Relevant protests vs. petty arguments

...but don't be surprised to see it pulled with no explanation. Most (not all) of the regular posters on this site have some of the most baffling ideas as to what constitutes a struggle for "social justice" or "building community."

drummers do as drummers do. they drum. activists choose issues and dole out there time and money. when drumming becomes outlawed, the drummers becomes outlaws. if a cops camera works to stop the drum, the drummers work to stops the cops.

why not put one's energy into being something that is real and genuine rather than antagonizing local anarchists and drummers and calling their disputes petty?

This anonymous (of course) poster ignores the basic issue again. And that makes the rest of the post rather pointless. Instead of a real debate, we get the standard personal attacks on me, tsktsk-ing, "you can't reason with him" etc.

The issue, "local teacher", has nothing to do with drum circles. But then, if you'd been listening and were really interested in a discussion--you'd know this and be talking about the real issue--closing public spaces under the pretext of safety. You might disagree. You might feel the "menace" of people in the parking lots and garages was so severe it required this absurd 24-hour closure of the lots. But you'd address it. You don't.

This is about the closing of public spaces. Lots of public spaces: parks at night, parking lots and garages 24 hours per day except to consumers and workers coming and going, most of the public sidewalk to the poor, the library and city council grounds in the evening (though this is being done illegally), and all public spaces as far as survival sleeping for the homeless goes.

I'm not aware that Coonerty is a particularly bad human being. But that's not the issue. If I were Bush's buddy, I'd defend him as well. The question is not how Coonerty treats his friends and his dog, but how he deals with the needs and rights of the community. Whether he respects the Constitution when a bunch of right-wing merchants and residents want to drive out the diversity that makes them uncomfortable.

Here Coonerty joins a long line of craven politicians (just look at the national line-up vis a vis the war in Iraq and you'll see what I mean) who pander to fear and prejudice.

I have spoken to Coonerty at length--during the initial conversations around the Parking Garage Paranoia law discussions of 2006. He was quite candid and forthcoming. And small-minded and wrong, I might add. Mistaking the fears and complaints of a few employees and city workers for the interests of the broader community. Since that time he's generally declined to meet with me.

We aren't attacking Coonerty's "character"--we're attacking his actions, criticizing his decisions, and holding him accountable.
Of course, politicians prefer not to be held accountable. And those who like them, don't like to think badly of them.

The immigration and wage issues that our anonymous poster suggests be addressed--are valid ones. I commend her/him and anyone else who joins those struggles. But being a part of one struggle doesn't preclude helping with another.

It's also rank hypocrisy to preach the Constitution to Bush and deny it to the poor in Santa Cruz--like our constitutional scholar Coonerty does (and the rest the Council does as well). It's false to call that an attack on "his character". His decisions to avoid granting the poor the same constitutional rights that Los Angeles, San Diego, Fresno, and Richmond police do, for instance, as far as the right to sleep goes--are an example of principle and action, or perhaps of simple expediency.

Before your criticisms of me can be taken seriously, you need to actually look at Coonerty's record carefully.

Micah Posner of People Power, gave a good interview on Free Radio tonight on the issue (go to http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb080131.mp3--towards the end of the audio file.)

"Serious concerned thoughtful" people understand this struggle is not about drum circles. Coonerty's Parking Lot law has criminalized ALL and ANY activity other than parking a car or bike. Petty? Every small step looks insignificant taken little by little.

Perhaps "local teacher" would like to come out from behind her/his mask of anonymity. Then we could see if s/he's a part of the local political establishment, or a genuine independent activist.

If you're just defending a politician, then do so, but be honest about it. Don't hide behind a sanctimonious mask of activism.

Undoing the harm which Coonerty's Council has inflicted upon the community is important. Reversing the harsh new laws cooked by at the behest of the PD and the Parking bureaucrats would be a significant achievement--far from petty.

Anonymous teacher apparently backs up the Council, but won't tell us why. Before we surrender basic rights, we need a better answer than "you should be working for immigration reform and better wages instead."

"Local teacher" doesn't see it, but the closing of public spaces is a real injustice and not a petty dispute.

This anonymous (of course) poster ignores this. And that makes the rest of the post rather empty. Instead of a real debate, we get the standard personal attacks on me, tsktsk-ing, "you can't reason with him" etc.

The issue, "local teacher", has nothing to do with drum circles. But then, if you'd been listening and were really interested in a discussion--you'd know this and be talking about the real issue--closing public spaces under the pretext of safety. You might disagree. You might feel the "menace" of people in the parking lots and garages was so severe it required this absurd 24-hour closure of the lots. But you'd address it. You don't.

This is about the closing of public spaces. Lots of public spaces: parks at night, parking lots and garages 24 hours per day except to consumers and workers coming and going, most of the public sidewalk to the poor, the library and city council grounds in the evening (though this is being done illegally), and all public spaces as far as survival sleeping for the homeless goes.

I'm not aware that Coonerty is a particularly bad human being. But that's not the issue. If I were Bush's buddy, I'd defend him as well. The question is not how Coonerty treats his friends and his dog, but how he deals with the needs and rights of the community. Whether he respects the Constitution when a bunch of right-wing merchants and residents want to drive out the diversity that makes them uncomfortable.

Here Coonerty joins a long line of craven politicians (just look at the national line-up vis a vis the war in Iraq and you'll see what I mean) who pander to fear and prejudice.

