Who are these nuts? If somebody is outside my apartment stabbing another person over a crack deal, I'm calling the cops. Can you honestly say you would go outside and try to talk with the stabber? Would you recommend that to an 80 year old woman?

If someone is dropping their pants and busting a deuce on my front lawn, I'm calling the cops.

If a gang is raping an innocent woman outside my house, I'm going to do something about it AND call the cops. My guess is that Mr. BBQ would a) cower in his house and b) NOT call the cops. Way to go.

The intention of this BBQ event is NOT one of aggression, and not under the name of a 'counter protest'. A group of individuals came together, realized that they shared discomfort with some of the rhetoric and intentions of TBSC, and decided to try and get community members together in a different way. This is what is called autonomy-- people acting independently and freely as individuals. The defensive nature of the preceding posts in support of TBSC is only a reflection of the reactionary way in which the organization responds to problems within our community. More cops do not entail less crime, and simply "pushing crime out" of a community is no solution to the larger issues that create violence in the first place. If anything, TBSC should be excited, not angry, that community members are taking it upon themselves to 'organize' in various ways, as this shows widespread concern with the problems that plague this area and a desire to build REAL networks of community. In short-- why aren't y'all stoked?

Taken from Wes Modes Facebook:

Well, I'm a white middle class people, and I try to do plenty. But my analysis starts with an assumption that poor and brown don't equal problems. I've talked with these folks. Their focus is on vilifying poor,homeless, and jobless people as junkies and gangbangers, working to get more police into poor and troubled communities, and excluding those who express a desire to create grassroots infrastructure. I was banned within minutes on the FB group for asking questions like "Can we take back Santa Cruz without cops?"

It seems to me your agenda is to vilify TBSC because you still have an issue with the police over your "drum circle incident."
Take it somewhere else, Take Back Santa Cruz doesn't stand for "vilifying poor, homeless, and jobless people as junkies and gangbangers" and they certainly don't think poor and brown equal problems.

I'm not sure where some of these commentors get the idea that neighborhood groups are simply about 'send more cops'. That simply isn't the case. And if you lived in Lower Ocean, you'd know that we're over run with hookers during the summer. Positive Loitering is a simple method to get our neighbors out from their houses and into the street. Then, next time I recognize your face, the 'hood suddenly seems just a little friendlier. If I don't know someone but I can clearly discern that they are up to illegal activity, I'm definitely calling 911. Do I particularly want the cops coming to my house? Nope! But when there's someone on the loose with a gun (and there has been a number of times) I want SCPD there.

"Illegal activity" --like sitting within 10' of a building, or using a public bench for more than an hour, or sleeping after 11 PM at night outside though there's no shelter? Or holding up a sign after dark asking for money? These are all "illegal" in Santa Cruz. As is possessing marijuana. Are these the kinds of "crimes" TBSC is interested in stopping to "improve" the "quality of life"?

If not, let TBSC repudiate this kind of anti-homeless bigotry. If not, the silence tells the tale.

Robert, the issues you point out are your own personal crusade with the homeless on Pacific. There are no public benches in Lower Ocean. But there are plenty of drug dealers that come from out of the area to peddle junk. Same with the hookers, the vast majority DO NOT live in SC. I will continue to encourage my neighbors to get to know each other and if, to them, they see illegal activity that plagues this area that they shouldn't hesitate to call the cops. It's sad that some commentors in this thread don't see the value of having cops to call when there's a john harassing a woman simply walking down the street. That's what females in this area deal with regularly. How long would you put up with that (as a woman)?
Then again, I used to have the 'cops=bad' mentality, but it passed after the guy who pulled a gun on me was sent to jail!

"Are these the kinds of "crimes" TBSC is interested in stopping to "improve" the "quality of life"? "

-Nobody's talking about that stuff, numbskull! I don't support pot prohibition. I don't have a beef with the homeless, though I know some TBSCers do. I think prostitution should be legal as well, by the way.

The crimes that I'M talking about are: burglaries, beatings by pimps, stabbings, gang violence, destruction of private property, tagging to demarcate organized crime turf, heroin overdoses, needles left in areas where kids can find them. THAT kind of crime is what people are worried about.

Sorry, Robert, I know you live in Felton, so you can safely insulate yourself from reality when necessary, but those living in Beach Flats and Lower Ocean don't have that bourgeois luxury.

"Taken from Wes Modes Facebook: "

-Thanks for convincing me it is Rico Thunder as "unbelievable" and "Bbq defense league". Yep, didn't suspect him until his whiny defensive posts. Unmistakable.

Wes Modes invite states:

While this group claims to promote a "safer" Santa Cruz, we feel that their goals will make most of US in the Lower Ocean neighborhood less safe.
We will not be safer if cameras watch our every move or if the police feel welcome to enter people's homes, harass groups hanging out, and report people they detain to ICE.
Rather than create an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust, where we jump to calling the police before we talk to each other, we want to live in a community where we know our neighbors and take care of each other.
Let's get together to have a good time and talk about the future of OUR community.

If there was less crime on lower Ocean (which I no doubt believe is partly caused by the people who will addend this "BBQ") there will be less need for a police presence there. You want less cops there? Stop shooting, stabbing, stealing, drug dealing, ect. It's that simple. But no of course not that's too easy.

actual members of the lower ocean community planned it, numbskulls.

"which I no doubt believe is partly caused by the people who will addend this "BBQ"

-I don't think so. Other than political crimes, or things like biking like psychopaths, I don't think this will be attended by serious criminals. It will be attended by wannabe anarchists, and other upper-class radicals who think there is something "cool" about living in a tough neighborhood. Until their fixie bikes (no brakes) get stolen or their girlfriend gets raped...

I would point out that the AETA4 suspects lived in this exact neighborhood.

Wouldn't it be great if both groups could interact Friday to bolster one another's efforts on the points where they agree?

You _have_ been focusing at least some on what the shared goals are, haven't you?

I mean, as a way to empower people and reduce the need for external help to whatever degree possible... working together seems to be... fundamental?

I can understand angrily and antagonistically fighting over what you disagree on. That's a very normal reaction. But I think it might be a hindrance to your real goals. Maybe try investigating how much you can cooperate?

