Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Of Bans and Bookshops - An Open Letter
An open letter to Ryan Coonerty and Bookshop Santa Cruz management in response to their banning of Becky Johnson and Bernard Klitzner from Bookshop Santa Cruz.
Dear Ryan/BookShop Santa Cruz Management,
This is a request on my part to be added to your list of individuals banned from Bookshop Santa Cruz, as it is a mere accident of timing that I haven't been participating in the recent round of protests, and I have provided significant logistical support at various points to these activities and thus by the logic of your decisions in other cases deserve to be banned as well. I've been meaning to write this letter for a while, but comments elsewhere about the protest finally motivated me to take action.
I find your attempt to connect the organizers of the protest to the unfortunate and deplorable incidents of vandalism at Bookshop Santa Cruz absurd, and your decision to ban two of my activist friends, Becky Johnson and Bernard Klitzner, from the premises, even more so... and thus, in response, I've ceased patronizing your store, and will not venture on the premises again (at least until the ban on these individuals and Robert Norse, as well, is lifted).
This I do, despite the fact that until you took this action, I was perfectly willing to continue shopping at your store - even knowing that my friend and activist associate Robert Norse was banned from the premises: once is an anomaly, three times and counting is clearly a policy. If you look at your records (I'm sure some record is preserved with my Readers account), you'll see that I patronized your store many times over the years (spending hundreds of dollars in the process), and even quite recently (several times in the last year). A significant proportion of the technical books I've acquired in support of my computer consulting efforts have been purchased at your shop over the years, and whatever "disposable" income I have is very likely to go towards books, ahead of anything else.
To demonstrate, the one thing my mother and I did together on a recent weekend visit was go on a book buying expedition downtown. We were in quest of Richard Rothstein's latest book, "Class and Schools — Using Social, Economic, and Educational Reform to Close the Black-White Achievement Gap", after it was mentioned on an email list run my local education activists. To demonstrate my book addiction, I wound up spending $20 at Logos before I escaped the premises - I just couldn't resist the temptation. :)
Why was I at Logos? Because of your decision to ban Bernard and Becky. Otherwise, we would have gone straight to the Bookshop. Where did I go next? Borders, which I normally refuse to patronize. Note: I did not buy anything there. Where did we go next? Your store - but as I explained to my mother, I'm no longer comfortable patronizing your business, so I escorted her to the threshold and waited outside. Where, as I said, I will remain, until such time as the ban on Becky, Bernard and Robert is lifted.
Your formerly loyal customer,
Thomas Leavitt
P.S. Let me make it clear - while this action was precipitated by Bookshop management's decision to ban Bernard and Becky from the premises, I have in no way been ignoring Ryan's support of Santa Cruz's unconscionable, unconstitutional and inhumane ban on sleeping. How he squares his positions on this and other local issues with his support for civil liberties and civil rights elsewhere is beyond me. Why our local City Council can't find a way to ensure that every resident of the town has a safe and legal place to sleep - SOMEWHERE (not "anywhere"), is beyond me.
Nor do I find it anything but completely acceptable political practice to engage in a protest aimed at a politican's business - I myself have paid quite a steep economic price over the years for my personal and political points of view, including as a result of my association with Robert Norse, I'm sure. This is part of the price you pay for participation in the public square - people make business decisions every day that are based on values and principles, as well as on economics (witness the entire field of "socially responsible investing").
For Ryan (or the Santa Cruz Sentinel) to claim a pass for the Bookshop is ridiculous... even more so, given the extremely limited scope of the protest (a few hours at most, on Sunday afternoons) and the fact that the protestors even acknowledge that most people will continue to patronize the Bookshop and in that case merely encourage people to communicate their support for changing the city's policies with regards to homelessness to Ryan through the bookstore. Ryan's actions in response to the protests have probably generated more attention for it than all the protestor's actions combined, and in turn, have probably caused more harm to the Bookshop's reputation and business, than all the calls by Robert Norse for a boycott over the last decade.
This is a request on my part to be added to your list of individuals banned from Bookshop Santa Cruz, as it is a mere accident of timing that I haven't been participating in the recent round of protests, and I have provided significant logistical support at various points to these activities and thus by the logic of your decisions in other cases deserve to be banned as well. I've been meaning to write this letter for a while, but comments elsewhere about the protest finally motivated me to take action.