I have spoken to Coonerty at length--during the initial conversations around the Parking Garage Paranoia law discussions of 2006. He was quite candid and forthcoming. And small-minded and wrong, I might add. Mistaking the fears and complaints of a few employees and city workers for the interests of the broader community. Since that time he's generally declined to meet with me.

We aren't attacking Coonerty's "character"--we're attacking his actions, criticizing his decisions, and holding him accountable.
Of course, politicians prefer not to be held accountable. And those who like them, don't like to think badly of them.

The immigration and wage issues that our anonymous poster suggests be addressed--are valid ones. I commend her/him and anyone else who joins those struggles. But being a part of one struggle doesn't preclude helping with another.

It's also rank hypocrisy to preach the Constitution to Bush and deny it to the poor in Santa Cruz--like our constitutional scholar Coonerty does (and the rest the Council does as well). It's false to call that an attack on "his character". His decisions to avoid granting the poor the same constitutional rights that Los Angeles, San Diego, Fresno, and Richmond police do, for instance, as far as the right to sleep goes--are an example of principle and action, or perhaps of simple expediency.

Before your comments can be taken seriously, you need to actually look at Coonerty's record carefully.

Micah Posner of People Power, gave a good interview on Free Radio tonight on the issue (go to http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb080131.mp3--towards the end of the audio file.)

"Serious concerned thoughtful" people understand this struggle is not about drum circles. Coonerty's Parking Lot law has criminalized ALL and ANY activity other than parking a car or bike. Petty? Every small step looks insignificant taken little by little.

Perhaps "local teacher" would like to come out from behind her/his mask of anonymity. Then we could see if s/he's a part of the local political establishment, or a genuine independent activist.

If you're just defending a politician, then do so, but be honest about it. Don't hide behind a sanctimonious mask of activism.

Undoing the harm which Coonerty's Council has inflicted upon the community is important. Reversing the harsh new laws cooked by at the behest of the PD and the Parking bureaucrats would be a significant achievement--far from petty. Coming up next: the sale of Scribner/Scope Park across from the Town Clock.

Anonymous teacher apparently backs up the Council, but won't tell us why. Before we surrender basic rights and important public spaces, we need a better suggestion than "you should be working for immigration reform and better wages instead."

Look at this map of everyone who gave over $200 to a candidate. Naturally, it isn't representative of the true mix of the population, but isn't it weird how red Monterey is? Also, there are big Ron Paul fans everywhere.

http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=city&city=salinas&search=Search

LOCAL TEACHER WRITES: "join....workers demanding better pay and benefits."

BECKY: What kind of willful ignorance do you employ so you can defend Mayor Ryan Coonerty in the same breath in which you encourage readers to join the struggle for better pay and benefits? Don't you know that Ryan was at the forefront of preventing the passage of the local ordinance which would have raised the minimum wage of workers in Santa Cruz, one of the most expensive areas in the country in which to live? He and his father, Neal, threatened to cut the medical benefits of their employees should the law pass!! The threat was largely a hollow one, since very few businesses who hire minimum wage employees also provide any health care benefits. Bookshop Santa Cruz was probably the ONLY business which does. Threatening their OWN WORKERS benefits to scare the voters into defeating the wage increase was outright pandering to fearmongers. It reminds me of the National Lampoon cover from years ago where they showed a gun pointed at a puppies head and said "If you don't buy our magazine, we will shoot this puppy."

The Downtown Business Association's own study showed that the wage increase would have increased the cost of payrolls across the City by less than 1%!!! Yet this was too much for the Coonerties!!

I met with Ryan Coonerty for a half hour before he took office. My associate, Bernard Klitzner and I talked with him about the Sleeping Ban. Ryan talked in circles. He sounded like a one-note opera. His bizarre theory that the sight of homeless people would bring on an anti-homeless backlash and result in the loss of donations to social services was convoluted and not supported by any evidence. But it was the only argument Ryan had for why we as a City are criminalizing homeless people every night by not allowing them to sleep or keep warm with a blanket. Petty? With a homeless death toll of 37 this year, I think not.

Now Coonerty has banned the entire population from blocks and blocks of City property with an ordinance which prevents peaceable public assembly. And the first place they are enforcing it is against the Drum Circle and the Food Not bombs feeding. Petty? I guess if you are not a drummer, don't need FNB's for your nutrition, and you are a "friend" of Ryan Coonerty, you can over look it. What kind of twisted eyesight do you have to not see the suffering, the isolation, and the death that Coonerty's reign is causing to local homeless people?

And you urge us to run up to UCSC and right for the right of workers to fair wages and benefits???

Who says some of us (indeed, many of us) don't fight these things as well?

But what I can't understand is the argument that some good progressives make that this fight or that fight is a waste of time, and that actually we should rather be fighting this other thing. Usually, it is a national cause such as the war or Guantanamo Bay or poverty or immigrant rights.

This has been the exact tactic of our own City Council. Oppose national injustice while at the same time overlooking local injustice.

Frankly, I think it is valid (and makes more sense) to oppose the forces that create poverty nationally AND local criminalization of homelessness. It makes sense to me to oppose the Iraq War AND the local increases in police powers. Why not oppose national immigration policy AND deportation of local immigrants?

