Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Ten Minute Trespass Law + Protest March 23 8:30 AM
The repressive Ten Minute Trespass Law proposed for all city garages and parking lots received an initial hearing before the advisory Downtown Commission last Thursday. On Thursday March 23 8:30 AM, the public hearing will continue (though with additional public testimony banned or restricted) at 809 Center St. in City Council Chambers. Activists will supply chow; you supply the bodies!
\THURSDAY MORNING GET-TOGETHER
Thursday Morning March 16th folks gathered for a small but encouraging protest against the Coonerty-Mathews attempt to ram through the anti-homeless 10-Minute Trespass Law. We gathered in front of City Hall about 7:45 in the morning, 45 minutes prior to the special Downtown Commission meeting.
Councilmember Ryan Coonerty and Mayor Cynthia Mathews had pressured Downtown Commission [DC] chair Julie Shattuck to hold a special meeting of the DC one week before their regular DC meeting. The goal: to rush the law onto the Tuesday 3-28 Council agenda.
Hopefully videojournalist Becky Johnson will be able to post some photos later of the protest and meeting. (Her account is posted at
http://indybay.org/news/2006/03/1807633.php) Rumor has it she may be working on a video about the 10-Minute Trespass rule.
Jumbogumbo Joe Schultz supplied coffee cake; street vocalist Valerie Christy from SAFE [Society for Artistic Freedom and Expression/Street Performers Against Foolish Enforcement] strummed songs; ten ten streetwise houseless observers braved the early morning cold.
PUBLIC SPEAKS
Once inside activists spoke to the Commission. These included Grant Wilson, Human Rights Organization workers (Bernard Klitzner, John Thielking, and Bob Patton), the community organizer Sherry Conable, Roger Etcetera--street veterans advocate, street musician Angela Jolie and a variety of homeless locals.
LAW BACKERS SPEAK
The Commission, to their credit, got some of the main suspects to attend. Testifying were Parking supervisor Matt Farrell, in-uniform police officials Deputy Chief Kevin Vogel and Sgt. Flippo, Parking lot maintenance supervisor Steve Sawyer and two workers, and City Attorney John Barisone. Speaking in the public comment line apparently in favor of the 10-minute trespass law were Downtown Association Executive Director Keith Holtaway, several merchants, and more.
THE DISCUSSION
Farrell gave a presentation with video aids, discussing the 541 of “calls for service” from the four Parking Lot garages over the past year, less than 150 which involved crimes. Compared to the 75,000+ calls for service the SCPD gets annually in the city as a whole, critics suggested this was a very small number. [see http://www.ci.santa-cruz.ca.us/pw/dc/CurrentAgenda /LotsGaragesRpt.pdf for his staff report and the specific figures].
Farrell, Vogel, Barisone, and Flippo had no real reply to questions from the Commission about why existing laws weren’t enough, what would prevent stupid, arbitrary, or selective enforcement of the law, or what specific documentation justified the need. The answers were along the lines of “the police will be reasonable”, “the law is Constitutional”, “we’ll examine it again in 6 months”, “we can include a warning provision”...
Commission member Joe Ferrara (who owns Atlantis Fantasyworld) asked how the law could be fairly rather than selectively enforced, since everyone would, under the wording of the law, be required to (a) be parking a vehicle or bicycle, and/or (b) be gone within 10 minutes.
AUDIO ARCHIVED
The entire meeting will be archived at http://www.huffsantacruz.org as partr of the Sunday March 19 Bathrobespierre’s Broadsides show. Check out the 6-03-19 (March 19, 2006) file at http://www.huffsantacruz.org/brb.html .
FINAL OUTCOME
Chair Julie Shattuck resisted pressure from Barisone to submit to the “public policy” leadership of City Council and forward it quickly. Since there was no time to discuss, Shattuck put over the matter to the next Commission meeting, which Barisone hurriedly interrupted to point out could be the next weekend.
ISSUE TO RETURN 3-23
So the issue will reappear on Thursday March 23 8:30 AM at City Council chambers. HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom hopes to have some morning food available--perhaps hot soup). Instead of treating this issue in a deliberate fashion, the Commission, under pressure from Council and City Attorney are putting it in special meetings and at the front of the agenda.
