Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Merchants Use Cops to Suppress Tablers: Join the Protest Against Bunny's Shoes!
Import event into your personal calendar
Date:
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Time:
2:00 PM
-
4:00 PM
Event Type:
Protest
Organizer/Author:
Robert Norse
Email:
rnorse3@hotmail. com
Phone:
831-423-4833
Address:
309 Cedar PMB #14B Santa Cruz 95060
Location Details:
On the sidewalk in front of Bunny's two stores on Pacific Ave. at 1349 and 1350 Pacific Ave. in downtown Santa Cruz.
Last week Bunny's Management tried to end our tabling in front of their store by calling the police (see video at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/07/20/18609836.php).
We expect more of the same this week at 2 PM (note the new time--moved forward from 1 PM). So bring your cameras, recorders, and friends to observe police acting as agents of the merchants.
We're back offering the public the chance to support shops that support the right of homeless people to sleep--not anywhere and everywhere--but somewhere.
PLEDGE
The pledge reads: "This business does not discriminate. We support Human Rights for the homeless community. In particular, the right to sleep at night--not anywhere and everywhere--but somewhere." [See http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/06/12/18601539.php ]
STORES THAT STAND UP FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
Some of the stores that have posted the Pledge, which we urge the community to spend at:
Santa Cruz City Soccer 717 Pacific
Starbucks 1335 Pacific
The Perfumer's Apprentice 1319A-B Pacific
Pollo Loco 712 Front St.
More Music 512 Front St.
Vasili's 435 Front St.
Bad Ass Coffee 1207 Pacific
Khyber Pass 810 Pacific
Firefly Cafe 131 Front St.
Godmoma's Forge, LLC 916B Soquel Ave.
Felix Kulpa Gallery 107 Elm
Cafe Bene 1101 Cedar St.
Sub Rosa Cafe 703 Pacific
Some photos of the posted pledge can be found agt http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/07/03/18605574.php
We understand the 8 week long boycott and protest has had significant impact on some downtown stores. We encourage locals to get copies of the pledge and encourage their favorite businesses to post them.
SANTA CRUZ SLEEPING BAN THE FOCUS
There has been no movement by the City Attorney or the Downtown Association to rescind the one-act-of-sleeping-downtown-and-you-go-to-jail Injunction secured in May against homeless musicians Anna Richardson and Miguel de Leon.
Santa Cruz has zero emergency walk-in shelter for any of its homeless population. This according to the authoritative head of the Homeless Services Center, Doug Loisel (radio http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb090723.mp3interview)
Instead the City Police and Rangers enforce the medieval MC 6.36.010a--a homeless Sleeping Ban. State Rangers enforce similar laws on the beaches and in the Lighthouse Field area.
As social services are slashed, the situation becomes more dire. A 65-year old woman contacted both Loisel and HUFF regarding safe sleeping spots where she could go in her vehicle. There are no such legal places available on public property.
This Sleeping Ban (which affects both those in vehicles and those without) will now result in jailing penalties thanks to the February ordinance changes pushed by the Downtown Association and businesses on Pacific Avenue. This new law
makes three unattended infractions is an automatic misdemeanor for which you can be jailed.
OTHER CITIES LEAD SANTA CRUZ; SLEEPING AREAS COULD BE FOUND IN SANTA CRUZ
Los Angeles, San Diego, Fresno, Richmond, & Laguna Beach have overturned their homeless Sleeping Bans.
Palo Alto allows homeless people to sleep in their vehicles.
Santa Monica, Santa Barbara, and Sacramento currently face legal challenges against their Sleeping bans.
Santa Cruz is surrounded by greenbelt area, has a huge Pogonip area, and numerous parking lots and garages that could easily be used for overnight sleeping purposes. NIMBY bigotry and political cowardice are the primary obstacles.
REPORT INCIDENTS
Please report such incidents you observe or experience to HUFF at 423-4833. We are also interested in any video or audio of abusive police contacts.
New cops and "Hosts" are sharpening their claws on poor people downtown who are engaging in innocent behavior in public places (sitting, sleeping, performing, political tabling)
If you are homeless and hassled, ask the officer who demands you move if he has a legal place for you to go specifically then and there. There are attorneys who are considering taking cases to challenge the ordinance once the financial backing is available
Attorney Ed Frey is defending homeless van-dweller Sharon Paight in a case that goes to court in mid-August in Dept. 1.
WHY PROTEST BUNNY'S SHOES?
Michelle Chase, the manager of Bunny's Shoes, as well as the property managers at Borders and the Palomar, and Manthri Srinath, owner of Lulu Carpenters) all contributed to a discriminatory court Injunction, granted last month by Judge Paul Burdick against Richardson and deLeon.
We respect the right of Bunny's to manage their own properties. However, the Bunnys Declaration has been used to back up police action on public property against those that have no choice.
We would prefer to place our petitioning table directly in front of Bunny's Shoes, but the new Downtown Ordinances, passed by the City Council at the urging of the Downtown Association has made that illegal (no tables within 10' of public benches).
THE INJUNCTION
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2009/07/02/richardson_injunction.pdf
This injunction bans Richardson and deLeon from sleeping anywhere in a park or on the sidewalk in the downtown area on pain of jail. City law additionally bans them from sleeping anywhere on public property in Santa Cruz after 11 PM throughout the night.
It has nothing to do with any kind of real criminal conduct or nuisance behavior like littering, trespassing, disturbing the peace, urinating, defecating, etc. Simply sleeping outside downtown has become an immediate jailing offense for these two. So far police have not arrested them.
The impact of the decision expands far beyond these two performers, since there are 1500-2000 homeless in Santa Cruz--the overwhelming majority of which have no legal place to sleep at night.
Homeless people still face $97 citations, police harassment, destruction of their property, and discrimination.
