Harsher Downtown Ordinances Being Cooked Up?

Honestly, Robert, perhaps if you and your allies hadn't burned so much "political capital", as Shrub might put it, with things like "let me drum or I'll punch you", then people would have more sympathy for those who will be burdened by harsher laws.

The drum stuff or the "Support the Bad Ass 2" campaign alienates people who might otherwise be concerned by more anti-homeless punitive laws. But because you and HUFF have so thoroughly discredited homeless advocacy, this town won't lift a finger to help the victims of Ryan's new laws.

It could have been different, Robert...

I fully support increased enforcement if it curtails illegal activity and restores a sense of community to the mall that includes ALL residents. Under the current conditions, it's like a defacto clubhouse for a small group of people who leave it dirty and intimidate too many other people from feeling safe or welcome there.

"let me drum or I punch you?"

WTF?

Yesterday at the suggestion of the City Councilmember who advised me of the upcoming ordinances, I called John Barisone and asked for a copy of the draft ordinances. He refused and explained his refusal as documented below.

I also spoke with Chip, Executive Director of the Downtown Association, who said he'd heard of the forthcoming ordinances. The Downtown Association itself, he continued, did not initiate the ordinances, but supports them.

No return phone call or e-mail from Mayor Matthews.

The Downtown Commission, which traditionally has examined, discussed, and debated previously Downtown Ordinances, is apparently being completely bypassed. They meet the fourth Thursday in January. Perhaps this is because they were skeptical of Coonerty's Parking Lot Panic law back in 2006, again in 2007, and sought--unsuccessfully meaningful police input (and were stonewalled) in 2008. (See http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/07/20/18518034.php?show_comments=1#18520406 )


BARISONE STONEWALLS

Subject: 1-15-09 Telephone Call
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 14:02:43 -0800
From: JBarisone [at] abc-law.com
To: rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com

Robert, I haven’t received any direction from the Council to discuss with you any assignments I may or may not be working on at the request of Councilmembers. Therefore, I won’t returning your call. Thanks, JGB


John G. Barisone
City Attorney

Atchison, Barisone, Condotti & Kovacevich
333 Church Street
Santa Cruz, California 95060
JBarisone [at] abc-law.com
PH (831) 423-8383
FAX (831) 423-9401



From: Robert Norse [mailto:rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 2:26 PM
To: John Barisone
Subject: RE: 1-15-09 Telephone Call

John:
Do I understand unless you get specific authorization from the Council, you won't be answering questions from the public?
I had thought it was the other way around--in terms of governmental transparency--that is, that unless it was a litigation or personnel matter and being done in confidence, you didn't have a problem responding to inquiries from the public.
In the past, you've been helpful.
Has that policy now changed?

Robert



RE: 1-15-09 Telephone Call‏
From: John Barisone (JBarisone [at] abc-law.com)
Sent: Thu 1/15/09 2:30 PM
To: Robert Norse (rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com)

Yes. Concerning assignments I receive from Councilmembers. The Council is my client and the Council alone can direct me when my work product can be discussed or released publicly. The client holds the attorney-client privilege and the only the client can waive the privilege.

It was Tony Madrigal, ok.

Tony Madrigal is pissed off at a bunch of the council members for not supporting him during his run. So in order to get back at them he's telling Robert about these things.

I have to agree with one of the previous comments. Robert has wasted any sort of political clout he hoped to have on issues that the community is not behind. It's sad. The homeless people in our community deserve better.

New information in a memo passed on by a councilmember:


> “On Tuesday evening the Santa Cruz City Council will consider recommendations by Mayor Cynthia Mathews and Council members Lynn Robinson and Ryan Coonerty to make Santa Cruz' downtown and beach area more safe, vibrant and welcoming for community members and visitors alike. This effort will improve and expand existing ordinances in order to make them consistent, understandable and enforceable; other programs will address specific issues. The proposal includes:
>
> ** Revising existing ordinances for greater consistency and enforceability. Making existing distances and definitions consistent for activities such as aggressive panhandling. (Distances are not increased.)
>
> ** Adding new protected areas around public art, directory signs, and trash compactors
>
> ** Adding one hour limit on public benches, based on complaint.
>
> ** Adding ordinance directing that three unanswered citations become a warrant, thus creating a meaningful consequence for chronic offenders.
>
> * Direct City participation in a "Real Change, not Spare Change" program by the DTA.
>
> * Authorize chronic inebriate program limiting alcohol sales.
>
> ** Work with District Attorney for stronger enforcement of new graffiti laws and stay-away orders for chronic offenders.
>
> ** Explore increased law enforcement presence through non-general fund revenue sources.
>
> * Launch public rest room program in partnership with local businesses.”


