Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Anti-Homeless "Parking Lot Peril" Law at Council 3 PM 4-11
Ignoring public requests for a thorough examination of alternatives, lacking substantiation that there's a "crime wave" downtown, reversing decades of Santa Cruz traditional use, directly targeting the homeless, but impacting every member of the community, Councilmember Coonerty's "Fifteen Minute Trespass" law will slide through City Council Tuesday Aprill 11th shortly after 3 PM. Be there to give them some indigestion as they chew up and swallow public spaces and human rights.
Background: http://indybay.org/news/2006/03/1811446.php
Discussion: Download and listen to Bathrobespierre's Broadsides at http://www.huffsantacruz.org (click on the most recent shows and scroll through).
Staff report and fliers on the subject will be posted shortly.
Contact HUFF at 423-4833 to volunteer to flier and plan protests and legal challenges.
There is reportedly a FlimFlam Film Festival in the works for one of the forbidden parking lots and garages upcoming. Keep your ears open.
The law will only be having a first reading on April 11th, though once slam-dunked there, it will be likely to be passed again on April 25th for a second and final reading.
The law has undergone some tweaking, but is still fundamentally the same: No use of the parking lots/garages unless your parking a car, and then only for 15 minutes. You can cross area under some circumstances.
Most of what goes on in parking lots other than parking is criminalized by this law, for the convenience of parking lot workers.
Other alternatives have not been seriously considered, nor have its legal implications.
There isn't even additional funding for real security measures like policing, cameras, etc.--which would be appropriate if there were a real crime wave there.
It relies on a compliant and fearful community to "police itself" or snitch on itself.
It primarily targets the homeless (look at the "crime" categories in the staff report that follows).
Discussion: Download and listen to Bathrobespierre's Broadsides at http://www.huffsantacruz.org (click on the most recent shows and scroll through).
Staff report and fliers on the subject will be posted shortly.
Contact HUFF at 423-4833 to volunteer to flier and plan protests and legal challenges.
There is reportedly a FlimFlam Film Festival in the works for one of the forbidden parking lots and garages upcoming. Keep your ears open.
The law will only be having a first reading on April 11th, though once slam-dunked there, it will be likely to be passed again on April 25th for a second and final reading.
The law has undergone some tweaking, but is still fundamentally the same: No use of the parking lots/garages unless your parking a car, and then only for 15 minutes. You can cross area under some circumstances.
Most of what goes on in parking lots other than parking is criminalized by this law, for the convenience of parking lot workers.
Other alternatives have not been seriously considered, nor have its legal implications.
There isn't even additional funding for real security measures like policing, cameras, etc.--which would be appropriate if there were a real crime wave there.
It relies on a compliant and fearful community to "police itself" or snitch on itself.
It primarily targets the homeless (look at the "crime" categories in the staff report that follows).
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Economic cleansing future victim in Santa Cruz, Ca. March 2006
For more information:
http://www.huffsantacruz.org
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: March 31, 2006
AGENDA OF: April 11, 2006
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUBJECT: Use of Downtown Parking Lots and Garages
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council introduce for first reading an ordinance amending Title 9 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code by adding Chapter 9.64 regarding use of and trespassing upon Downtown City Parking Lots and Garages.
BACKGROUND: Public Works and Police Department staff have been working together over the last several years to address security issues in downtown parking lots and garages. These efforts have included a number of strategies: hiring community service officers to patrol downtown lots and garages, installing security cameras in garages, vehicle patrols through downtown lots and garages in the evenings, and additional night time parking maintenance staffing during the evenings to maintain the public rest rooms and provide a presence in the garages and lots. Car burglaries, vandalism, camping and inappropriate behavior present a continuing challenge in our parking facilities.
Several months ago, Public Works maintenance personnel and Police staff suggested that the City develop additional tools to address criminal and threatening conduct, camping and other behavior issues. They suggested that a clear definition of the proper use of the parking lots and garages, namely the parking of bicycles and vehicles, would help them do their job. Parking maintenance personnel would be able to tell persons in the garages that these are primarily parking facilities and that they are not places of congregation. Including a time limit with this definition makes it easier for maintenance personnel to explain the proper use of parking facilities.
In response to these suggestions, Public Works staff brought a proposed ordinance regarding the use of downtown parking lots and garages to the Downtown Commission (DTC) at its January 26 meeting. At that meeting, the DTC asked staff for some additional information and scheduled the item for its next meeting. A copy of the draft minutes from the January 26 meeting are attached for Council’s review as Attachment 1.
DISCUSSION: In preparation for the March commission meeting, Police Department staff reviewed incident reports for 2005 and (compiled to pull out) data for the four downtown parking garages. A precise count of incident reports is difficult because location descriptions vary and it is not always clear whether an incident occurs near a garage, adjacent to the garage or actually in the garage. Based on a review of these records, police staff estimates that there were 541 incident calls with the following breakdowns:
River/Front Garage (Lot 10) 242 calls
Cedar/Church Garage (Lot 3) 188 calls
Locust Garage (Lot 2) 87 calls
Soquel/Front Garage (Lot 1) 24 calls
TOTAL: 541 calls
Police staff also ranked the type of incident calls in priority by facility. This additional information and map showing downtown parking lots and garages is included in Attachment 2. Overall, the following categories had the highest percentage of calls
Camping 63 calls (12%)
Burglary 47 calls (9%)
Suspicious person/circumstances 41 calls (8%)
Disturbing the Peace 31 calls (6%)
TOTAL: 182 calls (34%)
As part of developing the proposed ordinance regarding lot use, the City Attorney found a similar ordinance in Santa Barbara, which defined the primary use of downtown parking lots. The main difference between the proposed city ordinance and Santa Barbara is that the Santa Cruz proposal includes a time limit for parking a car or bicycle. A copy of the Santa Barbara ordinance is included as Attachment 3.