It is piling absurdity upon cruelty to ban sleeping downtown on pain of jail, yet allow no legal place for homeless people to sleep. MC 6.36.010 makes all nighttime sleeping illegal outside on public property already; the Injunction adds a jail penalty to the downtown area for this homeless couple.
PLEDGE DRIVE CONTINUES
Activists will continue presenting their Pledge on Human Rights and Harmony for merchants to display in their windows or in their stores in soldarity if they choose. So far about about 3/4 of the businesses downtown have been approached.
Businesses downtown need to hear from the community on this issue.
More discussion of this issue at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/06/27/18604210.php?show_comments=1#18605109
SUPPORT HUMAN RIGHTS LOCALLY WITH YOUR DOLLARS
In essence we ask downtown businesses to advise the community and their customers that they no longer favor--whatever position they may have taken in the past--turning homeless people into criminals for sleeping--something over which they have no control.
Businesses that have the clarity and courage to do this should be rewarded and those that don't should be questioned.
BIGOTRY ALERT AT LULU CARPENTER'S
Manthri Srinath, Lulu Carpenter's owner, has reportedly been advising his staff to turn away those who "look homeless".
Srinath was one of four downtown businessettes who made declarations, used by the city attorney, to make Sleeping a jailing offense downtown for DeLeon and Richardson. Srinath's concerned the alleged theft of five paper napkins.
More about Srinath's past discriminatory behavior at
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/10/13/18320184.php
http://santacruz.indymedia.org/newswire/display/3564/index.php
http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb061005.mp3 (at start)
http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb061112.mp3 (towards end)
http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb061116.mp3 (at start)
FLYERS
More flyers should shortly be available. We encourage folks to download them and distribute them widely as well as posting them on other websites.
Past flyers:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/06/12/18601539.php
More info on this situation at
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/07/10/18606739.php
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/07/02/18605293.php
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/06/15/18601786.php
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/06/09/18601111.php
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/06/02/18599901.php
and
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/05/28/18598906.php
Added to the calendar on Friday Jul 10th, 2009 9:04 AM
We expect more of the same this week at 2 PM (note the new time--moved forward from 1 PM). So bring your cameras, recorders, and friends to observe police acting as agents of the merchants.
We're back offering the public the chance to support shops that support the right of homeless people to sleep--not anywhere and everywhere--but somewhere.
PLEDGE
The pledge reads: "This business does not discriminate. We support Human Rights for the homeless community. In particular, the right to sleep at night--not anywhere and everywhere--but somewhere." [See http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/06/12/18601539.php ]
STORES THAT STAND UP FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
Some of the stores that have posted the Pledge, which we urge the community to spend at:
Santa Cruz City Soccer 717 Pacific
Starbucks 1335 Pacific
The Perfumer's Apprentice 1319A-B Pacific
Pollo Loco 712 Front St.
More Music 512 Front St.
Vasili's 435 Front St.
Bad Ass Coffee 1207 Pacific
Khyber Pass 810 Pacific
Firefly Cafe 131 Front St.
Godmoma's Forge, LLC 916B Soquel Ave.
Felix Kulpa Gallery 107 Elm
Cafe Bene 1101 Cedar St.
Sub Rosa Cafe 703 Pacific
Some photos of the posted pledge can be found agt http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/07/03/18605574.php
We understand the 8 week long boycott and protest has had significant impact on some downtown stores. We encourage locals to get copies of the pledge and encourage their favorite businesses to post them.
SANTA CRUZ SLEEPING BAN THE FOCUS
There has been no movement by the City Attorney or the Downtown Association to rescind the one-act-of-sleeping-downtown-and-you-go-to-jail Injunction secured in May against homeless musicians Anna Richardson and Miguel de Leon.
Santa Cruz has zero emergency walk-in shelter for any of its homeless population. This according to the authoritative head of the Homeless Services Center, Doug Loisel (radio http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb090723.mp3interview)
Instead the City Police and Rangers enforce the medieval MC 6.36.010a--a homeless Sleeping Ban. State Rangers enforce similar laws on the beaches and in the Lighthouse Field area.
As social services are slashed, the situation becomes more dire. A 65-year old woman contacted both Loisel and HUFF regarding safe sleeping spots where she could go in her vehicle. There are no such legal places available on public property.
This Sleeping Ban (which affects both those in vehicles and those without) will now result in jailing penalties thanks to the February ordinance changes pushed by the Downtown Association and businesses on Pacific Avenue. This new law
makes three unattended infractions is an automatic misdemeanor for which you can be jailed.
OTHER CITIES LEAD SANTA CRUZ; SLEEPING AREAS COULD BE FOUND IN SANTA CRUZ
Los Angeles, San Diego, Fresno, Richmond, & Laguna Beach have overturned their homeless Sleeping Bans.
Palo Alto allows homeless people to sleep in their vehicles.
Santa Monica, Santa Barbara, and Sacramento currently face legal challenges against their Sleeping bans.
Santa Cruz is surrounded by greenbelt area, has a huge Pogonip area, and numerous parking lots and garages that could easily be used for overnight sleeping purposes. NIMBY bigotry and political cowardice are the primary obstacles.
REPORT INCIDENTS
Please report such incidents you observe or experience to HUFF at 423-4833. We are also interested in any video or audio of abusive police contacts.
New cops and "Hosts" are sharpening their claws on poor people downtown who are engaging in innocent behavior in public places (sitting, sleeping, performing, political tabling)
If you are homeless and hassled, ask the officer who demands you move if he has a legal place for you to go specifically then and there. There are attorneys who are considering taking cases to challenge the ordinance once the financial backing is available
Attorney Ed Frey is defending homeless van-dweller Sharon Paight in a case that goes to court in mid-August in Dept. 1.
