Show Us Your Correspondence, Madame Mayor

One thing that was clearly exhibited at this week's council meeting is that Robert no longer has a following or much credibility amongst the homeless population he seeks to champion.

His speech was met with resounding silence. Of all the speakers who voiced their disapproval of the proposed ordinances, his by far received the smallest volume of applause from those who opposed the ordinance.

Reminiscent of the Republicans after the Dems swept all the elections; it's over, and the public has voted......you just don't seem eager to accept that fact. Dangling chad, anyone?

So now it turns to harass and delve into process and minutea; standard huff operational procedure.

Why would she give you copies? After you went and put the copies Tony gave you online? You destroyed relationships Tony was trying to rebuild on the city council. Because of you he has been alienated by the rest. Nice work

So basically you're calling her a liar.

What do you want to prove by getting the copies? That it was really only 319 email in favor and not the 320 stated? The bastards!!!

That it was not really 13 opposed emails, but rather 14?

Answer us this Robert. Are you and Becky as forthcoming with information when it is requested of you? Does HUFF readily respond to documentation? Does Becky even quote consistent facts and figures when she's pontificating to people about the ever elusive truth?

Quite honestly, you guys demanding documentation to prove that something really happened is laughable.

There will probably be lots of new homeless who need an advocate. If you look at rents, much less mortgage prices, if someone loses a job, they'll deplete their savings really fast. When people with prestigious jobs and american accent lose their position, they can displace someone down the ladder, until the person who is last hired is fired. They will be homeless in our parks. Just this week, my coworker who is a UC postdoc was told that he can't continue working because the INS is delaying his academic visa for months after deadline. this was inexplicable because we need his work, and the INS is unaccountable and won't answer. He is already at the point where he is selling his car for funds to move to south america because he couldn't save during grad school, and the cheapest 1bedroom apartment for him and his wife and child was $1500 - about 55% of takehome pay. Any small savings that many people with families can make with housing prices like these will be gone within a few months.

Quoting:
"There will probably be lots of new homeless who need an advocate. If you look at rents, much less mortgage prices, if someone loses a job, they'll deplete their savings really fast. When people with prestigious jobs and american accent lose their position, they can displace someone down the ladder, until the person who is last hired is fired. They will be homeless in our parks."

May I recommend a _different_ homeless advocate. Maybe one that thinks that getting people into homes and off the street and works toward that? One that has not alienated vast numbers of people, maybe even effective?

Might be too much to wish for.

Regardless of what you think of Robert , HUFF or Becky, they are separate people you know... The city staff and its council members do have a legal duty to provide such documents. It doesn't matter who asks or why.

One of the things that has become clear from our current national fiscal meltdown is that we need more transparency in government and from the corporations taking our new socialized version of capitalism. That includes our own City. This city has constantly stonewalled and illegally kept public documents from being released. It is our right to have access to such things. Its is their legal obligation to provide them. If the tables were turned and a different law was being passed, say one that allowed the homeless to sleep on any public side walk and the Mayor waived a packed of reasons and public commentary as to why the that decision was reached, you might want to take a look too. You should certainly have the right. Or if the house you wanted to build was refused a permit because 300 neighbors emailed that it would block their ocean view, I would think you might want to look yourself.

The point being. It doesn't matter. It is the law and a matter of public record. I am not a huge Obama Supporter. But I do agree with his stance on making government more transparent. Since our former Mayor and most council members are Obama supporters, I would hope they would follow his lead in asking and even implementing more transparency in government.

Maybe there is nothing in these documents. Who cares. What is more important is that they are made available as all City Council documents should be to ANYONE. No matter if you love or hate the person asking.

This is simple common sense.


I know a few merchants. Some who are leaving downtown. All are women and none are leaving because they feel unsafe or due to the way downtown is. None fear walking to their cars. None have even had one incident doing so. They are leaving because of the downtown association, the lack of a stable economy, high rents, etc. Mostly due to the failing economy.