Wes Modes and all the negative rhetoric he spouts needs to stop. He talks about coming together for conflict resolution yet makes up lies about Take Back Santa Cruz. He has no proof of his claims. He tries to scare our community with ICE. You are gross Modes and your cronies. Noticed all the people coming to your BBQ are UCSC students. Why don't you go up to Felton and cook your vegan dogs. We want Take Back Santa Cruz to come to our neighborhood. The community WILL come together in support of positive peace on the corner of Barson and Ocean at 6:30. We will meet each other and get to know each other. We will stand together against violence. We will send a message to criminals that we are here and we are not giving up our neighborhood.

no it's cool, it's not like the sentinel is enough for them or anything. good of you to put the time and effort into hosting their reactionary bullshit.

'a'
like censorship much?

Wes Modes is a big, lying poopyhead! There, that should solve this.

Ahem, I mean....

Mr. Modes, I'm _quite_ concerned about about your stance as I see it. Several things you've said (via the invite) appear to be inaccurate and designed to paint TBSC in a negative light. As a resident of NOLO who lives in fear of the crime in this area, I am desperate for any improvement. An increased police presence and latitude seems like little cost, if any. Especially in contrast to the idea of having a loved one hurt or killed.

Despite my intense emotional involvement I will do what I can to remain open minded and respectful. I hope you can do the same. I will refrain from reflexive cynicism (that is, assuming you don't care about NOLO as much as your political ideals) and I will work with the assumption that you really want what's best for me and my family. I trust you care. Please don't _you_ lose focus that this is the crux of the matter for me. Focusing on the welfare of my family is critical if we are to be able to have a dialogue. I believe that such a dialogue and resulting mutual support could substantially improve things for us in NOLO, and could foster the ideals of community self-sufficiency that you appear to be championing. Antagonism, on the other hand, by either side, hurts _all_ of us. I'm sorry I called you a big gross poopyhead.

Let's talk, your contingent and we endangered NOLOs. Let's find out where our interests coincide and see if we can work together at least in those ways.

[This hopefully educational mockery brought to you by Aspiring Non-Hero.]

I don't live in Lower Ocean and didn't organize the block party there. I did however pass on the word, cuz I think it is awesome. But whatevs. I like that whenever there is some grassroots event in this town, reactionary folx are always looking for a villain. Or an organizer. A seedy cabal of reprobates working to undermine our good wholesome small town values. Or something.

A friend asked: "if it really is a neighborhood thing, why is the invitation sent to so many people who don't live in the neighborhood? I really don't want to be a dick, but how is a bunch of us descending on the neighborhood all that much better?"

When I got it, I passed on the invite because I was invited by friends who live in the neighborhood. And who doesn't love a good neighborhood party. And to be perfectly honest, I see in Take Back Santa Cruz a certain, dare I say it? fascist leaning, that I consider a threat to all our neighborhoods.

I don't use that word lightly. Check out their press and their posting on various boards, and you be the judge. Here's some of the more charming aspects of Take Back Santa Cruz: Collusion with armed authority to rid communities of undesirables (their word). Lobbying of right-leaning city authorities. Obsession with hyper militarization and firearms (they proposed buying a police helicopter to control crime?!). Characterization of young Latinos as gangbangers. Characterization of homeless people as junkies. Characterization of Latino workers as "illegals." Unwillingness to engage in discussion with people who are questioning or critical. Obsessive secrecy from any opposition. It goes on and on.

A community group that I'd respect is one that works in its own neighborhood to try to unite people around common issues they share (as did the door-to-door organizers of this block party), poverty, violence, security, and so on. Not one that goes to other communities as an intimidating presence. I want to see less, not more, coercive solutions to our communal challenges. I'm in favor of communities of mutual support, not reactionary authoritarian vigilantes.

I'll leave you with this quote from a frequent TBSC poster regarding a street kid who asked them for change: "The cops better get all these junkie scumbags off our streets before my friends and I do it for them." Nice. Charming people.

Wes said ". I like that whenever there is some grassroots event in this town, reactionary folx are always looking for a villain. Or an organizer. A seedy cabal of reprobates working to undermine our good wholesome small town values. Or something."....as he describes the response proposed bbq is getting from some here.

What I find hilarious, and a great example of irony, is that this is exactly the same thing that the bbq organizers are doing to TBSC. They're assigning ill-intent and neferious agenda to the TBSC group and their events, implying that TBSC isn't a grassroots effort, and trying to undermine TBSC efforts.

Pot calling Kettle to the nth degree. *chuckle*

I do note one significant difference between the two groups though: TBSC is willing to identify themselves, by name. And they don't hide their faces behind bandanas and hoodies when they conduct their activities.

Take Back Santa Cruz has never expressed an interest in contacting ICE agents regarding anyone in Lower Ocean. Further, any cameras that have been proposed (by individuals) would be aimed at specific spots where drug dealing and other such crimes have been regularly seen and would not provide random surveillance of the street or neighborhood. Finally, the Neighbors of Lower Ocean (NOLO) is not only concerned with crime in the neighborhood but also with property and building code compliance (for the safety of tenants and neighbors), traffic flow and parking, available trash recepticles, new residential and commercial real estate proposals, neighborhood park planning and more. Neighbors of Lower Ocean has also sponsored neighborhood clean-ups and block parties (with permits). You can see that neighborhood organizations, made up of all kinds of people who live in the neighborhoods, work on many issues besides crime. Contrary to some scarey propaganda I've seen from supporters of the Lower Ocean Block Party/BBQ/Music, our neighborhood groups do not encourage or support any sort of vigilantism, ICE rampages or '50s-style "White Citizens' Councils". Such approaches to neighborhood concerns would be counter to our outreach efforts to include everyone in this highly diverse neighborhood in the work of improving the quality of life for each resident.

If you have issues with the residents of the Lower Ocean neighborhood and their efforts to improve the appearance and safety of their neighborhood, argue them on the actual merits and not on your congectures of what the neighborhood groups are about. If you feel crime is not a problem in this neighborhood, then you obviously don't live here as I have for the past 27 years...and yes, public drug dealing and street prostitution (along with gang murders) do have victims. Non-working women and girls are often hassled by "Johns" looking for the professionals who work the corners. Many of the working women are controlled by pimps who threaten locals on the street and who beat the women who work for them. The users of street drugs leave their used needles and other paraphenalia around for children to find. This is neither cool nor tolerable.

Sounds like only three people are identifying themselves by name on this site--me, Wes Modes (WM?), and John Digger
Yet when I google for "John Digger" and "Santa Cruz", I don't find him. Nor is he in the May 2009 phone book.
So it looks like most everyone, including TBSC, is unwilling to say who they are.