WHY PROTEST BUNNY'S SHOES?
Michelle Chase, the manager of Bunny's Shoes, as well as the property managers at Borders and the Palomar, and Manthri Srinath, owner of Lulu Carpenters) all contributed to a discriminatory court Injunction, granted last month by Judge Paul Burdick against Richardson and deLeon.
We respect the right of Bunny's to manage their own properties. However, the Bunnys Declaration has been used to back up police action on public property against those that have no choice.
We would prefer to place our petitioning table directly in front of Bunny's Shoes, but the new Downtown Ordinances, passed by the City Council at the urging of the Downtown Association has made that illegal (no tables within 10' of public benches).
THE INJUNCTION
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2009/07/02/richardson_injunction.pdf
This injunction bans Richardson and deLeon from sleeping anywhere in a park or on the sidewalk in the downtown area on pain of jail. City law additionally bans them from sleeping anywhere on public property in Santa Cruz after 11 PM throughout the night.
It has nothing to do with any kind of real criminal conduct or nuisance behavior like littering, trespassing, disturbing the peace, urinating, defecating, etc. Simply sleeping outside downtown has become an immediate jailing offense for these two. So far police have not arrested them.
The impact of the decision expands far beyond these two performers, since there are 1500-2000 homeless in Santa Cruz--the overwhelming majority of which have no legal place to sleep at night.
Homeless people still face $97 citations, police harassment, destruction of their property, and discrimination.
It is piling absurdity upon cruelty to ban sleeping downtown on pain of jail, yet allow no legal place for homeless people to sleep. MC 6.36.010 makes all nighttime sleeping illegal outside on public property already; the Injunction adds a jail penalty to the downtown area for this homeless couple.
PLEDGE DRIVE CONTINUES
Activists will continue presenting their Pledge on Human Rights and Harmony for merchants to display in their windows or in their stores in soldarity if they choose. So far about about 3/4 of the businesses downtown have been approached.
Businesses downtown need to hear from the community on this issue.
More discussion of this issue at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/06/27/18604210.php?show_comments=1#18605109
SUPPORT HUMAN RIGHTS LOCALLY WITH YOUR DOLLARS
In essence we ask downtown businesses to advise the community and their customers that they no longer favor--whatever position they may have taken in the past--turning homeless people into criminals for sleeping--something over which they have no control.
Businesses that have the clarity and courage to do this should be rewarded and those that don't should be questioned.
BIGOTRY ALERT AT LULU CARPENTER'S
Manthri Srinath, Lulu Carpenter's owner, has reportedly been advising his staff to turn away those who "look homeless".
Srinath was one of four downtown businessettes who made declarations, used by the city attorney, to make Sleeping a jailing offense downtown for DeLeon and Richardson. Srinath's concerned the alleged theft of five paper napkins.
More about Srinath's past discriminatory behavior at
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/10/13/18320184.php
http://santacruz.indymedia.org/newswire/display/3564/index.php
http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb061005.mp3 (at start)
http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb061112.mp3 (towards end)
http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb061116.mp3 (at start)
FLYERS
More flyers should shortly be available. We encourage folks to download them and distribute them widely as well as posting them on other websites.
Past flyers:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/06/12/18601539.php
More info on this situation at
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/07/10/18606739.php
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/07/02/18605293.php
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/06/15/18601786.php
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/06/09/18601111.php
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/06/02/18599901.php
and
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/05/28/18598906.php
Added to the calendar on Friday Jul 10th, 2009 9:04 AM
Added to the calendar on Fri, Jul 24, 2009 7:17PM
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
"Not anywhere, but somewhere" is sounding like a copout at this point.
WHERE do you propose this campground be located? And how do you propose it be funded and governed/managed?
Those are the real questions that determine whether your proposal is a fantasy or a real option.
So far, with months of having asked this same question and no answer offered, it more and more appears to be a fantasy.
Where?
WHERE do you propose this campground be located? And how do you propose it be funded and governed/managed?
Those are the real questions that determine whether your proposal is a fantasy or a real option.
So far, with months of having asked this same question and no answer offered, it more and more appears to be a fantasy.
Where?
Santa Cruz is a city surrounded by greenbelts, a small fraction of which could be used for campgrounds. It has many unused parking lots and garages at night which could be used for "gone by dawn" camping facilities.
The Community Action Board has since 1993 supported abolition of the Camping Ban, given the Shelter emergencies.
In 1999-2000, the City Council appropriated $10,000 for a Homeless Issues Task Force to study homeless issues in depth. Its final report can be found at http://www.cabinc.org/Research/HTFFinalReport.htm .
The membership included homeless people, the executive director of the Homeless Services Center Ken Cole, the executive director of the Downtown Association Peter Eberly, several homeless people, several activists, community members from Harvey West and other neighborhoods, and folks with medical expertise.
The report wasn't issued until 9 months later, but three months into the work, the group unanimously recommended repeal of the entire Camping Ordinance (not just the Sleeping sections), and the establishment of Safe Sleeping Zones.
Article on the subject by Santa Cruz Homeless Issues Task Force member Lucy Kemnitzer:
http://www.huffsantacruz.org/StreetSpiritSantaCruz/136.Homeless%20Issues%20Task%20Force%20Recommends%20Repeal%20of%20Camping%20Ban%20in%20S.C.=12-99.pdf
Description of how the HITF Safe Sleeping Zones died: http://hpn.asu.edu/archives/2000-July/000964.html
One man's experience with the Sleeping Ban and the local courts: http://palmspringsbum.blogspot.com/2007/10/guilty.html
There are plenty of possible places for homeless people to use for emergency campgrounds or carparks. The problem has always been political cowardice and neighborhood paranoia.