Why would anyone fight to preserve civil liberties at a national level while ignoring the fact that our right to public assembly is being taken away right here in our town?

Are people's energy-levels so low that they have to pick one fight in this world?


As for Ryan, I have talked with him, but unfortunately rarely when he was not representing the institution of the city. But there's the thing, isn't it? I imagine he is a great guy, personable, warm, reasonable, great in bed, one of the several good progressives on the Council. But when he sits in that chair or in that office, he represent the city. If police spy on people, he has a responsibility to protect them. If the city's laws are oppressive, he has a responsibility in that chair to protect the business interests in town.

While it doesn't HAVE to be that way, and there are personalities whose convictions and compassion occasionally transcend the responsibilities of the office, Ryan Coonerty is not one of those. He is a politician. Nothing more or less.

Looking for change from politicians is a dead-end.

A real dialogue about "as to where to put our energy and intelligence as activists" is indeed needed, for all of us. Where should we have it and when?

Here at indybay, minimize and marginalize seems to be the mantra too often;
Two of the local actions featured on indybay are receiving a lot of attention for their tactics (UCSC tree sit and drum circle repression), and I find the reasoning used to attack the legitimacy of these protests to be extremely interesting. As I've said before, and "Local teacher" seems to agree, the fact that we are debating tactics is a good thing. I welcome any comments about what is effective action and what is not. And I again state that it is because of those pushing the envelope and organizing in ways that are meeting with resistance from several corners that we are having these conversations. What we need to examine, however, is outcomes. Results. Then we talk about what worked and what didn't. But we shouldn't critique people for getting together and defending our right to gather in public, or for camping out in the trees. Their protests just might work, after all, as part of a larger struggle to resist the police state and defend the forest, respectively and non-exclusively.

That said, it seems like we're perpetually caught in this double-bind:

If tree sitters are University students, then they are automatically bourgeois college kids; if they are not students, they are trespassing outsiders meddling where they don't belong.

If drummers and others act locally to defend public space that is being threatened by police, then they are minimizing "real and genuine injustice" with "petty disputes," yet if people try to facilitate some consciousness-raising on more global issues, say repression in Tibet or Africa, they are idealistic and misled, detached from their own communities and talking about far-removed issues from far-off places when they should be more involved locally.

This is not to say that "local teacher" is making these inferences, it's just that those critical of an approach that is more Direct-Action and less Write-Your-Congressman seem to want it both ways, snaring those who resist between being intangible or NIMBY.

"beavis" wrote "If you are so concerned about privatization of UC, then write to your state and federal legislators and ask that they provide more funding for public education. I think the point has been made over and over again here, that you all are barking up the wrong tree. You pick on the locals because that is easier than starting a long term plan to change the way the system works. There are many progressive groups who could use help in achieving real change. But I guess it comes down to a choice between being a free-thinker or a mindless mercenary."

Those are our only options, it seems. There's this dichotomy that says protest is either legitimate or "petty." And all too often the definition of legitimate has something to do with protesting by the book, permitted spaces and marches, "changing the way the system works," of reform and privilege and academia and the non-profit industrial complex. Allowable, tolerated, often but not always ineffective protest.

Many people have had enough of working within the system in order to pass legislation to safeguard our rights forever only to see them violated time and time again. Why antagonize local politicians when we should lobby them, after all? Why refuse to be abused and stand up to local cops, to assert our human rights when what we should really do is form a citizens police review board to meet and keep the police in line... wait, that already got dismantled. Should we do it all over again? Or should we *change tactics* and challenge the status quo without asking permission first?

"Local Teacher" writes "There are many adults, children, and senior citizens who don't find comfort around the farmer's market with these actions taking place..." Why are these unforgivable actions taking place? (people yelling at cops, loud protest,...) They are happening because cops started busting up a goddamn hippy drumcircle that's been going for years with little-to-no fuss. So I applaud all those who have made a ruckus in response (I haven't been to a farmers market in years due to my work schedule). Let's not forget who's responding to whom, here. There wasn't an issue before the cops decided to harass people. Sorry to inconvenience anyone, but should the cops just arbitrarily begin enforcing a controversial law authored by Coonerty, Inc. and sweeping the streets clean? Should hippies and drummers, the homeless and Food Not Bombs, loiterers and those-without-cars be subject to removal without defense? Without some NOISE (quite literally)?

This is a much bigger issue, and it is not a "bored, privileged (dare i say bourgie?) few" who care about the increasing altercations with the already imposed police state.

I agree--let's "put [every]one's energy into changing something that is real." I agree-- "there needs to be a real discussion taking place on this website (and in our real lives) as to where to put our energy and intelligence as activists." I agree--MigraWatch, for example, [http://www.migrawatch.org] and other organizations working within immigrant communities to resist ICE raids, and other police state incursions into our towns deserve more support. AFSME, too, deserves your real support, pressuring the UC system to pay it's lowest wage workers a real (living) wage for real work. Fight corruption at UC--fight the Regents, fight for a student voice, a worker voice in the University. There are no shortage of good causes out there. Let's hit the streets and make change and encourage more folks to get involved without being being called bourgeois NIMBYs OR impractical zealots.

And let's not fall into a trap of deciding what issues are "genuine" and which are "petty" without some real reflection and without seeing what works in an age where we're being attacked on each and every front.

Coonerty was in the forefront of opposing an increase in the minimum wage.