Of course Downtown biz are failing. People cannot afford a fancy Kiss My Glass vase, or an antique right now, nor designer cloths. They want cheap useful items. They simply do not exist downtown in any great numbers. Thrift shops will stay open I guarantee that. Passing laws to clean up the mall as they have every few years will not have any great affect on downtown. It will only deepen a divide in our community instead of trying new ideas or new solutions. Many cities are finding the money they are spending on policing the homeless and poor is costing far more than any benefit they are receiving. SC just doesn't get that lesson yet. I would rather the cops stop violent crimes, rape, murder, assaults, than cruising the mall looking for people sitting too close to a dumpster.

Poverty will always be seen and it should be seen. So should the mentally ill, the drunks and drug addicts, because moving them out of eyesight doesn't remove the problem. It is also a goal that is simply impossible to achieve.

I agree, the documentation should be made available for the public to see. But at the same time, it means that someone on the city staff will have to make copies of every single document, go through them with a magic marker or white out, and eliminate every person's email, telephone number, address, and name. Then go back and make copies again so that no one can look to find the deleted information by turning over the paper or scratching off the white out. This will take time and cost the city some money.

Just because you want some information does not mean you will get it tomorrow. Saying she is holding the information back is unfair. Let's be honest, it's not like HUFF hands anything over very fast, why should they expect anything else from the city.

This is a total waste of time and in the end Robert will once again achieve nothing. He lost and he's too proud/delusional to admit it.

Ever heard the story about the boy who cried wolf?

That, in essence, is huff. And in keeping with my handle, lets keep it real and call it like it is: huff is Becky and Robert and thats about it.

So Robert is the boy who cries wolf. He repreatedly demands reams of reports, which require hours upon hours of public employee time, to satisfy his personal vendetta against our local government.

It's not about helping homeless, and its not about obtaining the information for any useful purpose. It's because he's read the rules and know the loopholes and knows he can demand this information.

Is it his legal right? Yes.

Do I blame the city for taking it's sweet time and making him their lowest priority as he asks for the 578th time? Hell no.

Regarding Mayor Matthews secret file of complaints, critics should be aware that the City has absolutely no right to "take its sweet time" in providing material that was supposed to be available 72 horus before the meeting, yet was held back even a day after.

There were obviously many people opposed to these ordinance changes who spoke and would like to have seen the correspondence that influenced the mayor to shortcircuit the usual process of deliberation and conceal the ordinances from the public generally until the last minute. Her decision to stonewall seems part of the exclusionary strategy of informing only the faithful, avoiding the usual Downtown Commission process, and keeping even other Council members in the dark.

Even Matthews' claims that she was "hampered by the Brown Act" were disingenuous. This only applies to other Council members (allowing only 3 members of the Council to consult with each other on an issue prior to a public debate). A city council committee, or the Downtown Ordinances, or any member of her secret Downtown Task Force could have released a preliminary press statement or simply responded to specific requests made by members of the public for advance information. This would have shown respect both for other councilmembers and the broader community on such a controversial issue. Matthews, Robinson, and Coonerty chose to only inform their supporters.

It was actually legally questionable for the Mayor not to make available her file at the same time the agenda was made public the Thursday before the meeting. And a clear violation of the Brown Act to deny access to it at the meeting and a day later. Since the issue is still coming up for a second vote, stamping these documents "Top Secret" or delaying their viewing is another illegitimate and illegal attempt to influence public opinion and conceal from the community the real process that is going on.

Why are Matthews' supporters are so eager to defend her on this matter and denounce those simply seeking open government here? In the future on other issues, this kind of bureaucratic secrecy may bite them on the ass.

Fran: There's no right to redact letters to City Councilmembers. They are considered public documents. That's my understanding.