WANT TO SPEAK? ASK JULIE OR KATHY.
Those who have not spoken on the law but want to should contact either Julie Shattuck or Kathy Bisbee (phone numbers below) to make a special request. Public discussion has been closed, but there was some concern that not everyone who wanted to was able to speak--a refreshing change from City Council.
EARLIER DISCUSSION
Earlier discussion on this issue can be found at:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/03/1807633_comment.php#1808293
WHAT Y O U CAN DO
E-mail the Commission at e-mail: pw-downtown-commission [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us and tell them to vote NO on this law.
If Coonerty and Mathews want to unnessarily expand police powers and reverse traditional open space policy in Santa Cruz, let them do so on their own initiative, not under cover of the Downtown Commission.
COMMISSION MEMBER PHONE NUMBERS
Individual members of the Commission can be reached at the following phone numbers. (It takes a little squeezing, but this is public information).
Julie Shattuck (chair) home: 427-3262 work: 457-0313
Kathy Bisbee home: 475-1404 work: 459-6301
Jim Brown home: 238-2158 work: 466-9770
Sheila Coonerty home: 454-9449 work: 429-4115
Joe Ferrara home: 427-3467 work: 426-0158
June Hoffman home: 462-5272 work: 420-0135
Gerry Mandel (vice chair?) home: 427-0328 work: 426-5557
Jim Brown is out of the country. Kathy Bisbee is probably most sympathetic to dumping this law. Julie Shattuck and Joe Ferrara are possibilities. Some of the rest seem intent on getting the issue to City Council.
ANY MOVE BY THE DOWNTOWN COMMISSION TO PASS THIS TO COUNCIL, EVEN WITH A NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION OR WITH “CONCERNS” IS WORSE THAN MOTION TO TABLE THIS LAW UNTIL SUCH TIME AS MORE INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE.
Commission members are nervous because they are appointees and serve "at the pleasure" of the City Council. In fact, they are supposed to serve the community (and have actually been trying to do so in this case). Remind them that if City Council wants to put a bad law on their agenda, they can do so without help from the Downtown Commission.
VITAL INFO STILL MISSING
I encourage you to urge members of the Commission to continue to TABLE IT, pending more substantial information. Still absent: the written report of the Parking Authority; a formal decison by the Commission for the Prevention of Violence Against Women, which has sent it out to two subcommittees; and a formal statement by the ACLU, one member of whom warned the Commission of problems with the law as written. IN FACT THERE IS STILL--THREE MONTHS AFTER IT WAS FIRST PROPOSED--NO WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION OR CHRONOLOGY OF THE SPECIFIC COMPLAINTS AND CONCERNS THAT MOTIVATED THIS LAW.
SUPPORT FOR PARKING ATTENDANTS IS A REAL ISSUE
The main issue is more support for parking lot attendants who are upset with the increased camping use in the garages. What's needed her is a reapportionment of some funding to relieve the pressure on the staff. Or perhaps some volunteer clean-up squads (don't look at me). But in the meantime, getting hysterical and removing all city parking lots and garages from public use other than to scurry in and out is an unnecessary police state measure.
What's needed is a real deliberative open public process that could consider additional resources and solutions instead of singlemindedly pressing forward with yet another criminalization of innocent behavior and seizure of public space in the name of "security".
Thursday Morning March 16th folks gathered for a small but encouraging protest against the Coonerty-Mathews attempt to ram through the anti-homeless 10-Minute Trespass Law. We gathered in front of City Hall about 7:45 in the morning, 45 minutes prior to the special Downtown Commission meeting.
Councilmember Ryan Coonerty and Mayor Cynthia Mathews had pressured Downtown Commission [DC] chair Julie Shattuck to hold a special meeting of the DC one week before their regular DC meeting. The goal: to rush the law onto the Tuesday 3-28 Council agenda.
Hopefully videojournalist Becky Johnson will be able to post some photos later of the protest and meeting. (Her account is posted at
http://indybay.org/news/2006/03/1807633.php) Rumor has it she may be working on a video about the 10-Minute Trespass rule.