Coonerty supports all of the anti-homeless laws of Santa Cruz.

Coonerty does not support rent control.

Coonerty is taking public space away from the people. Space where people enjoyed drumming and the wonderful vegetarian food provided by food not bombs.

And when “Local Teacher” says, “On a different thread someone noted that continuing this fight in such a glorified fashion could result in the closing of the farmer's market and the withdrawal of permits to sellers.” This sounds a whole lot to me like Ryan Coonerty’s threat to cut medical benefits for his employees if the minimum wage increase was passed.

Ryan Coonerty represents the angry petty capitalists of Santa Cruz who, while they underpay workers and overcharge for rent, blame the homeless and street musicians for the financial troubles their businesses face.

There is nothing about his office forcing Ryan Coonerty to be so regressive. He, with Bush et al, is part of the problem.

Yes to drums!

Yes to public space belonging to the public!

Yes to freedom of assembly!

Yes to Food not Bombs!

No to Ryan Coonerty.

The community of Santa Cruz has clearly voiced its opinion via the ballot box.

I never ran against Coonerty.

But I did run against what he represents.

I didn't win because I did not have the backing of the corporate media, nor the backing of Santa Cruz moneyed exploiters. Yet I did well and got a lot of votes and got my message out.

I didn't say you ran against him. I said he won, and you lost....as in a much larger percentage of the community agreed with the message that Coonerty got out than they did your message. Different election, but the same community of voters.

Blaming that on moneyed exploiters....sounds like you're suggesting that the part of the community that didn't vote for you is comprised of sheeples who are led by the nose by corporate media and moneyed exploiters?

You got 558 votes...4%....hardly a mandate.

The anonymous liar says, "You got 558 votes...4%....hardly a mandate."

I got 2,593 votes which, due to the fact that people voted for multiple candidates, were a little under 15% of the people voting.

These anonymous pro-Coonerty idiots come on this site and just tell their lies.

There is no threat to the closing of the farmers market. In fact it has nothing to do with the farmers market. It has been a small group there for years. This law is simply wrong, unjust and unconstitutional. When the cops did not show, although heavily surveyed there was no violence, nothing but good people getting together as they have been prior to this new law.

If we don't fight against these laws, more and more appear and we loose more and more of our rights.

Yes, Ryan may be a nice person, that doesn't make him a a good leader or politician. I still have not heard one good argument for this law in the weeks of protest and... dare I even say dialog.
Tim Rumford
Beware of Consensus Trolls

No one "closed" any parking lots. Trust me, they're all open. They're more regulated now, like many public spaces in well-run communities. Norse likes to say they're closed for dramatic effect. He studied drama during high school in Carmel.

The issue "Norse", is drumming. Every post and article about this says so. But you'd know that if you would actually listen to reason.

Using a pseudonym to cover up a life of ridiculous privilege is no different from being an anonymous poster. Remember to what lengths you go to cover your tracks regarding who you really are, before you go calling others hypocrites. "Norse".

Coonerty and the City of Santa Cruz are dealing with the needs and rights of the community, as you describe it, by blowing you off as fringe lunatic trustafarians. This is how the community views you. The reason this is unclear to you is because you think Huffsters and drummers without jobs are the only community members who matter.

In addition to attacking Coonerty's "actions", you misanthropes are also attacking his family's business, vandalizing the restrooms and merchandise. Disingenuous assholes.

Ha ha ha!!!! Did you see Loco? Norse is telling us all how to not be hypocrites and how to be taken seriously. Ha ha ha!!!! Seriously!!!!!

Very well stated, Dim Sum. I agree that Norse thinks that the homeless and HUFF members are the only citizens in this town that matter.

I'm interested in what you said about Norse. I knew he came from a privileged background but did not know that he lived under a psuedonym. Who is the real Robert Norse? I think I, and many other members of the community, deserve to know.

Dim One, your previous two posts again attack the debater rather than engage in any debate. And you wonder why editors occasionally hide your posts?

Not because Indymedia volunteers want to hide deeply hidden and important truths, but because your posts contribute NOTHING to the the discussion.

Pretty fucked up to out someone's known name as an alias in a public forum while hiding behind an anonymous post.

Come on. Robert tries to discredit people all the time by saying they have no guts because they are "anonymous". He uses an alias because he does not want people to know his past and to find out what his real schtick is. Every time someone questions him about his past and why he does nothing for the people in the community he came from Robert always changes the subject and says it's a personal attack. He makes personal attacks on people all the time!
The fact is that people in the community, and some that he claims to protect, are coming to know the truth about him. He's more interested in getting air and page time for himself than for those he claims to stand up for. Look at some of these threads...all the comments are by him! And now he has figured out how to put movies of himself on here so he can get even more time.
I believe there are some great social ills in this community that need to be taken care of. But what has he done? What has he accomplished through to the finish? Rather than form a strategy in order to get things done he goes after the cause du jour, guaranteeing himself more face time.
Things need to change, but he's not the one to get them done. He's selling snake oil to people that think it will work.

I think the most revealing thing about Norse is his use of the name "Bathrobespierre". I would highly urge anyone following this pied piper to spend a few minutes with a web search on "Robespierre" to learn about his namesake. I think it is an oddly appropriate moniker.

