Detailed info on New Santa Cruz Downtown Ordinances

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/01/15/18563373.php

I 100% support these new ordinances. The mall has become a travesty, and a majority of Santa Cruz citizens are in support of cleaning it up. I guarantee there will be strong support for these new ideas.

I encourge all who support the endeavor to email the city council and let them know you feel the same.

Yes, thank you, Robert! While I don't agree with all of these ordinances, I think some of them are a good start. More importantly, the police just need to enforce the laws already on the books!

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/01/15/18563373.php?show_comments=1#18565477

Robert says "An expression of outrage from the audience should not be the trigger for threatening to remove someone from the chambers,". But realistically, Robert or Huff cronies are the only ones typically removed from chambers.

Robert says "That is the point of the costly lawsuit the City has chosen to spend over $100,000 pursuing defending its "rules of decorum".. But in reality, only Robert has sued the city over this issue and his nazi salute.

Robert says "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.". But in fact, Robert or his Huff allies are typically the only ones who make these personal comments that are percieved as cause to shut down the process.

Couched as looking out for and protecting the public interest, it is in reality Robert seeking changes and policies to suit his personal needs to allow him to pursue his personal vendettas and agendas.

The jig is up Robert. Your game is tired, and people are tired of it. The community will hear both sides, and the majority opinion will prevail. And your protestations are clear indicators that you know which side is the majority.

I blame Captain Clarke. He seems to get his way with the city council, and this is his kind of thing. How does he have so much pull anyway. He's way to connected

If you really think one cop is driving this issue, then that cop owns you.

The reality is that a large percentage of the people in this town are tired of having the downtown feel like it is owned by a small percentage of people who choose to base their life on Pacific Ave and act like they own it......and we want it back.

I object to 8 major changes to Downtown ordinances being passed as ONE ITEM!! This is a way to undercut the democratic process where members of the public will be forced to comment on 8 items in one comment period which may be three minutes, or may be shortened on the whim of the Mayor.

Ryan Coonerty outrageously passed a change in procedure at City Council where items on the consent agenda may no longer be pulled by a concerned member of the public. Instead, in an extremely undemocratic process, he instituted that members of the public must BEG for a member of the City Council to allow the item to be pulled.

And now Cynthia Mathews who had years of participating and over-seeing the former, much more democratic method of allowing either a council member OR a member of the public to pull an item to allow for discussion. This is giving the fox the key to the henhouse. When the hen wants in, the fox gets to decide.

Becky and Robert, please answer this. Who's actions led the council to limit the amount of time a person gets to talk? I think it is sad that the council was put in a position where they had to enact such a limit. But considering that some people took up way beyond a normal amount of time to speak out on issues that had no chance in hell of getting changed, they had to be fair to everyone.

And I find it atrocious that HUFF feels they should be allowed more then their fair share of time to discuss the issue at the next meeting just because of who they are. You are asking for selective enforcement of the rules to your own benefit. Over and over we hear HUFF members talk about how rules in this town are selectively enforced to benefit a few. Huff always says that the rules should be the same for everyone. NOW HUFF is asking for an exception for their own benefit. Truly unbelievable. And hypocritical.

>> Huff always says that the rules should be the same for everyone.

Huff believes the rules should be the same, and enforced the same for all people - even if they are homeless. (But I'm not a huffster, but that's what it seems like to me...)

In any event, it's the CITY COUNCIL's rules that you are talking about. An organization can request more time to speak since they represent multiple people. Those ARE the rules, Mr. Birdsong.

Blaming critical speakers like me for City Council public time cutbacks is like blaming "terrorists" for the war in Iraq.

We are the excuse not the reason.

We have not, contrary to Rotkin mythology, taken up large amounts of time.

We do regularly speak at City Council. I have regularly castigated them for such things as destroying rent control at De Anza and Clearview Court, expanding laws that criminalize the homeless, rubberstamping police expenditures, doing business with corporations that profiteer in Afghanistan and Iraq, backing Drug War hysteria against Marijuana locally through their crippling of Measure K and bogus posturing on medical marijuana--to name a few of the issues.

The repeated shortening of City Council public comment, the repressive decorum rules, and the costly lawsuits provoked by false arrests are the responsibility of Mayors Fitzmaurice, Rotkin, Coonerty, and now Mathews. As well as the silent councl majority that did nothing when the rules were made worse.