I find your attempt to connect the organizers of the protest to the unfortunate and deplorable incidents of vandalism at Bookshop Santa Cruz absurd, and your decision to ban two of my activist friends, Becky Johnson and Bernard Klitzner, from the premises, even more so... and thus, in response, I've ceased patronizing your store, and will not venture on the premises again (at least until the ban on these individuals and Robert Norse, as well, is lifted).
This I do, despite the fact that until you took this action, I was perfectly willing to continue shopping at your store - even knowing that my friend and activist associate Robert Norse was banned from the premises: once is an anomaly, three times and counting is clearly a policy. If you look at your records (I'm sure some record is preserved with my Readers account), you'll see that I patronized your store many times over the years (spending hundreds of dollars in the process), and even quite recently (several times in the last year). A significant proportion of the technical books I've acquired in support of my computer consulting efforts have been purchased at your shop over the years, and whatever "disposable" income I have is very likely to go towards books, ahead of anything else.
To demonstrate, the one thing my mother and I did together on a recent weekend visit was go on a book buying expedition downtown. We were in quest of Richard Rothstein's latest book, "Class and Schools — Using Social, Economic, and Educational Reform to Close the Black-White Achievement Gap", after it was mentioned on an email list run my local education activists. To demonstrate my book addiction, I wound up spending $20 at Logos before I escaped the premises - I just couldn't resist the temptation. :)
Why was I at Logos? Because of your decision to ban Bernard and Becky. Otherwise, we would have gone straight to the Bookshop. Where did I go next? Borders, which I normally refuse to patronize. Note: I did not buy anything there. Where did we go next? Your store - but as I explained to my mother, I'm no longer comfortable patronizing your business, so I escorted her to the threshold and waited outside. Where, as I said, I will remain, until such time as the ban on Becky, Bernard and Robert is lifted.
Your formerly loyal customer,
Thomas Leavitt
P.S. Let me make it clear - while this action was precipitated by Bookshop management's decision to ban Bernard and Becky from the premises, I have in no way been ignoring Ryan's support of Santa Cruz's unconscionable, unconstitutional and inhumane ban on sleeping. How he squares his positions on this and other local issues with his support for civil liberties and civil rights elsewhere is beyond me. Why our local City Council can't find a way to ensure that every resident of the town has a safe and legal place to sleep - SOMEWHERE (not "anywhere"), is beyond me.
Nor do I find it anything but completely acceptable political practice to engage in a protest aimed at a politican's business - I myself have paid quite a steep economic price over the years for my personal and political points of view, including as a result of my association with Robert Norse, I'm sure. This is part of the price you pay for participation in the public square - people make business decisions every day that are based on values and principles, as well as on economics (witness the entire field of "socially responsible investing").
For Ryan (or the Santa Cruz Sentinel) to claim a pass for the Bookshop is ridiculous... even more so, given the extremely limited scope of the protest (a few hours at most, on Sunday afternoons) and the fact that the protestors even acknowledge that most people will continue to patronize the Bookshop and in that case merely encourage people to communicate their support for changing the city's policies with regards to homelessness to Ryan through the bookstore. Ryan's actions in response to the protests have probably generated more attention for it than all the protestor's actions combined, and in turn, have probably caused more harm to the Bookshop's reputation and business, than all the calls by Robert Norse for a boycott over the last decade.
For more information:
http://www.huffsantacruz.org/
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
"Nor do I find it anything but completely acceptable political practice to engage in a protest aimed at a politican's business - I myself have paid quite a steep economic price over the years for my personal and political points of view, including as a result of my association with Robert Norse, I'm sure. This is part of the price you pay for participation in the public square - people make business decisions every day that are based on values and principles, as well as on economics (witness the entire field of "socially responsible investing")."
UH -- what are your limits on this?
For example, I live in New England, small town where we still decide things in open town meetings. Not secret ballot so you know how your neighbors vote on issues. We are all "politicians" so to speak. Are you arguing that if you can't get enough votes for your side of some issue by ordinary democratic means, trying to convince those who are on the other side, that it would be perfectly OK to threaten to go after their private "business interests" if they raise their hands on the wrong side of the question?
