Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Crushing Homeless Critics at City Council & on the Streets: Coonerty to the Supreme Court
In early June attorney David Beauvais confirmed that the City Attorney had formally filed a lengthy petition to the U.S. Supreme Court in the "Fitzmaurice Hissy Fit" Case (also known as the mock-Nazi salute or City Council Repression case). I offered to give up all my financial demands if City Council would abandon the city-wide 11 AM to 8:30 PM Sleeping Ban and make some minor but real changes to City Council rules allowing more public access. Council's only offer was to remove some archaic language (which we'd asked them to do in 2002), already required by the 9th Circuit Court, unless overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.
MONEY WASTED FOR AN EVIL PURPOSE
I've discussed this case extensively ("City Council Won't Settle; Will Now Spend Thousands More in Fitzmaurice "Hissy Fit" Case" at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/05/08/18679247.php).
A critic of the City's waste of money in pursuit of more repressive power for the Mayor wrote "City's 'Nazi salute' appeal beyond absurd" at http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/opinion/ci_18309520 --a Sunday opinion piece printed in the Sentinel with more comments on line.
I am posting the actual City petition to the court (running over 100 pages) below so folks can see the arrogance, obliviousness, and actual mendacity of the city's position. They cook up new arguments when they go back to court--this time describing straightforward silent non-disruptive dissent as "hate speech", an argument they've never before used.
The video, of course, speaks for itself at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOssHWB6WBI .
We didn't waste time or money responding to the City's "thick wallets and thin skins" as I described them in a brief interview with KSCO a week ago. The Court will probably be responding to their petition in October, unless they choose to dismiss it in the next week or so before they go on vacation.
I had thought the City's chances of even arguing before the court (which has not yet granted permission--that's what the petition is about) were about 2-5%, but they may be substantially higher because of the fact that the 9th Circuit Court had a special en banc panel that unanimously overturned the lower court.
REPRESSIVE MAYORS WANT TO MAINTAIN AND EXPAND THEIR POWERS
It's also an issue that other repressive Mayors, I'm sure, would love to have reversed, so that they can make up whatever rules they want, and then call a violation of their rules or behavior that "offends" them "disruptions".
Mayor Coonerty has repeatedly refused to keep his word and show up for an interview on my Free Radio Santa Cruz show. Perhaps he's already in too much trouble for his refusal to support opting out of the Secure Communities program, while trying to claim he's
Meanwhile the local ACLU, whose treasurer is former Mayor Mike Rotkin, continues to maintain a silence, both on the Sleeping Ban and on the right of critics at City Council to attend Council meetings without fear of arrest for non-disruptive criticism that "offends" the Council.
The ACLU has also reportedly declined to weigh in on Obama's crackdown on undocumented immigrants arrested for minor offenses (the Secure Communities opt-out issue).
SPEECH AT CITY COUNCIL
I also made the following speech before City Council last Tuesday:
TWO MEN JAILED FOR PEACEFUL POLITICAL PROTEST AT THE COURTHOUSE
Two good men are in jail tonight—sentenced Friday to six months in jail—because this Council insists on maintaining a law that other cities have abandoned. The Sleeping Ban makes all outdoor and vehicular sleeping at night a crime. Klieglights at night, a new
unprecedented, unconstitutional “no protest at night” zone around City Hall, extra tens of thousands to the City Attorney, more police. And now two men in jail for six months because they dared to peacefully sleep outside in front of the County Building against this
hateful law.
If it costs $100 a day to house an inmate, taxpayers are paying $18,000 each to punish these two. Just as this City Council decided to throw away another $5000 grandstanding before the U.S. Supreme Court. Thin skins and thick wallets. Keep City Council increasingly isolated from the community.
I've urged the Council—reform your Council rules and the City's Sleeping Ban. Settle this lawsuit. Save us all money. I'll drop my financial demands. The City will save what you'll have to pay me, what they'll be paying the City Attorney and you'll save the money they would spend in A future lawsuit against the Sleeping Ban. Los Angeles and San Diego did it. You can.
Two good men are in jail tonight because of City Council's refusal to listen to the demands of conscience, common sense, and fiscal prudence. Come join us tomorrow morning in front of the Courts in sorrow, and in anger.
