Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Fifteen Minute Parking Lot "Panic" Law At Council Today (4/25)
Everyone's invited to a 2:30 PM protest today (4-25) at City Hall (809 Center St.) against the Fifteen Minute Trespass law. The second and final reading will happen at the afternoon session of City Council at 3 PM (the item to reach the agenda probably sometime between 3:30 and 5 PM). Public comment can also be made, after the fact, at 7 PM during Oral Communications.
Council will receive e-mail regarding items on the agenda during the meeting at viewpoint [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us. E-mail may be sent to the Council at all other times to citycouncil [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us
For more info, check out indybay.org/santacruz .
Here's a revised edition of the Fifteen Minute Trespass Law flier.
46 Strikes Against the Parking Lot Panic 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: Contrary to the Pre-Bush Constitution
++It was presented to the Downtown Commission as a law
specifically designed to be selectively enforced (i.e. not against upscale
tourists); it is a legal liability for that reason alone.
++The local ACLU has expressed its concern; the National Law
Center for Homelessness and Poverty is interested in challenging the law
when 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 Traditional Practice in Santa Cruz
++It backfires on the entire community, drastically limiting
everyone’s liberty in the interests of stopping a few bad apples. Instead
of focusing on specific crimes, it criminalizes everyone.
++It removes traditional liberties without polling the community
it is “protecting”.
++It supposes an undocumented “crime wave”. No crime figures
are given for past years.
++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”.
It may create more work for the police not less.
++Street musicians 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
++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.
++It eliminates 8-10 square blocks of previously accessible public
space downtown.
Unwise Expansion of Police Power: Contrary to Proper Procedure
++It expands police power at a time when the SCPD needs more
checks and balances not more blank checks. Its implicit selective
enforcement requirement invites abuse.
++Its criminalize-the-innocent focus models unwise examples such
as the California “three strikes” law & the national “Patriot Act”,
localizing bad precedents.
Bad for Business: Contrary to What Draws Tourists
++It would unfairly, unwisely, and unnecessarily eliminate the right
to read, socialize, or rest in one’s vehicle, even after paying a fee to
park one’s car--unlike most other cities in California.
++It destroys a traditional right to privacy in one’s car (limiting it
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 and knee-jerk
staff preference for exclusionary solutions.
++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: Contrary to Common Sense
++ It compromises the liberty and ignores the safety of the same
women it claims to protect, instead of providing potential safeguards, like
increased police patrols, community watch, etc.
++It is unclear that removing watching eyes--even those of poor
people--improves safety.
++Its 15-minute time limit will encourage drunk drivers to drive home
rather than “sleep it off”.
Bad Documentation and Phony Solutions: Contrary to Actual Statistics
++No statistics show that parking lots and garages are experiencing
any crime at a greater rate than elsewhere downtown. Why not extend the
“Fifteen Minute Solution” throughout town?
++No comparisons over time indicate any kind of recent “crime wave”
requiring this drastic law.
++It is a symbolic & negative political gesture similar to the 1994
“Sitting Ban” and the 2002 “No Hackeysacking” law. Is City Council trying
to create a image for the fall elections?
Rushed Tactics Bypassing the Public: Contrary to Wise Process
++It was rushed through unprecedented special meetings of the Downtown
Commission [DC]
++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. The DC
chair’s request for more time was denied on 4-11.
++The Council ignored ACLU pleas for more time & scheduled comment for
afternoon not night
Staff Problems: Contrary to Effective Realistic Solutions
++It provides no new resources--these which might actually address
their problems--for the understaffed Parking Lot attendants whose concerns
prompted this law .
++Created by Parking workers and police officers, it reflects too
narrow a perspective.
Anti-Homeless Focus: Institutionalized & Explicit Hate Crime Law
++It is first and foremost, notwithstanding claims to the contrary,
consciously directed against the involuntary homeless. It is part of a
broader attack from Public Works and the SCPD including “no parking at
night” signage, San Lorenzo Park “no smoking” posting, & new Park closing
hours.