Do you understand what I am trying to say here? Be honest about whether you are actually for or against "democracy". It is one thing to argue for reprisals kept within the political realm (vote against us on issue A and we'll vote against you on issues B, C, D, etc. where we would otherwise have been neutral) and taking this outside that realm.
I am NOT taking a position here on the "right to sleep" question but strategy. It seems to me that your "problem" is that you can't seem to get enough citizens to agree with your posiiton on "right to sleep" to be able to win by democratic means and so as a result you want to take the fight into "other arenas".
UH -- what are your limits on this?
For example, I live in New England, small town where we still decide things in open town meetings. Not secret ballot so you know how your neighbors vote on issues. We are all "politicians" so to speak. Are you arguing that if you can't get enough votes for your side of some issue by ordinary democratic means, trying to convince those who are on the other side, that it would be perfectly OK to threaten to go after their private "business interests" if they raise their hands on the wrong side of the question?
Do you understand what I am trying to say here? Be honest about whether you are actually for or against "democracy". It is one thing to argue for reprisals kept within the political realm (vote against us on issue A and we'll vote against you on issues B, C, D, etc. where we would otherwise have been neutral) and taking this outside that realm.
I am NOT taking a position here on the "right to sleep" question but strategy. It seems to me that your "problem" is that you can't seem to get enough citizens to agree with your posiiton on "right to sleep" to be able to win by democratic means and so as a result you want to take the fight into "other arenas".
This business, Bookshop Santa Cruz, is the source of much anti-homeless legislation. Neal Coonerty pushed the sit/lie law of 1994 which resulted in huge protests and a constitutional challenge in court. More recently, Sheila Coonerty proposed and supported the "move-along" law which allows political tables only 1 hour of free speech at any location in a 24-hr period. Ryan Coonerty pushed the 15-minute law in the garages because "his customers felt uncomfortable." Ryan is currently wanting to expand this to ALL surface lots as well, removing even more public space from public use.
Ryan Coonerty also volunteered to be the point person on homeless issues on the City Council. Normally HUFF would address such protests against the Mayor. He refuses to meet with us. Refuses to agendize our item for City Council discussion. And refuses to release City Attorney John Barisone's "secret" memo which explains why Santa Cruz doesn't have to comply with the 2006 9th Circuit Court of Appeals "Jones" decision which ruled a city may not criminalize a person for sleeping or covering up from the elements at night in a situation in which inadequate shelter exists. It is forbidden under the 8th amendments prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment". Santa Cruz is exactly in this situation. Barisone thinks our law is legal because "they can sleep in the day." That is NOT what the 9th circuit court ruled!!
HUFF has, in the past, targeted other businesses for different reasons. We targeted the Pacific Trading Company for their part in removal of the public seating area around the planter in front of their store as an anti-homeless measure. We targeted Lulu Carpenters when owner Manthri Srinath assaulted Shane Maxfield two full business fronts away from his store and then had the police arrest him for "aggressive panhandling." Those charges were never filed.
There is division within HUFF as to whether our protest has escalated to a boycott. Many members merely wanted BSSC customers to ask Coonerty about his anti-homeless stances. However, a boycott is a completely legal and legitimate form of protest and an acceptable pressure tactic to urge electeds to do the right thing.
The Sentinel has libelously connected our Homies for the Homeless protest from Aug 12 -Aug 19th with the tagging of City Hall by unknown persons on Sept 19. Zach Friend also "smeared" the protest with unsubstantiated charges of feces-smearing, sexual harassment, and drug use. No such citations were issued in the 6 days of protest nor were any of these allegations formalized into either a 9-11 phone call or a written complaint. Instead, they were cooked up between police and city staff then formerly shared with the Sentinel.
Coonerty bans me from BSSC as "vice-mayor" demonstrating his own abuse of power. Thanks to Thomas Leavitt for speaking out against Coonerty's shenanigans and for the rights of homeless people to sleep at night as the Jones decision has mandated.
Ryan Coonerty also volunteered to be the point person on homeless issues on the City Council. Normally HUFF would address such protests against the Mayor. He refuses to meet with us. Refuses to agendize our item for City Council discussion. And refuses to release City Attorney John Barisone's "secret" memo which explains why Santa Cruz doesn't have to comply with the 2006 9th Circuit Court of Appeals "Jones" decision which ruled a city may not criminalize a person for sleeping or covering up from the elements at night in a situation in which inadequate shelter exists. It is forbidden under the 8th amendments prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment". Santa Cruz is exactly in this situation. Barisone thinks our law is legal because "they can sleep in the day." That is NOT what the 9th circuit court ruled!!
