From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
The Chalking Menace--Cops Block One Lane of Pacific Avenue for an Hour
Friday the 3rd, Officer Forbus and his companion parked their squad car, completely blocking a traffic lane in the narrow street between Cinema 9 and O'Neill's. Their target: Whitney and her announced once-a-month chalk-in. The two cops gave David Espinoza a costly infraction ticket for drawing four small concentric blue circles in one square of the sidewalk. Meanwhile the Women in Black stood by, a dozen strong, and had little to say about the issue.
Whitney Wilde describes the Chalking Incident at
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/10/01/18542313.php?show_comments=1#18542820 .
Forbus and his partner arrived by squad car around the same time I did, parking their vehicle in the middle of Pacific Avenue, so that one lane of traffic was fully blocked. A second car with Officer Winston showed up, parking behind the first squad car, creating a pretty clear traffic obstruction on a busy Friday night. After getting out, and walking around briefly, Winston left.
Forbus and partner stayed, however. I left after half an hour, but Whitney reported the police stayed on, standing in the middle of the sidewalk, as Whitney announced to passersby that chalking was illegal in Santa Cruz, she holding two boxes of Sidewalk Chalk, purchased from Palace Arts Stationary across the street.
In the last year, police have ignored chalking by HUFFsters in front of the Bookshop Santa Cruz and at the Drum Circle (i.e. where there were enough people doing it to make their ticketing look abusive and ridiculous--as well as to be potentially resisted). Where they could target one or two people, Forbus went to it with vigor. Admittedly "on complaint" from Steve of O'Neill's.
Folks threatened with a ticket have a right to be "taken to a magistrate" prior to signing a ticket --which is a promise to appear in court. That procedure is now a standard part of SCPD protocol because required by state law, and pushed vigorously by attorney Kate Wells in the early 90's. However if the courts are not open, since the jail does not have a "magistrate's clerk" on duty as I'm told they're supposed to, you're likely to spend the weekend in jail unti the courts open int he morning.
Forbus did not inform Espinoza of his right to be taken to a magistrate. A rough-hewn but not unsociable officer, the chalkchasing constable is memorable to me for prior incidents. He gave out six citations to a group of street people sitting in the shade of a building around the corner from the Mexican restaurant near the Metro--for sitting (not panhandling) within 50' of an ATM, without a warning.
This was around the time the gentrification gestapo removed all benches in the Metro block to drive away "undesirables". The ticketing also took place on the hottest day of the year, where the only shade was around the corner from the ATM. Those ticketed also reported prior harassment and ticketing for sitting on the utility boxes and other nearby structures. The "Move 'Em Along" agenda moved right along.
Back to the chalking ticket. Espinoza also suggested he might have been warned. Forbus brushed it off by saying "Mr. Norse here could have warned you." He then later, as Whitney writes, apparently suggested I was the one who "provoked" the ticket. Based on Whitney's account that the police stayed for half an hour after I left, it seems the police didn't mind a highly visible presence--two cops standing in one place on the sidewalk with a squadcar roadblocking a lane for an hour downtown.
It reminded me of the use of three officers in a highly visible drumcircle patrol week after week in late August and early September.
Apparently the Whitney's indybay announcement called for emergency action by the DTA (Downtown Association), which reportedly met and discussed ways of dealing with the threat of erasible chalk.
Women in Black were having their weekly vigil on the corner of Cooper and Pacific nearby. One woman came over to sympathize and ask a few questions. I believe another may have sent for a camera. A third went up and shook hands with the cops. Considering the number of people there (10 or more), I noted their general lack of solidarity with a political artist on an issue that directly impacts political activists--the right to use erasible sidewalk chalk on the public sidewalk to put out a human rights message.
Perhaps we weren't respectable enough.
Or perhaps friendly fascism may be bad for Palestinians, but okay for Santa Cruzans.
I'll be playing audio of the bust and my "watch your taxpayer dollars at work" town crier response on Sunday at 9:30 AM on 101.1 FM. Tune in and call in.
Please stop and witness such police antics.
Phone in reports of such incidents to 423-4833.
Phone City Council (420-5020) with complaints.
Advise the Downtown Association (429-8433) that you oppose using the SCPD as their private goonsquad to squash artistic and political First Amendment activity.
Such behavior certainly doesn't encourage me to exchange increasingly devalued dollars for tourist knickknacks in the coming depression.
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/10/01/18542313.php?show_comments=1#18542820 .