"Digger" writes "I don't have a beef with the homeless, though I know some TBSCers do." What's the position of the organization?

WM csuggests TBSC concerns include "Collusion with armed authority to rid communities of undesirables (their word). Lobbying of right-leaning city authorities. Obsession with hyper militarization and firearms (they proposed buying a police helicopter to control crime?!). Characterization of young Latinos as gangbangers. Characterization of homeless people as junkies. Characterization of Latino workers as "illegals." Unwillingness to engage in discussion with people who are questioning or critical. Obsessive secrecy from any opposition."

If these specifics are false or inaccurate, I'd invite a responsible TBSC member to repudiate them in whole or part.

Did TBSC actually exclude Wes Modes from discussion as is claimed on this website?

Does TBSC encourage targeting those who sleep outside and try to use public spaces? If not, say so. Police have always been the strongest resistance to reform of the anti-homeless laws and in the past have actively lobbyed neighborhoods to create stricter "no homeless parking" ordinances.

Dismissing this trend in Santa Cruz as a mere "personal crusade" is factually false. The recent 13th Annual Homelessness Marathon (http://homelessnessmarathon.org/2008/09/let-bums-have-flop.html) gives a much more realistic overview of why there are so many homeless folks in visible spaces. Now TBSC apparently wants to lead vigilante groups into the woods to "clean up" the situation. Homeless activists throughout the country oppose this combination of scapegoating, paranoia, and gentrification. We should do so here as well.

Is TBSC looking, say, for open 24-hour bathrooms so people won't "take a dump" or real campgrounds so folks have a LEGAL place to go or free and open public access to the public sidewalks and parks for all of us no matter what our economic status? Based on the rhetoric I've read, including their videos and public presentations, it seems unlikely.

Is TBSC looking for an end to the Drug War, or just more useless heavy-handed police enforcement (usually targeting users and the poor) with more jails, prisons, and rising busts (as happened with marijuana in Santa Cruz over the last year according to the Measure K Commission's recent semi-annual report)?

It's good for people to come together on the streets--whether in a block party or as a group with real concerns about public safety. I'd hope there'd be some meaningful discussion between the groups.

If TBSC is primarily concerned with public safety (as distinguished from NIMBY/police removal of "undesireables"), then they need to invite and embrace the entire community--including those who are most vulnerable--those live outside and have to survive, not only the violence of rip-off's, drug war fights, and police abuse, but also the increasingly brutal structure of Santa Cruz laws. Is that likely to happen any time soon?

It might not be such a bad idea, as I discussed yesterday on my radio show, to invite "the enemy" into a real dialogue as was done in Los Angeles with the Crips and the Bloods. TBSC activists have repeatedly been invited to speak or comment, With the exception of "John Digger" and one woman I've known personally for several decades, they have stayed behind their alias's and simply fired away on the Sentinel blog and here.

Real dialogue is important, and I thank Theodora for calling in. (You can hear her concerns at
http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb100225.mp3 (download and fast forward to half way through the audio file). I second "aspiring non-hero's" call for dialogue.

I invite both TBSC, BBQ organizers, "gang members", "drug dealers", and just plain folks to call in and discuss their experiences and suggested solutions. Call in Sunday at 831-427-3772. 9:30 AM to 1 PM at 101.1 FM or http://www.freakradio.org . If the two events are not rained out today, I'll be there to interview folks on their goals, hopes, and fears, and will play the discussion on the air later.

Real safety and community are a matter of concern for all of us. Some of us want to see a real dialogue in hopes of promoting greater community involvement at the very least.

If you want to see an end to drug dealers on the sidewalks, then consider harm-reduction solutions like Vancouver, British Colombia and some European countries are trying (injection centers, legalization). If you want harm reduction for prostitution, support unionization,legalization, and support for women against pimps.

If you want a better business climate, stop blaming the presence of the homeless and start looking towards the wealth and power that's ripping off the country.

These are my views. If you have better ideas, let's hear them.

Real life scenario: There is a homeless heroin user camped in the wooded lot next to my house. He defecates on the field, and leaves his feces, toilet paper, used rigs, and empty booze bottles scattered about for yards in all directions.


By Robert's ridiculous logic, it's in appropriate for me to take offense or action against this? I'm instead required to first address the nations cultural war on drugs. And it's inappropriate for me to worry for the safety of my children with this derelict nearby, unless I first embrace him and all those down and out drug addicts?

I can't stop laughing at this premise. And I won't stop calling the police. And when they take him away, I will remove all of his trash and other detritis and burn them for safety.

Norse lives in a fantasy world; I live in the real world of Santa Cruz 2010.

Funny to hear Robert "Norse" Kahn get on somebody about their real name! Jack Straw much, Kahn?

Also, considering that some of the extreme radicals in this town have specifically targeted (allegedly) people at their homes and included a home address list (allegedly) on propaganda left at Pergolesi AND smashed in the front window there when Perg cooperated with police, I think anyone who posts on here with their real name criticizing said radicals is NUTS!

Not interested in catching a brick through my window or getting punched at my kids' next bday party.

Got it?

I don't think Mr. Norse or wes are living in a fantasy world, but I do believe that anyone who legitimately thinks that an increased police presence in the lower ocean area will deter crime or "clean up" the neighborhood, is sorely mistaken. While I do understand the concerns of TBSC, they are merely addressing (if you can call it that) the symptoms of something that is structural, and deeply solidified within our society. If by not supporting anti-poor legislation, gentrification, and increased police force makes me a radical, then I guess I am. Its sad to me that we are so isolated from one another that we must rely on the police as a sort of social panacea, which further divides class lines. Instead of relegating the opposing group to the pronoun of "they", can't we realize that we ARE the people? We are the community.