Jumbogumbo Joe Schultz supplied coffee cake; street vocalist Valerie Christy from SAFE [Society for Artistic Freedom and Expression/Street Performers Against Foolish Enforcement] strummed songs; ten ten streetwise houseless observers braved the early morning cold.
PUBLIC SPEAKS
Once inside activists spoke to the Commission. These included Grant Wilson, Human Rights Organization workers (Bernard Klitzner, John Thielking, and Bob Patton), the community organizer Sherry Conable, Roger Etcetera--street veterans advocate, street musician Angela Jolie and a variety of homeless locals.
LAW BACKERS SPEAK
The Commission, to their credit, got some of the main suspects to attend. Testifying were Parking supervisor Matt Farrell, in-uniform police officials Deputy Chief Kevin Vogel and Sgt. Flippo, Parking lot maintenance supervisor Steve Sawyer and two workers, and City Attorney John Barisone. Speaking in the public comment line apparently in favor of the 10-minute trespass law were Downtown Association Executive Director Keith Holtaway, several merchants, and more.
THE DISCUSSION
Farrell gave a presentation with video aids, discussing the 541 of “calls for service” from the four Parking Lot garages over the past year, less than 150 which involved crimes. Compared to the 75,000+ calls for service the SCPD gets annually in the city as a whole, critics suggested this was a very small number. [see http://www.ci.santa-cruz.ca.us/pw/dc/CurrentAgenda /LotsGaragesRpt.pdf for his staff report and the specific figures].
Farrell, Vogel, Barisone, and Flippo had no real reply to questions from the Commission about why existing laws weren’t enough, what would prevent stupid, arbitrary, or selective enforcement of the law, or what specific documentation justified the need. The answers were along the lines of “the police will be reasonable”, “the law is Constitutional”, “we’ll examine it again in 6 months”, “we can include a warning provision”...
Commission member Joe Ferrara (who owns Atlantis Fantasyworld) asked how the law could be fairly rather than selectively enforced, since everyone would, under the wording of the law, be required to (a) be parking a vehicle or bicycle, and/or (b) be gone within 10 minutes.
AUDIO ARCHIVED
The entire meeting will be archived at http://www.huffsantacruz.org as partr of the Sunday March 19 Bathrobespierre’s Broadsides show. Check out the 6-03-19 (March 19, 2006) file at http://www.huffsantacruz.org/brb.html .
FINAL OUTCOME
Chair Julie Shattuck resisted pressure from Barisone to submit to the “public policy” leadership of City Council and forward it quickly. Since there was no time to discuss, Shattuck put over the matter to the next Commission meeting, which Barisone hurriedly interrupted to point out could be the next weekend.
ISSUE TO RETURN 3-23
So the issue will reappear on Thursday March 23 8:30 AM at City Council chambers. HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom hopes to have some morning food available--perhaps hot soup). Instead of treating this issue in a deliberate fashion, the Commission, under pressure from Council and City Attorney are putting it in special meetings and at the front of the agenda.
WANT TO SPEAK? ASK JULIE OR KATHY.
Those who have not spoken on the law but want to should contact either Julie Shattuck or Kathy Bisbee (phone numbers below) to make a special request. Public discussion has been closed, but there was some concern that not everyone who wanted to was able to speak--a refreshing change from City Council.
EARLIER DISCUSSION
Earlier discussion on this issue can be found at:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/03/1807633_comment.php#1808293
WHAT Y O U CAN DO
E-mail the Commission at e-mail: pw-downtown-commission [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us and tell them to vote NO on this law.
If Coonerty and Mathews want to unnessarily expand police powers and reverse traditional open space policy in Santa Cruz, let them do so on their own initiative, not under cover of the Downtown Commission.
COMMISSION MEMBER PHONE NUMBERS
Individual members of the Commission can be reached at the following phone numbers. (It takes a little squeezing, but this is public information).