And the current right-wing leadership of the Downtown Association and City Council--intent on retaining and expanding anti-homeless laws.
Protest by voting with your dollars downtown. Support stores that support human rights--locally.
The Community Action Board has since 1993 supported abolition of the Camping Ban, given the Shelter emergencies.
In 1999-2000, the City Council appropriated $10,000 for a Homeless Issues Task Force to study homeless issues in depth. Its final report can be found at http://www.cabinc.org/Research/HTFFinalReport.htm .
The membership included homeless people, the executive director of the Homeless Services Center Ken Cole, the executive director of the Downtown Association Peter Eberly, several homeless people, several activists, community members from Harvey West and other neighborhoods, and folks with medical expertise.
The report wasn't issued until 9 months later, but three months into the work, the group unanimously recommended repeal of the entire Camping Ordinance (not just the Sleeping sections), and the establishment of Safe Sleeping Zones.
Article on the subject by Santa Cruz Homeless Issues Task Force member Lucy Kemnitzer:
http://www.huffsantacruz.org/StreetSpiritSantaCruz/136.Homeless%20Issues%20Task%20Force%20Recommends%20Repeal%20of%20Camping%20Ban%20in%20S.C.=12-99.pdf
Description of how the HITF Safe Sleeping Zones died: http://hpn.asu.edu/archives/2000-July/000964.html
One man's experience with the Sleeping Ban and the local courts: http://palmspringsbum.blogspot.com/2007/10/guilty.html
There are plenty of possible places for homeless people to use for emergency campgrounds or carparks. The problem has always been political cowardice and neighborhood paranoia.
And the current right-wing leadership of the Downtown Association and City Council--intent on retaining and expanding anti-homeless laws.
Protest by voting with your dollars downtown. Support stores that support human rights--locally.
After waiting months and asking Robert repeatedly "Where"; he finally posts his solution.
And the solution is? A fantasy. A cobbled together posting of tired ideas from committees a decade old. The fantasy, again, that city parks can be used in some bucolic dream that there will be no negative impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods. The LIE that only a small number of business owners pressured the city council to drive the failed attempts of homeless campsites at Harvey West and the Westside out of business.
I called you a liar back then Robert, and I call you one again now. There was no hidden cabala of business owners leading the hue and cry to get rid of those campsites. It was me, my neighbor, and my neighbors neighbor. That effort was a debacle. The campsites were drug infested, filthy, drunk fests. The city workers were refusing to even venture into them because of the filth and risk. The neighborhood suffered. Drunk campers knocked on my door panhandling at 10 at night. I called the cops when a camper squatted and defecated in the lot next to my house. The neighborhood was negatively impacted in a significant way. You claimed then that none of that happened, and I called you a liar who didn't live there on a day by day basis to see the acutal impact. I call you a liar again today. It was a debacle, a mess, a failure. The neighbors stood up and drove that crappy experiment out. I have to laugh at your attempts to portray the bleeding heart liberal city council of the time as right wing. That's a hilarious stretch of the imagination that, in my opinion, simply serves to illustrate how out of touch with the reality of this community you are.
So thanks for confirming my belief: you have no new idea. No real solution. Instead, you have only the idea you tried a decade and a half ago that you're trying to retread and reinstititute by fabricating its failed history.
No thanks. It didn't work then, and I don't think it will work now.
And the solution is? A fantasy. A cobbled together posting of tired ideas from committees a decade old. The fantasy, again, that city parks can be used in some bucolic dream that there will be no negative impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods. The LIE that only a small number of business owners pressured the city council to drive the failed attempts of homeless campsites at Harvey West and the Westside out of business.
I called you a liar back then Robert, and I call you one again now. There was no hidden cabala of business owners leading the hue and cry to get rid of those campsites. It was me, my neighbor, and my neighbors neighbor. That effort was a debacle. The campsites were drug infested, filthy, drunk fests. The city workers were refusing to even venture into them because of the filth and risk. The neighborhood suffered. Drunk campers knocked on my door panhandling at 10 at night. I called the cops when a camper squatted and defecated in the lot next to my house. The neighborhood was negatively impacted in a significant way. You claimed then that none of that happened, and I called you a liar who didn't live there on a day by day basis to see the acutal impact. I call you a liar again today. It was a debacle, a mess, a failure. The neighbors stood up and drove that crappy experiment out. I have to laugh at your attempts to portray the bleeding heart liberal city council of the time as right wing. That's a hilarious stretch of the imagination that, in my opinion, simply serves to illustrate how out of touch with the reality of this community you are.
So thanks for confirming my belief: you have no new idea. No real solution. Instead, you have only the idea you tried a decade and a half ago that you're trying to retread and reinstititute by fabricating its failed history.
No thanks. It didn't work then, and I don't think it will work now.
It's not clear what the poster thinks I'm lying about, since I answered her/his/its question of "where"? Actually the city's own Homeless Issues Task Force did--nine years ago.
Well-run adequately funded campgrounds and carparks have never really been tried in Santa Cruz. There was the overcrowded Coral St. Open Air Shelter of 1994-5 and Camp Paradise of 2001. Neither provided with adequate sanitation facilities, even though the opportunity was there.
Other cities like Fresno, Ontario, CA, Portland, Seattle, and Miami have had long-standing homeless campgrounds.
It appears the only way Santa Cruz is likely to do this is by Initiative or Court Decision--since City Council seems more concerned with teasing out smiles on the faces of some powerful Downtown merchants and upscale residents.
When a country spends its priorities on senseless wars and bank giveaways to the rich, it's the rest of the country that goes wanting.
Santa Cruz keeps expanding its police harassment capability (see hhttp://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_12912546).
It keeps funding funding Seaside Company advertising scams (like the CVC: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_12605642?IADID=Search-www.santacruzsentinel.com-www.santacruzsentinel.com).