Sheila Coonerty and staff assigned to the DTC attended the March meeting of the Commission for the Prevention of Violence Against Women (CPVAW) and answered CPVAW questions regarding the proposed ordinance and the incident reports. While the CPVAW did not take a formal position on the proposal, Commissioners offered support for the measure and for ongoing education around the issue of responding to the harassment of women. One Commissioner asked how this would affect musicians who might be busking at a sidewalk area at the edge of the garage.
Commissioners also suggested that should be posted in the garages to encourage people to call the police if they are harassed. They also suggested that it would be helpful to gather more information on ongoing incident calls at garages and parking lots. Draft minutes from the CPVAW meeting are included as Attachment 4.
Prior to the March meeting, staff assigned to the DTC received an email from the local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) expressing its concerns about the proposed ordinance. The Santa Cruz ACLU was asking for information on incident calls received by Police personnel and expressed concerns about whether the ordinance was more warranted in parking garages as opposed to surface parking lots, and asked questions about the special event exemption included in the ordinance. This email is included as Attachment 5.
At the March 16, 2006 DTC meeting, several speakers raised concerns about the impact of the proposed ordinance on homeless individuals and selective enforcement. Individuals also spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance, citing concerns about personal safety and the need to give staff the tools to do their job. Don Zimmerman, representing the local ACLU chapter, addressed the chapter’s request for data to demonstrate that surface parking lots should be included in this proposal and about civil liberties issues. The City Attorney responded to some of these concerns. After the conclusion of public testimony, the Commission voted to continue the meeting to March 23, 2006 to allow time for its deliberation. Draft minutes from the March 16 DTC meeting are included as Attachment 6.
At the March 23 meeting, the DTC discussed the following aspects of the proposed ordinance: 1) should the ordinance cover both the parking garages and surface lots; 2) whether the 10 minute time limit was enough time for people to park their vehicles; and 3) whether other options besides the proposed ordinance should be explored to address the problem. The DTC then considered a motion with the following recommendations:
1. that the time limit be extended from 10 to 15 minutes;
2. that a verbal warning be given prior to a written citation;
3. that the City Council direct staff to develop a comprehensive plan to gather data and information about the performance of this ordinance over the next 12 months and that this evaluation be undertaken by the Downtown Improvement Task Force;
4. that the City Council direct the Police Department to develop a policy regarding the issuance of warnings as part of enforcing this ordinance;
5. that the DTC extend qualified support for surface lot inclusion in this ordinance since there is not, at present, adequate information regarding public safety needs in these lots for inclusion in the proposed ordinance; and
6. that adoption of this ordinance balance public safety and civil liberties.
This motion passed 5-1-1, with Commissioner Bisbee opposed and Commissioner Brown absent. Commissioner Brown was out of the country at the time of the Commission meeting and asked that his comments concerning the proposed ordinance be included in the record. His comments are included in Attachment 7. The draft March 23 DTC minutes are included as Attachment 8.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Public Works staff provided additional information to the DTC for its March 23 meeting. This additional information summarized parking maintenance workers’ logs. These employees work the swing shift from 5:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. This summary listed individual log entries by date, location and problem. For the first six months of 2005, parking maintenance workers listed 85 responses to problems in downtown lots and garages. The four highest categories were:
Suspicious Persons 23 (27%)
Camping 17 (20%)
Skateboarders 10 (12%)
Public Restrooms 10 (12%)
Disturbing the Peace 6 (7%)
Total: 66 (78%)
A list of these incidents is included as Attachment 9.
In response to DTC concern about the lack of data regarding incident calls for downtown surface lots, Police Department staff reviewed incident reports for four downtown surface lots: Lincoln and Cedar (Lot 8), Cathcart and Cedar (Lot 4), Elm and Cedar (Lot 9), and Front/Cathcart (Lot 7). In 2005, the lots had the following calls for service:
Lincoln and Cedar (Lot 8) 135 calls
Cathcart and Cedar (Lot 4) 130 calls
Elm and Cedar (Lot 9) 125 calls
Front and Cathcart (Lot 7) 118 calls
Total: 508 calls
The calls for service for the surface lots are similar to the calls for service for the parking garages: 508 calls for surface lots vs. 541 calls for garages. Police Department staff research found the following crime types:
Disturbing the Peace 28 (42%)
Petty Theft 9 (13%)
Suspicious Person/Circumstances 9 (13%)
Vehicle Burglary 7 (10%)
Stolen Vehicle 6 (9%)
Vandalism 3 (4%)
Fight 3 (4%)
Assault/Assault with deadly weapon 2 (3%)
----- ----
Total: 67
Thirteen percent of the garage and surface parking lot calls-for-service fit crime categories. The main differences were a larger percentage of calls in the garages were calls for camping, while the majority of calls for service in the parking lots were for disturbing the peace. While crime types vary, the percentage of calls for service related to crimes or potential crimes is the same. Detailed information by parking lot is included in Attachment 10.
CONCLUSION: Staff has made the following changes to the draft ordinance originally presented on March 16 to the DTC:
* Increased the time limit from 10 minutes to 15 minutes;
* Clarified that the ordinance applies to parking lots and garages in the Downtown Parking District (Parking District No. 1) not the whole city;
* Included a warning as part of the enforcement process;
* Allowed pedestrian use of the parking lot to access neighboring businesses and sidewalks; and
* Allowed the designation of speech-related areas in parking lots and garages.