What a waste of breath this thread turned out to be - both events will be washed out I'm sure with this weather!

some people think gentrification is an issue in Lower Ocean?
Seriously?
Robert et. al. must think we're fighting a much bigger fight down here in lower ocean.
trust me, my neighbors that go to work every morning trimming trees, folding somebody else's laundry and cooking other people's food are fighting that war on a totally different level...
and so far, the community of Lower Ocean seems to be saying, yes, I will dial 911 when crime is happening.

i am a teacher at santa cruz high. i knew tyler tenorio, the young man who was killed downtown, prompting the creating of "take back santa cruz, and i have a lot of his friends in my classes. his killing was awful and senseless, and we, as a community DO need to address the issue. the problem is, the solutions are not easy ones.

i hope most people would agree that prevention is the best solution, but we really need to think seriously about what it means to prevent crime. after tyler was killed, santa cruz high had a school-wide assembly. all students had to go hear from former gang members about why they got involved in gangs and why they are trying to get out. something every single ex-gang member said was, "i didn't feel like i had anything else." and "i didn't know how to do anything but gang-bang". if we want to keep people out of gangs, we need to give them options, we need to give them opportunities. we need for them to feel like they have a bright future ahead of them. i mean, kids who have exciting summer programs, who see an awesome college in their future, who have ambitions to travel the world, who have already done some traveling, those kids aren't the kids who are going to go into gangs. we, as a society, need to acknowledge that not all communities have the same abundance of resources. living in desperation creates a desperate mindset. if we, as a society, really want to address violence we need to address these root cause--poverty!

my criticism of take back santa cruz is that they are actually trying to criminalize poverty instead of solve poverty (not that i think it is a problem easily solved, but that should be our goal.)

i hope that most people are working to decrease poverty and increase the amount of services to underserved communities. i know that some people will say, "yes, but in the meantime, shouldn't we have an increased police presence to keep dangerous people in line?" but i don't actually think increased policing will prevent crime (and shouldn't that be our goal). i agree with those who suggest that increased policing can increase the level of fear and paranoia felt by a group of marginalized people. even if we disagree, anecdotally on this, we can look at some statistical evidence: in the past years, events like halloween downtown have been heavily policed. nonetheless, we have seen a number of stabbings anyway. in fact, if you look at the biggest consequence for crime--the death penalty--you see that states that execute the most have the highest murder rates. clearly, a severe consequence is not necessarily a deterrent.

so we have a situation where police are not only preventing crime, but potentially creating fear and mistrust in the communities they are supposedly protecting. don’t get me wrong, unlike some anarchists, i think the police might have a role to play in our society. i mean, if i were being attacked or assaulted, i would want someone with some authority to show up; as a female, i don’t have faith that i will always be able to defend myself. if there were a potentially violent altercation, i, personally, would want someone who is trained in de-escalation to help. a lot of police are trained in calming ugly situations, and i would be happy to have those folks show up. however, the police are only useful when a problem has already begun. my husband works downtown, and if something bad happened to him, i wouldn’t be comforted by the police saying “well, at least we caught the people who did it.” we need prevention.

after tyler was killed, there were a couple meetings that santa cruz city school members had with the police. the main goal of the police was to educate teachers on how to identify potential gang members. they said they have certain things they look for to associate someone with a gang. if they can draw that connection, when they prosecute the offender, they can get a longer sentence. after the meeting i asked, “well, if we are talking about prosecuting criminals, then the crime has, clearly, already been committed. what is the police department doing to PREVENT crime?” they said they weren’t doing anything. they said it wasn’t their job to try to address the root causes like poverty. they said it wasn’t their job to provide programs for at risk youth. they weren’t even aware of the programs run by barrios unidos for reforming gang members.

the message i took home was this: the police have a limited function in our society. to rely on them 100% the way take back santa cruz is doing is not useful. in some cases, it might even be counterproductive.

in addition, take back santa cruz’s facebook page is filled with violent and racist slurs, and that members of take back santa cruz can’t engage in a useful dialog with people who might have something to contribute to the discussion, but don’t always agree on the finer details (i was banned from their facebook page for being an anarchist, and when i posted a criticism of their video on youtube, i was insulted and called an enabler and an idiot). for all these reasons, i will attend the lower ocean block party to protest tbsc (unless this rain keeps up.)

For the only relevant post I've read on this thread.

I am a very active member of TBSC, and I feel I must defend myself here. There are many statements being made that are just flat out lies, I call it propaganda. You should all be ashamed. None of you have ever done anything to make this community a better or safer place. You hide behind your computers and write hateful things in an attempt to create disorder. You have been loud for many years, yet nothing constructive has come from your efforts. You have wasted time and money on unnessacary lawsuits. You are a road block not a solution. Perhaps that is why you have been banned from the TBSC FB page. It appears as though nothing will ever make you happy. My goal as a proud member of TBSC is to shed light on the otherwise ignored areas of our community. By bringing attention to the many problems Santa Cruz faces I hope to find solutions. You say we are a reactive group; yes I am reacting, it is better then turning a blind eye and doing nothing, like so many others do.
I do not dislike the homeless; in my opinion this city has not done enough to help the chronically homeless. This city has a band aid approach. It does not have a solution.
I do not dislike the poor. I have been poor.
I would never want the right to privacy taken away; I have never and would never want the police to walk into someone’s house without just cause.
I have no idea what ICE stand s for.
I do not like violence of any kind, and I do not want any part of anyone or anything that does
Our event this evening is about bringing positive energy to an area that has been affected by negative energy (4 tragic deaths in two months). Why is this a bad thing?

It seems to me that you've distilled the goals of this event and TBSC to "more police presence". Would that be a correct assessment, and if so, how did you arrive there?

I ask this in full sincerity and with no intent of slamming your reply. I am curious because, from what I read about the group, they appear to have reporting crime as one of many elements of their goals, not a focus. And from what I've seen so far, direct positive action in the form of cleaning up areas trashed by or habituated by drug users seems to be their primary activity so far.

My question is sincere, as is my desire for a reply, and my promise that this isn't a setup question. I'm trying to figure out how this has become such a polarized group and issue. To me, they seemed to have many positive attributes, but from this site, it seems to be a lightening rod.

"None of you have ever done anything to make this community a better or safer place."

i'm sorry, but...WHAT?!? that's just silly.

"You hide behind your computers and write hateful things in an attempt to create disorder."

So, that would be like, for example, making blanket generalizations about people you don't know personally or don't understand? That would be like blocking people who are generally interested in solutions from the TBSC website?

"You have been loud for many years, yet nothing constructive has come from your efforts."

Nothing constructive. Nothing. You might be "over it" because you are unwilling to actually see and acknowledge the myriad amazing (loud) volunteer-run projects in this town that directly serve the community beautifully.