Just as democrats in Congress did nothing as Patriot Act-type and FISA legisaltion was renewed. (Obama has yet to annul the Authorization for Use of Military Force, passed by Congress in September 2001, which was used by the administration as a green light for the exercise of unfettered executive power; the military order of November 2001, which established the President's right to seize and hold indefinitely anyone he regarded as an "enemy combatant," and which also established the Military Commissions; and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (PDF), which resuscitated Dick Cheney and David Addington's reviled trial system after the Supreme Court ruled it illegal in June 2006).

Rotkin speaks more at one Council meeting than I have spoken at all the Council meetings this year put together.

A lie: "We have not, contrary to Rotkin mythology, taken up large amounts of time. ".

Robert, I have attended many City Council meetings throughout the years, and you absolutely took up large amounts of times prior to the installation of new ordinances limiting your minutes.
I would go so far as to propose that you personally were the single most verbose and time consuming speaker of anyone from the public side. Can you name someone who spoke more frequently or longer? I don't think so.

A misdirection: "Rotkin speaks more at one Council meeting than I have spoken at all the Council meetings this year put together. "

Robert, the only reason Rotkin wins THIS YEAR is because of the new rulings that limit you.

A comment: "Rotkin speaks more at one Council meeting than I have spoken at all the Council meetings this year put together."

Ah, but we elected Rotkin, and he has a formal position. We most certainly didn't elect you. As such, I find it perfectly understandable and acceptable that he receives more microphone access than do you or any other member of the general public. Want more time? Run for office and win.

But Robert can't run for public office because Robert does not live within the city limits of Santa Cruz. And I doubt he would run in the first place due to the inevitable loss that it would entail.

As I stated before, there will not be a lack of commenting on this issue. There will be ample opportunity for people of both sides to air their point of view. I will bet that the discussion portion of this meeting goes on for quite a long, long time. And most of those comments, on both sides, will be duplications of what other people are saying. Add to that the amounts of emails and phone calls the council will be receiving and I am positive they will be supplied with more than enough public input...... without an extra two minutes by one individual or group.

The suggestion that due process will not have been achieved if Robert does not receive more time to speak is laughable.

I'll also add that it is sad the issue has gotten to this point.

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

Actually, Tim, Norse has run for public office before and was trounced. Here's a link from the 2004 election.

http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/scz/city.html

For a more substantial contribution:

I've noticed that there hasn't been any negative comment by Norse and crew about the OTHER parts of the proposed law changes, namely the "Real Change, not Spare Change" program, the "chronic inebriate" measures and the downtown restrooms. It seems to me that these proposals will do more to end chronic homelessness (and the substance abuse issues typically associated with it) in Santa Cruz. I have no problem with the "real change" program in conjunction with increased enforcement of other measures, as a (hopefully well-funded) program by the city will encourage stronger social welfare for those who need it.

Also, I'm curious- it seems like an awful lot of HUFF's platform is built on simply undermining everything the City Council tries to do, rather than putting forth WORKABLE solutions that protect the rights of the homeless, community members, and businesses alike. Why is this?

Robert says "they're already well aware that they're going to face substantial resistance."

I doubt you could call what will happen as being "substantial" resistance. I do believe that for once you will find out what the residents of this little sleepy beach town feel. They are over it. You really don't think that Ryan, Lynn and Cynthia came up with this all on their own, do you? Like some plan hatched to cause you annoyance? No, they have been listening to people in the neighborhoods, businesses, families, and people that live in the area.

Au contraire, Bathrobespierre. I think it is YOU who will be facing substantial resistance.

Ex-Resident say "Also, I'm curious- it seems like an awful lot of HUFF's platform is built on simply undermining everything the City Council tries to do, rather than putting forth WORKABLE solutions that protect the rights of the homeless, community members, and businesses alike. Why is this?"

That is a very good question. Becky has been asked numerous time to supply her "readers" with solutions to certain problems around Santa Cruz. Every time she is pressured about how many people have found housing with HUFF's help, or what exactly has HUFF achieved in all this time, or how does she propose programs she advocates be paid for, she always say that HUFF is advocacy group and holds no responsibility to initiate solutions. Only to raise awareness.

How nice is it to be a part of a group that has no accountability other then to hurl accusations at people. They rate themselves on how much trouble they can cause and not on how many of those they advocate for get real and desperately needed help.