Yes, it is the Downtown Association, Santa Cruz Neighbors, SCPD, and other reactionary groups that cook up the cruel, stupid, unprofitable, and ultimately unconstitutional law changes (such as last February's abusive Downtown Ordinance changes and the absurd "jail-for-sleep-downtown" injunction against the two homeless musicians).
Everyone has a right to live. Criminalizing sleep at night for the homeless is equivalent to criminalizing homelessness. Exposing this is exactly what the downtown protests are intended to do. And to give the public the chance to choose whether to support this kind of criminal idioicy financially.
UPDATE ON THE PROTEST
Today's protest had police again harassing the petition table at the behest of masked merchants who wouldn't say who they were. They send out gunsels in blue to do their dirty work, using laws that don't exist anywhere else in the state (the 1-hour move along law for political tables--cooked up in 2003).
Ironically this kind of behavior exposes more clearly the level of repression that merchants expect when they're confront with calls to boycott bigotry.
I'm hoping some Video may soon be posted to show the latest taxpayer funded antics of police who are supposed to be working for are health and safety, but seem to be there to carry out the merchant agenda to run homeless people and their advocates out of the public spaces--particularly when their visible presence frightens the merchants.
I'll be playing audio tomorrow on Free Radio Santa Cruz at 8:30 AM and interviewing Jen, the activist willing to stand up to police and merchant harassment, even if it meant a citation or an arrest.
Tune in at 101.1 FM (http://www.freakradio.org) or call in at 427-3772.
CONTACT THE DOWNTOWN ASSOCIATION
Check out your favorite downtown store to see if s/he's posted the pledge. If not, download it, (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/06/12/18601539.php ) and suggest they put it up. Then let us know at 423-4833.
The Downtown Association of Santa Cruz is located at 903 Pacific Avenue, Suite 202.
They can be e-mailed at chip [at] downtownsantacruz.com, or phoned at 831.429.8433.
Tell them you'd be a happier shopper if they came out for the right of even homeless people to sleep--not anywhere and everywhere--but somewhere.
Well-run adequately funded campgrounds and carparks have never really been tried in Santa Cruz. There was the overcrowded Coral St. Open Air Shelter of 1994-5 and Camp Paradise of 2001. Neither provided with adequate sanitation facilities, even though the opportunity was there.
Other cities like Fresno, Ontario, CA, Portland, Seattle, and Miami have had long-standing homeless campgrounds.
It appears the only way Santa Cruz is likely to do this is by Initiative or Court Decision--since City Council seems more concerned with teasing out smiles on the faces of some powerful Downtown merchants and upscale residents.
When a country spends its priorities on senseless wars and bank giveaways to the rich, it's the rest of the country that goes wanting.
Santa Cruz keeps expanding its police harassment capability (see hhttp://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_12912546).
It keeps funding funding Seaside Company advertising scams (like the CVC: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_12605642?IADID=Search-www.santacruzsentinel.com-www.santacruzsentinel.com).
Yes, it is the Downtown Association, Santa Cruz Neighbors, SCPD, and other reactionary groups that cook up the cruel, stupid, unprofitable, and ultimately unconstitutional law changes (such as last February's abusive Downtown Ordinance changes and the absurd "jail-for-sleep-downtown" injunction against the two homeless musicians).
Everyone has a right to live. Criminalizing sleep at night for the homeless is equivalent to criminalizing homelessness. Exposing this is exactly what the downtown protests are intended to do. And to give the public the chance to choose whether to support this kind of criminal idioicy financially.
UPDATE ON THE PROTEST
Today's protest had police again harassing the petition table at the behest of masked merchants who wouldn't say who they were. They send out gunsels in blue to do their dirty work, using laws that don't exist anywhere else in the state (the 1-hour move along law for political tables--cooked up in 2003).
Ironically this kind of behavior exposes more clearly the level of repression that merchants expect when they're confront with calls to boycott bigotry.
I'm hoping some Video may soon be posted to show the latest taxpayer funded antics of police who are supposed to be working for are health and safety, but seem to be there to carry out the merchant agenda to run homeless people and their advocates out of the public spaces--particularly when their visible presence frightens the merchants.
I'll be playing audio tomorrow on Free Radio Santa Cruz at 8:30 AM and interviewing Jen, the activist willing to stand up to police and merchant harassment, even if it meant a citation or an arrest.
Tune in at 101.1 FM (http://www.freakradio.org) or call in at 427-3772.
CONTACT THE DOWNTOWN ASSOCIATION
Check out your favorite downtown store to see if s/he's posted the pledge. If not, download it, (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/06/12/18601539.php ) and suggest they put it up. Then let us know at 423-4833.
The Downtown Association of Santa Cruz is located at 903 Pacific Avenue, Suite 202.
They can be e-mailed at chip [at] downtownsantacruz.com, or phoned at 831.429.8433.
Tell them you'd be a happier shopper if they came out for the right of even homeless people to sleep--not anywhere and everywhere--but somewhere.
what is it for? what's the goal? it's a "statement". this town is full of people making statements that don't really mean shit. homelessness is a variety of the general dispossession created under capitalism. so if capitalist businesses eradicated homelessness (not that any of these seem to be proposing that! with the possible exception of sub rosa), would that then be an acceptable form of capitalism? why are you promoting consumerism in downtown santa cruz - because it "looks better" than the negativity of calling openly for boycotts? and so fucking what. is the sleeping ban the only issue? what about the downtown ordinances? capitalists and bureaucrats in santa cruz always respond to criticism on this subject by pointing to the lovely little ghetto they've created on coral st, "look at all the services we provide for the homeless! they should stay over there!" exactly. we don't need services (or service-based segregation), we need revolution. we need a total re-imagining of this place and this community.
