Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Speak-Out Leads to Historic Shift in Local ACLU Avoidance of Homeless Civil Rights Issues
A crowd of homeless supporters showed up at last night's ACLU meeting (outnumbering the Board by nearly 2-1 at one point). In a series of speeches (to be rebroadcast on Free Radio Thursday night), they urged the local ACLU to issue a policy statement against the Santa Cruz Sleeping Ban and other anti-homeless laws. It was the largest such homeless crowd ever to hit an ACLU Board meeting in my experience. In the hour and a half before the meeting more than twice that number signed petitions demanding action. Folks got there under their own steam without prior organizing after an announcement and flyering at the Red Church a scant hour earlier. Perhaps because it's end of the month or perhaps because some of had enough, we may be seeing a significant rise in activism.
BOARD MAJORITY FINALLY BEATS BACK OLD GUARD
The ultimate 5-3 vote supported Steve Pleich's resolution to suspend camping laws in the city and county came after several decades of ACLU indifference or hostility to this most basic of human rights. It was a marked change in policy for the Board, long dominated by the notorious Sleeping Ban Supporter former Mayor Mike Rotkin. Even if the change is only symbolic and unsupported by legal action or public lobbying. There is much toxic propaganda about "homeless crime" and the need to "curb our compassion" This breath of sanity is welcome and long overdue.
Voting in favor of the resolution were Pleich, Jay Campbell, Mithrell Bowerman, Daniel Etler, and Ron Pomerantz. Voting against were Mike Rotkin, Peter Geldblum and Keith Lezar.
SLEEP IS NOT A CRIME RESOLUTION
The resolution reads:
"Statement of Principle: The Santa Cruz County Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union supports in principle a limited time moratorium on enforcement of camping ban laws and ordinances within the City and County of Santa Cruz on the grounds that such laws and ordinances selectively criminalize the homeless community. While the chapter is mindful that such a moratorium raises practical problems within the community at large, we believe that the benefits of such an approach in terms of the opportunity for civic leaders, policy makers and stakeholders to reassess the efficacy of these laws and ordinances outweighs any temporary adverse impact."
RECENT HISTORY OF ESCALATING HARASSMENT
Homeless folks have faced a steep escalation in destruction of their camps, seizure of the property, “move along” harassment as well as citations and arrests in the last few years as the economy continues to tank. New programs designed to paint lipstick on the endless goal of “cheaply” eliminating homeless people from the downtown and city generally by eliminating their civil rights.
These include the “100 Chronic Offenders” program, the Downtown Acountability Program, the “Real Change” Red Starve-Out-the-Panhandler meters, the outrageous constriction of public spaces for performers and the public on the sidewalks of all business districts, the prosecution of those unable or unwilling to deal with to their “no sleep” and “no sitting” tickets with misdemeanor charges, and the escalating Drug War under Take-Back-Santa-Cruz orchestrated Needle Hysteria.
Well-intended incremental legal efforts by Brent Adams' Sanctuary Village group have been repeatedly rebuffed by city bureaucrats. Thuggish First Alarm Security guards have been promoted to positions as CSO's on the SDPD (“Big John” being the example I've noticed). The “Happy Hosts” continue to retain an unmarked inaccessible office in the downtown area (if you can find it and determine when it's actually open, please let us know!). Illegal commercial signs retain immunity from legal scrutiny but homeless backpacks and survival gear are fair game for seizure and harassment.
PRIOR ACLU SILENCE
The local ACLU has said nothing about any of these issues in spite of being repeatedly approached on them. [See “Expose the Local ACLU: No Help for Homeless Rights ” at https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/12/01/18747111.php
Steve Pleich, who founded the “Homeless Legal Assistance Project” and is running for City Council for the 3rd time has been on the ACLU board for 3 years, and Vice-Chair for 2. Until last night he has not demanded any resolutions on these issues come up for a vote, in spite of having a host of allies appointed to the Board.
NUMBERS AND VOLUME MATTER
It is far too early to see if this is any kind of a turning point in either Pleich's politick approach or ACLU timidity, but it seems clear that as Pleich himself agrees, having a significant number of people demanding change makes a difference.
In the presence of such numbers, previously timid and/or silent members of the Board may have gathered courage. The verbal commentary given by the angry and eloquent speakers will be on Free Radio Santa Cruz (101.3 FM, streams at http://audio.str3am.com:5110/listen.pls, archives at http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb140703.mp3 .
At one point Chair Geldblum seemed to have ordered the issue closed without a vote and demanded that the public leave. Though there was no objection by Pleich and the rest of the Board to this behind-closed-doors process, the word was passed down later that a vote was held and the resolution passed. .I've asked for more specific details from those permitted to remain and when more info, I'll pass it on. ,
The ultimate 5-3 vote supported Steve Pleich's resolution to suspend camping laws in the city and county came after several decades of ACLU indifference or hostility to this most basic of human rights. It was a marked change in policy for the Board, long dominated by the notorious Sleeping Ban Supporter former Mayor Mike Rotkin. Even if the change is only symbolic and unsupported by legal action or public lobbying. There is much toxic propaganda about "homeless crime" and the need to "curb our compassion" This breath of sanity is welcome and long overdue.