Julie Shattuck (chair) home: 427-3262 work: 457-0313
Kathy Bisbee home: 475-1404 work: 459-6301
Jim Brown home: 238-2158 work: 466-9770
Sheila Coonerty home: 454-9449 work: 429-4115
Joe Ferrara home: 427-3467 work: 426-0158
June Hoffman home: 462-5272 work: 420-0135
Gerry Mandel (vice chair?) home: 427-0328 work: 426-5557
Jim Brown is out of the country. Kathy Bisbee is probably most sympathetic to dumping this law. Julie Shattuck and Joe Ferrara are possibilities. Some of the rest seem intent on getting the issue to City Council.
ANY MOVE BY THE DOWNTOWN COMMISSION TO PASS THIS TO COUNCIL, EVEN WITH A NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION OR WITH “CONCERNS” IS WORSE THAN MOTION TO TABLE THIS LAW UNTIL SUCH TIME AS MORE INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE.
Commission members are nervous because they are appointees and serve "at the pleasure" of the City Council. In fact, they are supposed to serve the community (and have actually been trying to do so in this case). Remind them that if City Council wants to put a bad law on their agenda, they can do so without help from the Downtown Commission.
VITAL INFO STILL MISSING
I encourage you to urge members of the Commission to continue to TABLE IT, pending more substantial information. Still absent: the written report of the Parking Authority; a formal decison by the Commission for the Prevention of Violence Against Women, which has sent it out to two subcommittees; and a formal statement by the ACLU, one member of whom warned the Commission of problems with the law as written. IN FACT THERE IS STILL--THREE MONTHS AFTER IT WAS FIRST PROPOSED--NO WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION OR CHRONOLOGY OF THE SPECIFIC COMPLAINTS AND CONCERNS THAT MOTIVATED THIS LAW.
SUPPORT FOR PARKING ATTENDANTS IS A REAL ISSUE
The main issue is more support for parking lot attendants who are upset with the increased camping use in the garages. What's needed her is a reapportionment of some funding to relieve the pressure on the staff. Or perhaps some volunteer clean-up squads (don't look at me). But in the meantime, getting hysterical and removing all city parking lots and garages from public use other than to scurry in and out is an unnecessary police state measure.
What's needed is a real deliberative open public process that could consider additional resources and solutions instead of singlemindedly pressing forward with yet another criminalization of innocent behavior and seizure of public space in the name of "security".
For more information:
http://www.huffsantacruz.org
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
The Downtown Association, the merchants' group that gave us the 1-hour Move Along law, and doubled the forbidden zones downtown, as well as banning hackeysacking, "amateur" bubbleblow, and bouncing a ball downtown are meeting, to discuss the 10 Minute Trespass Law.
The meeting is 8:30 AM Tuiesday March 21st at 1347 Pacific Ave. on the 2nd floor in Suite $201. It is open to the public. There is an Oral Communications period at the beginning of the meeting. Item 4 is the discussion of the Proposed Parking Lot Ordinance.
This office is across from the Coffee Roasting Company on Pacific Avenue.
The meeting is 8:30 AM Tuiesday March 21st at 1347 Pacific Ave. on the 2nd floor in Suite $201. It is open to the public. There is an Oral Communications period at the beginning of the meeting. Item 4 is the discussion of the Proposed Parking Lot Ordinance.
This office is across from the Coffee Roasting Company on Pacific Avenue.
14 Strikes Against the 10-Minute Trespass Law
“Any person who uses a City of Santa Cruz parking lot or garage for purposes other than motor vehicle or bicycle parking ... or who remains on City of Santa Cruz parking lot or garage premises for longer than ten minutes...shall be guilty of trespassing, which offense shall be punishable as an infraction.”
--proposed new City Council chapter 9.64
This law should be voted DOWN & sent back to the drawing board rather than dressed up “with concerns” and passed on to City Council.
++It MUST be selectively enforced and is a legal liability for that reason alone.
++It impacts the entire community, limiting the liberty of the same women it claims to protect.
++It spreads the “gated community” virus to the center of downtown, imposing the gentrification agenda which is fundamentally at odds with traditional Santa Cruz.
++It is unclear that it actually improves safety by removing watching eyes--even if those eyes are the eyes of poor people
++It is inadequately documented in spite of requests to the Police and Public Works.