Robert, I think you're playing games when you say you don't understand what I'm calling you a liar about? I think it was pretty clear, but I'll say it again in case you really didn't get it:
I'm saying your lying when you claim that its only a small group of business owners or a special interest group that opposed the failed efforts for campsites at Harvey West and the West Side years ago. I'm saying that many, many neighbors complained; it was a grass roots, unorchestrated response. I'm saying you lie when you try to claim that only a small group opposed it.
And, I think that your apparent contention that the reason neighbors didn't like them, or the reason they didn't work out, was because of a lack of toilets, is laughable.
The lack of toilets didn't account for the drunks staggering up my street as soon as the campgrounds appeared; nor their disappearance as soon as the campgrounds were halted. The lack of toilets didn't account for the rigs and needles that parks workers were finding either.
Excuses, excuses. The reality is that it was tried, it was a mess, and the people living in the effected neighborhoods complained loud and hard as they watched the negative effects these "campers" brought with them to our neighborhoods.
I'm saying your lying when you claim that its only a small group of business owners or a special interest group that opposed the failed efforts for campsites at Harvey West and the West Side years ago. I'm saying that many, many neighbors complained; it was a grass roots, unorchestrated response. I'm saying you lie when you try to claim that only a small group opposed it.
And, I think that your apparent contention that the reason neighbors didn't like them, or the reason they didn't work out, was because of a lack of toilets, is laughable.
The lack of toilets didn't account for the drunks staggering up my street as soon as the campgrounds appeared; nor their disappearance as soon as the campgrounds were halted. The lack of toilets didn't account for the rigs and needles that parks workers were finding either.
Excuses, excuses. The reality is that it was tried, it was a mess, and the people living in the effected neighborhoods complained loud and hard as they watched the negative effects these "campers" brought with them to our neighborhoods.
Tune in Thursday 7-30 at 101.1 FM for some interviews and documentation of the police attempt to shut down the protest on 7-25.
I'm also hoping the two video-ers will have some of their video posted soon.
Homeless Anti-Capitalist's comments are right on. The reason we're being rousted by police is we're audibly informing the public as they pass by (and visibly with signs) urging that they boycott Bunny's and other businesses downtown that support anti-homeless policies. If s/he wants to start a more militant campaign, I'm supportive. Bring some picket signs to the next protest and come help carry 'em.
The anonymous "Where" and "Nowhere" is upset about an inadequate "Safe Sleeping Zones" proposal. It never received a second reading by Mayor Keith Sugar's City Council back in 2000. It was actually police action and media frenzy that killed it politically by directing homeless people to the Harvey West and Mission zones before they ware legal or ready.
See http://www.huffsantacruz.org/StreetSpiritSantaCruz/148.Smoke,Mirrors%20And%20Texas%20Instruments=7-2000.pdf
and http://www.huffsantacruz.org/StreetSpiritSantaCruz/149.Smoke,Mirrors%28cont.%29=7-2000.pdf
It should also be noted that the "Safe Sleeping Zones" plan itself was dubious and inadequate--a sad political compromise in the face of community demand that homeless people be acknowledged as human beings with the need to sleep--not anywhere and everywhere, but somewhere at night. And the equally insistent demand that it be "not in my neighborhood". However the underlying need was obvious, and has grown worse. And the obvious fact that sleeping is a fundamental human right and need and that there are obviously many many places in Santa Cruz where this can be provided (actually at less cost than is being shelled out for homeless services now, if emergency campground and carpark space were made the priority).
As mentioned earlier, campgrounds and carparks have been successfully tried in numerous locations--usually after courts have found a broader "right to sleep" when there is inadequate shelter, as there is in Santa Cruz. Waiting for that seems a kind of ass-backwards and costly approach. But there will always be those that feel the local social services are more than generous, the general homeless population unworthy, the right to sleep only applicable to those in houses, and the right to be free from visible poverty paramount.
I'm also hoping the two video-ers will have some of their video posted soon.
Homeless Anti-Capitalist's comments are right on. The reason we're being rousted by police is we're audibly informing the public as they pass by (and visibly with signs) urging that they boycott Bunny's and other businesses downtown that support anti-homeless policies. If s/he wants to start a more militant campaign, I'm supportive. Bring some picket signs to the next protest and come help carry 'em.
The anonymous "Where" and "Nowhere" is upset about an inadequate "Safe Sleeping Zones" proposal. It never received a second reading by Mayor Keith Sugar's City Council back in 2000. It was actually police action and media frenzy that killed it politically by directing homeless people to the Harvey West and Mission zones before they ware legal or ready.
See http://www.huffsantacruz.org/StreetSpiritSantaCruz/148.Smoke,Mirrors%20And%20Texas%20Instruments=7-2000.pdf
and http://www.huffsantacruz.org/StreetSpiritSantaCruz/149.Smoke,Mirrors%28cont.%29=7-2000.pdf
It should also be noted that the "Safe Sleeping Zones" plan itself was dubious and inadequate--a sad political compromise in the face of community demand that homeless people be acknowledged as human beings with the need to sleep--not anywhere and everywhere, but somewhere at night. And the equally insistent demand that it be "not in my neighborhood". However the underlying need was obvious, and has grown worse. And the obvious fact that sleeping is a fundamental human right and need and that there are obviously many many places in Santa Cruz where this can be provided (actually at less cost than is being shelled out for homeless services now, if emergency campground and carpark space were made the priority).
As mentioned earlier, campgrounds and carparks have been successfully tried in numerous locations--usually after courts have found a broader "right to sleep" when there is inadequate shelter, as there is in Santa Cruz. Waiting for that seems a kind of ass-backwards and costly approach. But there will always be those that feel the local social services are more than generous, the general homeless population unworthy, the right to sleep only applicable to those in houses, and the right to be free from visible poverty paramount.