++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 ban taking shelter from the rain, even briefly.
those without vehicles are not allowed to linger at all. This exacerbates
health problems like pneumonia and is unconscionable.
++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 around--creating
the need for more “safety laws” in new spots .
++The populations impacted (homeless, youth, residents, tourists) have
not been seriously approached or their needs adequately considered.
++Complaints about homeless people leaving litter, going to the
bathroom where they must, and camping ignore inadequate trash receptacles,
closed bathrooms, and the shelter emergency.
++Hysteria and humbug: the law both presupposes, uses, and furthers a
false and mean-spirited stereotyping of homeless people as fearsome &
loathsome criminals, which implicitly denies their worth and rights, based
on middle-class fears & fantasies rather than human realities .
Politician Hypocrisy and Conflict of Interest Problems
++Sheila Coonerty, former Downtown Commission chair and ACLU co-chair
forwarded this law to Council, ignoring ACLU concerns. ACLU’s “Riot Act”
Rotkin forcefully backed it on 4-11.
++Ryan Coonerty (Sheila’s nephew), City Councilman, Bookshop Santa
Cruz employee,& civil liberties teacher, has pressured this bill through
special sessions of the Downtown Commission. Though he has financial
interest, he did not recuse himself in the 4-11 vote.
Overly Broad Special-Interest Law: Contrary to Fair & Equal Treatment
++The law, even as amended after three sessions before the DC and one
before City Council, still has no exemptions for the disabled. Disabled
activists say it violates federal law.
++The law provides special-interest exemptions for all city employees
“doing city business”.
++Its sweep in taking in both garages and lots is over broad at best;
the lots issue is has even less “documentation” around supposed problems
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 Theater of Protest: Call 831-423-4833
Tell the Downtown Association (429-8433) you’ll shop elsewhere.
Flier by Norse of HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom) 831-423-4833 309
Cedar #14B Santa Cruz, http://www.huffsantacruz.org 4-25-06
For more info, check out indybay.org/santacruz .
Here's a revised edition of the Fifteen Minute Trespass Law flier.
46 Strikes Against the Parking Lot Panic 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: Contrary to the Pre-Bush Constitution
++It was presented to the Downtown Commission as a law
specifically designed to be selectively enforced (i.e. not against upscale
tourists); it is a legal liability for that reason alone.
++The local ACLU has expressed its concern; the National Law
Center for Homelessness and Poverty is interested in challenging the law
when 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 Traditional Practice in Santa Cruz
++It backfires on the entire community, drastically limiting
everyone’s liberty in the interests of stopping a few bad apples. Instead
of focusing on specific crimes, it criminalizes everyone.
++It removes traditional liberties without polling the community
it is “protecting”.
++It supposes an undocumented “crime wave”. No crime figures
are given for past years.
++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”.
It may create more work for the police not less.
++Street musicians 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
++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.
++It eliminates 8-10 square blocks of previously accessible public
space downtown.
Unwise Expansion of Police Power: Contrary to Proper Procedure
++It expands police power at a time when the SCPD needs more
checks and balances not more blank checks. Its implicit selective
enforcement requirement invites abuse.
++Its criminalize-the-innocent focus models unwise examples such
as the California “three strikes” law & the national “Patriot Act”,
localizing bad precedents.
Bad for Business: Contrary to What Draws Tourists
++It would unfairly, unwisely, and unnecessarily eliminate the right
to read, socialize, or rest in one’s vehicle, even after paying a fee to
park one’s car--unlike most other cities in California.
++It destroys a traditional right to privacy in one’s car (limiting it
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 and knee-jerk
staff preference for exclusionary solutions.
++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: Contrary to Common Sense
++ It compromises the liberty and ignores the safety of the same
women it claims to protect, instead of providing potential safeguards, like
increased police patrols, community watch, etc.
++It is unclear that removing watching eyes--even those of poor
people--improves safety.
++Its 15-minute time limit will encourage drunk drivers to drive home
rather than “sleep it off”.
Bad Documentation and Phony Solutions: Contrary to Actual Statistics
++No statistics show that parking lots and garages are experiencing
any crime at a greater rate than elsewhere downtown. Why not extend the
“Fifteen Minute Solution” throughout town?
