Vacant Bank Occupied at River and Water Streets in Santa Cruz (Part 2 of 2)

One witness told me that Joe was accused of running from a police officer after he'd straightened out some of the traffic cones that had fallen down in the road. The witness continued that when Joe reached the point in the picture above, he held up his hands saying he was peaceful and non-resistant, and was still violently taken down to the curb. A second person was tackled when Joe attempt to pass his camera to that person and his cell phone. Police continued to unnecessarily and threateningly block the sidewalk for minutes after Joe was hauled away.

I witnessed much of the latter part of Joe's arrest, including the police violence against him and others when he attempted to hand off his camera.

Bail was quickly raised for him inside the occupied bank, but was shortly after returned when he was released O.R. (on his own recognizance--or promise to show up in court). He was charged, I was told, with resisting arrest and obstructing an officer. These are classic "fill in the blank" charges which police use when there is no underlying crime.

I saw the KSBW coverage tonight with Phil Gomez. Despite a rather long piece with interviews with Peter Cook and a pro-occupation supporter, they failed to mention salient facts that the property in question was owned by an absentee landlord who had failed to find a tenant in over three years. Furthermore, the former bank at that site, Coast Commercial, had been bought up by Wells Fargo, one of the banks recently implicated in defrauding Veterans in service in Iraq and Afghanistan by issuing predatory home loans then foreclosing when Vets couldn't make appointments stateside to negotiate loan extensions, etc.

Why didn't the Redevelopment Agency tag this building as blighted when it hasn't housed a business, provided a single job, or produced any taxable income in over three years?

Why do OUR POLICE suddenly reschedule all other work, and organize 30 at a time to take back property from an absentee landlord?

Can you find a clearer example of OUR POLICE RESOURCES being used as private security guards for an absentee landlord?

Why do they serve the 1% as a knee-jerk first reaction?

"Why didn't the Redevelopment Agency tag this building as blighted when it hasn't housed a business, provided a single job, or produced any taxable income in over three years?"

Because the building does not fall into any category to be considered as blight. The building has not been abandoned. It is being maintained as if there were a tenant, and no decay has taken place. The grounds are being maintained. Electricity has been consistently provided and water functions are 100% operational. They just don't have a tenant. Unfortunately in these trying economic times many landlords are having problems finding the right businesses to take over such large buildings. And the landlord actually is currently and actively looking for a tenant. Almost all big buildings in downtown Santa Cruz have an exceptionally low occupancy rate for offices and businesses. The building on the old Cooper House site is almost totally vacant from the second floor up. The old Borders building is also quite empty. Then there's The Rittenhouse building. This is an unfortunate sign of the times and people's willingness to invest in Santa Cruz as a business home.

As for the building not producing a single job, that is false. The landlord has hired people to maintain the interior and exterior of the building. They have hired local landscapers to groom the property. They are also paying for private security to watch over the building and keep it safe. Those are all local paying jobs. They are also paying property tax on the building and land. And lets face it, tax on a $3M+ property is no small change to the city and county. To imply that the property is not generating any tax revenue is false.

It does look as if there was a big effort to subdue the guy. Your comment tells us what happened after whatever incident caused this, but do you know more about what happened before your first hand experience? You mentioned that the man was trying to straighten cones that had fallen over. But there are also reports, some from people I know, that some of the protesters were throwing the cones at passing cars and into the street. In addition to the cones, a road block was removed and thrown into the San Lorenzo. Are you positive that the young man was being courteous by putting the cones back or could it be possible that he was involved in their removal and projection of the cones into traffic? Some more information would be helpful in determining what really happened.

Becky, thanks for pointing out that tax payer $$ will be used to evict these trespassers. Occupation of a private building against the wishes of the owner is a crime. Everyone who has participated knows this. When crimes are committed it is the job of the police to handle them. The police are going to evict you, and it will cost the citizen of Santa Cruz to do so. Thank you for wasting my money.

And thank you in advance for deleting this comment. We can't tolerate opposing perspectives. That might lead to honest dialogue.

over half the cities budget is wasted on police as it is. that money is already spent whether the cops arrest the occupiers, ticket sleepers, or eat doughnuts. we currently waste over $170,000 a year just on our former police chief's pension. you never whine about that, because you are an idiot.

most of the time police have discretion whether to arrest or not. they don't have to do anything about the occupation at all.

How can you say that I never whine about the city wasting tax payer money on police? First of all, you are incorrect and I do object to the city's dispersal of funds. Second, you have never met me nor have you ever had a conversation with me, so how is it that you feel qualified to make absolute statements about my actions or beliefs? While your statement was inflammatory and rude, I hope that the moderators will leave it up so that we can open a dialogue. That is, if you are willing and able to converse in a mature manner. I have my suspicions that you may be incapable or unwilling to engage in a civil conversation, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and not close off my mind to the possibility.

got a link to a post where you complain about the police chiefs pension? the city spends more on him doing nothing than it spends on all the homeless combined ($160,000 to the HSC).
if you wanted a dialogue, it would have been logical to address my points.
i don't care what the censors do. i post here to support the radicals.

Best Symbol for Whole Movement. Way to go santa cruz autonomous direct actors!