The double asterisked proposals are the ones that concern me particularly. The actual proposed laws won't be available until tonight or tomorrow (if laws are what are being proposed--Barisone, Mathews, etc. won't say). Still what's suggested here are

**Shrinking the "forbidden zones" for panhandling and restoring first amendment rights of peaceful sparechanges after dark, in groups, while seated, and holding signs--provided they're not aggressive abusing or pursuing members of the public, i.e. aggressively panhandling--would be a good idea. In spite of the disclaimer, I doubt they can make spaces consistent and not increase certain spaces.

**Anybody have any evidence that trash compactors, public directory signs, and art works need "protected areas"? Any evidence of property destruction or citizen complaints? Sounds like an excuse to eliminate more sitting and assembly space without providing any alternatives.

**Before you start putting in virtual parking meters for benches, you need to restore the benches removed to "eliminate undesirable assemblies". There are less than half the benches actually present in the early 90s under the Vision Santa Cruz plan. The notion of moving along "criminal sitters" on complaint makes it selective and dependent on those who want to eliminate "undesirables" from the benches.

**People tear up unreasonable tickets, particularly if they can't pay for them anyway. Adding additional penalties only holds transients in town longer and criminalizes people further. The courts abandoned this system around infractions for a good reason--it cost them too much. Now the brainacs over at Barisone's Bumbusters want to repeat the same costly mistake. It goes to show the wailing about the budget doesn't mean anything to zealots concerned in gentrifying and socially "cleansing" downtown.

**Are we talking about "criminal chalkers" here? What's a "chronic offender"? What's the standard? Get someone to plead to a case because s/he can't pay the bail and doesn't want to wait in jail for his "two panhandling tickets within 6 months" misdemeanor or the "resisting arrest" charge thrown on (as it was with singer Black Rose and elderly disabled vandweller Donna Deiss). Then you can get them banned from Pacific Avenue--like the African-American Jason Paschal was.

These measures should show up on the afternoon agenda of City Council Tuesday January 26th. Or perhaps the evening agenda.

All past downtown ordinances have gone through the Downtown Commission (largely a pro-merchant group). These laws have NOT gone through the Downtown Commission, though they were mentioned in a report by Chip, Executive Director of the Downtown Association
at the Downtown Commission's November meeting.

If any portions of the proposed ordinance changes were unclear you should have asked Tony to explain. I'm sure he has all the pertinent information at this point.

Robert says **Anybody have any evidence that trash compactors, public directory signs, and art works need "protected areas"? Any evidence of property destruction or citizen complaints? Sounds like an excuse to eliminate more sitting and assembly space without providing any alternatives.

The answer to that would be yes, yes, and yes. As for the evidence, yes.

Robert says "Then you can get them banned from Pacific Avenue--like the African-American Jason Paschal was."

Nice new move. Making this look as if council is trying to ban minorities from Pacific Ave. Did you lift that one from your new buddy Madrigal's playbook? Or is it possible you are running out of strategies?

Robert says "**People tear up unreasonable tickets, particularly if they can't pay for them anyway."

There's another reason they are getting torn up, and you know it. Don't you want ALL people downtown to be held to the same standard?

Robert says "**Are we talking about "criminal chalkers" here? What's a "chronic offender"? What's the standard?"

Again, you know the answers to your questions. Why don't you just be straight up about it and say how you feel?

This isn't about "chalking". Becky is the "chalker" in town. No, this is about tagging. Spray paint. Vandalism. The "chronic offenders" are people who feel compelled to do it over and over in order to get themselves noticed. Robert should know something about that, but I digress. There's even a story about one such person who was caught, put in jail, and used a pen to "tag" his cell with his call sign. Because to some people tagging is an addiction.