HUFF has, in the past, targeted other businesses for different reasons. We targeted the Pacific Trading Company for their part in removal of the public seating area around the planter in front of their store as an anti-homeless measure. We targeted Lulu Carpenters when owner Manthri Srinath assaulted Shane Maxfield two full business fronts away from his store and then had the police arrest him for "aggressive panhandling." Those charges were never filed.
There is division within HUFF as to whether our protest has escalated to a boycott. Many members merely wanted BSSC customers to ask Coonerty about his anti-homeless stances. However, a boycott is a completely legal and legitimate form of protest and an acceptable pressure tactic to urge electeds to do the right thing.
The Sentinel has libelously connected our Homies for the Homeless protest from Aug 12 -Aug 19th with the tagging of City Hall by unknown persons on Sept 19. Zach Friend also "smeared" the protest with unsubstantiated charges of feces-smearing, sexual harassment, and drug use. No such citations were issued in the 6 days of protest nor were any of these allegations formalized into either a 9-11 phone call or a written complaint. Instead, they were cooked up between police and city staff then formerly shared with the Sentinel.
Coonerty bans me from BSSC as "vice-mayor" demonstrating his own abuse of power. Thanks to Thomas Leavitt for speaking out against Coonerty's shenanigans and for the rights of homeless people to sleep at night as the Jones decision has mandated.
For more information:
http://www.huffsantacruz.org
Here is a quotation from the Santa Cruz Sentinel
"
"The ban has been very effective in sending the message that Santa Cruz ... doesn't invite the homeless to sleep outdoors," Councilman Mike Rotkin said. "Sleeping outside is not something you can do whenever and wherever you want"
Despite ongoing demonstrations against the camping ban, city leaders say accusations that they don't help the homeless are "ridiculous"
The City Council allocated nearly $400,000 for homeless services in their 2007-08 budget, including an additional $50,000 for the Rowland and Pat Rebele Family Shelter on Coral Street. Their support includes more than $80,000 to run the winter shelter at the National Guard Armory and $30,000 toward the salary of a downtown social worker who works with homeless people. They also lease city-owned buildings for the River Street Shelter for $1 a year.
Ken Cole, executive director of the Homeless Services Center, said the city and county do more to tackle homeless issues than other communities of the same size.
Still, Cole says, there's a dire lack of emergency shelter beds available each night, and he supports the people who camped at City Hall and behaved themselves.
"
-----------------------------------------------------------
This statement that the city is doing a lot for the homeless because there is $400,000 allocated in the budget, strikes me as a bit odd. Is this really such a large amount? Are they relying on the psychological effect that large numbers above 100,000 start to seem the same, so $400,000 would appear to be similar to 4,000000 or 40,000000?
Teachers with a few years experience earn $50,000 or so. Let's say that the homeless shelter staff earn $30,000. You could have two shelters (let's say there's no rent and all the food is donated via charitable food bank donations), and let's say each one has a trained social worker earning $50,000 and four other staff, and that pretty much uses up your budget. At the same time, don't they say that the cost per inmate at prisons is something like $20,000/year? I guess you have to tap into that gravy train to get mental health assistance for the percentage of homeless who suffer from problems. My landlord pays $16,000 property taxes because he bought the house recently, and I realize schools are the first priority. If our community is really suffering so much from costs of social programs, you'd think that it would be cost effective to go to the state and make mental health and homeless assistance distributed at the state level based on the census of those people in each county.
"
"The ban has been very effective in sending the message that Santa Cruz ... doesn't invite the homeless to sleep outdoors," Councilman Mike Rotkin said. "Sleeping outside is not something you can do whenever and wherever you want"
Despite ongoing demonstrations against the camping ban, city leaders say accusations that they don't help the homeless are "ridiculous"
The City Council allocated nearly $400,000 for homeless services in their 2007-08 budget, including an additional $50,000 for the Rowland and Pat Rebele Family Shelter on Coral Street. Their support includes more than $80,000 to run the winter shelter at the National Guard Armory and $30,000 toward the salary of a downtown social worker who works with homeless people. They also lease city-owned buildings for the River Street Shelter for $1 a year.