"You have wasted time and money on unnessacary lawsuits. You are a road block not a solution."

you are looking for one solution, like an across-the-board solution? is that like a 'final solution'? (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Solution)

"I would never want the right to privacy taken away; I have never and would never want the police to walk into someone’s house without just cause.
I have no idea what ICE stand s for."

you might want to learn that acronym. it unjustly scares the living daylights out of many innocent, hardworking people in our community. http://www.democracynow.org/2008/8/27/600_arrested_at_louisiana_factory_in


"I do not like violence of any kind, and I do not want any part of anyone or anything that does"

most of us don't but the facts are the facts: the vast majority of people living in america at this time are here because our ancestors were incredibly violent towards the indigenous peoples here. we are reaping the benefits of historical and present day violence done to land and people of the world every single day for centuries. we don't like to think of it like that but them's the facts. plain and simple, unless you are a tax resisting, forest foraging monk who lives entirely outside of industrialized society, you are paying other people like police, soldiers, and corporations to do violence to maintain your "quality of life". (don't worry, i'm guilty too. we all are.)

"Our event this evening is about bringing positive energy to an area that has been affected by negative energy (4 tragic deaths in two months). Why is this a bad thing?"

i don't think it's a bad thing unless you go into a neighborhood you don;t live in and tell people how to solve problems that you don't deal with in your own personal life. if you have already solved these issues in your own personal life, then what could be more useful than asking afflicted people if they want some advice?

if you ask people who are live in the lower ocean neighborhood who are directly involved in/affected by the conflicts what they need and let them lead you in finding solutions, then more power to you.

what i don't understand is why TBSC folks don't just put their energy into groups that have existed for decades like Barrios Unidos. structures are already in place to work on these issues and a hell of a lot of work has already been done. if TBSC is so gung-ho, why reinvent the wheel? has TBSC joined with those who have already learned the lessons of the first 30 years of this struggle? forgive my weird analogy, but i feel like TBSC might be doing the equivalent of prescribing a broad spectrum antibiotic to a patient who has a very specific issue that could be solved in a more gentle, targeted way. you can also draw the analogy to agriculture. just because you have a mold in your field you dont need to douse everything you see with dow's altest and greatest cureall chemical. the point is that sometimes we americans can be REALLY heavy-handed in solving problems that scare us. the point is, santa cruz doesn't need to (and should not!) wipe out every sign of vaguely suspicious nonconformity to get violent crime to stop.

translation: calling the cops every time something suspicious occurs will get a lot of harmless wingnuts needlessly hassled (wasting the tax dollars and causing unnecessary lawsuits you so loathe) and will just cause the real issue to go further underground.

You say that existing volunteer efforts are "working beautifully". I don't accept that. If they are working so beautifully, then why are gang violence, stabbings, and heroin/meth activity in our neighborhoods going berserk?

You say "i don't think it's a bad thing unless you go into a neighborhood you don;t live in and tell people how to solve problems that you don't deal with in your own personal life.". I dob't accept that either. My neighborhood IS Santa Cruz. All of it. Trying to break it down to lower ocean vs. west side vs. wherever is the same stupid gang mentality that is feeding this crap. Living on a block doesn't make it yours, or mean that it's not mine. That's just insular b.s. If I or someone else can't come into "your" lower ocean neighborhood, then can I expect that you'll stay just there and not come into "my" neighborhood? Exactly; Not.

And I'll ask what the person above already asked: where do you see that TBSC's only goal or solution is calling the cops? I think that's dumbing down the reality of their goals, to suite your agenda. Tell you what? When Barrios Unidos wants to come to the West Side or East Side or downtown and help clean up the mess left by drug addicts?... I'll welcome them.

I think your attempt to educate others on community and how the existing programs work and how its your neighborhood sounds more like separtist gang mentality of "this is my hood" than anything else. No thanks. One community, one Santa Cruz. Not beach flats vs. lower ocean vs. live oak. That crap aint working for any of us.

i am so glad you ask the question, "If they are working so beautifully, then why are gang violence, stabbings, and heroin/meth activity in our neighborhoods going berserk?" because i think that is an intelligent and important question.

i think the answer is "violence is out of control all over the country." i have family in other states, and in the past couple years i have traveled a bit in central america. in every place i have visited, or reconnected with it seems like this is a consistent theme. note: even places that aren't santa cruz, that aren't "too tolerant" of homeless folks etc, are suffering. it isn't because we used to have a lot of policing, but now we don't. it is because EVERYWHERE people are feeling more and more desperate. in case you haven't noticed, there is an economic crisis. as people lose jobs and services are cut, we will experience more and more people living on the fringes, marginalized and behaving in ways that are not accepted by mainstream society. when people feel desperate, they do desperate and "crazy" things.

i think the point that bjb is making by distinguishing between neighborhoods is to point out that some people have a lot of privilege, and it is hard for privileged folks to relate to those who have a different history. i am not trying to make assumptions about your personal history, but it does seem like the tbsc movement is more about telling people what to do and insulting them if they disagree instead of listening to their views and trying to relate to the perspective and where they are coming from. i am just saying, from my perspective, i have been called "an idiot" i have been called "an enabler" and no one from that group actually seems to trying to have a dialog. it is just a lot of name calling.

In response to Mr. Norse's suggestion that public defecation/urination could be solved by allowing public restrooms to remain open 24 hours a day, the city was forced to close the ones that had existed because of all the destruction that was wrought upon the fixtures in them and because of the proliferation of rather gross graffitti that covered their walls. All this was very expensive to keep cleaning up or replacing damaged parts. Believe me, I wish there were such 24-hour facilities for the convenience of all residents and visitors but those with little concern for the town they're in have made that impossible for the rest of us.

With regard to campgrounds for the homeless, let me remind you that Mr. Norse opposed them at a City Council meeting not long before the Earthquake of '89 when community members lobbied the Council to create one near the present Homelelss Resource Center. As it was, the campground was voted down because of potential liability issues for the city (if someone sleeping outside in the rain at the campground got sick, he or she might sue the city). When speaking in opposition to the campground, Mr. Norse equated it to a concentration camp and suggested that people should be able to camp anywhere; an idea not likely to gain much public support.

As a frequent hiker in Pogonip, I've seen the environmental damage caused by illegal campgrounds. There you are, walking along the trails among the trees through that beautiful and relaxing scene and all of a sudden you happen upon what looks like a garbage dump in the midst of it all; a campfire surrounded by empty vodka bottles, trash, sandwich wrappers, bicycle parts, blankets and the usual excrement nearby. What reasonable person would want to see that proliferate? And what about the brushfires in Pogonip that have occurred periodically over the past several years that resulted from unsupervised campfires in these campgrounds; unsupervised because the camper was passed out drunk or nodded out from a fix.