Again, you should ask Tony for clarification on this point if you really don't understand.

Robert says "*Before you start putting in virtual parking meters for benches, you need to restore the benches removed to "eliminate undesirable assemblies". There are less than half the benches actually present in the early 90s under the Vision Santa Cruz plan. The notion of moving along "criminal sitters" on complaint makes it selective and dependent on those who want to eliminate "undesirables" from the benches. "

Ahh, here's the beauty about this one. You and Becky can participate too! Just as anyone can call to lodge a complaint, so can you! Next time you are downtown if a tourist or a little old lady is sitting on a bench for more then an hour, keeping one of your transient friends from having a place to rest their weary feet, YOU can call the police and have them cited.

Actually, you should do that ALL the time. Just as any store or business downtown has the right to call the police when they see an ordinance being broken, so can you! That way it's not selective. Everyone can have a say. People off all nationalities, ethnicities and creeds. Wouldn't that be a better use of your day then sitting in front of stores protesting? You could actually make a difference.

Shadow, like his heroes in the PD and City Staff, haven't backed up their repressive amendments with any evidence crime or vandalism there. Nor any offer to restore and expand public space. Nor any answer to why decreasing allowable public space and increasing license for police harassment wouldn't raise rather than lower tensions downtown.

The Councilmember who provided the spotty info a few days back about the ordinances didn't have any more info, and couldn't get any more from the City Attorney. Another source came forward yesterday and told me that s/he got an earlier draft of the ordinances two weeks ago--which indicates the extent of the secrecy and the length of planning time involved in preparing for a bumrush at City Council next Tuesday.

Paschal, the black street tarot reader and ghettospeaker, was banned from entering any store on Pacific Avenue, but was allowed to do so fromt he rear. Really. It was part of the court order. See the link above.

Absurd and abusive tickets (sitting on the sidewalk less than 14' from a building) get torn up (a) because of the injustice involved, (b) because poor people can't afford to pay them anyway, and (c) as an act of defiance, rebellion, and self-assertion.

Since cops selectively target chalkers and have called it "vandalism", except where politically correct speech is involved, I think my concerns about expanding downtown stay-away orders and selective enforcement is quite appropriate.l

I get it that Shadow likes these ordinances and doesn't like me. Not much else being said here in five posts.

I encourage everyone to come to City Council on Tuesday and prepare for protest (perhaps the kind of ticketing-the-innocent that Shadow suggests) when these laws are rammed through.

They'll be two readings of the laws (Tuesday and two weeks from Tuesday).

For more specifics on the laws go to http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/01/22/18565245.php

Robert says "Absurd and abusive tickets (sitting on the sidewalk less than 14' from a building) get torn up (a) because of the injustice involved, (b) because poor people can't afford to pay them anyway, and (c) as an act of defiance, rebellion, and self-assertion. "

I like how Robert gives one of the more lame examples rather then a situation of aggressive behavior, being drunk or on drugs, vandalism, loud music, urinating, etc.

What about people showing up in court and trying to have the charges dismissed? It happens often. How about not spitting on the street, being drunk or on drugs in public, vandalizing property, not hogging a public bench for hours on end, not urinating, etc in the first place? Then you don't get a ticket you can't afford.

Robert also knows that most of these people don't pay their fines or show up in court because about the only thing that will happen to you is your credit will get dinged. And that is so scary.

Act of defiance? Like "showing your parents" by being a rebel?

Here is page 1 of the proposed new ordinances that the shitty council will be discussing this Tuesday.

So much for transparency in Santa Cruz, huh?

As you can see in page 1, it EXTENDS the distances!

These documents have not been released to the public.

These documents were released to the public today. Biig whoop.

That IS Tony's handwriting. Isn't it?

The 20' forbidden zone was in an earlier draft; it's back to 14'. The current version of the proposed ordinances is posted (finally) on the City website.

I don't have the stats, but the folks I've interviewed indicate they rarely show up in court--and I've probably interviewed more street people in a month than "Shadow" has talked to in a year. If you're talking about keeping people homeless, denying them credit is a good first step.