Chunkstyle: While folks are homeless (and some of your friends may find this as depression deepens), they still need their rights protected from those who want to move them out of sight and out of mind. Until there is shelter, housing, and jobs, folks have to be able to survive without being denied the right to sleep and use public spaces--which is really what these ordinances do. While people have legitimate concerns about bad behavior, the ordinances say nothing whatsoever about that. Packaging economic scapegoating and anti-homeless hostility with "this isn't about the homeless" disclaimers doesn't alter the clear impact of the ordinance changes.

Shadow: It's not a matter of calling Matthews a liar, but of seeing the specifics of the complaints she got. Yes, it's legally required, but more important, it's relevant to a well-informed public--on both sides. Since the process of developing these laws itself was secret (except to supporters), the specific concerns that motivated that changes relate to deciding how effective these changes are likely to be.

Fiona: Tony didn't make anything available to me. Don Lane gave me some vague information (he wasn't advised of what was going on). I got the specific earlier document from a confidential media source.

More Accurate: Actually I was surprised at the amount of praise I got for what I said at City Council for homeless people and others in the community. I don't think my speech was the best of the critical response by any means. Devon's personal experience on the street (one of the last speakers--a previously homeless guy now a Cabrillo student) put it much better than I did.

I'll be playing some of the Council debate and perhaps some of the public comment today on Free Radio 9:30 AM to 1 PM. It'll also be archived in a day or so at http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb090201.mp3

Robert, you're deluded. Unless you were expecting to have zero people support your statement, then it wouldn't be possible to be surprised by how many did support it.

Check the tape, it doesn't lie; I'd say 3 people clapped.

As for all your talk of "secret meetings" and subterfuge used by small groups of supporters holding clandestine meetings to thwart the opposition? Puhleeze, keep it real. You're trying to create intrigue and plots to distract attention from he real facts. And the facts are that the vast majority support this.

The people at the council meeting were largely representative of the two minority populations that represend the extremes in this community: the huffsters and anarchists who opppose anything the local government does, and the business owners who are supporting the ordinance.

The people who weren't there were the moderates, the centrists...and tha'ts the vast majority of this community. And that population, though it doesn't often come to the meetings, has an opinion. And it's opinion is that it wants the mall cleaned up. And we've made that opinion known to our elected officials, and to our shop owners, and our friends who work at those shops.

Those are our emails the mayor was talking about. Our phone calls and conversations are the reason the city council voted unanimously.

You guys keep trying to color it as a vendetta against homeless by money-hungry business owners. That's a smokescreen. The business owners may be the ones speaking, but they're carrying our message forward, as is the council.

You saw and heard it yourself; the majority wants this change. But to admit that would be to admit defeat, so you're going to keep claiming that it's all smoke and mirrors and backroom deals all aimed at a genocide against the homeless. That's not the truth, and your disinofrmation campaign isn't going to change our minds. You'll rally and impassion those who already agree with you, but you're not going to change any of the minds in the middle.

Just to add a note and continue the flagellation-- "More Accurate" got it right. Robert "Norse" Kahn is a piece of waste in the ether of the internet, who makes himself useful through... well, nothing. He hasn't done anything, hasn't changed anything, has no support from the community... If it weren't for his independent wealth, with no need for a job, we would never have known him.

Thank you, Kahn family, for unleashing your trustfund baby on Santa Cruz!

For those who want to talk with Councilmembers Beiers and Lane, show up tomorrow at the Westside Roasting company at 1 PM and 3 PM respectively.

Again the Matthews supporters have no problem with the closed door process used, which shows either desperation, a lack of principle, or just the triumph of bigotry. Or perhaps it's the kind of politics they like. As long as it's their people who are circumventing any real public process.

But that's not the way to find real solutions. And believing that "forbidden zones" are a solution to "abusive behavior" is to ignore the experience of the last 15 years.

The fact that a City Council will unanimously pander to business and conservative merchant pressure groups who cook up more ingenuous ways to remove poor people from public space does not deal with real problems.