Becky is the one who wonders why they keep hiding her posts. Not I. I know why. They're Indymedia, and they're not really that Indy. They strongly prefer that you toe the party line. I must say that they have been more open-minded lately, though.

Pretty fucked up to use an alias while berating everyone else for posting anonymously, don't you think, "Reader"?

So let's see...there's the multi-acre estates in Los Gatos and Bonny Doon, the adoptive family who ran him out of town with his trust fund on the condition that he not return (the real parents knew enough to sell short, apparently), the kid who had to be raised by his grandparents (to make time for all the "activism", you see), and on and on and on. I know a lot more, but there is such a thing as decorum and consideration. Norse of course is a stranger to these concepts, but nevertheless...I think this is adequate to illustrate the point that all of these people are discredited trust fund babies (or wannabes) who don't deserve to be given the time of day.

There you go Reader.

I forgot to say that if Robert Norse cannot be front and center, whether in print, on the air or, now in the moving pictures, it's not a cause worthy of his time, as best I can tell.

For fuck's sake, Sum Dim, you ARE going to outdo Robert.

While he often posts under his own name about all sorts of issues. Assumed or otherwise, he is a person I can point to on the street.

You on the other hand post ONLY about Robert and never about any relevant issues, and always under a multitude of anonymous names -- none of which can I identify with a real person.

I won't begrudge you your obsession with Robert, but I doubt any of us have that kind of obsessive interest.

So I guess I'll have to take the good advice of others and not feed the trolls. I'll ignore your baiting attacks on the messenger and decide for myself how to think.

Man, I'll readily admit, I don't have the courage to post my real name here. What? There is no dirt in the history of every one of us? I don't want anything that some bitter hater dredges up posted here.

When there are asshat's willing to attack people anonymously while revealing personal and non-public details about their lives in a public forum? Are you kidding? I put my name here, and the next day my address, phone number, police record, and photos of my out-of-wedlock children will be posted on the Internet.

But since I consider ideas more important to me than who is spouting them, the messenger matters less to me than to Some Dim Guy.

I also post about Becky Johnson, Reader. Also about Bernie Klutzer sometimes. So who says I only obsess about Robert?

What multitude of names?

Robert doesn't have dirt, Mr. Asshat Reader. He has sludge. And no, Robert's ideas are most certainly not important.

Well, this certainly is not the discussion I advocated for, but it does seem to be in the spirit of the original post by 'local teacher.'

While s/he made some excellent points that I agreed with, the name-calling and blame-assignment seems contagious. After a few days, it's already another flame-war focused on personality--and not on the legitimate need for honest dialogue about tactics and priorities, about strategizing, communicating, and community.

Norse would approve of these slash-and-burn, take-no-prisoners, give-no-quarter tactics. He employs them all the time with the targets of his loony causes. He has said many times that people should not accept public life if they are not prepared to be dissected. Even in personal ways. He routinely attempts to hurt peoples' family businesses, and on one occasion even managed to force someone to close shop. He drags people into fights simply because relatives of theirs serve in City office. Assholes beget assholes, you see.

So yes, this is simply a dose of his own medicine. I'm sure he approves. the only thing that surprises is that he isn't more forthcoming himself, given how strongly he feels about everyone else putting all their cards on the table. Perhaps if he keeps this up, I'll help him be more forthcoming in the future.

While I believe that many of the problems Robert brings up are serious and do need to be dealt with, I also have to question his motives and true sincerity. I don't think you can separate his history and background from the fights he leads. As we scrutinize our elected officials history I also think we should look at the moral foundation of the people we follow in a protest.
Truth be told, Robert has money and does not have to worry about his financial future. The guy is set. Ok, that happens to some people and we can not blame them for it. On the other hand, his money comes with strings attached. There are certain restrictions his family has put on his trust and if he breaks them the money goes away. Basically they want him out of their life and he is willing to comply in order to keep the money coming in.
So here's my rub. Robert's whole thing is about freedom of speech and being able to do what you want, where you want and when you want. How dare the "evil" business owners of Santa Cruz try and put restrictions on people and their lives in order to protect their own financial situations! How dare the city impose ordinances telling people how to act in public in order to help businesses succeed!
Only thing is, Robert is willing to have restriction placed on his own personal freedom for his personal financial gain. He's willing to bend to his family's will in order to keep his money coming in on a timely basis. He's willing to restrict his mobility and where he can live for money. How can he yell at people about free speech and personal expression when he does not live by these things in his personal life?
Business owners are protecting their income-Robert is protecting his income. Robert is willing to go after people and hurt them financially to achieve his activist goals, but he is unwilling to make a trip down to Carmel and fight for justice in that community because it will hurt his own finances.
I would probably listen more to what he said if he practiced what he preached.

Plenty of people receive substantial inheritances and never have to do an honest days work in their lives. I have no quarrel with that. However, soapboxing all ones life about the evils of the landed class, the merchant class, the moneyed class while living off the proceeds of those very same people fifty miles south of here, now that's rank hypocrisy.

And to pillory decent people who contribute to the local economy and to the political process, for the simple crime of disagreeing with one's politics, no matter how extremist, well, words finally fail me.

Robert's money would be of no interest to anyone if not for this.

You're a disingenuous lowlife, Robert. The people who actually sign up for the hateful garbage you spew in the guise of activist politics really deserve the same transparency from you as you demand from them.

I'll wait for your memoirs, Norse.