Existing laws against violent and abusive behavior can deal with real criminal conduct. (that does not include giving the merchants large swaths of the public sidewalk to rule over as the current downtown ordinances do). The police want more excuses to "sweep away the bums"--where "bums" is based on the selective decision of merchants and police. Not a good way to keep social peace in increasingly hard times.

These laws were put together in secret, without meaningful input from different segments of the community. The Council process is likely to be a joke, and the meaningful action will be in street resistance (as at the Farmer's Market Drum Circle) and in the courts (as in the $2.3 million won by the Fresno homeless for city cops and rangers destroying their property as Chief Ranger John Wallace's crews do here).

Show up anyway at 7 PM and speak your piece.

I've written a letter to Cynthia Mathews which I attach.

Cynthia:

Please set aside at least five minutes for HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom) for the evening agenda's 7-part Downtown Ordinance item.

I encourage you to expand time beyond the 3 minutes for individuals/5 minutes for organizations traditional speaking times. Or break up the item into several sections so they can realistically be the subject of meaningful community input.

You declined to provide any advance information on this item, though I requested it of you a week ago by phone. Special interest groups have met behind closed doors without public input or input from homeless advocacy groups. There seems to have been a special attempt to keep this hushhush. The City Attorney refused to release any information when I sent him an e-mail a week ago. This is the opposite of a transparent process and one that involves the community.

The measures were developed without any formal presentation to the Downtown Commission and weren't even on its Thursday morning agenda. In the past, without exception that I remember, every Downtown Ordinance involving such significant modifications have gone through that board--stacked as it is with harsher enforcement bias. What is your reason for ignoring it this time?

Thus far you've chosen to retain Councilmember Coonerty's reduction of public comment through cutting testimony time, cramming everything onto afternoon agendas, and refusing the public the right to remove items from the Consent Agenda--in oppostion to the practice in virtually every other California city.

These acts of disdain for community input only heighten tensions in difficult economic times--as do the criminalization of the poor people for the convenience of the police under pretext of dealing with "behavioral problems". They also reflect badly on you.

An expression of outrage from the audience should not be the trigger for threatening to remove someone from the chambers, unless it meaningfully disrupts the meeting. That is the point of the costly lawsuit the City has chosen to spend over $100,000 pursuing defending its "rules of decorum". Nor should an attempt to respond to personal comments made be the basis for a threat from the chair to shut down the publci process for a member of the public. I have seen both these kinds of actions from you and other Council members in recent meetings.

Though we had long-standing disagreements, I was heartened by your accessibility when you were last Mayor several years ago. I felt you had grown in office. Now I fear you are taking a more repressive path.

Please advise me of whether you intend to restore what meagre time we had a few years ago, and confirm my speaking time on the Downtown Ordinances item. Again, I suggest you break it up and allow public comment on it in sections--if it is to be more than a token rubberstamping.

Thanks,

Robert Norse
(423-4833)

Last week in a comment on the Santa Cruz Sentinel Topix pages Becky Johnson wrote that only people who live in a place should be able to create the answers to their areas problems. That the citizenry of a city, or country, are the ones to come up with their own solutions as they know best.

Here we have Robert Norse demanding that the city council of Santa Cruz listen to him and take do what he wants in terms of solutions for the problems of the city. Yet he does not even live in the city. He lives further up in the mountains on Highway 9. In Felton.

Robert should take Becky's advice and let the citizens of Santa Cruz do what is best for them and their community. Let them come up with their own solutions. There will be a lot of public input at the meeting on Tuesday. Many differing opinions. By people that live in the community and have invested their lives in it. There will not be a lack of differing opinions whether Robert has his extra two minutes of self gratifying public attention or not. But at least the differing opinions will be coming from people that live in our community.

See http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/01/26/18565796.php
for Notes on the Proposed New Improved Downtown Ordinances Reducing Public Space

Robert said "The 20' forbidden zone was in an earlier draft; it's back to 14'."

How did I miss this one? I happen to know for a fact that it was NEVER proposed to be 20'. Never. I challenge Robert to find a copy that says there was a proposal of 20'. I challenge Robert to find a single person that will concede this was ever an option. He'll never find one because no one ever brought that issue up.

Sometimes when people react with panic they say the darndest things.