Public Works and Police Department staff understand the Commission’s interest in recommending a 15 minute rather than a 10 minute time limit for the ordinance. While it will allow more people to comply with the parking requirement, it also increases the risk ofcriminal activity. Because this risk is hard to assess and identify without some experience enforcing the ordinance, staff believes that this is an issue which can be addressed as part of the 12 month evaluation.
The warning component was included in response to concerns about selective enforcement and to address police practice. The pedestrian use and speech-related changes attempt to address concerns raised by the public, including ACLU representatives, during various commission meetings.
FISCAL IMPACT: The major fiscal impacts from the proposed ordinance involve the cost of a public outreach and education program, the 12 month evaluation plan and the information signage program for lots and garages. The public outreach and evaluation plan will be supported by existing public works and police department staff. The signage program will be funded from the Parking Fund.
Report prepared by Matt Farrell, Parking Program Manager.
Submitted by: Mark R. Dettle Director of Public Works
Approved by: Richard C. Wilson City Manager
M:\PW1226 Rpt
Attachments:
~Draft Ordinance
~Attachment 1. Draft January 26 Downtown Commission Minutes
~Attachment 2. Police Incident Calls: Downtown Garages
~Attachment 3. Santa Barbara Parking Lot Ordinance
~Attachment 4. March 1 Commission for the Prevention of Violence Against Women
Action Agenda (Excerpt)
~Attachment 5. ACLU Email
~Attachment 6. Draft March 16 Downtown Commission Minutes
~Attachment 7. Downtown Commissioner Brown’s Comments
~Attachment 8. Draft March 23 Downtown Commission Minutes
~Attachment 9. Parking Maintenance Logs: January-June 2005
~Attachment 10. Police Incident Calls: Downtown Surface Lots
DATE: March 31, 2006
AGENDA OF: April 11, 2006
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUBJECT: Use of Downtown Parking Lots and Garages
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council introduce for first reading an ordinance amending Title 9 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code by adding Chapter 9.64 regarding use of and trespassing upon Downtown City Parking Lots and Garages.
BACKGROUND: Public Works and Police Department staff have been working together over the last several years to address security issues in downtown parking lots and garages. These efforts have included a number of strategies: hiring community service officers to patrol downtown lots and garages, installing security cameras in garages, vehicle patrols through downtown lots and garages in the evenings, and additional night time parking maintenance staffing during the evenings to maintain the public rest rooms and provide a presence in the garages and lots. Car burglaries, vandalism, camping and inappropriate behavior present a continuing challenge in our parking facilities.
Several months ago, Public Works maintenance personnel and Police staff suggested that the City develop additional tools to address criminal and threatening conduct, camping and other behavior issues. They suggested that a clear definition of the proper use of the parking lots and garages, namely the parking of bicycles and vehicles, would help them do their job. Parking maintenance personnel would be able to tell persons in the garages that these are primarily parking facilities and that they are not places of congregation. Including a time limit with this definition makes it easier for maintenance personnel to explain the proper use of parking facilities.
In response to these suggestions, Public Works staff brought a proposed ordinance regarding the use of downtown parking lots and garages to the Downtown Commission (DTC) at its January 26 meeting. At that meeting, the DTC asked staff for some additional information and scheduled the item for its next meeting. A copy of the draft minutes from the January 26 meeting are attached for Council’s review as Attachment 1.
DISCUSSION: In preparation for the March commission meeting, Police Department staff reviewed incident reports for 2005 and (compiled to pull out) data for the four downtown parking garages. A precise count of incident reports is difficult because location descriptions vary and it is not always clear whether an incident occurs near a garage, adjacent to the garage or actually in the garage. Based on a review of these records, police staff estimates that there were 541 incident calls with the following breakdowns:
River/Front Garage (Lot 10) 242 calls
Cedar/Church Garage (Lot 3) 188 calls
Locust Garage (Lot 2) 87 calls
Soquel/Front Garage (Lot 1) 24 calls
TOTAL: 541 calls
Police staff also ranked the type of incident calls in priority by facility. This additional information and map showing downtown parking lots and garages is included in Attachment 2. Overall, the following categories had the highest percentage of calls
Camping 63 calls (12%)
Burglary 47 calls (9%)
Suspicious person/circumstances 41 calls (8%)
Disturbing the Peace 31 calls (6%)
TOTAL: 182 calls (34%)
As part of developing the proposed ordinance regarding lot use, the City Attorney found a similar ordinance in Santa Barbara, which defined the primary use of downtown parking lots. The main difference between the proposed city ordinance and Santa Barbara is that the Santa Cruz proposal includes a time limit for parking a car or bicycle. A copy of the Santa Barbara ordinance is included as Attachment 3.
Sheila Coonerty and staff assigned to the DTC attended the March meeting of the Commission for the Prevention of Violence Against Women (CPVAW) and answered CPVAW questions regarding the proposed ordinance and the incident reports. While the CPVAW did not take a formal position on the proposal, Commissioners offered support for the measure and for ongoing education around the issue of responding to the harassment of women. One Commissioner asked how this would affect musicians who might be busking at a sidewalk area at the edge of the garage.
Commissioners also suggested that should be posted in the garages to encourage people to call the police if they are harassed. They also suggested that it would be helpful to gather more information on ongoing incident calls at garages and parking lots. Draft minutes from the CPVAW meeting are included as Attachment 4.