I'm also surprised that Indybay still lets her post comments on here. She has been blasting them over at The Sentinel Topics for this, that, and the other.

Yes, it's true, they've finally gone too far. And they will go down to defeat tonight.

Remember: Robert and Becky's agenda is NOT to get people off the streets. It never has been. Their agenda is to KEEP people on the streets!

Low-income campgrounds, public facilties, more public spaces for the entire community--are certainly a better answer than sweeping poor people out of sight.

That's what these forbidden zones, arrests for multiple infractions, and police state policies are all about. These measures (a) haven't worked, and (b) shouldn't work --because they are based on a special-interest merchant agenda that does not include the poor and the broader community. Blindly demanding poor people be terrorized into abandoning their right to public spaces so merchants can more frantically display items that folks can't afford in a plummeting economy is a grim joke. As more and more storefronts become vacant, you'd think this would become more obvious.

This kind of hate mentality directed against poor and young people on the street is particularly sad as more and more folks are forced there.

The misdirected vitriol of the proposed ordinances seems to reflect a mixture of denial, delusion,and repeating the same failed actions.

Robert,
Let's go back to what you wrote, and break it down piece-by-piece.

"Low-income campgrounds, public facilties, more public spaces for the entire community--are certainly a better answer than sweeping poor people out of sight."

Let's assume that we both have the common goal of ending chronic homelessness and getting as many of the homeless housed and happy as possible. These low-income campgrounds of which you speak would do more to "sweep poor people out of sight" and would likely force them into physically undesirable areas where they could be further targets for crime, or even police repression. Additionally, campgrounds won't do anything to help alleviate issues of chronic homelessness, and this cannot be seriously recommended as a sustainable method of reducing those numbers.

I concede to you that Pacific Avenue could use more public restrooms, but this seems to be in the process of being implemented by one of the proposed changes to the ordinances. Additionally, with regard to the use of public space: what of the public's right to not be subject to verbal abuse by aggressive panhandlers (don't act like they aren't there), or be unable to use a public bench because someone's deemed it their personal campground for the day? I notice that the "move-along" laws are mostly enforced along a complaint basis- it seems like the lesson here is "don't be an asshole" and you can stay as long as no one has a problem with you.

"That's what these forbidden zones, arrests for multiple infractions, and police state policies are all about. These measures (a) haven't worked, and (b) shouldn't work --because they are based on a special-interest merchant agenda that does not include the poor and the broader community. Blindly demanding poor people be terrorized into abandoning their right to public spaces so merchants can more frantically display items that folks can't afford in a plummeting economy is a grim joke. As more and more storefronts become vacant, you'd think this would become more obvious."

Robert, the way you write about the downtown merchants evokes images of a shadowy cabal of hooded figures, meeting in a subterranean lair (perhaps under Lulu's, where Manthri Srinath is sustained by human sacrifice and tourist dollars), conspiring of new and sadistic ways to screw the poor and homeless. This kind of conspiratorial rhetoric is indicative of how you are guilty of the very thing you accuse the merchants of: lack of consensus building and community involvement. The fact of the matter is downtown commerce and tourism are what drive the economy of Santa Cruz, and most people in town, regardless of how liberal or conservative you deem them to be, recognize this fact and vote accordingly. If HUFF was really about constructive solutions towards ending chronic homelessness, then you would adjust your tactics accordingly. Your showing when you ran for public office is indicative of just how much public support you have- this isn't the fault of the electorate, but simply your inability to recognize that while Santa Cruz's residents are progressive, they don't embrace your platform. A shrewd tactician would recognize that in politics you have to compromise with people you may personally consider your "enemies" in order to advance your own goals. This is a lesson you haven't learned yet, and until you do, you will continue to demonstrate your irrelevance.

"This kind of hate mentality directed against poor and young people on the street is particularly sad as more and more folks are forced there."

Again- HATE MENTALITY. You've also sidestepped my other queries to you concerning the "real change, not spare change" program. Why is this?

I ask you again: if tomorrow, the entire Santa Cruz City Council and executive leadership suddenly vanished into thin air and you became the sole governing entity in town- how would you balance and respect the rights of the community members, the businesses that drive the city's economy, and the homeless in a fashion that takes into account their needs?