Forbus and his partner arrived by squad car around the same time I did, parking their vehicle in the middle of Pacific Avenue, so that one lane of traffic was fully blocked. A second car with Officer Winston showed up, parking behind the first squad car, creating a pretty clear traffic obstruction on a busy Friday night. After getting out, and walking around briefly, Winston left.
Forbus and partner stayed, however. I left after half an hour, but Whitney reported the police stayed on, standing in the middle of the sidewalk, as Whitney announced to passersby that chalking was illegal in Santa Cruz, she holding two boxes of Sidewalk Chalk, purchased from Palace Arts Stationary across the street.
In the last year, police have ignored chalking by HUFFsters in front of the Bookshop Santa Cruz and at the Drum Circle (i.e. where there were enough people doing it to make their ticketing look abusive and ridiculous--as well as to be potentially resisted). Where they could target one or two people, Forbus went to it with vigor. Admittedly "on complaint" from Steve of O'Neill's.
Folks threatened with a ticket have a right to be "taken to a magistrate" prior to signing a ticket --which is a promise to appear in court. That procedure is now a standard part of SCPD protocol because required by state law, and pushed vigorously by attorney Kate Wells in the early 90's. However if the courts are not open, since the jail does not have a "magistrate's clerk" on duty as I'm told they're supposed to, you're likely to spend the weekend in jail unti the courts open int he morning.
Forbus did not inform Espinoza of his right to be taken to a magistrate. A rough-hewn but not unsociable officer, the chalkchasing constable is memorable to me for prior incidents. He gave out six citations to a group of street people sitting in the shade of a building around the corner from the Mexican restaurant near the Metro--for sitting (not panhandling) within 50' of an ATM, without a warning.
This was around the time the gentrification gestapo removed all benches in the Metro block to drive away "undesirables". The ticketing also took place on the hottest day of the year, where the only shade was around the corner from the ATM. Those ticketed also reported prior harassment and ticketing for sitting on the utility boxes and other nearby structures. The "Move 'Em Along" agenda moved right along.
Back to the chalking ticket. Espinoza also suggested he might have been warned. Forbus brushed it off by saying "Mr. Norse here could have warned you." He then later, as Whitney writes, apparently suggested I was the one who "provoked" the ticket. Based on Whitney's account that the police stayed for half an hour after I left, it seems the police didn't mind a highly visible presence--two cops standing in one place on the sidewalk with a squadcar roadblocking a lane for an hour downtown.
It reminded me of the use of three officers in a highly visible drumcircle patrol week after week in late August and early September.
Apparently the Whitney's indybay announcement called for emergency action by the DTA (Downtown Association), which reportedly met and discussed ways of dealing with the threat of erasible chalk.
Women in Black were having their weekly vigil on the corner of Cooper and Pacific nearby. One woman came over to sympathize and ask a few questions. I believe another may have sent for a camera. A third went up and shook hands with the cops. Considering the number of people there (10 or more), I noted their general lack of solidarity with a political artist on an issue that directly impacts political activists--the right to use erasible sidewalk chalk on the public sidewalk to put out a human rights message.
Perhaps we weren't respectable enough.
Or perhaps friendly fascism may be bad for Palestinians, but okay for Santa Cruzans.
I'll be playing audio of the bust and my "watch your taxpayer dollars at work" town crier response on Sunday at 9:30 AM on 101.1 FM. Tune in and call in.
Please stop and witness such police antics.
Phone in reports of such incidents to 423-4833.
Phone City Council (420-5020) with complaints.
Advise the Downtown Association (429-8433) that you oppose using the SCPD as their private goonsquad to squash artistic and political First Amendment activity.
Such behavior certainly doesn't encourage me to exchange increasingly devalued dollars for tourist knickknacks in the coming depression.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Where do you get that right you are professing?? You don't have a right to deface public or private property unless it's your own. Your art may be someone else's trash. If you want to get out a human rights message why not go where it is needed, like China, or Iran. It is not needed here. The women in black are evidently a lot more mature than you are. Why should they show solidarity with morons?
is this really news? if someone wants to go out and get themself a ticket for something that they already know is illegal, fine. but it is not a legitimate protest.
It has long been traditional in Santa Cruz to use sidewalk chalk to engage in political protest--local, state, national, and international. Some merchants are both anxious about the raising of local issues and the prospect that their tidy Pacific Avenue can't stand a little erasable chalk.
Bonnie: Water soluble sidewalk chalking is not defacement. Obviously. In fact chalkers have won substantial financial settlements in lawsuits around the issue in the early 90's.