It will create more problems in the constricted zones created. Or alternately (and this is the point of the anti-homeless crowd), drive more poor people away.

But I repeat myself, don't I? And these arguments remain unanswered.

Perhaps Robert if you and other activists would walk up to some of these punks downtown (who are acting up and being just plain disrutive, uncivil and giving the other folks who just want a place to hang out and be left alone while they leave others alone) and smack them up side the head and saye "Hey! I am not working my ass off trying to protect your rights for you to make me and theothers fighting for you look bad. EIther shape up or go hassle folks elsewhere". Maybe then people would have alittle more respect for you and your ilk. The answer is not jst give me givem e and give me more. It is a two way street. You want the townsfolk and the merchantes to back off, get your people to be a bit more civilized.

Very good post CG.

Robert says "The fact that a City Council will unanimously pander to business and conservative merchant pressure groups who cook up more ingenuous ways to remove poor people from public space does not deal with real problems. "

What about the people who live in Santa Cruz and don't have any stake in a business downtown? Many many people showed up, or sent letters, who are just ordinary citizens in town and not part of any merchant group or the business community. Their voices were heard.

Both Lane and Beiers said that while they were campaigning door to door in the neighborhoods the number one question asked of them was what did they intend to do about the situation downtown. Beiers made a point of saying this during the meeting. These were average people in their homes saying this. Those two candidates addressed these calls for change.

You act as if it only business people in town who are tired of the mess downtown. You fail to admit that the regular citizen of Santa Cruz is also fed up. They voiced their distress to the candidates when they were visited in their homes. And now the council is acting on behalf of the people.

What about the woman who spoke up in favor of the ordinances that had herself been homeless? You fail to acknowledge that she ever spoke. Here was a formerly homeless woman saying this was a good move. That it would make people accountable for their actions. There were other homeless people who were also in favor of the ordinances. You never mention them. Aren't they real people too? Shouldn't their voices also be heard? You act as if they don't exist.

As for the real problem. It is bad behavior. Men and women behaving badly regardless of social class or living situation.

...then City Council needs to address it with real solutions, not forbidden zones for sitting, peaceful sparechanging, political tabling, and street performing. There has to be a real inclusive process. Involve real people on the streets who are there with more regularity than the police.

There have to be real stats about whether prior rounds of these ordinances (1994, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007) have actually worked. No evidence they have. Police are understandably bashful about these stats. Which we've never seen.

And there has to be real consideration of the impact of shrinking public space for the poor (and, yes, homeless people) who have been driven out of parks, beaches, the Pogonip, Harvey West, public parking lots, and elsewhere). The impact on the entire community--which doesn't seem to me to be a good one when more folks are crammed into smaller spaces and police are sent to enforce this.

But no matter how many times I and others repeat this, we don't get a rational response from posters on this website, at the Sentinel forums, or at City Council.

Why? Perhaps because if you have the power to get politicians to blow hot and hard and pass more restrictive laws, then you can beat your chest and say you're doing something about the problem. When you're not.

When critics point that out, just denounce them and scream louder about "the mess".

Those complaining about bad behavior downtown need to address it when it happens (hopefully not violently, by calling on community or police support). If you're assaulted, spat on, abusively addressed with fighting words, make a complaint then and there. If not, don't whine about it later and criminalize public spaces for a whole bunch of innocent people.

Or if you want community help in dealing with bad behavior, get specific about the bad behavior, sit down with all the people involved, get them to buy in, and find real solutions.

Can it be any clearer than that?

It looks as if Robert forgot to update this section regarding a new development. Robert posted the below comments at the other website, The Courant Times, where he has been implying that the public was not in favor of the ordinances. Just like here.

Robert says "Mayor Matthews has made her e-mail correspondence file available to the public. There is also a lot of e-mails in the Main Branch of the Public Library for those who want to read them. It is certainly true that the e-mails are overwhelmingly in favor of the "done deal" Mayor's laws (unlike the speaker split last Tuesday night)."