PROTESTS CONTINUE
Morning protests continue in front of the courthouse throughout this week 7:30 AM to 9 AM urging Gary Johnson and Ed Frey be freed; charges be dropped against all other peaceful homeless protesters from Peace Camp 2010, including Linda Lemaster, going to court in August. Vehicular activist Crow has been organizing these protests and wants to know about harassment of the homeless in businesses (such as the west-side Safeway) or in vehicles at night (as by vehicular abatement vigilante former Lt. Joe Haebe).
Homeless people continue to receiver Sleeping Ban citations in spite of the acknowledged lack of shelter for virtually everyone. The Paul Lee loft as a 2-6 week waiting list; the Armory is closed; there are no walk-in beds to speak of. Yet the City police continue to violate the Constitution nightly by harassing and citing homeless people for the act of sleeping after 11 PM.
Police and security guards have also been advising people that they have no right to gather on the sidewalk and have several times threatened them with arrest in order to get them to "move along" in recent reports.
Please report all tickets, arrests, abusive "warnings", and other untoward police and security guard behavior by posting on line here, leaving something written at the Sub Rosa Cafe, which maintains a Police Misconduct notebook, or contacting Free Radio Santa Cruz at 831-427-3772.
I've discussed this case extensively ("City Council Won't Settle; Will Now Spend Thousands More in Fitzmaurice "Hissy Fit" Case" at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/05/08/18679247.php).
A critic of the City's waste of money in pursuit of more repressive power for the Mayor wrote "City's 'Nazi salute' appeal beyond absurd" at http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/opinion/ci_18309520 --a Sunday opinion piece printed in the Sentinel with more comments on line.
I am posting the actual City petition to the court (running over 100 pages) below so folks can see the arrogance, obliviousness, and actual mendacity of the city's position. They cook up new arguments when they go back to court--this time describing straightforward silent non-disruptive dissent as "hate speech", an argument they've never before used.
The video, of course, speaks for itself at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOssHWB6WBI .
We didn't waste time or money responding to the City's "thick wallets and thin skins" as I described them in a brief interview with KSCO a week ago. The Court will probably be responding to their petition in October, unless they choose to dismiss it in the next week or so before they go on vacation.
I had thought the City's chances of even arguing before the court (which has not yet granted permission--that's what the petition is about) were about 2-5%, but they may be substantially higher because of the fact that the 9th Circuit Court had a special en banc panel that unanimously overturned the lower court.
REPRESSIVE MAYORS WANT TO MAINTAIN AND EXPAND THEIR POWERS
It's also an issue that other repressive Mayors, I'm sure, would love to have reversed, so that they can make up whatever rules they want, and then call a violation of their rules or behavior that "offends" them "disruptions".
Mayor Coonerty has repeatedly refused to keep his word and show up for an interview on my Free Radio Santa Cruz show. Perhaps he's already in too much trouble for his refusal to support opting out of the Secure Communities program, while trying to claim he's
Meanwhile the local ACLU, whose treasurer is former Mayor Mike Rotkin, continues to maintain a silence, both on the Sleeping Ban and on the right of critics at City Council to attend Council meetings without fear of arrest for non-disruptive criticism that "offends" the Council.
The ACLU has also reportedly declined to weigh in on Obama's crackdown on undocumented immigrants arrested for minor offenses (the Secure Communities opt-out issue).
SPEECH AT CITY COUNCIL
I also made the following speech before City Council last Tuesday:
TWO MEN JAILED FOR PEACEFUL POLITICAL PROTEST AT THE COURTHOUSE
Two good men are in jail tonight—sentenced Friday to six months in jail—because this Council insists on maintaining a law that other cities have abandoned. The Sleeping Ban makes all outdoor and vehicular sleeping at night a crime. Klieglights at night, a new
unprecedented, unconstitutional “no protest at night” zone around City Hall, extra tens of thousands to the City Attorney, more police. And now two men in jail for six months because they dared to peacefully sleep outside in front of the County Building against this
hateful law.
If it costs $100 a day to house an inmate, taxpayers are paying $18,000 each to punish these two. Just as this City Council decided to throw away another $5000 grandstanding before the U.S. Supreme Court. Thin skins and thick wallets. Keep City Council increasingly isolated from the community.
I've urged the Council—reform your Council rules and the City's Sleeping Ban. Settle this lawsuit. Save us all money. I'll drop my financial demands. The City will save what you'll have to pay me, what they'll be paying the City Attorney and you'll save the money they would spend in A future lawsuit against the Sleeping Ban. Los Angeles and San Diego did it. You can.