Given the right-wing riptide in the courts recently, it's not clear how such a case--appealed--would turn out. But the amount of energy being expended by the City--as at the Drum Circle--shows that the SCPD has more money than they know what to do with. Or they don't know how to "just say no" to "No First Amendment Downtown" merchants.
Some Stories on the History of Political Sidewalk Chalking in Santa Cruz for the curious and the historically-minded....
"POLICE JAIL HOMELESS ACTIVIST FOR "VANDALISM" CHALKING IN NEW ESCALATION OF WAR ON POOR DOWNTOWN" http://www.huffsantacruz.org/press/jail-for-chalking.html
"DA declines to prosecute for vandalism chalking"
http://santacruz.indymedia.org/newswire/display/1679/index.php
"Chalkers Fight to Regain Ground"
http://santacruz.indymedia.org/newswire/display/3298/index.php
A longer more inclusive article:
"The War on Sidewalk Art: The Hopscotch Rebellion"
http://www.counterpunch.org/johnson02222003.html
"Chalkcrime Trial on Valentine's Day"
http://hpn.asu.edu/archives/2003-February/007133.html
"Broken Windows, Broken Theory"
http://santacruz.indymedia.org/newswire/display/1964/index.php
The outcome of the trial as reported by the Santa Cruz Sentinel:
"Court official rules sidewalk chalking is not a free speech issue"
http://hpn.asu.edu/archives/2002-September/006732.html
"Hopscotch Ruled Illegal in City of Santa Cruz"
http://www.huffsantacruz.org/press/chalk-downtown-guilty09-27-2002.html
On the recent chalk-a-thon that apparently unbalanced the Downtown Association:
"Santa Cruz Chalked Up: Artist, Activist, Poets, and Kids of all ages"
http://www.psychosiis.com/chalked-up.html
The Sentinel article on the issue:
"Santa Cruz Gets Chalked Up"
http://www.scsextra.com/story.php?sid=78953
Comments:
http://www.topix.net/forum/city/brookdale-ca/TV9AU4K4BHU0UGQ1P
Other comments and stories on the issue can found by googling for "Chalking Santa Cruz Becky Johnson".
Bonnie: Water soluble sidewalk chalking is not defacement. Obviously. In fact chalkers have won substantial financial settlements in lawsuits around the issue in the early 90's.
Given the right-wing riptide in the courts recently, it's not clear how such a case--appealed--would turn out. But the amount of energy being expended by the City--as at the Drum Circle--shows that the SCPD has more money than they know what to do with. Or they don't know how to "just say no" to "No First Amendment Downtown" merchants.
Some Stories on the History of Political Sidewalk Chalking in Santa Cruz for the curious and the historically-minded....
"POLICE JAIL HOMELESS ACTIVIST FOR "VANDALISM" CHALKING IN NEW ESCALATION OF WAR ON POOR DOWNTOWN" http://www.huffsantacruz.org/press/jail-for-chalking.html
"DA declines to prosecute for vandalism chalking"
http://santacruz.indymedia.org/newswire/display/1679/index.php
"Chalkers Fight to Regain Ground"
http://santacruz.indymedia.org/newswire/display/3298/index.php
A longer more inclusive article:
"The War on Sidewalk Art: The Hopscotch Rebellion"
http://www.counterpunch.org/johnson02222003.html
"Chalkcrime Trial on Valentine's Day"
http://hpn.asu.edu/archives/2003-February/007133.html
"Broken Windows, Broken Theory"
http://santacruz.indymedia.org/newswire/display/1964/index.php
The outcome of the trial as reported by the Santa Cruz Sentinel:
"Court official rules sidewalk chalking is not a free speech issue"
http://hpn.asu.edu/archives/2002-September/006732.html
"Hopscotch Ruled Illegal in City of Santa Cruz"
http://www.huffsantacruz.org/press/chalk-downtown-guilty09-27-2002.html
On the recent chalk-a-thon that apparently unbalanced the Downtown Association:
"Santa Cruz Chalked Up: Artist, Activist, Poets, and Kids of all ages"
http://www.psychosiis.com/chalked-up.html
The Sentinel article on the issue:
"Santa Cruz Gets Chalked Up"
http://www.scsextra.com/story.php?sid=78953
Comments:
http://www.topix.net/forum/city/brookdale-ca/TV9AU4K4BHU0UGQ1P
Other comments and stories on the issue can found by googling for "Chalking Santa Cruz Becky Johnson".