++No comparisons over time indicate any kind of recent “crime wave”
requiring this drastic law.
++It is a symbolic & negative political gesture similar to the 1994
“Sitting Ban” and the 2002 “No Hackeysacking” law. Is City Council trying
to create a image for the fall elections?
Rushed Tactics Bypassing the Public: Contrary to Wise Process
++It was rushed through unprecedented special meetings of the Downtown
Commission [DC]
++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. The DC
chair’s request for more time was denied on 4-11.
++The Council ignored ACLU pleas for more time & scheduled comment for
afternoon not night
Staff Problems: Contrary to Effective Realistic Solutions
++It provides no new resources--these which might actually address
their problems--for the understaffed Parking Lot attendants whose concerns
prompted this law .
++Created by Parking workers and police officers, it reflects too
narrow a perspective.
Anti-Homeless Focus: Institutionalized & Explicit Hate Crime Law
++It is first and foremost, notwithstanding claims to the contrary,
consciously directed against the involuntary homeless. It is part of a
broader attack from Public Works and the SCPD including “no parking at
night” signage, San Lorenzo Park “no smoking” posting, & new Park closing
hours.
++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 ban taking shelter from the rain, even briefly.
those without vehicles are not allowed to linger at all. This exacerbates
health problems like pneumonia and is unconscionable.
++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 around--creating
the need for more “safety laws” in new spots .
++The populations impacted (homeless, youth, residents, tourists) have
not been seriously approached or their needs adequately considered.
++Complaints about homeless people leaving litter, going to the
bathroom where they must, and camping ignore inadequate trash receptacles,
closed bathrooms, and the shelter emergency.
++Hysteria and humbug: the law both presupposes, uses, and furthers a
false and mean-spirited stereotyping of homeless people as fearsome &
loathsome criminals, which implicitly denies their worth and rights, based
on middle-class fears & fantasies rather than human realities .
Politician Hypocrisy and Conflict of Interest Problems
++Sheila Coonerty, former Downtown Commission chair and ACLU co-chair
forwarded this law to Council, ignoring ACLU concerns. ACLU’s “Riot Act”
Rotkin forcefully backed it on 4-11.
++Ryan Coonerty (Sheila’s nephew), City Councilman, Bookshop Santa
Cruz employee,& civil liberties teacher, has pressured this bill through
special sessions of the Downtown Commission. Though he has financial
interest, he did not recuse himself in the 4-11 vote.
Overly Broad Special-Interest Law: Contrary to Fair & Equal Treatment
++The law, even as amended after three sessions before the DC and one
before City Council, still has no exemptions for the disabled. Disabled
activists say it violates federal law.
++The law provides special-interest exemptions for all city employees
“doing city business”.
++Its sweep in taking in both garages and lots is over broad at best;
the lots issue is has even less “documentation” around supposed problems
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 Theater of Protest: Call 831-423-4833
Tell the Downtown Association (429-8433) you’ll shop elsewhere.
Flier by Norse of HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom) 831-423-4833 309
Cedar #14B Santa Cruz, http://www.huffsantacruz.org 4-25-06
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Escalating doubts, a packed Council agenda, a new critical local (!) ACLU report, e-mails from disabled critics, and everlovin' activism combined to prompt a two-week delay. Second reading and final passage of the 15-Minute law had been considered a foregone conclusion (and may still be), but the Councilmembers sounded like they were getting nervous and perhaps preparing to rewrite it.
Human Rights Organization activists held a small demonstration outside the Council; Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom activists circulated flyers, prepared to play pretaped testimony from street performer C.J. Stock, and secured from Mayor Mathews permission to speak for five minutes (as groups are traditionally allowed to do at Public Hearings).
The principal supporter of the law, Public Works wank, Matt Farrell, admitted he had no new information to provide at the hearing. Councilmember Rotkin had requested more information on the parking lots (as distinguished from the parking garages). But Deputy Chief Vogel told me that he had no new information on the 19 surface lots (such as the number of crimes reported) there.