Two good men are in jail tonight because of City Council's refusal to listen to the demands of conscience, common sense, and fiscal prudence. Come join us tomorrow morning in front of the Courts in sorrow, and in anger.
PROTESTS CONTINUE
Morning protests continue in front of the courthouse throughout this week 7:30 AM to 9 AM urging Gary Johnson and Ed Frey be freed; charges be dropped against all other peaceful homeless protesters from Peace Camp 2010, including Linda Lemaster, going to court in August. Vehicular activist Crow has been organizing these protests and wants to know about harassment of the homeless in businesses (such as the west-side Safeway) or in vehicles at night (as by vehicular abatement vigilante former Lt. Joe Haebe).
Homeless people continue to receiver Sleeping Ban citations in spite of the acknowledged lack of shelter for virtually everyone. The Paul Lee loft as a 2-6 week waiting list; the Armory is closed; there are no walk-in beds to speak of. Yet the City police continue to violate the Constitution nightly by harassing and citing homeless people for the act of sleeping after 11 PM.
Police and security guards have also been advising people that they have no right to gather on the sidewalk and have several times threatened them with arrest in order to get them to "move along" in recent reports.
Please report all tickets, arrests, abusive "warnings", and other untoward police and security guard behavior by posting on line here, leaving something written at the Sub Rosa Cafe, which maintains a Police Misconduct notebook, or contacting Free Radio Santa Cruz at 831-427-3772.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
...the Ninth Circuit has the most rulings of any circuit court of appeals reversed by the Supreme Court. If the high court takes the case, you stand a very good chance of losing.
I'm not aware of the Supreme Court having any kind of record of overturning 9th Circuit Court en banc panels which rule unanimously. Even Kovacevich claims they have less than a 5% chance of being heard!
Norse's silent, fleeting gesture of disapproval was disruptive or it wasn't.
Clearly Fitzmaurice objected to Norse based on content and not disruption.
We know this because he said so. After HE interrupted the Mayor with his "point of order", Councilmember Tim Fitzmaurice said: "Mr. Mayor. Mr. Norse made a "Nazi" salute. I think he ought to be removed from the chambers as a result. It's against the dignity of this body and the decorum of this body, and I believe...I believe that Mr. Norse should be removed from this chamber for making a "Nazi" salute."
BECKY: This case hinges on whether Norse' silent gesture disrupted the meeting or not. You can see on the video that it didn't. The meeting droned on. The Sgt. of Arms witnessed the "act" and did nothing. HE didn't find it "disruptive" and didn't even know what Norse would be charged with.
THis case is about Fitzmaurice' thin skin. Fitzmaurice has walked out twice on Norse while at the mike. First he denounced him as "anti-Catholic" and walked out while NOrse was speaking (disrupting the meeting as he did so!!). Norse is not "anti-Catholic" and was challenging whether the Catholic "Sisters of Mercy" would use the ownership of Mercy Charities Housing to leverage buyouts of other hospitals in California in order to stop birth control and abortion practices in those hospitals. This was what Sisters of Mercy were openly doing at the time.
Norse was asking if our city's affordable housing project would be used in this way.
The second time was when NORSE performed a skit at the mike by pretending to be a "Mystic from the East." He used an Indian dialect in his presentation (a mimic of councilmember Scott Kennedy's love for Ghandi) and Fitzmaurice stood up, denounced Norse as "racist" and led a walk-out of 4 members of the council.
Apparently, Fitzmaurice thought that Norse was attacking the motel owners of Santa Cruz who are primarily Indian. He wasn't. But Fitzmaurice didn't stick around long enough to learn that he was wrong.
THis case is about Fitzmaurice' hatred of Norse. We , as a city, shouldn't spend one more dime on this case.
Norse's silent, fleeting gesture of disapproval was disruptive or it wasn't.
Clearly Fitzmaurice objected to Norse based on content and not disruption.
We know this because he said so. After HE interrupted the Mayor with his "point of order", Councilmember Tim Fitzmaurice said: "Mr. Mayor. Mr. Norse made a "Nazi" salute. I think he ought to be removed from the chambers as a result. It's against the dignity of this body and the decorum of this body, and I believe...I believe that Mr. Norse should be removed from this chamber for making a "Nazi" salute."
BECKY: This case hinges on whether Norse' silent gesture disrupted the meeting or not. You can see on the video that it didn't. The meeting droned on. The Sgt. of Arms witnessed the "act" and did nothing. HE didn't find it "disruptive" and didn't even know what Norse would be charged with.