Prior to the March meeting, staff assigned to the DTC received an email from the local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) expressing its concerns about the proposed ordinance. The Santa Cruz ACLU was asking for information on incident calls received by Police personnel and expressed concerns about whether the ordinance was more warranted in parking garages as opposed to surface parking lots, and asked questions about the special event exemption included in the ordinance. This email is included as Attachment 5.
At the March 16, 2006 DTC meeting, several speakers raised concerns about the impact of the proposed ordinance on homeless individuals and selective enforcement. Individuals also spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance, citing concerns about personal safety and the need to give staff the tools to do their job. Don Zimmerman, representing the local ACLU chapter, addressed the chapter’s request for data to demonstrate that surface parking lots should be included in this proposal and about civil liberties issues. The City Attorney responded to some of these concerns. After the conclusion of public testimony, the Commission voted to continue the meeting to March 23, 2006 to allow time for its deliberation. Draft minutes from the March 16 DTC meeting are included as Attachment 6.
At the March 23 meeting, the DTC discussed the following aspects of the proposed ordinance: 1) should the ordinance cover both the parking garages and surface lots; 2) whether the 10 minute time limit was enough time for people to park their vehicles; and 3) whether other options besides the proposed ordinance should be explored to address the problem. The DTC then considered a motion with the following recommendations:
1. that the time limit be extended from 10 to 15 minutes;
2. that a verbal warning be given prior to a written citation;
3. that the City Council direct staff to develop a comprehensive plan to gather data and information about the performance of this ordinance over the next 12 months and that this evaluation be undertaken by the Downtown Improvement Task Force;
4. that the City Council direct the Police Department to develop a policy regarding the issuance of warnings as part of enforcing this ordinance;
5. that the DTC extend qualified support for surface lot inclusion in this ordinance since there is not, at present, adequate information regarding public safety needs in these lots for inclusion in the proposed ordinance; and
6. that adoption of this ordinance balance public safety and civil liberties.
This motion passed 5-1-1, with Commissioner Bisbee opposed and Commissioner Brown absent. Commissioner Brown was out of the country at the time of the Commission meeting and asked that his comments concerning the proposed ordinance be included in the record. His comments are included in Attachment 7. The draft March 23 DTC minutes are included as Attachment 8.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Public Works staff provided additional information to the DTC for its March 23 meeting. This additional information summarized parking maintenance workers’ logs. These employees work the swing shift from 5:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. This summary listed individual log entries by date, location and problem. For the first six months of 2005, parking maintenance workers listed 85 responses to problems in downtown lots and garages. The four highest categories were:
Suspicious Persons 23 (27%)
Camping 17 (20%)
Skateboarders 10 (12%)
Public Restrooms 10 (12%)
Disturbing the Peace 6 (7%)
Total: 66 (78%)
A list of these incidents is included as Attachment 9.
In response to DTC concern about the lack of data regarding incident calls for downtown surface lots, Police Department staff reviewed incident reports for four downtown surface lots: Lincoln and Cedar (Lot 8), Cathcart and Cedar (Lot 4), Elm and Cedar (Lot 9), and Front/Cathcart (Lot 7). In 2005, the lots had the following calls for service:
Lincoln and Cedar (Lot 8) 135 calls
Cathcart and Cedar (Lot 4) 130 calls
Elm and Cedar (Lot 9) 125 calls
Front and Cathcart (Lot 7) 118 calls
Total: 508 calls
The calls for service for the surface lots are similar to the calls for service for the parking garages: 508 calls for surface lots vs. 541 calls for garages. Police Department staff research found the following crime types:
Disturbing the Peace 28 (42%)
Petty Theft 9 (13%)
Suspicious Person/Circumstances 9 (13%)
Vehicle Burglary 7 (10%)
Stolen Vehicle 6 (9%)
Vandalism 3 (4%)
Fight 3 (4%)
Assault/Assault with deadly weapon 2 (3%)
----- ----
Total: 67
Thirteen percent of the garage and surface parking lot calls-for-service fit crime categories. The main differences were a larger percentage of calls in the garages were calls for camping, while the majority of calls for service in the parking lots were for disturbing the peace. While crime types vary, the percentage of calls for service related to crimes or potential crimes is the same. Detailed information by parking lot is included in Attachment 10.
CONCLUSION: Staff has made the following changes to the draft ordinance originally presented on March 16 to the DTC:
* Increased the time limit from 10 minutes to 15 minutes;
* Clarified that the ordinance applies to parking lots and garages in the Downtown Parking District (Parking District No. 1) not the whole city;
* Included a warning as part of the enforcement process;
* Allowed pedestrian use of the parking lot to access neighboring businesses and sidewalks; and
* Allowed the designation of speech-related areas in parking lots and garages.
Public Works and Police Department staff understand the Commission’s interest in recommending a 15 minute rather than a 10 minute time limit for the ordinance. While it will allow more people to comply with the parking requirement, it also increases the risk ofcriminal activity. Because this risk is hard to assess and identify without some experience enforcing the ordinance, staff believes that this is an issue which can be addressed as part of the 12 month evaluation.
The warning component was included in response to concerns about selective enforcement and to address police practice. The pedestrian use and speech-related changes attempt to address concerns raised by the public, including ACLU representatives, during various commission meetings.
FISCAL IMPACT: The major fiscal impacts from the proposed ordinance involve the cost of a public outreach and education program, the 12 month evaluation plan and the information signage program for lots and garages. The public outreach and evaluation plan will be supported by existing public works and police department staff. The signage program will be funded from the Parking Fund.