DIM SUM WRITES: "So let's see...there's the multi-acre estates in Los Gatos and Bonny Doon, the adoptive family who ran him out of town with his trust fund on the condition that he not return (the real parents knew enough to sell short, apparently), the kid who had to be raised by his grandparents (to make time for all the "activism", you see)..."

BECKY: 1. Neither Robert, nor any member of his family own any property in Bonny Doon or Los Gatos
2. Robert is not and has never been adopted
3. both his parents are deceased
4. There is no condition that he "stay away" from his family and there never has been one
5. He was never raised by his grandparents

Apparently Dim Sum, though seemingly interested in the Life of Robert Norse (his pen-name of some twenty years and the name he prefers) or Robert N. Kahn (his given name) doesn't know very much at all about Robert.

It is true that Robert's wealth does allow him to have the time to be a full time activist. I don't understand why you think that's a bad thing, unless you are on the wrong side of his issues a little too often. Then, I can understand why you hate him. He's right a little too often, isn't he?

If I wasn't working, I'd be down there supporting the drummers. Sure, maybe it's not the most important cause, but they chip away at rights and public space inch by inch. If anybody knows which businesses are pushing this, I will visit them this weekend and tell them why they're not getting my business. Not every damn place needs to be upscale and for shopping only. San Francisco is almost unbearable, Santa Cruz downtown is getting there too.

The biggest problem with downtown SF is not the snooty chain stores but the constant smell of human urine permeating the streets.

Hey, SFers, your town smells like pee! Just thought somebody should point that out. Aside from the parking hell, that is the number one problem in downtown SF. Disgusting. Let's pray downtown SC never gets that bad...

Thanks for the offer, but no thanks.
We already have enough people that don't live in Santa Cruz telling us how to run our lives. Why not stay up there in SF and go into all the fancy stores on Union Square and tell them why you're not going to shop with them? After Union Square got it's big face lift they've been kicking out anyone "odd" for just sitting there. You can start at Neiman-Marcus and then hit Tiffany and Sak's.
Then you can move on to the Ferry Building and tell them how you're not going to shop with any of them. You sure don't see any "interesting' people sitting around there. Probably because the police get rid of them so that the tourists don't have to see them.
When was the last time you were panhandled on Fisherman's Wharf? Or saw a drum circle there? Probably not for a long time since the police clean up that area, once again for the tourists, on a regular basis.

So Julie, there's another way to look at your proposal.

You want to come to a place where you don't live, don't work, don't pay taxes, don't own property and cause a negative economic impact on our community. Raise your voice and maybe many people can join you. Lost sales to the businesses mean lost sales tax revenue. Only thing is that the lost sales tax revenue that you would create will directly effect our social services through loss of local funding with that sales tax.

Go ahead, tell people to shop elsewhere like Capitola or Los Gatos. I'm sure that those communities would welcome the extra tax revenue for their social services. It's not like our downtown situation isn't already forcing business to locate elsewhere.

I'm sure our social services would not appreciate your help with eliminating sales tax revenue that helps fund them. Of course, in the end, it would also hurt the people that you say you're trying to help.

Then you could get back into your "yuppie hipster" Saab or BMW and drive back up to SF content in the fact that you still have some social activism left in you. If only on the weekends, when you're not working.

Here's a better idea. Save the gas money you would have spent coming here and donate it to social services in your home, SF. And donate your off work hours to activism in your own back yard.

This is real simple, so see if you can wrap your clever heads around it:

If you don't give people a place to pee, they pee on the streets. If you have money, you can urinate in restrooms in restraunts and stores. But if you don't have money there are few if any free public restaurants in SF, and Santa Cruz is getting closer and closer to that reality.

The few public restrooms at the Locust St and Front St Garages are locked at night.

The public restrooms at Bookshop Santa Cruz are some of the few left in town. So while I think the Coonertys are working for business owners in town, not the rest of us, I applaud their willingness to keep the bathroom public.

Rico, I agree that there are not enough restrooms in Santa Cruz.

But we also have to ask the question "Why are the restrooms that we have being locked up at night?". There are many reasons.

There is this perpetual cycle. The city builds bathrooms for everyone to use. The bathrooms get taken over by people using and dealing drugs. They get vandalized. They get used by people washing and dyeing their hair. They get used by people doing laundry. The city spends tens of thousands of dollars a year in maintenance per bathroom. They then have to shut them down at night so that they don't get destroyed. Then people scream that we need more bathrooms at night.... we start the cycle again.

If people used the bathrooms for the purpose they were intended for, and used them with respect, they could stay open, and the city might build more. But if they're going to be used for the wrong purposes, and get destroyed in the process, I would have to agree that the city shoulders no obligation to build more.

You bring up Book Shop SC. I think they have been amazing about keeping their restrooms open. They do this while spending tens of thousands of dollars a year in repair and maintenance. Honestly, around forty thousand dollars of their own money. But I will not blame them for shuttering it to the public soon. Why should they have to pay so that people can destroy their property? They are the last business in town to think about the community needing to use their facilities. And they are rewarded with protests outside their doors by people saying they only think of themselves.

Sorry, I hit the e instead of the o.

Having open public bathrooms is a necessary cost of a civilized community Please document the much bally-hooed vandalism that occurs in public bathrooms and compare it with the cost of cleaning up where such bathrooms are locked at night (as happens at City Hall regularly, for instance).