Voting in favor of the resolution were Pleich, Jay Campbell, Mithrell Bowerman, Daniel Etler, and Ron Pomerantz. Voting against were Mike Rotkin, Peter Geldblum and Keith Lezar.
SLEEP IS NOT A CRIME RESOLUTION
The resolution reads:
"Statement of Principle: The Santa Cruz County Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union supports in principle a limited time moratorium on enforcement of camping ban laws and ordinances within the City and County of Santa Cruz on the grounds that such laws and ordinances selectively criminalize the homeless community. While the chapter is mindful that such a moratorium raises practical problems within the community at large, we believe that the benefits of such an approach in terms of the opportunity for civic leaders, policy makers and stakeholders to reassess the efficacy of these laws and ordinances outweighs any temporary adverse impact."
RECENT HISTORY OF ESCALATING HARASSMENT
Homeless folks have faced a steep escalation in destruction of their camps, seizure of the property, “move along” harassment as well as citations and arrests in the last few years as the economy continues to tank. New programs designed to paint lipstick on the endless goal of “cheaply” eliminating homeless people from the downtown and city generally by eliminating their civil rights.
These include the “100 Chronic Offenders” program, the Downtown Acountability Program, the “Real Change” Red Starve-Out-the-Panhandler meters, the outrageous constriction of public spaces for performers and the public on the sidewalks of all business districts, the prosecution of those unable or unwilling to deal with to their “no sleep” and “no sitting” tickets with misdemeanor charges, and the escalating Drug War under Take-Back-Santa-Cruz orchestrated Needle Hysteria.
Well-intended incremental legal efforts by Brent Adams' Sanctuary Village group have been repeatedly rebuffed by city bureaucrats. Thuggish First Alarm Security guards have been promoted to positions as CSO's on the SDPD (“Big John” being the example I've noticed). The “Happy Hosts” continue to retain an unmarked inaccessible office in the downtown area (if you can find it and determine when it's actually open, please let us know!). Illegal commercial signs retain immunity from legal scrutiny but homeless backpacks and survival gear are fair game for seizure and harassment.
PRIOR ACLU SILENCE
The local ACLU has said nothing about any of these issues in spite of being repeatedly approached on them. [See “Expose the Local ACLU: No Help for Homeless Rights ” at https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/12/01/18747111.php
Steve Pleich, who founded the “Homeless Legal Assistance Project” and is running for City Council for the 3rd time has been on the ACLU board for 3 years, and Vice-Chair for 2. Until last night he has not demanded any resolutions on these issues come up for a vote, in spite of having a host of allies appointed to the Board.
NUMBERS AND VOLUME MATTER
It is far too early to see if this is any kind of a turning point in either Pleich's politick approach or ACLU timidity, but it seems clear that as Pleich himself agrees, having a significant number of people demanding change makes a difference.
In the presence of such numbers, previously timid and/or silent members of the Board may have gathered courage. The verbal commentary given by the angry and eloquent speakers will be on Free Radio Santa Cruz (101.3 FM, streams at http://audio.str3am.com:5110/listen.pls, archives at http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb140703.mp3 .
At one point Chair Geldblum seemed to have ordered the issue closed without a vote and demanded that the public leave. Though there was no objection by Pleich and the rest of the Board to this behind-closed-doors process, the word was passed down later that a vote was held and the resolution passed. .I've asked for more specific details from those permitted to remain and when more info, I'll pass it on. ,
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Having been one of Pleich's critics, I must say I am pleasantly surprised by his recent spinal growth.
Hopefully, one day, he will stand tall.
Hopefully, one day, he will stand tall.
For more information:
http://PeaceCamp2010insider.blogspot.com/
"ACLU indifference or hostility..."
"Hostility"? DUDE! You have YOUR HEAD UP YOUR ASS! That's why they're hostile... TO YOU! Because you think you can tell lawyers WTF to do. But YOU CAN'T. A lawyer will simply say goodbye... as would any other specialist in any other field of expertise.
As a modus you ARE ABSOLUTELY INCAPABLE OF "Collaboration". It has to be YOUR SHOW RN. That's why lawyers won't work with you ... which YOU choose to refer to as 'hostile'.
You also seem to believe that YOU are allowed to have goals and agendas but no one else is allowed that privilege.
Attached. My ten minute presentation to the ACLU board from a couple of years ago which Steve Pleich arranged after the woman who owned Camouflage was murdered by a incorrectly-vetted-before-release behavioral health patient, which the Senile and some members of the city council IMMEDIATELY blamed on a 'homeless man' leading to a harsh and counterproductive clampdown on the huge local population of displaced people.