Report prepared by Matt Farrell, Parking Program Manager.
Submitted by: Mark R. Dettle Director of Public Works
Approved by: Richard C. Wilson City Manager
M:\PW1226 Rpt
Attachments:
~Draft Ordinance
~Attachment 1. Draft January 26 Downtown Commission Minutes
~Attachment 2. Police Incident Calls: Downtown Garages
~Attachment 3. Santa Barbara Parking Lot Ordinance
~Attachment 4. March 1 Commission for the Prevention of Violence Against Women
Action Agenda (Excerpt)
~Attachment 5. ACLU Email
~Attachment 6. Draft March 16 Downtown Commission Minutes
~Attachment 7. Downtown Commissioner Brown’s Comments
~Attachment 8. Draft March 23 Downtown Commission Minutes
~Attachment 9. Parking Maintenance Logs: January-June 2005
~Attachment 10. Police Incident Calls: Downtown Surface Lots
USE OF AND TRESPASSING UPON DOWNTOWN CITY PARKING LOTS AND GARAGES
Sections:
9.64.010 Use of City Parking Lots and Garages.
9.64.020 Parking or Retrieving Motor Vehicles or Bicyles--Time Limitation.
9.64.030 Trespass.
9.64.040 Exceptions.
9.64.010 - USE OF DOWNTOWN CITY PARKING LOTS AND GARAGES
Parking lots and garages owned or operated by the City of Santa Cruz in or adjacent to the Downtown Parking District (Parking District No. 1) shall be used by members of the public only for the purpose of parking and retrieving motor vehicles and bicycles and for no other purpose. Parking lots may also be used by pedestrians to walk from one sidewalk to another or to walk to buildings that border the parking lot.
9.64.020 - PARKING OR RETRIEVING MOTOR VEHICLES OR BICYLES - TIME LIMITATION
When parking a motor vehicle or bicycle in, or retrieving a motor vehicle or bicycle from, a parking lot or garage owned or operated by the City of Santa Cruz, no member of the public, whether driver or passenger, shall remain on the parking lot or garage premises for more than fifteen (15) minutes.
9.64.030 - TRESPASS
Any person who uses a City of Santa Cruz parking lot or garage for purposes other than motor vehicle or bicycle parking or retrieval or pedestrian purposes in violation of Section 9.64.010 or who remains in on City of Santa Cruz parking lot or garage premises for longer than fifteen minutes in violation of Sesction 9.64.020 shall be guilty of trespassing, which offense shall be punishable as an infraction.
9.64.030 - EXCEPTIONS.
(a) This Chapter shall not apply to any person or group of persons using a parking lot or garage owned or operated by the City of Santa Cruz for purposes other than motor vehicle or bicycle parking or retrieval when that person or group of persons is using the parking lot or garage pursuit to a permit issued by the City in accordance with another provision of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code.
(b) This Chapter shall not apply to City employees engaged in the performance of City business or the maintenance of Cityparking lots or garages.
(c) This Chapter shall not apply in ares of City parking lots and garages where there is posted permission to occupy those areas for the purpose of engaging in speech-related conduct and persons so occupying those posted areas are doing so in accordance with the posted permission.
9.64.040 - WARNING
No person shall be cited for violating the provisions of this chapter unless that person has at least one time at any prior period in time received a writtenor verbal warning from a police officer, community services officer or other city employee responsible for the operation or maintenance of City garage and parking lots relative to the conduct which is prohibitedunder this chapter.
[Law to take effect 30 days after final adoption--usually at the 2nd reading]
Sections:
9.64.010 Use of City Parking Lots and Garages.
9.64.020 Parking or Retrieving Motor Vehicles or Bicyles--Time Limitation.
9.64.030 Trespass.
9.64.040 Exceptions.
9.64.010 - USE OF DOWNTOWN CITY PARKING LOTS AND GARAGES
Parking lots and garages owned or operated by the City of Santa Cruz in or adjacent to the Downtown Parking District (Parking District No. 1) shall be used by members of the public only for the purpose of parking and retrieving motor vehicles and bicycles and for no other purpose. Parking lots may also be used by pedestrians to walk from one sidewalk to another or to walk to buildings that border the parking lot.
9.64.020 - PARKING OR RETRIEVING MOTOR VEHICLES OR BICYLES - TIME LIMITATION
When parking a motor vehicle or bicycle in, or retrieving a motor vehicle or bicycle from, a parking lot or garage owned or operated by the City of Santa Cruz, no member of the public, whether driver or passenger, shall remain on the parking lot or garage premises for more than fifteen (15) minutes.
9.64.030 - TRESPASS
Any person who uses a City of Santa Cruz parking lot or garage for purposes other than motor vehicle or bicycle parking or retrieval or pedestrian purposes in violation of Section 9.64.010 or who remains in on City of Santa Cruz parking lot or garage premises for longer than fifteen minutes in violation of Sesction 9.64.020 shall be guilty of trespassing, which offense shall be punishable as an infraction.
9.64.030 - EXCEPTIONS.
(a) This Chapter shall not apply to any person or group of persons using a parking lot or garage owned or operated by the City of Santa Cruz for purposes other than motor vehicle or bicycle parking or retrieval when that person or group of persons is using the parking lot or garage pursuit to a permit issued by the City in accordance with another provision of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code.
(b) This Chapter shall not apply to City employees engaged in the performance of City business or the maintenance of Cityparking lots or garages.
(c) This Chapter shall not apply in ares of City parking lots and garages where there is posted permission to occupy those areas for the purpose of engaging in speech-related conduct and persons so occupying those posted areas are doing so in accordance with the posted permission.