I disagree with Robert's assessment of what caused the hue and cry against the campgrounds in 2000.
Robert at first claimed that it was a small group of opponents (business leaders) who called for their closure. He now appears to be pointing the blame at "police action" and "media frenzy".
Police action and media frenzy are sexy buzzwords, and sound good when you're pitching your proposal to a website that doesn't like either the poice or mainstream media. But I again will state that I disagree with Robert, and I think his claim is a lie.
I lived in the effected neighborhood. I watched the discontent grow, and spread in my neighborhood. First one neighbor talking to the other, then a group of us gathering at a home, and finally a larger meeting at the circles church. Our discontent was grass roots, organic, and valid.
Neither police action nor media frenzy nor a lack of toilets was responsible for the uncivil and unsanitary behavior exhibited by the residents of those sleeping zones. Cops didn't make the residents drunk, and reporters weren't giving them the spikes and bindles I was finding every day in my yard.
I continue in my belief that these "sleep zones" were tried, and that they were a disaster for the communities that were adjacent to them.
Robert at first claimed that it was a small group of opponents (business leaders) who called for their closure. He now appears to be pointing the blame at "police action" and "media frenzy".
Police action and media frenzy are sexy buzzwords, and sound good when you're pitching your proposal to a website that doesn't like either the poice or mainstream media. But I again will state that I disagree with Robert, and I think his claim is a lie.
I lived in the effected neighborhood. I watched the discontent grow, and spread in my neighborhood. First one neighbor talking to the other, then a group of us gathering at a home, and finally a larger meeting at the circles church. Our discontent was grass roots, organic, and valid.
Neither police action nor media frenzy nor a lack of toilets was responsible for the uncivil and unsanitary behavior exhibited by the residents of those sleeping zones. Cops didn't make the residents drunk, and reporters weren't giving them the spikes and bindles I was finding every day in my yard.
I continue in my belief that these "sleep zones" were tried, and that they were a disaster for the communities that were adjacent to them.
Drug abuse, littering, disturbing the peace, etc. are all legitimate concerns of the poster. Homeless people sleeping is not.
To use these as an excuse to support the Sleeping Ban is mistaken.
As long as this absurd criminalization continues and is supported by the Downtown Association and downtown businesses, it will be more than appropriate to encourage those with money not to support those businesses.
To use these as an excuse to support the Sleeping Ban is mistaken.
As long as this absurd criminalization continues and is supported by the Downtown Association and downtown businesses, it will be more than appropriate to encourage those with money not to support those businesses.
While Robert appears to want to draw a philosophical differentiation between sleeping and things like drug abuse, litter, defecation, etc...I don't and won't. And I don't and won't because the latter have accompanied the former in both instances where I've seen the campsites tried out. And it's the same situation with the couple charged with the all the tickets. Robert says its about the sleeping, but what drew the negative attention was their littering and defecating.
I'd draw a comparison with a casino. The gambling may be legal, but a casino attracts attendant issues of prostitution, alochol consumption, noise, etc. They go hand in hand, and without a lot of money and effort, the casino can't exist without the attendant negative impacts.
(And on a side note? Quit with the sanctimonious demands that people give you their names Robert. It's none of your damn business, and you have no right to demand it. Your attempt to portray those who won't give you their names as somehow ashamed of their opinions or less than credible is laughable when at the same time Becky and Huff have acknowledged that many homeless mall people do the same thing. Your condoning of street names by one group to protect themselves from harassment while at the same time harassing people who won't give you their names is farcical ........"Buddy".
I'd draw a comparison with a casino. The gambling may be legal, but a casino attracts attendant issues of prostitution, alochol consumption, noise, etc. They go hand in hand, and without a lot of money and effort, the casino can't exist without the attendant negative impacts.
(And on a side note? Quit with the sanctimonious demands that people give you their names Robert. It's none of your damn business, and you have no right to demand it. Your attempt to portray those who won't give you their names as somehow ashamed of their opinions or less than credible is laughable when at the same time Becky and Huff have acknowledged that many homeless mall people do the same thing. Your condoning of street names by one group to protect themselves from harassment while at the same time harassing people who won't give you their names is farcical ........"Buddy".
Abusive behavior is a potential problem with camping--as it may accompany all kinds of other innocent and necessary behavior. To ban innocent and necessary behavior to avoid the abusive behavior is both (a) ineffective, (b) cruel, (c) usually dscriminatory against the poor (where it comes up again and again), and (d) stupid (not just ignorant, but a repeated mistake, hence stupid).
No "where"'s two experiences simply don't realistically describe the entire scene. S/he is simply engaging in fearful NIMBY stereotyping.
Campsites do have problems, but they are a form of "harm reduction" similiar to needle distribution. No one died, for instance, at the Coral St. Open Air Shelter which was overcrowded and unsightly in 1995 in Santa Cruz; in the months that followed after it dispersed, a dozen died, prompting a sleep-out protest at City Hall that last 8 months.
As no "where" points out there are potential collateral problems. However gambling metaphor is a false one. Gambling does not involve essential survival behavior, while sleeping and camping do. It also invites large-scale criminal enterprises--again, not the case with camping--which is a nuisance at best.
The real issues continue to be acknowledging real poverty, accepting different lifestyles, and sharing rather than hoarding the living space. As well as demonizing human beings in order to treat them as throw-away's.
Finally, it's not sanctimonious to point out no "where''s refusal to come clean about who he really is. Since (a) what s/he is arguing really tends to devolve into bigotry which often hides behind a mask; (b) s/he may have economic motives (property values) which might be exposed if we knew her/his real identity; and (c) s/he is surrendering to the same kind of paranoia s/he is applying to the homeless community here.