As the prior posters have astutely observed, this doesn't seem like true news, or activism. It's more like a side note or less. Accurate observations.
It's simply more of Robert Norse, and his penchants for jousting with windmills and seeing his own name printed in media.
Doubt this assertion? Go read the 11 links he's provided on the........"issue".
It's simply more of Robert Norse, and his penchants for jousting with windmills and seeing his own name printed in media.
Doubt this assertion? Go read the 11 links he's provided on the........"issue".
BONNIE MCENNIS WRITES: "Where do you get that right you are professing?? You don't have a right to deface public or private property unless it's your own. Your art may be someone else's trash. If you want to get out a human rights message why not go where it is needed, like China, or Iran. It is not needed here. The women in black are evidently a lot more mature than you are. Why should they show solidarity with morons?"
BECKY: Is chalk truly a "defacement" of a sidewalk? It COULD be a sidewalk improvement! Though 'tis true, it could be "trash". That's the nature of democracy! The citizen is free to express what thought they want to---whether its profound or inane (or diminutive like your "morons" comment).
When did chalking on a sidewalk with erasable chalk become a crime?
The answer is not so easy to find.
The law in question, MC 9.20.010 defacing the sidewalk does not mention chalk at all. It does outlaw paint, advertisements, and marks. The reason this is tricky, is because the law was passed in 1964 ( and has never been amended) but has only been enforced against chalkwriting starting in 2000. And even then, only on ONE street. And even then, only against homeless people and activists.
David Espinosa IS an activist.
Yet despite being on the books for 36 YEARS, it was never enforced against non-permanent chalk writing.
A further problem is with the word "marks." Anyone who eats food on the avenue, walks with black-soled shoes, or dirty shoes might leave a "mark" too. Dirt leaves marks. Sometimes the sidewalk being chalked is already marked with gum, food stains, black heel marks, and cigarette ashes. Why were none of THOSE offenders given $162 citations?
Why is chalk singled out?
And how could the legislative intent and enforcement of the law dramatically change without any council action?
Why are chalk tickets ONLY issued on Pacific Ave. when its a city wide ordinance?
Why doesn't Santa Cruz have to protect freedom of speech under the 1st amendment if that speech is written in chalk?
Who is harmed by the presence of a hopscotch board on a sidewalk? Where is the government's overriding need to restrict citizens freedom of speech?
Finally, what is the value of a hopscotch game?
see: Hopscotch Rebellion at: http://www.counterpunch.org/johnson02222003.html
BECKY: Is chalk truly a "defacement" of a sidewalk? It COULD be a sidewalk improvement! Though 'tis true, it could be "trash". That's the nature of democracy! The citizen is free to express what thought they want to---whether its profound or inane (or diminutive like your "morons" comment).
When did chalking on a sidewalk with erasable chalk become a crime?
The answer is not so easy to find.
The law in question, MC 9.20.010 defacing the sidewalk does not mention chalk at all. It does outlaw paint, advertisements, and marks. The reason this is tricky, is because the law was passed in 1964 ( and has never been amended) but has only been enforced against chalkwriting starting in 2000. And even then, only on ONE street. And even then, only against homeless people and activists.
David Espinosa IS an activist.
Yet despite being on the books for 36 YEARS, it was never enforced against non-permanent chalk writing.
A further problem is with the word "marks." Anyone who eats food on the avenue, walks with black-soled shoes, or dirty shoes might leave a "mark" too. Dirt leaves marks. Sometimes the sidewalk being chalked is already marked with gum, food stains, black heel marks, and cigarette ashes. Why were none of THOSE offenders given $162 citations?
Why is chalk singled out?
And how could the legislative intent and enforcement of the law dramatically change without any council action?
Why are chalk tickets ONLY issued on Pacific Ave. when its a city wide ordinance?
Why doesn't Santa Cruz have to protect freedom of speech under the 1st amendment if that speech is written in chalk?
Who is harmed by the presence of a hopscotch board on a sidewalk? Where is the government's overriding need to restrict citizens freedom of speech?
Finally, what is the value of a hopscotch game?
see: Hopscotch Rebellion at: http://www.counterpunch.org/johnson02222003.html
The expression of free speech does not give the right to chalk any sidewalk or deface any property even in a cesspool of progressive stupidity like SC. Your comment just reveals that you are out of touch with reality. Who knows when it became illegal, but the fact remains that it is. Only idiots would chance a large fine and possibly some jail time to write their ignorant bullshit on public property. Where do you live, maybe some pro lifers would like to chalk your fucking sidewalk with anti abortion messages. Bet you would be screaming foul immediately and want the cops to enforce the no chalking rule.