++It is being rushed forward at an unprecedented special meeting.
++It is primarily special interest legislation for the convenience of Parking Lot workers.
++Alternatives have not been publicly and seriously considered.
++The populations impacted (homeless, youth, residents, tourists) have not been seriously approached or their needs considered.
++It expands police power at a time when the SCPD needs more checks and balances not more blank checks.
++It happens during an election year as a symbolic political gesture similar to what happened in 1994 and 2002 with the “Sitting Ban” and the “Move Along” law.
++It provides at best the illusion of security without the substance--no additional police resources being committed.
++It is legally vague and overbroad, according to an ACLU analysis.
++It is offensive enough to be likely to prompt public protest and polarize the city further as in 1994 and 2002.
Sign the Petition Opposing the Ten Minute Trespass Law
Contact City Council at 420-5020: Urge them to Vote it Down.
If there’s a Real Problem, let’s have the Real Facts.
No Closing of Public Spaces without Real Alternatives.
Organize for Peaceful Protest: Call 831-423-4833
Flier by HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom) 831-423-4833 309 Cedar #14B Santa Cruz, http://www.huffsantacruz.org 3-16-06
“Any person who uses a City of Santa Cruz parking lot or garage for purposes other than motor vehicle or bicycle parking ... or who remains on City of Santa Cruz parking lot or garage premises for longer than ten minutes...shall be guilty of trespassing, which offense shall be punishable as an infraction.”
--proposed new City Council chapter 9.64
This law should be voted DOWN & sent back to the drawing board rather than dressed up “with concerns” and passed on to City Council.
++It MUST be selectively enforced and is a legal liability for that reason alone.
++It impacts the entire community, limiting the liberty of the same women it claims to protect.
++It spreads the “gated community” virus to the center of downtown, imposing the gentrification agenda which is fundamentally at odds with traditional Santa Cruz.
++It is unclear that it actually improves safety by removing watching eyes--even if those eyes are the eyes of poor people
++It is inadequately documented in spite of requests to the Police and Public Works.
++It is being rushed forward at an unprecedented special meeting.
++It is primarily special interest legislation for the convenience of Parking Lot workers.
++Alternatives have not been publicly and seriously considered.
++The populations impacted (homeless, youth, residents, tourists) have not been seriously approached or their needs considered.
++It expands police power at a time when the SCPD needs more checks and balances not more blank checks.
++It happens during an election year as a symbolic political gesture similar to what happened in 1994 and 2002 with the “Sitting Ban” and the “Move Along” law.
++It provides at best the illusion of security without the substance--no additional police resources being committed.
++It is legally vague and overbroad, according to an ACLU analysis.
++It is offensive enough to be likely to prompt public protest and polarize the city further as in 1994 and 2002.
Sign the Petition Opposing the Ten Minute Trespass Law
Contact City Council at 420-5020: Urge them to Vote it Down.
If there’s a Real Problem, let’s have the Real Facts.
No Closing of Public Spaces without Real Alternatives.
Organize for Peaceful Protest: Call 831-423-4833
Flier by HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom) 831-423-4833 309 Cedar #14B Santa Cruz, http://www.huffsantacruz.org 3-16-06
(This stance needs to be discussed):
Dear Friends, If the 10 minute limit cuts down on just one man stalking
and raping a woman in a parking garage then I say it is well worth it. Asking a stalker to disperse has no clout until the stalker considers that he might be ticketed if he continues waiting or watching women enter and exit parking garages. We had two rape attempts in our local parking garage and one in four rapes takes place in public or in a parking garage. Should a public space where it is easy to hide behind other cars be open for stalkers and rapists to hang out be available?
I encourage you to consider the horrible trauma rape creates and how
for many women the rape experience impacts her life forever. Sure, she can heal and everyone loves to consider that in a year or two at most she will be OVER it. Guess again. Rape is a horrific invasion and scars the woman even if and when she learns to wear it well. Please consider that if stalkers and rapists are discouraged to hide and use parking garages to rape women then this 10 minute limit will be well worth it. To worry and scream about rain shelter for homeless is a worthy consideration but not comparable to stopping rape or attempted rapes in parking garages.