I'm sure that his failure to post the same information on Indybay is an oversight. Considering the numerous posts, reposts, links to posts he has already written, and new posts linking his old posts because people have forgotten the old posts, it's no wonder he forgets where he lobbed the first accusation of information hogging.

I hope Robert does not mind me posting his note here.

It is also incumbent on the supposed leaders and activists for these causes to step up and help change the uncivil behavior. You are plenty eager to get on the city councils case if they (in your less than humble opinion) out of line. However I haven't heard about you doing jack if your precious panhandlers and/or street kids get out of line. IMHO Only individuals with a direct stake should be allowed to speak before the city council. In my home town it was that way. Kept out of town ner do wells from hogging all the time and made it truly a local issue.

"But no matter how many times I and others repeat this, we don't get a rational response from posters on this website, at the Sentinel forums, or at City Council."

Hi Robert,
Perhaps you missed it, but here's a point by point critique I wrote in one of your last threads:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/01/22/18565245.php?show_comments=1#18566043

I invited you to share your solutions and provide a counterpoint to my arguments, yet you didn't respond. Perhaps you'd like to do so now, or am I being "irrational" along with everyone else who dares criticize HUFF?

As far as Robert is concerned, any response that does not agree with his point of view is irrational.

And I've always liked it as he calls people bigots when they don't agree with him. Which, by definition, is being a bigot.

Thanks, ex-resident, for directing people to the update I posted on Courant Times (at http://couranttimes.com/2009/01/28/santa-cruz-city-council-cracks-down-on-homeless-panhandlers-street-musicians-political-tablers-streetperformers/#idc-ctools ). I refer people to it for further contact.

Ex-resident's "rational response" doesn't include answering the following:

"Forbidden zones" don't address bad behavior. They criminalize innocent behavior. And make the street less welcome to poor people. Please clarify how peaceful sparechanging, political tabling, non-obstructive sitting, and street performing have any direct correlation with the bad behaviors complained of? If not, why restrict them to the vanishing point and cram everybody together in the same spaces? And why should innocent people have to pay for the fact that those who are the victims of abusive behavior choose not to use existing laws to address those issues? More unanswered questions.

Please clarify, ex-resident. Either here or on my radio show, if you're not too shy.

Yes, Matthews has finally released the documents. Only after a public fuss was made about it. That should not have been necessary.

No, I have no silver bullet to eliminate bad behavior. I have suggested involving people on the street who are there regularly to enlist their awareness, assistance, and advice. That is something Matthews, Robinson, Coonerty, Manthri Srinath, nor any of the troll-critics as far as I am aware, have done. BEFORE creating more hostility with more laws that target innocent behavior.

Campus Guy's hometown hostility and bigotry towards public dialogue at City Council speaks for itself. As for who has a stake in this--anyone the police decide to "move along". And that's mostly going to be poor people, probably with transient addresses. The bad behavior? Sitting, sparechanging, playing music in the wrong zones.

Bigotry--that's when you push a set of policies that treat a class of people in an abusive and discriminatory fashion, usually based on an irrational fear or hatred (such as the apprehension that your business woes are to blame because people are sitting near your shop).

Multiplying bigotry by 100 (in e-mails or in person at City Council) does not make it any less bigoted. Just more scary.

So because I think people who live and work in a town should be the ones who decide how their town should be run and outside agitators who only have a personal axe to grind should shut the hell up I am a bigot?
You know damn well Robert that the 90% of the street kids, musicians, and pan handlers are not the problem. It is the 10% that get in your face, are uncivil and aggresive that cause the problems. Unfortunately these are the folks that the rules are working to weed out. Unfortunately to deal with the 10% the others who actually are unoffensive have to suffer. I can drive perfectly well while talking on the cell phone but the 10% of the population who are idiots and can't chew gum and walk at the same time are the ones who make society think we need laws governing cell phone use in cars. It is a fact of life that the innappropriate behavior by the few get laws passed that effect the many. I stand by my statement that dealing with the behaviour is the way to go. If the street folks stop getting in the non-street folks faces then tensions will ease. I also stand by my statement that it should be people who live in a town should be the ones who have a say in how it is run, period. If you can't find a local spokeperson for your cause then I guess not that many people give a damn about your cause.