How about next time proposing something that would actually have a chance of working and of gaining the support of the broader community? That is, if you really want to work with a diversity of people and not just in spite of or against them.

Nice going, BBQers. Both demonstrations deftly avoided the worst of the rain. Thanks to Jumbogumbo Joe Schultz for providing extra food.

Responding to anonymous trollster tagging is usually unwise. However, it may be helpful to correct the historical record.

The 1999 Bathroom Task Force (which we called the Krohn Krapper Kommission, in honor of its dubious leader, Councilmember Christopher Krohn) created 5 portapotties. The City didn't follow through with permanent 24 hour bathrooms—a necessity in any civilized community—as recommended by the Homeless Issues Task Force (http://www.cabinc.org/Research/HTFFinalReport.htm). Instead the Rotkin-Mathews Council (elected in 2002) allowed the conservative staff to remove the portapotties. Mayor Rotkin told us he is "working on" a 24-hour bathroom. That's always nice to hear, since he posed no objection when the last portapotties were eliminated.

I never saw an evidence supporting wild claims that the portapotties were “instantly vandalized” (one of Mayor Rotkin's recycled but unsupported remarks). Thast seems unlikely since they stayed in place for 3 years previously. Rather it seemed to be police, staff, and merchant pressure that removed them.

It seems like an unreasoning bigotry, a kind of kneejerk revulsion to poor and homeless people that motivates this kind of false fearful picture--an attitude on which TBSC seems to feed and certainly refuses to explicitly repudiate. The same paranoia prompts merchant pressure on City Council to create the massive Forbidden Zones (for sitting, sparechanging, performing, and political tabling) downtown out of fear that the presence of poor people will “damage” their “image”,

TBSC leaders so far have declined to separate themselves from support for anti-homeless laws ("call the police when you see anything illegal"). As long as that continues, their organization remains suspect.

Since the ever-anonymous “Citizen Riverside” was “there” when there were portapotties, perhaps s/he can tell us how much they actuallhy cost, how frequently they were damaged, etc? Or perhaps her friends in Public Works or Parks and Rec can give us specifics? You know, the knd of hard evidence never produced when the City made 95% of the sidewalk illegal to sit on, all the publci parking lots "no loitering" zones, and sleeping after 11 PM illegal?

Or perhaps when we ask for public records, as when I did seeking the 50% of the benches that have disappeared from Pacific Avenue, I'll get the response that they just don't keep such records. Is this because the withdrawal of public services is political rather than a financial decision? And a shameful one at that?

Kicking down hundreds of thousands of bucks for Canfield's Seaside Company boardwalk and the CVC is an annual extortion we pay, but maintaining minimal public facilities is a no-no, because the privileged want to keep the poor out and away from town. Those who have the gold, get more of it, and want to make things more comfortable for their friends. Familiar, isn't it?

I have always supported public campgrounds. I don't know what “Citizen R” is talking about in claiming that I “opposed them before the earthquake”. I regularly play “flashbacks” on Free Radio (Sundays 9 AM, Thursdays 6-8 PM) from that time, My writing is in the public library (the Street Shit Sheet). Perhaps "R" can be more specific and show us some evidence?

I have never insisted that people be allowed to sleep “anywhere”--another myth spread by bigots who support the city-wide Sleeping Ban. "Not anywhere and everywhere, but somewhere" was the way we put it last summer as we publicized the protests against Bunny's Shoes, Lulu Carpenter's, and Borders for their support of the anti-homeless Injunction (see http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/08/06/18614270.php)
.
We opposed the closing or criminalziation of the “Do Drop Inn” in 1988, the back forty in 1992, the Coral St. Open Air Shelter in 1995, Camp Paradise in 2002, and the "Sleep is a Right" Encampment at City Hall in 2007. If Citizen R has other evidence, please bring it forward.

To be concerned about the natural environment, but abusive of the human need situation is a typical “keep things pristine for me by clearning away those messy scraggly people” argument. There would be far less disrespect for the environment if survival camping were permitted, regulated, and supported. Especially in the continuing housing emergency we've had for the last four decades.

A law that punishes camping in a littered area (requiring those who use the area to keep it clean) would be a reasonable response to enviornmental and health concerns (as well as the provision of trash pickups and restrooms). But that hasn't been happening—precisely because of the apparent bigotry of people like “Citizen R”.

And the absurdity of arresting people for sleeping (now being ramped up to an absurd level in the renewal of the cases against Anna Richardson and Miguel De Leon—see http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_14482796 ) is a continuing scar of the conscience of Santa Cruz.

The two community events last night were both interesting.

I found the leaders (the three I spoke to with clipboards) at TBSC at Ocean and Barsen hostile and unwilling to be interviewed for Free Radio. But the folks gathered were just plain people (though mostly from out of the neighborhood) who wanted to “stand up” against “crime” and were concerned about the recent violence.

The few I talked to agreed that arresting more people for “drugs”, building more prisons, etc. was not going to solve the problem. However they wanted to “do something”. That's a commendible attitude.

The problem is following TBSC leaders whose agenda seems to include “homeless cleansing”, a ramped up Drug Prohibition War, and funding police while ignoring the civil rights problems created by the “illegal” behaviors they selectively harass. Also the notion of calling the police when you “see something illegal” can be both ineffective (cops reportedly come very late and, some report, don't follow up) and abusive (“illegal” in Santa Cruz if you're homeless means sleeping in your car).

I'll be playing audio tape from the event on Sunday February 28th at 10 AM on 101.1 FM (http://www.freakradio.org). Folks can also call in at 427-3772.

I didn't get a chance to talk to Robert Norse at either event on Friday nite.
I did get a chance to talk to many people at both gatherings.
The IndyBay-based gathering did spark some great conversations I had with some of my neighbors.
So did the TBSC gathering.
In talking one-on-one at the Indybay gathering, many folks seemed to understand the logic and urgency of calling 911 when a situation is unsafe.
And on Robert's radio show from last Thursday, he took a call from a Lower Ocean resident that lives in very close proximity to the Canfield murders. He admitted that he does not have any solutions for the residents of Lower Ocean and the situations we face. And yet, when he signed off his radio show that nite, he invited his listeners to come to the 'BBQ slash riot'.
Was that really necessary, when all that is being called for is dialog?
I would say, if you have something substantive to bring to the table, find a way to dialog with your neighbors. But clearly Robert admits he has nothing to add in the way of solutions, and is very willing to stir the pot in a neighborhood where he does not live.
I call BS on Robert Norse and his tactics of fear and intimidation!