Please consider women's safety concerns when you make your decision.
Sincerely,
Ann Simonton
According to the U.S. Department of Justice:
One of every four rapes take place in a public area or in a parking garage.
28% of female victims reported that the offender was a stranger.
70% of rapes occur between the hours of 6 p.m. and 6 a.m.
At least 48% of rapists were under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
In 30% of rapes, the offender used a weapon.
In 47% of rapes, the victim sustained injuries other than rape injuries.
75% of female rape victims require medical care after the attack.
(All statistics are taken from: Violence against Women, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 2001.)
Dear Friends, If the 10 minute limit cuts down on just one man stalking
and raping a woman in a parking garage then I say it is well worth it. Asking a stalker to disperse has no clout until the stalker considers that he might be ticketed if he continues waiting or watching women enter and exit parking garages. We had two rape attempts in our local parking garage and one in four rapes takes place in public or in a parking garage. Should a public space where it is easy to hide behind other cars be open for stalkers and rapists to hang out be available?
I encourage you to consider the horrible trauma rape creates and how
for many women the rape experience impacts her life forever. Sure, she can heal and everyone loves to consider that in a year or two at most she will be OVER it. Guess again. Rape is a horrific invasion and scars the woman even if and when she learns to wear it well. Please consider that if stalkers and rapists are discouraged to hide and use parking garages to rape women then this 10 minute limit will be well worth it. To worry and scream about rain shelter for homeless is a worthy consideration but not comparable to stopping rape or attempted rapes in parking garages.
Please consider women's safety concerns when you make your decision.
Sincerely,
Ann Simonton
According to the U.S. Department of Justice:
One of every four rapes take place in a public area or in a parking garage.
28% of female victims reported that the offender was a stranger.
70% of rapes occur between the hours of 6 p.m. and 6 a.m.
At least 48% of rapists were under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
In 30% of rapes, the offender used a weapon.
In 47% of rapes, the victim sustained injuries other than rape injuries.
75% of female rape victims require medical care after the attack.
(All statistics are taken from: Violence against Women, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 2001.)
Cathy Redfern's Sentinel article was from 2003.
The 541 "calls for service" don't include one assault or rape.
At the Commission for Prevention of Violence Against Women, commissioner Gilian Greensite was concerned that they "didn't have the figures."
"That means there were no assaults, attempted rapes, or rapes
in 2005 in any parking garage.
There is no way to prove that any rapes will be prevented by this ordinance since the rate can't drop below zero. But to say that some theoretical concern for stopping rape justifies the very real act of forcing homeless people back into the rain, where they could die of hypothermia, shows a callous disregard for one segment of society sacrafised for the purely theoretical benefit of another.
I'm sure if women started wearing burkas and were only allowed out with a male relative, there would be fewer stranger rapes. But I'm sure Ms. Simonton is not suggesting that such extreme measures be applied.
But why turn vast swaths of people in Santa Cruz into criminals
subject to citation, and inconveniencing virtually everyone sooner or later who drives a car, bike, or rides in a car seems extreme and unneccessary
If a rapist will commit FELONY rape, what makes anyone think they will be deterred by an infraction tresspassing in a public place ticket?
And if you banish all the Law-abiding people from the parking garages, the only people left will be the law breakers. This will make women less safe.
READ THIS!
from: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2006/March/16/local/stories/13local.htm
Consider this case, which was not mentioned at the CPVAW meeting since it didn't take place in a parking structure.
SANTA CRUZ
Suspect held in attempted rape
A 32-year-old Santa Cruz man was arrested Tuesday after a witness spotted him assaulting an unconscious woman.
The intoxicated victim was sitting on a bench outside the Metro Center when the suspect approached. He sat down next to her, undid her pants and placed his hand inside of them, police said. The woman was unaware of the incident and unable to refuse his actions.
The witness called police, who arrested the suspect on suspicion of assault with intent to commit rape.
BECKY: Note, the only reason the attacker was caught is because a law-abiding citizen happened to be in the area and dialed the police on his cellphone!