9.64.040 - WARNING
No person shall be cited for violating the provisions of this chapter unless that person has at least one time at any prior period in time received a writtenor verbal warning from a police officer, community services officer or other city employee responsible for the operation or maintenance of City garage and parking lots relative to the conduct which is prohibitedunder this chapter.
[Law to take effect 30 days after final adoption--usually at the 2nd reading]
Under the new law, this man would be economically cleansed from the place where he now goes to try to stay dry
in our recent torrential rains.
in our recent torrential rains.
40 Strikes Against the Parking Lot Trespass Law
“Any person who uses a City of Santa Cruz parking lot or garage for purposes other than a motor vehicle or bicycle parking ... or who remains on City of Santa Cruz parking lot or garage premises for longer than fifteen minutes...shall be guilty of trespassing, which offense shall be punishable as an infraction.”
--proposed new City Council chapter 9.64
Legal Problems:
++It ws presented to the Downtown Commission as a law specifically designed to be selectively enforced (i.e. not against tourists) and is a legal liability for that reason alone.
++The local ACLU has expressed its concern; the National Law Center for Homelessness and Poverty is willing to challenge the law if it passes.
++It prohibits traditional union and political activities (such as putting fliers on cars) except in specially posted “free speech zones”.
Community Problems: Contrary to the Spirit of Santa Cruz
++It backfires on the entire community, drastically limiting everyone’s liberty in the interests of stopping a few bad apples
++It limits those liberties without asking the community what it wants
++It supposes a “crime wave” that doesn’t exist.
++It spreads the “gated community” virus to the center of downtown, imposing the gentrification agenda--fundamentally at odds with traditionally diverse & open Santa Cruz.
++It provides at best the illusion of security without the substance--no additional police resources being committed. It is a “bluff” operating on the basis of fear.
++Street performers like C.J. Stock will be banned from playing in traditional spots.
++It is offensive enough to be likely to prompt public protest and polarize the city further as in 1994 and 2002.
++It is class legislation that allows those with vehicles and bikes privileges in public spaces that the rest of the community will now be denied.
Unwise Expansion of Police Power:
++It expands police power at a time when the SCPD needs more checks and balances not more blank checks.
++Its criminalization focus and increase in police power such as “three strikes” at the state level, “Patriot Act” at the national level follows a bad model.
Bad for Business
++It would unfairly, unwisely, and unnecessarily eliminate the read, socialize, or rest in one’s vehicle, even after one has paid a fee to park one’s car--unlike any other parking lot in America.
++It interferes with a traditional right to privacy in one’s car (limiting you to 15 minutes) which can only be enforced either selectively or abusively--discouraging shoppers and visitors.
++It is a bizarre and unprecedented law which motorists will find oppressive.
++It is special interest legislation which ineffectively but ostentatiously reflects a conservative merchant mentality
++Even numerous merchants from the Downtown Association opposed this law.
++The Downtown Commission never asked the cost of the fines ($100 and up)
Safety Problems
++ It compromises the liberty and ignores the safety of the same women it claims to protect, instead of providing real safeguards, like increased police patrols, community watch, etc.
++It is unclear that removing watching eyes--even those of poor people--improves safety.
Bad Documentation and Phony Solutions
++No statistics show that parking lots and garages are experiencing any crime at a greater rate than elsewhere downtown.
++No comparisons over time indicate any kind of recent “crime wave” requiring this drastic law.
++It is symbolic political gesture similar to the 1994 “Sitting Ban” and the 2002 “No Hackeysacking” law, apparently geared towards the fall elections.
Rushed Process
++It was rushed forward at unprecedented special meetings of the Downtown Commission
++It was rushed through the Downtown Association two days after being introduced over dissenting voices with the public excluded from the final vote.
++Alternatives have not been publicly and seriously considered; instead a prefabricated law has been the focus of all discussion.
Staff Problems
++It does not provide new resources for the understaffed Parking Lot attendants whose concerns prompted this law which might actually address their problems.
++Created out of Parking Lot workers and police officers, it reflects too narrow a perspective.
Anti-Homeless Focus
++It is first and foremost, notwithstanding claims to the contrary, directed against campers and the homeless--and will primarily impact them, as has previous “no parking at night” legislation from Public Works and the SCPD.
++It would have an immediate impact on the health and safety of dozens of homeless people who currently use the garages for temporary shelter against the wind and rain.
++It will explicitly criminalize taking shelter from the rain, even briefly. those without vehicles are not allowed to linger at all. This increases the cost of health hazards like pneumonia
++It adds another layer of criminalization to the homeless, already denied the right to sleep or shelter themselves, in a city with shelter for only 160 of the 1500-2000 homeless here.
++As with change machine placement, bench removal, no Sitting laws, the Sleeping Ban itself, and other anti-homeless laws masquerading as “public safety”, the law will simply move homeless people elsewhere in town.
++The populations impacted (homeless, youth, residents, tourists) have not been seriously approached or their needs considered.
++Like other “move-along” police measures, it will only serve to move homeless people (the main target) to other places--less safe for them and for the general public.
Hypocrisy and Conflict of Interest Problems
++Sheila Coonerty, former Downtown Commission chair and ACLU co-chair forwarded this law to Council, ignoring ACLU concerns.
++Ryan Coonerty (her nephew), City Councilman, Bookshop Santa Cruz employee,and civil liberties teacher, has worked to speed this bill through special sessions of the Downtown Commission. As someone with a financial interest in the Bookshop, he needs to recuse himself.