THis case is about Fitzmaurice' thin skin. Fitzmaurice has walked out twice on Norse while at the mike. First he denounced him as "anti-Catholic" and walked out while NOrse was speaking (disrupting the meeting as he did so!!). Norse is not "anti-Catholic" and was challenging whether the Catholic "Sisters of Mercy" would use the ownership of Mercy Charities Housing to leverage buyouts of other hospitals in California in order to stop birth control and abortion practices in those hospitals. This was what Sisters of Mercy were openly doing at the time.
Norse was asking if our city's affordable housing project would be used in this way.
The second time was when NORSE performed a skit at the mike by pretending to be a "Mystic from the East." He used an Indian dialect in his presentation (a mimic of councilmember Scott Kennedy's love for Ghandi) and Fitzmaurice stood up, denounced Norse as "racist" and led a walk-out of 4 members of the council.
Apparently, Fitzmaurice thought that Norse was attacking the motel owners of Santa Cruz who are primarily Indian. He wasn't. But Fitzmaurice didn't stick around long enough to learn that he was wrong.
THis case is about Fitzmaurice' hatred of Norse. We , as a city, shouldn't spend one more dime on this case.
For more information:
http://www.beckyjohnsononewomantalking.blo...
Becky wrote "I'm not aware of the Supreme Court having any kind of record of overturning 9th Circuit Court en banc panels which rule unanimously."
That may be technically true. But there is a first time for everything. The truth is that the US Supreme Court has overturned the 9th Circuit unanimously on quite a few occasions. In some cases where there was very little dissent from the 9th Circuit judges in a large format en banc decision. If they decide to hear this one it could end up being the first time they undo a unanimous 9th Circuit decision. And they have handed the 9th a few smack-downs lately.
That may be technically true. But there is a first time for everything. The truth is that the US Supreme Court has overturned the 9th Circuit unanimously on quite a few occasions. In some cases where there was very little dissent from the 9th Circuit judges in a large format en banc decision. If they decide to hear this one it could end up being the first time they undo a unanimous 9th Circuit decision. And they have handed the 9th a few smack-downs lately.
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Whether the First Amendment protects a contumacious
hate gesture, the Nazi salute, unaccompanied
by any utterance and conspicuously directed at a
city council during a public session.
Whether the First Amendment protects a contumacious
hate gesture, the Nazi salute, unaccompanied
by any utterance and conspicuously directed at a
city council during a public session.
This is the multi-thousand dollar request (running over 100 pages) for which the City hired the fancy Maryland mouthpiece. The Supreme Court, I'm told, will conference on the case on September 26th to decide if it will hear it.
So don't look for any trial of these three mayors (Krohn, Fitzmaurice, and Kennedy) soon.
In the meantime, however, the 9th Circuit Court's opinion stands and members of the public should feel clear that a violation of Mayor Coonerty's rules which is not disruptive is not a legitimate basis for being expelled from a Council meeting.
Or, as the 11-member court unanimously put it, "“We decline the City’s invitation to rewrite First Amendment law to extinguish the rights that citizens have when they attend public meetings. We must respectfully reject the City’s attempt to engage us in doublespeak. Actual disruption means actual disruption. It does not mean constructive disruption, technical disruption, virtual disruption, or imaginary disruption. The City cannot define disruption so as to include non-disruption...”
I wrote about this at some length ("Standing Up to Bullying at City Council" at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/01/12/18669014.php) and hope that members of the public develop the courage to resist authoritarian dictates from the Mayor or Council members.
Regardless of what the Supreme Court or any other court says, it is our responsibility to restore democratic processes locally. And we have a long way to go.
So don't look for any trial of these three mayors (Krohn, Fitzmaurice, and Kennedy) soon.
In the meantime, however, the 9th Circuit Court's opinion stands and members of the public should feel clear that a violation of Mayor Coonerty's rules which is not disruptive is not a legitimate basis for being expelled from a Council meeting.
Or, as the 11-member court unanimously put it, "“We decline the City’s invitation to rewrite First Amendment law to extinguish the rights that citizens have when they attend public meetings. We must respectfully reject the City’s attempt to engage us in doublespeak. Actual disruption means actual disruption. It does not mean constructive disruption, technical disruption, virtual disruption, or imaginary disruption. The City cannot define disruption so as to include non-disruption...”