All this law does, is to allow the police to arrest people who haven't done anything at all.
The 541 "calls for service" don't include one assault or rape.
At the Commission for Prevention of Violence Against Women, commissioner Gilian Greensite was concerned that they "didn't have the figures."
"That means there were no assaults, attempted rapes, or rapes
in 2005 in any parking garage.
There is no way to prove that any rapes will be prevented by this ordinance since the rate can't drop below zero. But to say that some theoretical concern for stopping rape justifies the very real act of forcing homeless people back into the rain, where they could die of hypothermia, shows a callous disregard for one segment of society sacrafised for the purely theoretical benefit of another.
I'm sure if women started wearing burkas and were only allowed out with a male relative, there would be fewer stranger rapes. But I'm sure Ms. Simonton is not suggesting that such extreme measures be applied.
But why turn vast swaths of people in Santa Cruz into criminals
subject to citation, and inconveniencing virtually everyone sooner or later who drives a car, bike, or rides in a car seems extreme and unneccessary
If a rapist will commit FELONY rape, what makes anyone think they will be deterred by an infraction tresspassing in a public place ticket?
And if you banish all the Law-abiding people from the parking garages, the only people left will be the law breakers. This will make women less safe.
READ THIS!
from: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2006/March/16/local/stories/13local.htm
Consider this case, which was not mentioned at the CPVAW meeting since it didn't take place in a parking structure.
SANTA CRUZ
Suspect held in attempted rape
A 32-year-old Santa Cruz man was arrested Tuesday after a witness spotted him assaulting an unconscious woman.
The intoxicated victim was sitting on a bench outside the Metro Center when the suspect approached. He sat down next to her, undid her pants and placed his hand inside of them, police said. The woman was unaware of the incident and unable to refuse his actions.
The witness called police, who arrested the suspect on suspicion of assault with intent to commit rape.
BECKY: Note, the only reason the attacker was caught is because a law-abiding citizen happened to be in the area and dialed the police on his cellphone!
All this law does, is to allow the police to arrest people who haven't done anything at all.
Ann's concern for the safety of women (and others) in parking garages is obviously a legitimate one.
However, the hearings at the Downtown Commission January 24th and March 16th as well as the Commission for the Prevention of Violence Against Women demonstrate a few things.
1. Alternatives were not seriously considered by Public Works, the SCPD, and the City Attorney before forwarding the radical "Ten Minute Trespass" law. Obvious suggestions (presented by CPVAW members, DC members, and members of the public): better lighting, a monitor (as they have in the Locust and Soquel garages where "calls for service" are much less), signage, a public education campaign, and--for God's sake--more financial support for the workers who have to clean up the messes we leave.
2. Documentation of police complaints and citations, or Parking Authority worker concerns, or--even complaints given to Councilmember Ryan Coonerty (who seems to be a driving force rushing this issue with special Downtown Commission meetings)--has not been provided.
3. Outreach to affected groups, including street performers, homeless folks, homeless service providers, and the community at large (whose rights will be severely impacted) has not happened yet.
4. Some recognition that we are in the midst of increasing police state initiatives nationally and locally. Our SCPD is still under a significant cloud even as City Council as tucked the New Year's Eve Spygate scandal out of sight. Scaring away everyone in order to discourage the few criminals is not a healthy policy for any of us. As Becky Johnson suggests, it may also be counterproductive.
5. The primary motivation behind this measure is not the safety of the public, particular concerns from parking lot/garage workers around litter and CAMPING. We are talking about homeless campers who have no shelter. Their "bad behavior" largely consists in survival camping in a city that provides less than 5% of those outside with any emergency shelter--and criminalizes the rest when they try to make their own shelter, sleep in their own cars, or get together in groups for safety.
I sent the following e-mail to Ann yesterday.
Ann: Noting your figure "One of every four rapes take place in a public
area or in a parking garage", do you then favor "closing down" all public
areas, except when going to and from business or home? They do that under martial law or during curfews.
Do you have any stats on what the breakdown of the 1 in 4 rapes
are--that is, how many happen in public areas and how many in parking
garages?