Overly Broad
++The law, even as amended after three sessions before the Downtown Commission, still has no exemptions for the disabled.
++The amended law provides special exemptions for all city employees.
++Its sweep in taking in both garages and lots is over broad at best; the lots issue is has even less “documentation” than the garages.
++It empowers bureaucrats and bigots to ban individuals from previously public spaces without any cause other than apprehension over their appearance.
Sign the Petition Opposing the Fifteen Minute Trespass Law
Contact City Council at 420-5020: Urge them to Vote it Down.
Organize for Peaceful Protest: Call 831-423-4833
Tell the Downtown Association (429-8433) you’ll shop elsewhere
Flier by HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom) 831-423-4833 309 Cedar #14B Santa Cruz, http://www.huffsantacruz.org 4-10-06
“Any person who uses a City of Santa Cruz parking lot or garage for purposes other than a motor vehicle or bicycle parking ... or who remains on City of Santa Cruz parking lot or garage premises for longer than fifteen minutes...shall be guilty of trespassing, which offense shall be punishable as an infraction.”
--proposed new City Council chapter 9.64
Legal Problems:
++It ws presented to the Downtown Commission as a law specifically designed to be selectively enforced (i.e. not against tourists) and is a legal liability for that reason alone.
++The local ACLU has expressed its concern; the National Law Center for Homelessness and Poverty is willing to challenge the law if it passes.
++It prohibits traditional union and political activities (such as putting fliers on cars) except in specially posted “free speech zones”.
Community Problems: Contrary to the Spirit of Santa Cruz
++It backfires on the entire community, drastically limiting everyone’s liberty in the interests of stopping a few bad apples
++It limits those liberties without asking the community what it wants
++It supposes a “crime wave” that doesn’t exist.
++It spreads the “gated community” virus to the center of downtown, imposing the gentrification agenda--fundamentally at odds with traditionally diverse & open Santa Cruz.
++It provides at best the illusion of security without the substance--no additional police resources being committed. It is a “bluff” operating on the basis of fear.
++Street performers like C.J. Stock will be banned from playing in traditional spots.
++It is offensive enough to be likely to prompt public protest and polarize the city further as in 1994 and 2002.
++It is class legislation that allows those with vehicles and bikes privileges in public spaces that the rest of the community will now be denied.
Unwise Expansion of Police Power:
++It expands police power at a time when the SCPD needs more checks and balances not more blank checks.
++Its criminalization focus and increase in police power such as “three strikes” at the state level, “Patriot Act” at the national level follows a bad model.
Bad for Business
++It would unfairly, unwisely, and unnecessarily eliminate the read, socialize, or rest in one’s vehicle, even after one has paid a fee to park one’s car--unlike any other parking lot in America.
++It interferes with a traditional right to privacy in one’s car (limiting you to 15 minutes) which can only be enforced either selectively or abusively--discouraging shoppers and visitors.
++It is a bizarre and unprecedented law which motorists will find oppressive.
++It is special interest legislation which ineffectively but ostentatiously reflects a conservative merchant mentality
++Even numerous merchants from the Downtown Association opposed this law.
++The Downtown Commission never asked the cost of the fines ($100 and up)
Safety Problems
++ It compromises the liberty and ignores the safety of the same women it claims to protect, instead of providing real safeguards, like increased police patrols, community watch, etc.
++It is unclear that removing watching eyes--even those of poor people--improves safety.
Bad Documentation and Phony Solutions
++No statistics show that parking lots and garages are experiencing any crime at a greater rate than elsewhere downtown.
++No comparisons over time indicate any kind of recent “crime wave” requiring this drastic law.
++It is symbolic political gesture similar to the 1994 “Sitting Ban” and the 2002 “No Hackeysacking” law, apparently geared towards the fall elections.
Rushed Process
++It was rushed forward at unprecedented special meetings of the Downtown Commission
++It was rushed through the Downtown Association two days after being introduced over dissenting voices with the public excluded from the final vote.
++Alternatives have not been publicly and seriously considered; instead a prefabricated law has been the focus of all discussion.
Staff Problems
++It does not provide new resources for the understaffed Parking Lot attendants whose concerns prompted this law which might actually address their problems.
++Created out of Parking Lot workers and police officers, it reflects too narrow a perspective.
Anti-Homeless Focus
++It is first and foremost, notwithstanding claims to the contrary, directed against campers and the homeless--and will primarily impact them, as has previous “no parking at night” legislation from Public Works and the SCPD.
++It would have an immediate impact on the health and safety of dozens of homeless people who currently use the garages for temporary shelter against the wind and rain.
++It will explicitly criminalize taking shelter from the rain, even briefly. those without vehicles are not allowed to linger at all. This increases the cost of health hazards like pneumonia
++It adds another layer of criminalization to the homeless, already denied the right to sleep or shelter themselves, in a city with shelter for only 160 of the 1500-2000 homeless here.
++As with change machine placement, bench removal, no Sitting laws, the Sleeping Ban itself, and other anti-homeless laws masquerading as “public safety”, the law will simply move homeless people elsewhere in town.
++The populations impacted (homeless, youth, residents, tourists) have not been seriously approached or their needs considered.
++Like other “move-along” police measures, it will only serve to move homeless people (the main target) to other places--less safe for them and for the general public.
Hypocrisy and Conflict of Interest Problems
++Sheila Coonerty, former Downtown Commission chair and ACLU co-chair forwarded this law to Council, ignoring ACLU concerns.