Robert says "Yes, Matthews has finally released the documents. Only after a public fuss was made about it. "

A public fuss? You can hardly call one or two people asking for documents, which were handed over in a reasonable amount of time, a "public fuss". It's not as if it was a cry heard across the land.

"I also stand by my statement that it should be people who live in a town should be the ones who have a say in how it is run, period. If you can't find a local spokeperson for your cause then I guess not that many people give a damn about your cause."

-EXACTLY. What is Robert's fascination with SC about? HE DOESN'T LIVE HERE. Also, he is much closer to Scotts Valley, where they don't seem to let homeless people even exist! Why not battle with their city council to loosen up laws? Or Los Gatos? But he goes after Santa Cruz, which is more tolerant of the homeless than any town I've lived in! It's like picketing NORML for pot legalization...

Don't be so generous with the "one or two"! I didn't even hear Becky calling out Matthews, so that makes it ONE: Kahn/Norse.


Some public "outcry"! I'm curious, are there laws against city council members setting up a spam filter for folks like Bathrobe Bob?

Campus Guy: Cell phone use while driving reportedly produces a higher rate of accidents because of the loss of attention to the road. Not bad behavior with a cell phone. Sitting in a forbidden zone is innocent behavior. How do cramming all performers, sitters, sparechangers, and tablers into "forbidden zones" control bad behavior from "the 10%"?

Are you a troll? Read the definition below; consider how much of my argument(s) you actually addressed, and judge for yourself:

Quoting from Metteyya Brahmana's post at http://www.topix.net/forum/source/santa-cruz-sentinel/TK5C08JAHF3L6OHIV

WIKIPEDIA: An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.


Shadow: Matthews refused first to release any information the week before the Council meeting to critics, while giving apparently full info to her allies on the Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Association, Santa Cruz Neighbors, etc.

Her office--the day after the Council meeting--refused to release documents that should have been available at least at the meeting (and arguably 24 hours before). And then she took another 5 days to release the documents (which involved no copying costs--I was shown the originals). The public fuss was on indybay, through e-mail, and by a direct public records act demand. Yes, it was a public fuss.

You'll be pleased to hear that you also qualify for troll, 3rd class. Whether you can rise to the top of trolldom remains to be seen.


SC Local: Fact is I'm a SC homey and have been here longer, most likely, than you. Even when I moved away for brief periods of time, I kept my residence here. Where my work is.

But again, this is another trollomaniac argument that ignores the issues ["Is a Mayor deliberately concealing info from one group and giving it to another; is she violating state law by keeping back public documents?"]. Along with your colorful and off-topic potshots about "public fuss", you play tomato toss from the safety of your hideyhole. The good news is that makes you eligible for Troll of the Week award.


Come on, trollskies, get back to the issues, or scurry back to your well-appointed homes. Otherwise you will be automatically entered in the "Most Trollish Tommyrot" sweepstakes. Winners to be announced on my show Sunday.

Warning: those who actually call in at 427-3772 on Thursday 6-8 PM and Sunday 9:30AM - 1 PM to engage in honest debate will be disqualified from the Troll Sweepstakes. So keep a low profile and keep pitching slime from dark places if you want to stay in the running.

Robert, I'm almost kind of insulted I didn't make your list of trolls.

Has Robert run out of arguments? He and Becky always say if you have to turn to calling people names you've run out of arguments. I guess he has, since he's calling everyone that does not agree with him a troll.