I'm glad Lower Ocean listened to my Thursday show and communicated with both gatherings. I did the same. And will be broadcasting some of this discussion tomorrow.

I admit to being skeptical of TBSC's goals and methods. Their spokespeople are unwilling to discuss or dialogue except with the tamest mainstream media. They won't repudiate what seems to be an anti-homeless agenda swirling around their 'call the police on illegal behavior" mantra, and the use the Drug Prohibition War as an excuse to attack civil liberties of those in public spaces. I'm definitely not a fan of such things.

I also admit to being a little apprehensive with all the persona vilification I've gotten from Sentinel comment stream folks (See (see http://www.topix.net/forum/source/santa-cruz-sentinel/TJ76FD0P3071ACNPQ/p4 and http://www.topix.net/forum/source/santa-cruz-sentinel/TEMAKTPQMVO1UG6GI/p6#lastPost ).

Actually, I appreciated the dialogue and encourage Lower Ocean to come out from behind his alias as numerous TBSC participants did in interviews on the street.

I think that raising the issue of the nasty bigotry swirling around TBSC is definitely an important element to the dialogue. A proto-fascist "give more power to the police" "suspect immigrants and poor", vigilante mentality is not a positive thing. I'm concerned that homeless people, drug users, etc. are being used as scapegoats.

If this is not true, then why not come clean and explicitly oppose such scapegoating and fearmongering. I don't hear TBSC leaders doing this. Perhaps "Lower Ocean" can persuade them to do so.

Solutions do have to do with creating community, inviting all sides to the table, and recognizing the hard economic realities the community faces. Mobilizing everyone into a police informant network creates the illusion of security and sets the stage for greater repression and corruption.

If you think this is BS, feel free to say so tomorrow morning. The phone lines will be open.

He got called on using inflamatory language; but he avoided responding to it in his reply. Instead, its just more big picture dogma that avoids the specifics.


He claims the organizers were "hostile", but what would one expect as a response to Norse, whose called them racist and suggested they're instigating a riot?

Called on his crap, Norse can't come up with any specific reason other than that he's been villified in the Sentinel. Of course, this has no connection to TBSC. But hey, when did that matter to Robert? He just throws out the b.s. to suit his agenda.

He claims of TBSC that "They won't repudiate what seems to be an anti-homeless agenda swirling around their 'call the police on illegal behavior" mantra". But he ignores the fact that he is the primary person claiming they have this agenda. And its him and Becky as the primary voices who have dumbed the TBSC agenda down to "calling the police = busting the homeless. Like calling the cops if you see a shooting, robbery, or addict shooting up in the parked car in front of your house is a fascist move?

Robert, you suck like a hoover vacuum and lie like a dirty rug. You and Becky are a match made in hell; well deserving of each other. I joy in the obvious fact that, if you can't sell your ridiculous agenda in Santa Cruz, one of the most liberal communities in all of America, that your agenda isn't marketable. You go ahead and keep refuting that reality, but the rest of us see that truth.
You're a bloated Don Quixote, telling those who have to earn their money how they should spend it, while you never earned a dime in your life and suck off the teat your parents fed you.

Pitiful excuse for a human. You are the definition of a troll.

The violence of the personal attacks on this thread and the willful ignoring of the basic issue I raise ("is TBSC urging its members to call the police to enforce anti-homeless laws like the Sleeping Ban?") seems significant to me.

Has the TBSC leadership specifically reassured the community it isn't interested in calling police on poor people violating Santa Cruz's absurd anti-homeless laws? The rhetoric of some involve in recent "clean-up"'s seems to indicate otherwise.

I don't think there's much dispute about calling cops on violent behavior (though some reported it was particularly effective). the evident futility and stupidity of police solutions for dealing with Drug Prohibition, however, is something TBSC doesn't seem to recognize.

Nor do they seem to care that "driving" them away is obviously not a city-wide solution, unless you're supporting Drug Prohibition generally and asking everyone to enforce a city-wide crackdown. Which means supporting Drug Prohibition, period.

Has TBSC made any attempt to speak to have a dialogue with the gangs they are denouncing? I've heard one account of a woman being treated with disrespect in a noise complaint.

How many TBSC members on the street on Friday night were actually local residents (not that everyone shouldn't have a right to be there)?

It would be nice to get some substantive answers to these questions rather than simply abuse.

Maybe folks can call in this morning with some answers.

I note that you've, for the third time in this thread alone, avoided answering the very clear and specific questions asked of you...and yet you still feel justified in chiding the other side for avoiding answering your specific questions. You see no irony in this?

As for your question of whether TBSC was local residents? I say they were. They are Santa Cruzans. Or are you suggesting that only lower ocean locals should gather in lower ocean? (And if that's your stance? I do hope you'll take equal umbrage and chide the other side for being there. Pretty humorous to see a handful of anglo UC students holding an anti-police sign written in Spanish; and clearly they don't live on lower ocean.


So I'll say it again: you're a pot calling a kettle.

Thanks to the TBSC supporters (and opponents) who called in on the show today. Go to http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb100228.mp3 and fast forward to the middle of the audio file.

Some TBSC supporters, both at the event in on the phone, did express their individual views on some of the questions I raised above, though no identified leaders gave any specific answers.

...and here goes Robert again; he 4th time he's dodged specific questions asked of him in this thread. He has time to post his opinion, but no time to validate with evidence his exaggerated statements.

It wouldn't be much of a characteristic to point out were it not for the fact that RN fills his posts with chiding complaints that TBSC didn't want to answer his questions.

Or the fact that he says "They won't repudiate what seems to be an anti-homeless agenda swirling around their 'call the police on illegal behavior" mantra".....but he refuses to answer the inquiry of "Show some evidence that they have that mantra; other than your own suppositions?".

And as for Roberts comment that nobody wanted to identify themselves as TBSC leaders? That's equally humorous, coming from a guy who is the lead representative for a group (huff) that he regularly explains records no membership, has no list of its members, and and such....*shrug*.

Pot...calling kettle?