The Santa Cruz Municipal Code 9.20.010 in question reads:
'Defacing Sidewalks': 'No person shall paint, write, or otherwise place or affix upon any public curb or sidewalk in the city, any advertisements of any kind or character whatsoever, or any signs, marks, or paint, other than official traffic signs, marks or paint placed thereon in accordance with law, except as hereinafter provided. The director of public works may authorize in writing, the painting, placing, or affixing of house numbers, pedestrian safety signs, or other markings serving a public interest.'
For Bonnie's info, some homeless activists (sometimes the most militant) have been anti-choice (or "anti-abortion" or "pro-life") and indeed used the first amendment right to express that view with erasible. chalk. Linda "the Lark" Edwards, an ancient homeless activist who died of liver cancer in 1995 (and was the only homeless activist to have a day named after her by the Mayor of Santa Cruz), went to jail defending the rights of "pro-life"-ers in San Jose (though she herself was pro-choice).
You can't play favorites with the First Amendment--and that's why it's so important--even when it upsets different people at different times.
'Defacing Sidewalks': 'No person shall paint, write, or otherwise place or affix upon any public curb or sidewalk in the city, any advertisements of any kind or character whatsoever, or any signs, marks, or paint, other than official traffic signs, marks or paint placed thereon in accordance with law, except as hereinafter provided. The director of public works may authorize in writing, the painting, placing, or affixing of house numbers, pedestrian safety signs, or other markings serving a public interest.'
For Bonnie's info, some homeless activists (sometimes the most militant) have been anti-choice (or "anti-abortion" or "pro-life") and indeed used the first amendment right to express that view with erasible. chalk. Linda "the Lark" Edwards, an ancient homeless activist who died of liver cancer in 1995 (and was the only homeless activist to have a day named after her by the Mayor of Santa Cruz), went to jail defending the rights of "pro-life"-ers in San Jose (though she herself was pro-choice).
You can't play favorites with the First Amendment--and that's why it's so important--even when it upsets different people at different times.
"If you want to get out a human rights message why not go where it is needed, like China, or Iran. It is not needed here."
Sorry, but it is needed here. You are a prime example of why it is needed here. I'm surprised and disgusted that the WIB would shake hands with the cops while watching what went on here.
Signed
MIB
Sorry, but it is needed here. You are a prime example of why it is needed here. I'm surprised and disgusted that the WIB would shake hands with the cops while watching what went on here.
Signed
MIB
Wildside Whitney send me the following story about a NYC chalking case which seems relevant:
http://visualresistance.org/wordpress/2006/04/03/chalking-is-not-a-crime/
http://visualresistance.org/wordpress/2006/04/03/chalking-is-not-a-crime/
"Color fades and so does racism"
http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.941
Chalking for Ron Paul
http://forum.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=messageboard.viewThread&entryID=42132242&groupID=100332141&adTopicID=16&Mytoken=08832656-A673-4770-8818775D7958086415797
http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.941
Chalking for Ron Paul
http://forum.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=messageboard.viewThread&entryID=42132242&groupID=100332141&adTopicID=16&Mytoken=08832656-A673-4770-8818775D7958086415797
So while we make chalking illegal, Sacramento celebrates it. For 18 years, last year over 30,000 people went to look at the beautiful chalk paintings.
http://www.chalkitup.org/
http://www.chalkitup.org/
I recall a few years ago, when First Night Santa Cruz was still in existence, that one of the "family-friendly activities" included handing out (wait for it...) CHALK, to children to write and draw all over the public sidewalk along Pacific Avenue. This was 2002, if my memory is correct, sometime after Becky's chalk crimes... Oh! The irony, isn't funny at all...
and apparently bad at Math (what subject does she teach, anyway?) If the law was passed in 1964, that would mean it's been on the books for 44 years, not 36 years... but I digress...
I don't know Becky but I DID READ what she wrote....
She said it had not been ENFORCED for 36 years... from 1964 to 2000. She wasn't saying that it had been on the books for 36 years.
So, who is the moron? Huh? Huh?
She said it had not been ENFORCED for 36 years... from 1964 to 2000. She wasn't saying that it had been on the books for 36 years.
So, who is the moron? Huh? Huh?
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
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