I wonder what people call Robert behind his back? Maybe people should ask Becky.

My comments were neither off topic nor were they irrelevant. They presented an opposing view of the topic. However by your standards anyone who DARES (yes I raised my internet voice) present a view opposing you must be a well off bigoted trol. Your arguments are weak and from what I can see irrelevant.

"But again, this is another trollomaniac argument that ignores the issues ["Is a Mayor deliberately concealing info from one group and giving it to another; is she violating state law by keeping back public documents?"]. Along with your colorful and off-topic potshots about "public fuss", you play tomato toss from the safety of your hideyhole. The good news is that makes you eligible for Troll of the Week award."

-Gee, thank you, Robert! I consider that an honor. "We are the champions... MY FRIENDS!" Honestly, I can't stand Matthews and really hope she goes by the law. But, you know what, I'm so tired of HUFF, as are so many others, that I just can't bring myself to care about any mistakes by Matthews, Robinson, etc. at this point.

And honestly, if there was a judge in this county who would take ANY case you would present, then I think it would be time to start thinking about a judicial recall. You are the boy who cried wolf, Robert, but you have HUFFED and puffed and blown your own house down...

"Campus Guy: Cell phone use while driving reportedly produces a higher rate of accidents because of the loss of attention to the road. Not bad behavior with a cell phone. Sitting in a forbidden zone is innocent behavior. How do cramming all performers, sitters, sparechangers, and tablers into "forbidden zones" control bad behavior from "the 10%"?"

Are you serious here Robert. If you remove all people of a certain group, 10% of which are uncivil jerks, then you will remove the 10% who are jerks along with the 90% who are civil folks. It is the same old story repeated. Because the 90% could not get the %10 in line and police themselves they had to suffer for the misdeeds of the 10%. There are laws on the books everywhere that affect those of us in our cozy plush homes exactly the same way. Many are there because those of us in our cozy plush homes did not address the issues ourselves. BTW Robert I work my ass of to have my cozy plush home. Often working 2 or three jobs at a time to make ends meet. All while going to school full time and raining my 3 kids. Don't ever DARE to assume you know what my circumstances are again. I am a firm believer in giving folks a hand to help them back on their feet but they better be willing to help themselves and make an effort to better their situation. From what I have seen of many of the street folks downtown during the week they are mostly kids who would rather be skateboarding and hanging out than doing anything productive.

Campus Guy (and the City Council's) apparent plan to eliminate all sitting, sparechanging, tabling, and performing from 90% of the Pacific Ave. sidewalk and 100% of all other business districts doesn't address abusive behavior. Pure and simple.

Folks can commit their abusive behavior in the remaining 10% of the space, or in the space that was banned. It'll still be abusive behavior and should be addressed as such. The innocent sitting, sparechanging, tabling, and performing behaviors will still be innocent, still be banned, and still have nothing to do with the abusive behavior.

What this does do is discourage poor people who don't want hassles from the police to use the public space on Pacific Avenue for innocent behavior, in the relatively few legal spaces remaining because they're crowded together, more likely to have problems with each other, and worried about the police "reinterpreting rules" based on merchant entitlement attitudes.

It will also empower more police harassment, and, of course, cost the city more money.

Plus, some of us are pretty clear on this, it will guarantee some long-term protest demanding a restoration of basic rights (for everyone, but particularly for the homeless).

For more on the issue check out http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/02/09/18569234.php .

Just kidding about those troll awards.

Robert says "Plus, some of us are pretty clear on this, it will guarantee some long-term protest demanding a restoration of basic rights"

Is this going to be like when you said the city council would be confronted with organized resistance for just considering the ordinances? That one, quite honestly, went over like a lead balloon.

Will it be like the second reading of the ordinances at city hall where you promised confrontation and even less people showed up then the first time?

HUFF's threats are starting to sound as hollow as their promises to the homeless for a better life.