++Ryan Coonerty (her nephew), City Councilman, Bookshop Santa Cruz employee,and civil liberties teacher, has worked to speed this bill through special sessions of the Downtown Commission. As someone with a financial interest in the Bookshop, he needs to recuse himself.
Overly Broad
++The law, even as amended after three sessions before the Downtown Commission, still has no exemptions for the disabled.
++The amended law provides special exemptions for all city employees.
++Its sweep in taking in both garages and lots is over broad at best; the lots issue is has even less “documentation” than the garages.
++It empowers bureaucrats and bigots to ban individuals from previously public spaces without any cause other than apprehension over their appearance.
Sign the Petition Opposing the Fifteen Minute Trespass Law
Contact City Council at 420-5020: Urge them to Vote it Down.
Organize for Peaceful Protest: Call 831-423-4833
Tell the Downtown Association (429-8433) you’ll shop elsewhere
Flier by HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom) 831-423-4833 309 Cedar #14B Santa Cruz, http://www.huffsantacruz.org 4-10-06
This man on occasion takes refuge in this overhang off the Cedar & Church St. parking garage. Next month, if Matt Farrell gets his way, this man will be out in the rain.
For more information:
http://www.huffsantacruz.org
Any takers? Robert?
For more information:
http://www.pagesincolor.com
15-MINUTE PARKING LOT RESTRICTION (MC 9.64) UP FOR A SECOND READING TUESDAY
Santa Cruz, Ca. -- Parks & Rec maintenance staff and the police have cooked up a fake problem and are pushing through a draconian solution that will turn virtually everyone who lingers in a parking lot or parking garage downtown into a criminal. Both Sentinel writer, Shana McCord and city staff testimony have emphasized frightening issues such as drug use, car burglary, and assaults on women as the "problem" necessitating an ordinance which designates persons in downtown PUBLIC lots and garages (that the city taxpayers bought for millions of dollars and pay to operate) be cited if they remain longer than 15 minutes for any reason--including nursing a baby, listening to the radio in your car, or waiting for a spouse to come back from shopping. Actual stats showed that only about 1% of all SCPD "calls for service" were in downtown parking lots or garages.
If you are unable to come down and speak against the ordinance (item #19 on the afternoon session), please communicate with Mayor Cynthia Mathews (a vigorous proponent) and the council about your opposition at citycouncil [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us .
"People can't take public spaces and monopolize it so others can't use it."
--- Matt Farrell Jan 2006
Public Works Parking Dept. head, Matt Farrell is the prime actor pushing this ordinance in order to meet the "needs of his staff." Once the law is passed, the public will no longer be able to use public facilities while HIS STAFF will have exclusive use 24-hours a day.
HUFF AND THE HRO ARE SPONSORING A RALLY BEGINNING AT 3PM
OUTSIDE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 809 CENTER ST. FREE FOOD AND BEVERAGES!
BRING A SIGN! BE PREPARED TO SPEAK OUT AGAINST THE GIVEAWAY OF PUBLIC SPACES!
-- Becky Johnson of HUFF
Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom
309 Cedar St. PMB 14B
Santa Cruz, Ca. 95060
(831)423-HUFF
http://www.huffsantacruz.org
FROM: The City of Santa Cruz website:
19. Ordinance No. 2006-04 Adding Chapter 9.64 to the Santa Cruz Municipal Code Pertaining to the Use of Downtown City Parking Lots and Garages and Trespassing Thereupon. (ord_2006-04)
Final adoption of Ordinance No. 2006-04.
Santa Cruz, Ca. -- Parks & Rec maintenance staff and the police have cooked up a fake problem and are pushing through a draconian solution that will turn virtually everyone who lingers in a parking lot or parking garage downtown into a criminal. Both Sentinel writer, Shana McCord and city staff testimony have emphasized frightening issues such as drug use, car burglary, and assaults on women as the "problem" necessitating an ordinance which designates persons in downtown PUBLIC lots and garages (that the city taxpayers bought for millions of dollars and pay to operate) be cited if they remain longer than 15 minutes for any reason--including nursing a baby, listening to the radio in your car, or waiting for a spouse to come back from shopping. Actual stats showed that only about 1% of all SCPD "calls for service" were in downtown parking lots or garages.
If you are unable to come down and speak against the ordinance (item #19 on the afternoon session), please communicate with Mayor Cynthia Mathews (a vigorous proponent) and the council about your opposition at citycouncil [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us .
"People can't take public spaces and monopolize it so others can't use it."
--- Matt Farrell Jan 2006
Public Works Parking Dept. head, Matt Farrell is the prime actor pushing this ordinance in order to meet the "needs of his staff." Once the law is passed, the public will no longer be able to use public facilities while HIS STAFF will have exclusive use 24-hours a day.
HUFF AND THE HRO ARE SPONSORING A RALLY BEGINNING AT 3PM
OUTSIDE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 809 CENTER ST. FREE FOOD AND BEVERAGES!
BRING A SIGN! BE PREPARED TO SPEAK OUT AGAINST THE GIVEAWAY OF PUBLIC SPACES!
-- Becky Johnson of HUFF
Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom
309 Cedar St. PMB 14B
Santa Cruz, Ca. 95060
(831)423-HUFF
http://www.huffsantacruz.org
FROM: The City of Santa Cruz website:
19. Ordinance No. 2006-04 Adding Chapter 9.64 to the Santa Cruz Municipal Code Pertaining to the Use of Downtown City Parking Lots and Garages and Trespassing Thereupon. (ord_2006-04)
Final adoption of Ordinance No. 2006-04.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$35.00 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