I also credit the presence of local ACLUer Don Zimmermann with a having a significant impact--on the ACLU, on the Downtown commission, and on City Council. His position was not ideal (he and then the ACLU seemed to okay banning the constitution in parking garages but not in parking lots in the name of "public safety"), but his active involvement has raised the basic civil liberties issues (though not those involving the homeless per se) above the waterline.
Rotkin was even wearing a button that read "I am a card-carrying ACLU member". He may be feeling the heat.
Now's the time to put on the pressure--phone City Council at 420-5020 and ask them to send this matter back to the Downtown Commission for a real examination of meaningful alternatives rather than another police-puffing law that removes public space. If the parking lots and garages have problems, let's talk about 'em.
Human Rights Organization activists held a small demonstration outside the Council; Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom activists circulated flyers, prepared to play pretaped testimony from street performer C.J. Stock, and secured from Mayor Mathews permission to speak for five minutes (as groups are traditionally allowed to do at Public Hearings).
The principal supporter of the law, Public Works wank, Matt Farrell, admitted he had no new information to provide at the hearing. Councilmember Rotkin had requested more information on the parking lots (as distinguished from the parking garages). But Deputy Chief Vogel told me that he had no new information on the 19 surface lots (such as the number of crimes reported) there.
I also credit the presence of local ACLUer Don Zimmermann with a having a significant impact--on the ACLU, on the Downtown commission, and on City Council. His position was not ideal (he and then the ACLU seemed to okay banning the constitution in parking garages but not in parking lots in the name of "public safety"), but his active involvement has raised the basic civil liberties issues (though not those involving the homeless per se) above the waterline.
Rotkin was even wearing a button that read "I am a card-carrying ACLU member". He may be feeling the heat.
Now's the time to put on the pressure--phone City Council at 420-5020 and ask them to send this matter back to the Downtown Commission for a real examination of meaningful alternatives rather than another police-puffing law that removes public space. If the parking lots and garages have problems, let's talk about 'em.
>From: Donna Deiss
>Subject: parking garage ordnance
>To: citycouncil [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us
>
> City Council: This proposed ordnance is draconian and anti-progressive. During a time of increased Republican suppression of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and the freedom to be in public space for all, we need to either get at root causes of problems or resist imposing more restrictions on people downtown.
>
> Ticketing locals when parking is not easily available has hurt downtown business more than anything else and has also discouraged many tourists from coming back here twice. For the disabled and seniors it is even worse. If the right wing conservatives knew what was going on here with some of the local ordnances and policies they would have a field day!!
>
> Thank you, Donna Deiss,
[e-mail and street address omitted]
Donna Deiss has been active in tenants rights issues locally for several decades. This law is still on City Council's active list and will be coming up for a vote at the afternoon session of City Council Tuesday May 9th. Check out http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/04/1817776.php for more
details.
Sidenote: indybay again seems to be censoring Becky Johnson's posts on this issue. This is doubly unfortunate because she has written tellingly on the subject
(see http://www.thestreetspirit.org/March2006/santacruz.htm)
Additional materials can be found in the Main Branch of the Public Library downtown in the Agenda Packets for 4-11, 4-25, and (a few days before) 5-9. There's also a special folder entitled something like "Parking Lot Trespass Law" at the Reference Desk.
When I spoke with Ryan Coonerty, the Councilmember most active in rushing this law forward, he said he would seek no changes in the law--even to accomodate disabled people or to respond to a negative report from the local American Civil Liberties Union.
It's most unusual for the local ACLU (which has Councilmember and Shadow Mayor Mike Rotkin on its Board of Directors) to take issue with City Council on local civil liberties issues--particularly those that target the homeless, as this one does.
The ACLU report should soon be posted at http://www.huffsantacruz.org
Some homeless activists have also suggested they might be organizing direct action protests if the law passes.
There's lots of Free Radio Santa Cruz discussion of this law on my radio show, archived at http://www.huffsantacruz under "Bathrobespierre's Broadsides".
Contact City Council directly with your opposition at:
citycouncil [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us .
--Robert Norse
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