Those who refuse to be held accountable for their views make us less likely to take them seriously.
Of course, here I go again, responding...so, maybe not....
No "where"'s two experiences simply don't realistically describe the entire scene. S/he is simply engaging in fearful NIMBY stereotyping.
Campsites do have problems, but they are a form of "harm reduction" similiar to needle distribution. No one died, for instance, at the Coral St. Open Air Shelter which was overcrowded and unsightly in 1995 in Santa Cruz; in the months that followed after it dispersed, a dozen died, prompting a sleep-out protest at City Hall that last 8 months.
As no "where" points out there are potential collateral problems. However gambling metaphor is a false one. Gambling does not involve essential survival behavior, while sleeping and camping do. It also invites large-scale criminal enterprises--again, not the case with camping--which is a nuisance at best.
The real issues continue to be acknowledging real poverty, accepting different lifestyles, and sharing rather than hoarding the living space. As well as demonizing human beings in order to treat them as throw-away's.
Finally, it's not sanctimonious to point out no "where''s refusal to come clean about who he really is. Since (a) what s/he is arguing really tends to devolve into bigotry which often hides behind a mask; (b) s/he may have economic motives (property values) which might be exposed if we knew her/his real identity; and (c) s/he is surrendering to the same kind of paranoia s/he is applying to the homeless community here.
Those who refuse to be held accountable for their views make us less likely to take them seriously.
Of course, here I go again, responding...so, maybe not....
I observed the detrimental effects of the campground attempts. They were real, and they were significant. They united my neighborhood and we worked to have them removed. Roberts continued attempts to deny those very real impacts are a ruse, in my opinion, to deny the truth of what occurs when these camps appear, as is his repeated claims that it's a small group of biased people with vested interest.
If biased self-interest includes protecting my family, maintaining the quality of my neighborhood, and defending my property value..then yes, I'm biased.
If biased self-interest includes protecting my family, maintaining the quality of my neighborhood, and defending my property value..then yes, I'm biased.
I dunno Robert. These two, DeLeon and the other one, have some sixty tickets that they haven't bothered to even appear for, much less pay. If anyone else received 60 tickets for anything, they'd probably already be in jail. I'm surprised that the officer who gave them the 60th ticket didn't just haul them off to the levee and shoot them. I mean, I've never had 60 tickets outstanding against me, but if I did, I would have grave concerns about my prospects for continued freedom, should I get stopped by a peace officer again.
And didn't this chap abandon his children to haul a guitar around on the streets of Santa Cruz under the pretense of being a musician? How is that not a choice?
Are you going to protest down at Lulu's again, or did that guy scare you away? I seem to recall he gave you guys as good as he got. Must've been a shock to have him throw your medicine right back at you, eh? You know, it's the classic bully's game to pick on people who are afraid of you. Why not go and take on someone who isn't? I'd be more impressed. Besides, I'd enjoy the theatre. This stuff is a lot more fun when the merchant comes out and plays along, you know.
And didn't this chap abandon his children to haul a guitar around on the streets of Santa Cruz under the pretense of being a musician? How is that not a choice?
Are you going to protest down at Lulu's again, or did that guy scare you away? I seem to recall he gave you guys as good as he got. Must've been a shock to have him throw your medicine right back at you, eh? You know, it's the classic bully's game to pick on people who are afraid of you. Why not go and take on someone who isn't? I'd be more impressed. Besides, I'd enjoy the theatre. This stuff is a lot more fun when the merchant comes out and plays along, you know.
In honor of Sum Dim, we will be protesting in front of Lulu's--noon tomorrow 8-21. Thanks for the reminder, S.D.
As for 60 tickets, I guess you've never had to sleep outside for sixty nights. It's illegal, you know.
More on this discussion at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/08/06/18614270.php?show_comments=1#18617492 "In Response".
As for 60 tickets, I guess you've never had to sleep outside for sixty nights. It's illegal, you know.
More on this discussion at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/08/06/18614270.php?show_comments=1#18617492 "In Response".
LOL! I'll be there to watch. I hope the Lulu's guy uses extra hot coffee this time. And no, I haven't had to sleep outdoors within city limits 60 times. Neither have old Eric Clapton and Janis Joplin. They could have stayed in Fresno or wherever it is he's from. You know, that place with homeless ordinances that are so superior to ours. Or they could have followed the rules to use a shelter around here. Or they could have gone outside city limits. Or they could have gotten jobs and paid rent.
Dealing with the consequences of one's choices is not the same thing as having no choice, Robert. These two have freedom. They're not using it very wisely.
I'm looking forward to seeing Lulu's guy outweird you on the sidewalk.
Dealing with the consequences of one's choices is not the same thing as having no choice, Robert. These two have freedom. They're not using it very wisely.
I'm looking forward to seeing Lulu's guy outweird you on the sidewalk.
Damn it Robert. I came to Lulu's and sat on the patio for over an hour waiting for the fireworks to start. First, you guys show up late, and then there's just three of you for the first hour, followed by one more later. The Lulu's guy didn't even show up at all. Did you actually forget to let him know?
Aside from Becks sticking her camera in some guy's face after you did the old let's-see-if-we-get-them-to-refuse-us-the-bathroom-key ruse, the whole thing was a complete bust. And that episode lasted less than one minute.
You completely wasted my time today. What a bunch of pussies. Geez.
Aside from Becks sticking her camera in some guy's face after you did the old let's-see-if-we-get-them-to-refuse-us-the-bathroom-key ruse, the whole thing was a complete bust. And that episode lasted less than one minute.
You completely wasted my time today. What a bunch of pussies. Geez.
Actually Lulu's did refuse to allow bathroom use to a non-customer. Next time, wear your glasses, trollguy.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$75.00 donated
in the past month
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