It's all about providing facilities for "nice people" who don't have the rather severe needs that homeless people outside have.

I don't remember when Santa Cruz's bathrooms were open at night. The parks were closed down in 1984 on the initiative of the SCPD, conservative staff, and nearby residents. The bathrooms have ALWAYS been closed at night.

Instead of putting in 24-hour bathrooms in 1999, we got 5 portapotties and the Krohn Krapper Kommission, which did nothing about the problem (after all, treating people in a civilized fashion only encourages more of them to come to town--right?). (And if they can't pay to pee, lock 'em up or lock 'em out).

Spare us the stories of hair-washing homeless, dangerous drugdealers, etc. etc. Vandalism happens, yes. Often from drunken frat guys on Friday night benders as much as from low-profile homeless people who need to use them. San Francisco put in self-cleaning kiosk restrooms; Santa Barbara paid businesses to have their bathrooms publicly accessible;

If you're not on Coonerty's shit list, you can take a shit in his bathroom. Commendable, of course. But since the Merchant's Friend is now aspiring to higher office, it would be nice if he dealt with town priorities first. Ad Mayor, that's his responsibility. We didn't picket his bookshop when he was in private life (or when Coonerty Sr. was). Once they enter politics and began backing anti-homeless laws, then the public has a right to be advised as to what they're doing and make a choice whether they want to support that kind of activity with their bucks. Bucks that may go into political campaigns, I remind you.

Getting back to the main topic of this thread, laws criminalizing the homeless and/or constricting public space on bogus safety concerns is not a "petty dispute". It's a basic issue and it's happening in cities across the country. It's a matter of choice as to what kind of community we want to live in. That's why some people are willing to risk bigoted abuse, police harassment, and political ostracism to stand up to it.

"Local Teacher" has little illuminating or informative to say about Coonerty. Neither s/he nor the other trolls have answered his wretched record on a variety of issues [See "Coonerty is a Part of the Problem Not the Solution" above].

Personal attacks don't alter political realities--they just show the poverty of the opposition.

The social reality is more positive. People are coming together to resist the Coonerty merchant cabal's agenda to commercialize/ privatize/policify the downtown.

Folks are signing the on-line petition demanding the absurd Parking Lot Panic Law be reversed [http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/End-the-15-minute-Trespass-law].

If "Local Teacher" has a sincere interest in opposing "illegal" immigrant deportations and raising UCSC service-worker wages, why not post a few articles on indybay about the issue? And you might consider looking to raise the minimum wages of the workers downtown as well. We can disagree on this issue, but unite on others.

But of course Robert can't resist turning this into a personal attack against Coonerty again. By his own description, a show of poverty. How ironic that he'd use that line and then do it himself. (And yes, I'm poor too, for mentioning you.).

But the real issue of Ben's post was the bathrooms and how they're mistreated; not Coonerty.

For starters, Ben never targeted homeless. While he did likely allude to them being a causal factor vis a vis mention of doing laundry, he also started off with the biggest problem: drug dealers and drug users.


But please, keep it real. Frat boys are the problem? They're the ones washing clothes, dying their hair, spending hours locked inside while others need to use the facility? A laughable, transparent effort to deny the reality of what goes on in the average public toilet in Santa Cruz.

I agree that a civilized community needs public facilites; but I also feel that a civilized community doesn't do what is done in those bathrooms, and doesn't condone or support those who partake in those actions (vandalism, drug use, drug dealing, etc.)

"Spare us the stories of hair-washing homeless, dangerous drugdealers, etc. etc. Vandalism happens, yes. Often from drunken frat guys on Friday night benders as much as from low-profile homeless people who need to use them." Robert Norse

Are you kidding??
First off, if "frat" guys are getting drunk on Friday nights wouldn't that happen later in the night after the bathrooms are closed? So how are they getting into the bathrooms to vandalize them?
Most UCSC fraternities and sororities are social service based organizations. They donate time to causes such as the SPCA, Jacob's Heart, Special Olympics, beach cleanups, St. Jude's Pediatric Hospital, the Asian American donor program and hunger-fighting organizations. Total "frat" enrollment at UCSC is about 300 students, and many of them are women.
It's a rather low blow to blame the bathroom vandalism on people that are actively trying to help the community through donating their time, resources and money to social services and activism.
This sounds like you are selectively choosing one small group of people to blame for these problems. I guess it's ok for YOU to blame a small group for something but not ok for others to do the same.
Shame on you for that one.
As for "low profile" groups. Honestly, walk on Pacific Ave, any given day and time, between Cathcart and Cooper streets, and you will be panhandled numerous times by homeless people. That's not very "low profile". Walk on Pearl Ally or the walkways behind the Soquel and Locust garages and you will see drug activity. Not very "low profile".
Back to the topic of this thread, your argument against these "Frat" people comes across as petty and irrelevant.

At no point in my above post do I say it is the homeless doing these activities. I was thinking more on the lines of drug dealers and users. You brought up the homeless washing their hair in the bathrooms, not I. Nice way of selectively profiling the people you say you watch out for.

I did not say that the bathrooms used to be open at night. I said that they cannot be because they will be vandalized as they are during the day. At night there would be less people to notice and report.