It's one thing to be against a lot of things, but what do you propose to erect in their stead?

Rather, better behavior in our current public space is what's needed; that's a red herrring.

More public space isn't going to move the derelicts and punks and criminals off the mall.

Robert says "These measures (a) haven't worked, and (b) shouldn't work --because they are based on a special-interest merchant agenda that does not include the poor and the broader community."

I guess we'll find out tonight what "the broader community" thinks. I think Robert underestimates how fed up people really are in this town. They are not against homeless people, or people who are down on their luck. They are against rude behavior. Robert will not accept that this is not just about the business community, it is about the entire population of the city. So we'll see.

Shadow predicts a mandate with Obama size proportions of people demanding change.

Robert says "Blindly demanding poor people be terrorized into abandoning their right to public spaces so merchants can more frantically display items that folks can't afford in a plummeting economy is a grim joke. As more and more storefronts become vacant, you'd think this would become more obvious. "

Now here's something interesting. On this point the people who panhandle on Pacific Avenue actually have one leg up on the business owners. It is against city ordinance for any business to place on any sidewalk a display or sign to promote their business. It is referred to as "solicitation for commercial benefit". A panhandler has the right to put out a sign on the sidewalk asking for money as it is free speech. Both are for financial benefit, but one party has been singled out and been restricted from engaging. The businesses. This is a very sticky point for many businesses along the avenue. But the businesses follow the ordinances and don't put signs out on the sidewalk. This is especially a problem for second story businesses that people do not notice.

So Robert, what display devices are merchants putting out in formerly open spaces to the detriment of the panhandlers ?

Robert said "they're already well aware that they're going to face substantial resistance. "

Is that what you call "substantial resistance"??

It was telling when the mayor asked the crowd how many were in favor of the ordinances and about 9/10ths of the people in the room and outside raised their hands. When asked who was against the ordinances very few people raised their hands. The "substantial" group were those for it.

And I'm sorry, but that one man wandering around the front of the room in an obvious haze was really not helping the "resistance" side.

7-0. I mean really, Robert. You were shown what the broader community as a whole really thought.

My impression of the Council Meeeting:

-That was a clear community mandate in favor of the proposals. 10-1 in favor, if not higher..maybe 15-1.

-I got a sad kick out of watching Madrigal stumble in late; his behavior and body language clearly broadcast to me that he is the odd-man-out of the council.

-The percentage of people who spoke against the ordinances who appeared to be exhibiting mental or behavioral problems was significant and telling. It seemed apparent to me that a lot of the folks that are causing bad behavior due so due to mental conditions. I'm not sure new ordinances will have any ability to effect their behavior.

-There were several speakers who were pro-homeless but clearly not from this community. They spoke eloquently on the plight of the poor but didn't know about our town.

-Robert got the smallest ratio of applause of any of the anti-ordinance speakers. I think that showed very clearly how little credibility he has even amongst the population he seeks to lead.


The citizens have spoken; the new ordinances are going to be in effect soon. Try it, you might like it.

As to the resistance comment. I just heard from someone who would know that in addition to the people who showed up the council members received over 320 emails and letters in support of the ordinances. The opposition sent 13.

If Robert is going to stay in this game he needs to get it together. We all need champions to defend our rights. But we need people who are effective. It was a crushing blow that the measure was passed unanimously. Which indicates that the council member(s) who gave Robert the insider information, a clear message of trying to help the opposition, ultimately decided not to support him.

I was especially saddened that with the limited amount of time given people to state their case Robert decided to take time out and plug his own radio show. Perhaps a lesson in keeping the eye on the ball, priorities, and leadership is in order.

http://couranttimes.com/2009/01/28/santa-cruz-city-council-cracks-down-on-homeless-panhandlers-street-musicians-political-tablers-streetperformers/

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/01/26/18565877.php

Call in tonight on Free Radio Santa Cruz if you want to step out of the "shadow"...427-3772 between 6 and 8 PM.

You call a link to a page that the author shut down, and a link to yet another one of your own articles "updated" info?

There's nothing "updated" about it.

It should have had the title "Hello People, You're Not Paying Enough Attention To Me So Here's Another Link To Stuff About Me"

Both links are operational.

More info available at http://www.gtweekly.com/20090126338611/news/politics/cleaning-up-downtown-santa-cruz as well as on indybay.org/santacruz .

Enough already!