I wrote about this at some length ("Standing Up to Bullying at City Council" at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/01/12/18669014.php) and hope that members of the public develop the courage to resist authoritarian dictates from the Mayor or Council members.
Regardless of what the Supreme Court or any other court says, it is our responsibility to restore democratic processes locally. And we have a long way to go.
....that any number of cities in California will join in Santa Cruz's appeal to the Supremes, since they have rules similar if not identical to Santa Cruz's. In Fresno, our council President made it clear the 9th Circuit's ruling is not binding here, and he will continue to eject disrespectful people from council meetings.
SKYE MEADOW WRITES: ". If they decide to hear this one it could end up being the first time they undo a unanimous 9th Circuit decision."
BECKY: Listen to yourself! You SUPPORT the City betting ANOTHER $150,000 that the Supremes will do this for "the first time?"
All to defend Fitzmaurice' hissy fit?
Norse was falsely arrested. Part of the proof is that the DA failed to press charges.
Is it okay for a Mayor to falsely arrest critics they don't like? I don't think so. Not in a democracy.
Perhaps you need to go back to 8th grade Civics class where you learn the value of democracy.
Aren't you ALSO concerned that Norse has offered to settle and, instead, the council is pressing on with this case?
It reminds me of the last days of the Nazi regime when they argued that they can't stop killing Jews
because then it will mean that it wasn't right to start killing Jews in the first place.
BECKY: Listen to yourself! You SUPPORT the City betting ANOTHER $150,000 that the Supremes will do this for "the first time?"
All to defend Fitzmaurice' hissy fit?
Norse was falsely arrested. Part of the proof is that the DA failed to press charges.
Is it okay for a Mayor to falsely arrest critics they don't like? I don't think so. Not in a democracy.
Perhaps you need to go back to 8th grade Civics class where you learn the value of democracy.
Aren't you ALSO concerned that Norse has offered to settle and, instead, the council is pressing on with this case?
It reminds me of the last days of the Nazi regime when they argued that they can't stop killing Jews
because then it will mean that it wasn't right to start killing Jews in the first place.
For more information:
http://www.beckyjohnsononewomantalking.blo...
Becky wrote "BECKY: Listen to yourself! You SUPPORT the City betting ANOTHER $150,000 that the Supremes will do this for "the first time?""
Did I say I support the city in this? I certainly did not. Do not put words into my mouth and try to discredit me just because I bring up a point that you don't want to consider. You did not pose it as a question, you stated it as a matter of fact. And you are wrong.
Did I say I support the city in this? I certainly did not. Do not put words into my mouth and try to discredit me just because I bring up a point that you don't want to consider. You did not pose it as a question, you stated it as a matter of fact. And you are wrong.
Becky asks, "Aren't you ALSO concerned that Norse has offered to settle and, instead, the council is pressing on with this case? ".
To which I reply: No. In fact, I support them wholeheartedly.
Robert is essentially trying to blackmail the City. He proactively committed to an action to support his viewpoint. They countered. They disagree on the action and they're arguing that case.
Robert's "offer" to drop the case if the city changes it's homeless camping laws is tantamount to blackmail. NO thanks.
To which I reply: No. In fact, I support them wholeheartedly.
Robert is essentially trying to blackmail the City. He proactively committed to an action to support his viewpoint. They countered. They disagree on the action and they're arguing that case.
Robert's "offer" to drop the case if the city changes it's homeless camping laws is tantamount to blackmail. NO thanks.
Before said "Perhaps you need to go back to 8th grade Civics class where you learn the value of democracy. "?
Perhaps Becky, you should take your own advice? Go learn the difference between a National Merit CANDIDATE who is not selected, and a National Merit SCHOLAR, who is.
As one who calls themself a reporter, it would behoove you to learn the difference. You are the former. You are not the latter, as you continually claim to be but are in fact not.
Perhaps Becky, you should take your own advice? Go learn the difference between a National Merit CANDIDATE who is not selected, and a National Merit SCHOLAR, who is.
As one who calls themself a reporter, it would behoove you to learn the difference. You are the former. You are not the latter, as you continually claim to be but are in fact not.
For more recent details on this shameful case, go to "Frey Released from Jail on Bail Pending Appeal; Gary Johnson Still Locked Up" at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/06/26/18682897.php . For those interested in following the inevitable anonymous troll-twaddle, follow some of the links there.