"Much ballyhooed vandalism". Are you implying that the bathrooms do not get vandalized? You yourself should be well aware that the city discussed closing those bathrooms a few times in the last 2 years. The 24 hour bathrooms, that would have cost $250,000 each with another $52,000 a year in maintenance, were scrapped because of real concerns of damage and illegal activity. The sort of illegal activity mentioned has been a major problem in the cities that currently have these 24 hour units. You can look it up yourself but it involves drug use, gang activity and prostitution. And don't try to imply that prostitution is not a problem in Santa Cruz. Just take a walk along Ocean or Broadway and you will see examples. San Francisco has had that problem with their self cleaning toilets. Oh, by the way, those self cleaning units in San Francisco are PAY units. So that would not really help in our case.

"Drunken frat boys". Give us documentation of said frat boys breaking into the bathrooms and vandalizing them. I am sure that many students in this town would not be too happy with your suggesting that it is they who are destroying public property. I agree with the above comment. It's pretty pathetic that you are trying to pin this on a small fraction of UCSC students. It also shows that you are not above profiling.

this is a disgusting sick post. how can anyone say that? I'm starting to question the average intellegence of the indybay reader, because of people saying things like, "bourgie"

dare you say that? you dare to say that?

I wonder if this is the same sort of thinking which allows for homeless laws, or jim crow laws, or anti-semetic laws...

we are talking about constitutional rights and if you don't defend it than you wont have any. not one left if you let a single fall, thats how liberty works...

the only reasons you don't care is you're a rich white pompous lazy materialist who, when not in a cubical is at home indoors watching tv or on his mac, comfortable and pacified, while people are being terrorized in the streets.

I frankly am sickened.

If you don't like freedom and prefer social order watch fox news, or the originals from nazi germany...

You say "the only reasons you don't care is you're a rich white pompous lazy materialist who, when not in a cubical is at home indoors watching tv or on his mac, comfortable and pacified, while people are being terrorized in the streets."

I say: I've grown calloused after 30 years of exposure to this issue. I've grown unsympathetic after having homeless people crap in my front yard. I've grown calloused after having deranged homeless people accost my daughter in the parking lot. I've grown weary after having homeless people desecrate our open spaces and trash our public restrooms and library bathrooms with garbage and disregard. I've grown tired of watching a new crop of summer-of-love-wannabe's who descend on the town every year and decide it'd be a groovy place to hang for the summer, and seem to think it's my responsibility to provide homeless servcies and free meals to them. Oh, and of course, give them my spare change for drugs and ciggies and booze, since the half dozen agencies that provide free food won't give them those luxuries.

If I only lived in my house and on my couch, I wouldn't be exposed to this cirque de hell. But since I actually like to interact with my town, parks, and public spaces, I do...and that's why I've grown weary of it.

So if that's being pompous and lazy, I'm guilty. But in return, I get to call them lazy and worthless for sucking off of our tax dollars and making our public spaces garbage dumps riddled with their abandoned camp sites after they've moved on.

Decaf for the crazy guy! Quick! Before he makes Norse sound reasonable by comparision!

The reason to fight downtown is that the people creating the atmosphere of petty dispute are the business owners and the police who selectively enforce, falsely arrest, and commit human rights abuses. The scene downtown is uglier than some in large cities. There is no reason to treat innocent bystanders as criminals, by assuming that everyone entering your store that you do not know or who does not look rich is ripe for exploitations by calling the cops.
I do not know another city, and this includes Portland, SF, and Seattle, where the hair-trigger temper of business owners and the enforcement of that by local cops is so blatant and biased. This is a small town atmosphere, where things get blown out of proportion. Who is blowing things out of proportion? Not the homeless, poor, or simply those who are not millionaires trying to survive in this town. This town is one of the most expensive cities to live in in the nation, and if you think the rich aren't going to go to every means to protect that interest, you are wrong.
Is this selfishness and greed petty? You bet it is.

And it's the powerful who started this argument.
When the pwerful, and rich no longer can selectively enforce against the poor, then I will call protest and disagreement petty.

Until that day, every bit of energy to change this bigoted atmosphere is worth it.
That starts with the sleeping ban and extends to profiling based on class, looks, and race.

I understand that downtown is not always an aesthetic place to be. I do not frequent. But some poor people must, along with those who want to feel they are in Santa Monica while they shop. Poor people do not have choice-- rich people can go shop in Los Gatos.

Civil rights of every citizen trump business rights, every time. Until this town has an infrastructure that can support treating all citizens fairly, no examination of process downtown is too petty.

Life is not an elementary school. Life is not UCSC.

Much of life is just like downtown SC. Whose side are you on?

The polarization of rich and poor, the selective enforcement of law, and the marginalization of our most vulnerable citizens is not pretty.

I've picked my battle and I know what side I am on.
Sounds like you have too. It is easy for elite liberals to ignore our local citizens, than it is to back "those poor people" from other countries.

Why is that? Exploitation and murder, cruelty and ghettoization is OK if it's done to our locals, but not if someone comes here from Oaxaca? Locals had "every chance" because they were born here?

Think again. Until you are on the side of ALL poor and working class, not just immigrants, you are selectively moral. I'm sure your shit doesn't stink.

Only the rabble downtown do.

Mama. That is one weird post, Jill Portamento.

Good post, Jill.

No, that's not a good post, Jill. It's not even intelligible. Leave it to Robert to encourage such half baked thinking. I use that last word loosely.