Ken Cole, executive director of the Homeless Services Center, said the city and county do more to tackle homeless issues than other communities of the same size.
Still, Cole says, there's a dire lack of emergency shelter beds available each night, and he supports the people who camped at City Hall and behaved themselves.
"
-----------------------------------------------------------
This statement that the city is doing a lot for the homeless because there is $400,000 allocated in the budget, strikes me as a bit odd. Is this really such a large amount? Are they relying on the psychological effect that large numbers above 100,000 start to seem the same, so $400,000 would appear to be similar to 4,000000 or 40,000000?
Teachers with a few years experience earn $50,000 or so. Let's say that the homeless shelter staff earn $30,000. You could have two shelters (let's say there's no rent and all the food is donated via charitable food bank donations), and let's say each one has a trained social worker earning $50,000 and four other staff, and that pretty much uses up your budget. At the same time, don't they say that the cost per inmate at prisons is something like $20,000/year? I guess you have to tap into that gravy train to get mental health assistance for the percentage of homeless who suffer from problems. My landlord pays $16,000 property taxes because he bought the house recently, and I realize schools are the first priority. If our community is really suffering so much from costs of social programs, you'd think that it would be cost effective to go to the state and make mental health and homeless assistance distributed at the state level based on the census of those people in each county.
From: http://brattononline.com/
BOYCOTTING WES MODES AND GRANT WILSON. I used to have respect for Grant Wilson recently of UCSC's Arts and Lectures until he started his campaign to pave over Arana Gulch. I lost even more belief in his sincerity when he took part in the activities in front of Bookshop Santa Cruz. Same goes for Wes Modes. I used to think Modes (Rico Thunder) brought some creative and positive thinking to community issues. When he organized his last workshop and held it in front of the Bookshop with Wilson and Norse in attendance he too lost me. So if you don't see any mentions of any of the numerous stunts those guys pull off or hear any of them on my radio program...that's why.
--Bruce Bratton
BOYCOTTING WES MODES AND GRANT WILSON. I used to have respect for Grant Wilson recently of UCSC's Arts and Lectures until he started his campaign to pave over Arana Gulch. I lost even more belief in his sincerity when he took part in the activities in front of Bookshop Santa Cruz. Same goes for Wes Modes. I used to think Modes (Rico Thunder) brought some creative and positive thinking to community issues. When he organized his last workshop and held it in front of the Bookshop with Wilson and Norse in attendance he too lost me. So if you don't see any mentions of any of the numerous stunts those guys pull off or hear any of them on my radio program...that's why.
--Bruce Bratton
"Why our local City Council can't find a way to ensure that every resident of the town has a safe and legal place to sleep - SOMEWHERE (not "anywhere"), is beyond me." So says Thomas Leavitt in his open letter to Ryan Coonerty. EXCUSE ME!!
NOT my City Council! It is definitely NOT the responsibility of the Santa Cruz City Council "to ensure that every resident has a safe and legal place to sleep." That is a matter of personal responsibility, Mr Leavitt.
My wife and I own a home in Santa Cruz and pay several thousands of dollars in property taxes to the county and city. I formerly owned part of a business in Santa Cruz and paid thousands of dollars to the city in taxes and license fees. My wife teaches school in Santa Cruz and contributes to the well-being of children and their families. We shop at local stores and contribute our share to sales taxes. We have earned and paid for our "safe and legal place to sleep."
If your homeless protesters spent their time earning instead of wasting it in mindless protest, they might just earn their own comfortable quarters.
If it ever should become the responsibility of the City Council "to ensure that every resident has a safe and legal place to sleep," (which, thankfully, it won't), I would strongly advocate that the "safe and legal place to sleep" be ensured with a one-way bus ticket to Fresno.
NOT my City Council! It is definitely NOT the responsibility of the Santa Cruz City Council "to ensure that every resident has a safe and legal place to sleep." That is a matter of personal responsibility, Mr Leavitt.
My wife and I own a home in Santa Cruz and pay several thousands of dollars in property taxes to the county and city. I formerly owned part of a business in Santa Cruz and paid thousands of dollars to the city in taxes and license fees. My wife teaches school in Santa Cruz and contributes to the well-being of children and their families. We shop at local stores and contribute our share to sales taxes. We have earned and paid for our "safe and legal place to sleep."