A letter in today's Sentinel opposes the City's throwing more money after the $150,000 it's already spent to stop three Mayors from appearing in court in a series of false arrests against Robert Norse, particularly, the mock-Nazi salute of March 2002.
from today's Sentinel letters at http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_18351476?IADID
NOTE FROM NORSE: Ron Pomerantz ran for Santa Cruz City Council in 2010. During the campaign, he declined to publicly oppose the Sleeping Ban law, possibly for fear of possible political consequences of doing so. In this letter to the Sentinel below, he still doesn't mention the Sleeping Ban nor my specific offer to end my financial demands in the lawsuit if the City dropped the Sleeping Ban. However he does put his finger directly on what seems to be the most likely motivation for the City's continuing the ancient lawsuit: a desire to more tightly control the public and punish critics.
Where are our priorities?
In the June 19 guest column, Peter Nichols nailed the irresponsible waste of Santa Cruz city resources on an appeal of the Norse case to the Supreme Court. This is a breach of fiduciary responsibility at a time of hand-wringing by the crocodile-teared council members purporting they can't find enough money to support workers, human services, public safety and essential programs. The council has already squandered $150,000 of our money on this case, wasting more city revenue by appealing a lawsuit the lower courts concluded has no merit. It serves no public good and is beyond absurd. What Peter missed is why the council is willing to waste precious public money. Winning the lawsuit would allow the Coonerty Council to further control and restrict democratic rights they have gradually eroded. Add the lawsuit savings to the Convention and Visitors Council's funding of $350,000 and the council miraculously would have $400,000 to fully fund the Human Care Alliance, pay Social Security for temporary workers, fund the Harvey West Park pool and still have $200,000 left over. Where are the priorities?
Ron Pomerantz, Santa Cruz
from today's Sentinel letters at http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_18351476?IADID
NOTE FROM NORSE: Ron Pomerantz ran for Santa Cruz City Council in 2010. During the campaign, he declined to publicly oppose the Sleeping Ban law, possibly for fear of possible political consequences of doing so. In this letter to the Sentinel below, he still doesn't mention the Sleeping Ban nor my specific offer to end my financial demands in the lawsuit if the City dropped the Sleeping Ban. However he does put his finger directly on what seems to be the most likely motivation for the City's continuing the ancient lawsuit: a desire to more tightly control the public and punish critics.
Where are our priorities?
In the June 19 guest column, Peter Nichols nailed the irresponsible waste of Santa Cruz city resources on an appeal of the Norse case to the Supreme Court. This is a breach of fiduciary responsibility at a time of hand-wringing by the crocodile-teared council members purporting they can't find enough money to support workers, human services, public safety and essential programs. The council has already squandered $150,000 of our money on this case, wasting more city revenue by appealing a lawsuit the lower courts concluded has no merit. It serves no public good and is beyond absurd. What Peter missed is why the council is willing to waste precious public money. Winning the lawsuit would allow the Coonerty Council to further control and restrict democratic rights they have gradually eroded. Add the lawsuit savings to the Convention and Visitors Council's funding of $350,000 and the council miraculously would have $400,000 to fully fund the Human Care Alliance, pay Social Security for temporary workers, fund the Harvey West Park pool and still have $200,000 left over. Where are the priorities?
Ron Pomerantz, Santa Cruz
...money? I think the appeal is being driven less by individuals on the Santa Cruz city council and more by California's city attorneys. As I mentioned in an earlier posting, many cities in California have rules covering disruptive people at city council meetings. The 9th Circuit ruling in Norse's appeal would make it impossible to enforce local ordinances.
After the en banc ruling came out, Fresno's city council president (who is an attorney) was blunt in saying the ruling did not apply to Fresno. He has made a practice of ejecting people who criticize the council from meetings, and got the council to agree to making public comment at a time uncertain during the meeting--there is now no set time during the meeting for general public comment. He told the Fresno Bee that has reduced disruption to a minimum.
BTW, I really feel sorry for the homeless caught in this situation. Their plight is being used to advance others' political agendas.
After the en banc ruling came out, Fresno's city council president (who is an attorney) was blunt in saying the ruling did not apply to Fresno. He has made a practice of ejecting people who criticize the council from meetings, and got the council to agree to making public comment at a time uncertain during the meeting--there is now no set time during the meeting for general public comment. He told the Fresno Bee that has reduced disruption to a minimum.
BTW, I really feel sorry for the homeless caught in this situation. Their plight is being used to advance others' political agendas.
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