I didn't see hardly a question asked of RN....
I went back several times and most of them were just comments with questions marks on the end.
You could repeat your question if you really want an answer.
Or are you just attacking his postings so you can try to invalidate him?
I am very interested...what questions did you ask that can invoke a clear response?

Norse is conducting a classic smear campaign. Akin to the old "So, have you stopped beating your wife yet"? question, he's setting up a construct where there is no correct answer from TBSC.

Example: Norse asks "Does TBSC encourage targeting those who sleep outside and try to use public spaces? If not, say so.". Apparently them never having said they encourage targetting isn't sufficient. (Do you beat your wife? No? Then why haven't you made a public declaration of same?")

Example: Norse says "TBSC leaders so far have declined to separate themselves from support for anti-homeless laws ("call the police when you see anything illegal"). As long as that continues, their organization remains suspect.". (So sir, until you definitively state that you don't beat your wife...even though you've never been charged with such and there is no evidence to suggest you do...you shall remain suspect.).

Example: Norse claims "The problem is following TBSC leaders whose agenda seems to include “homeless cleansing”. (And again I ask, for any links or posts by TSBC leaders to support this claim?)

So my questions to Norse were:

-Do you have any evidence, other than your opinion and unsubstantiated second-hand reports, that the group is anti-homless, in collusion with ICE, or in support of homeless cleansing?

-Where, but by his own reporting, can Norse show me that their stance is an "anti-homeless agenda swirling around their 'call the police on illegal behavior" mantra"? My contention is that Norse has cooked up this perception himself to support his own agenda, and has no evidence to back it up. I see it nowhere on their website or as a part of their actions (positive loitering, public property cleanups) to date.

-Why is it okay for Norse to head an organization that doesn't track its membership, and to have stated that he's not responsible for comments made by others in his organization in the name of his organization...but he finds this reprehensible in TBSC?

Answers happily accepted.

I have found that cleaning up an area that is called a drug den or something similar (forgot the exact words TBSC used) is a way to proudly boast about cleaning up homeless peoples camps. People who are trying to create a temporary shelter for the night before they figure out what to do next and find out it's been 3 years and they never left the place.
Being constantly ridiculed for their despair, then when they have an emotional breakdown from being homeless and lonely they find it becomes harder and harder to get a foothold on the world of jobs and responsibility. Some just wanted a beer at their camp that night to help them sleep. Some had a habit of having a drink every night like many people who live in homes. And some had experimented with drugs enough to know that prescription drugs are as dangerous or not anymore dangerous than drugs on the street so they tried it and got too used to it (hooked).
These people are all like you and me.
Yes, some have gone crazy or just a little confused. But all need understanding and help, not to be run out of town but to meet the town and the people in it. And the people in it could help them a little. Maybe they could offer them a place to sweep the floor for a place to sleep...something human and dignified. Maybe if someone was there for them they might not have gotten crazy and felt a gun was the way out of their problem.
Anyone who feels that they are the only ones who deserve to be treated with dignity and not a person who are so down and out that he may commit a crime in order to survive, (like, God forbid, stealing food) is cold-hearted and doesn't care about anything but themselves and the people that they know.
Strangers have become the boogie man like in a movie. Or "the evil ones".We can live in fantasies that people are black or white, this or that,when really they are diverse and complicated and need help when they are on drugs.
So if you call the cops on those people, you make them criminals, first, before proven guilty. Give these people a chance to share with those they can share with. And stop judging people as criminals just because they are crying out loud in anger and fear.
I believe there is only one evil in the world. One where people have no love around them at all.
Oh, how cold a world that feels like.
I was homeless for a very small while and if I didn't have my head together I would have been lost. Many people ARE lost and need a helping hand.
Calling the cops when the wound has gotten so bad that it festers and then trying to cut it out with alienation and fear is no way to live life or run a town.

that is the problem I have with TBSC. what they saw as a pile of junk by safeway was, to others, a place to pause, self-reflect, and meet their medicinal and recreational needs. animals in the jungle leave behind skeletons, coconut shells, etc. yet if a human leaves behind, say, a syringe, or empty vodka bottle, then "do-gooder citizen" types raise a fit.

there was a mattress there that was perfect for relaxing on, but now it is gone, as are the plants that were used to protect folks from the elements...

Has anyone found exact wording where TBSC used the word "homeless" when talking about their activities? Did they simply say they were cleaning up the cemetery because it was trashed and needed to be returned to it's proper use? Or did they actually say they were cleaning it up to get rid of "homeless" people?

The same goes for their activity on Lower Ocean. Nowhere did I see them say it had anything to do with "homeless" people. It did say that they were there to raise issues about crime and gang violence in the area.

The ONLY people I have heard raise the homeless issue in relation to this subject are Robert Norse and Becky Johnson. And demanding that TBSC declare that they agree with all of HUFF's issues in advance of any dialogue is a very bad debate tactic. It does not exactly foster open discussion when you demand the other party agree with you before you even start.

This word "homeless" is just one way to say,people who are having tough times.
Being homeless is one of the worst of times. And they are one of the most persecuted.
They may be scared, and as result are confused and lost. They may be looking for help and can't find it anywhere and are in a real deep depression.
Isn't it obvious? The label doesn't have to be said.
The person in hard times are often a homeless person and that's why it's an important to think of them not as criminals but as people needing help and understanding.
Homeless is one issue.
We could say TBSC is also persecuting the struggling poor.
The drug dealer who found that selling drugs payed his or her rent and got into some trouble with it. The homeless people in the camps down the street,drinking or drugging to get a nights sleep in the cold. The homeless person living in a vehicle down in your neighborhood, trying to survive. Maybe even going to work the next day or school.
When are we going to talk with them? Meet them and open our neighborhood to ALL the people who live there?
Including and especially the homeless(the most down and out of all).
Alienating these folks and separating ourselves from them as us and them is not the solution to their problems.
These people are our "neighbors" too.

I guess my point was this. Why are the people at TBSC being vilified by Robert and Becky as being anti-homeless just because they cleaned up trash in the cemetery? Are you assuming that all the trash was left by homeless people, and therefor is a condemnation of homelessness? How do you know that some of the trash was not left by homeless people? It's quite possible that some of the trash was left by housed people using the area to do drugs. It's really Robert and Becky that are equating trash and homeless persons. Honestly, they're the ones that made the association, not the people from TBSC.