If your homeless protesters spent their time earning instead of wasting it in mindless protest, they might just earn their own comfortable quarters.
If it ever should become the responsibility of the City Council "to ensure that every resident has a safe and legal place to sleep," (which, thankfully, it won't), I would strongly advocate that the "safe and legal place to sleep" be ensured with a one-way bus ticket to Fresno.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Back atcha
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 12:27:30 -0700
From: Wes Modes
To: Bruce Bratton
CC: Grant Wilson
Uh, hey Bruce.
I read your article hoping to find dirt on Rotkin (well dished, in fact) and found dirt on myself! Thanks for the mention.
My effort in co-teaching a Free Skool Know Your Rights workshop in the public space in front of Bookshop Santa Cruz was exactly that: to help people know their rights. More about that: http://santacruz.freeskool.org/content.php?content.60
It is especially important in this town in which a disproportionate amount -- 55% of the city budget -- is spent on "public safety" (a fact i think you passed to me). When people visit me here in Santa Cruz, they ask, "Is something going on in town? There's police at every other block." No, it's just business as usual in the Santa Cruz police state.
With our workshop, we were also supporting the homeless resistance campaign which at that moment was embarking on its occupation of the City Hall lawn. This is a town that has largely become rabid about the "homeless problem." A strategy has seemed to emerge at the official levels of criminalizing the homeless in an effort to drive them out of town (Where? Who knows? Just not in my backyard, thank you.)
I think the main beef that folks have with Bookshop Santa Cruz -- though god knows, I love books, love their selection, and love being able to go to the bathroom while downtown -- the problem people have is with Ryan and Neil Coonerty, the family that owns the bookstore.
The elder Neil, you may remember, was primarily responsible for the oppressive downtown ordinances forbidding sitting on the sidewalks (among other things) in our little liberal town. Ryan is the lawyer and UCSC lecturer on constitutional rights who is more protective of the police force than the citizens he ostensibly represents. Ryan repeatedly maintained throughout the police spying scandal last year that the due process rights of the police, not the citizens being spied on, needed to be protected. Though in fairness, I'm not sure which constitution he studied or whose civil rights he lectures on.
But in any case, agree or not with the reasons or the folks involved, I'd imagine that few would disagree that individuals have a right to launch a boycott of a local business over their grievances.
Keep fighting, ya cranky old man. I still adore you.
Wes Modes
For more information:
http://www.thespoon.com/art
Hey, you boob. What makes you think that Fresno is accepting homeless people. Their mayor is a super conservative jerk who used to play a redneck sheriff on TV. If you glance through the central valley part of this site, it is clear that they are probably the ones sending their evicted people to the bay area.
I recently saw a presentation on homeless teens, under age 18, in Chicago, and they don't even have shelter beds for them so they live on the subway.
It isn't the places with super high housing prices such as here, or Manhattan, or southern California that are facing high foreclosure rates - it is Las Vegas, Modesto, and various big cities in the south. Why do you think that places like this are where more poor people need to end up.
I recently saw a presentation on homeless teens, under age 18, in Chicago, and they don't even have shelter beds for them so they live on the subway.
It isn't the places with super high housing prices such as here, or Manhattan, or southern California that are facing high foreclosure rates - it is Las Vegas, Modesto, and various big cities in the south. Why do you think that places like this are where more poor people need to end up.
See also: "An Open Letter to The Shit Smearers" at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/10/02/18451433.php.
The story is inexplicably buried at the bottom of the santa cruz indymedia screen in the "Other/Breaking News" section instead of being brought up to the top with other Santa Cruz stories in the "Local News" section.
Leavitt is trying to be even-handed and show that he's not merely critical of Vice-Mayor Coonerty but of those vandalizing his bathrooms and other bathrooms around town.
Leavitt takes no shit and definitely gives a shit.
The story is inexplicably buried at the bottom of the santa cruz indymedia screen in the "Other/Breaking News" section instead of being brought up to the top with other Santa Cruz stories in the "Local News" section.
Leavitt is trying to be even-handed and show that he's not merely critical of Vice-Mayor Coonerty but of those vandalizing his bathrooms and other bathrooms around town.
Leavitt takes no shit and definitely gives a shit.
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