Have you consulted any homeless women and asked them whether they would appreciate being hustled out into the rain under this new law? Do you think the majority of women would appreciate being treated as criminals if they linger in parking lots or garages for more than 10 minutes?
I think your concern with rape and sexual harassment is
legitimate and appropriate. I strongly disagree with your support for what is clearly a law designed to eliminate campers--as the figures on police calls plainly document. It is particularly harsh in wet and cold weather.
You asked me to suggest alternatives. I think the CPVAW
suggested some below. How about some alternatives from you other than criminalizing more than 8 city blocks of public space and driving some of the most vulnerable out into the rain and cold? Homeless women also get raped, I want to remind you. And homeless people are safer in groups.
What do you think of proposals from members of the CPVAW
suggesting increased signage, monitors in the two unmonitored parking
garages, better lightening, increased policing, an education campaign
encouraging garage and lot users to use their cell phones and keep their
eyes open watching out for each other (something that could not be done
under the 10-minute rule), and closer scrutiny of the problem?
I would appreciate an answer to some of these questions.
Robert Norse, Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom
However, the hearings at the Downtown Commission January 24th and March 16th as well as the Commission for the Prevention of Violence Against Women demonstrate a few things.
1. Alternatives were not seriously considered by Public Works, the SCPD, and the City Attorney before forwarding the radical "Ten Minute Trespass" law. Obvious suggestions (presented by CPVAW members, DC members, and members of the public): better lighting, a monitor (as they have in the Locust and Soquel garages where "calls for service" are much less), signage, a public education campaign, and--for God's sake--more financial support for the workers who have to clean up the messes we leave.
2. Documentation of police complaints and citations, or Parking Authority worker concerns, or--even complaints given to Councilmember Ryan Coonerty (who seems to be a driving force rushing this issue with special Downtown Commission meetings)--has not been provided.
3. Outreach to affected groups, including street performers, homeless folks, homeless service providers, and the community at large (whose rights will be severely impacted) has not happened yet.
4. Some recognition that we are in the midst of increasing police state initiatives nationally and locally. Our SCPD is still under a significant cloud even as City Council as tucked the New Year's Eve Spygate scandal out of sight. Scaring away everyone in order to discourage the few criminals is not a healthy policy for any of us. As Becky Johnson suggests, it may also be counterproductive.
5. The primary motivation behind this measure is not the safety of the public, particular concerns from parking lot/garage workers around litter and CAMPING. We are talking about homeless campers who have no shelter. Their "bad behavior" largely consists in survival camping in a city that provides less than 5% of those outside with any emergency shelter--and criminalizes the rest when they try to make their own shelter, sleep in their own cars, or get together in groups for safety.
I sent the following e-mail to Ann yesterday.
Ann: Noting your figure "One of every four rapes take place in a public
area or in a parking garage", do you then favor "closing down" all public
areas, except when going to and from business or home? They do that under martial law or during curfews.
Do you have any stats on what the breakdown of the 1 in 4 rapes
are--that is, how many happen in public areas and how many in parking
garages?
Have you consulted any homeless women and asked them whether they would appreciate being hustled out into the rain under this new law? Do you think the majority of women would appreciate being treated as criminals if they linger in parking lots or garages for more than 10 minutes?
I think your concern with rape and sexual harassment is
legitimate and appropriate. I strongly disagree with your support for what is clearly a law designed to eliminate campers--as the figures on police calls plainly document. It is particularly harsh in wet and cold weather.
You asked me to suggest alternatives. I think the CPVAW
suggested some below. How about some alternatives from you other than criminalizing more than 8 city blocks of public space and driving some of the most vulnerable out into the rain and cold? Homeless women also get raped, I want to remind you. And homeless people are safer in groups.
What do you think of proposals from members of the CPVAW
suggesting increased signage, monitors in the two unmonitored parking
garages, better lightening, increased policing, an education campaign
encouraging garage and lot users to use their cell phones and keep their
eyes open watching out for each other (something that could not be done
under the 10-minute rule), and closer scrutiny of the problem?
I would appreciate an answer to some of these questions.
Robert Norse, Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom
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