Not that the ACLU acted on ANY of it... but listen RN. The local ACLU is a FAN CLUB. NOT A NEST OF HIGH POWERED LAWYERS. They get materials from the ACLU NATIONAL OFFICE and then they campaign and distribute info for those issues around the county.
That's pretty much ALL they do, and all THEY CAN DO without bashing on the regional or National org's door FOR YEARS to get attention... Which IS a waste of time because the ACLU as an organization is pretty fucking useless. They're the equivalent of Peace Action, Environment action... Greenpeace.
IOW, they're LOBBYING ORGANIZATIONS that come to the show late, insinuate themselves on an issue, then take the credit for the end results (and push hard on the publicity button for donations) despite the fact the originating orgs (in this case it would be the CCR or the NLG perhaps) spent years in court (or on the high seas) doing something substantial.
"Hostility"? DUDE! You have YOUR HEAD UP YOUR ASS! That's why they're hostile... TO YOU! Because you think you can tell lawyers WTF to do. But YOU CAN'T. A lawyer will simply say goodbye... as would any other specialist in any other field of expertise.
As a modus you ARE ABSOLUTELY INCAPABLE OF "Collaboration". It has to be YOUR SHOW RN. That's why lawyers won't work with you ... which YOU choose to refer to as 'hostile'.
You also seem to believe that YOU are allowed to have goals and agendas but no one else is allowed that privilege.
Attached. My ten minute presentation to the ACLU board from a couple of years ago which Steve Pleich arranged after the woman who owned Camouflage was murdered by a incorrectly-vetted-before-release behavioral health patient, which the Senile and some members of the city council IMMEDIATELY blamed on a 'homeless man' leading to a harsh and counterproductive clampdown on the huge local population of displaced people.
Not that the ACLU acted on ANY of it... but listen RN. The local ACLU is a FAN CLUB. NOT A NEST OF HIGH POWERED LAWYERS. They get materials from the ACLU NATIONAL OFFICE and then they campaign and distribute info for those issues around the county.
That's pretty much ALL they do, and all THEY CAN DO without bashing on the regional or National org's door FOR YEARS to get attention... Which IS a waste of time because the ACLU as an organization is pretty fucking useless. They're the equivalent of Peace Action, Environment action... Greenpeace.
IOW, they're LOBBYING ORGANIZATIONS that come to the show late, insinuate themselves on an issue, then take the credit for the end results (and push hard on the publicity button for donations) despite the fact the originating orgs (in this case it would be the CCR or the NLG perhaps) spent years in court (or on the high seas) doing something substantial.
How many roads?
The bigotry has existed for millenia, the laws in California for over a century.
"From the late 1860s until the 1970s, several American cities had ugly laws making it illegal for persons with "unsightly or disgusting" disabilities to appear in public."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugly_law
For decades, Santa Cruz politicians, employees, and citizens have been quite proud of their legally empowered bigotry and hate. Even the local LGBT pride parade turned a blind eye, embracing TBSC.
But then, late last year, the 9th Circuit made their distaste known, while hearing the Desertrain v. Los Angeles case, which caused Palo Alto to put their vehicle habitation persecution on hold, while we all waited for a ruling. As expected; the 9th struck down LA's selective enforcement in June, 2014.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view.php?pk_id=0000012040
Earlier this year (late but whatever), the United Nations Human Rights Committee woke up.
"In 2014, the United Nations Human Rights Committee criticized the United States for the criminalization of homelessness, noting that such "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" is in violation of international human rights treaty obligations."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_States#Criminalization_of_homelessness
After that, there was a noticable change in .gov rhetoric. On the federal level, 'housing the homeless is cheaper' is the new beltway song and dance. Even the local ACLU is seeing the errors of their ways! Perhaps in a few years the haters will follow the new trend.
I'd like to think it was conscience that brought change but suspect it was "violation of international human rights treaty obligations", and what that implies, that finally answered the calls for redress.
We'll see if class protection materializes...
The bigotry has existed for millenia, the laws in California for over a century.
"From the late 1860s until the 1970s, several American cities had ugly laws making it illegal for persons with "unsightly or disgusting" disabilities to appear in public."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugly_law
For decades, Santa Cruz politicians, employees, and citizens have been quite proud of their legally empowered bigotry and hate. Even the local LGBT pride parade turned a blind eye, embracing TBSC.
But then, late last year, the 9th Circuit made their distaste known, while hearing the Desertrain v. Los Angeles case, which caused Palo Alto to put their vehicle habitation persecution on hold, while we all waited for a ruling. As expected; the 9th struck down LA's selective enforcement in June, 2014.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view.php?pk_id=0000012040
Earlier this year (late but whatever), the United Nations Human Rights Committee woke up.
"In 2014, the United Nations Human Rights Committee criticized the United States for the criminalization of homelessness, noting that such "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" is in violation of international human rights treaty obligations."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_States#Criminalization_of_homelessness
After that, there was a noticable change in .gov rhetoric. On the federal level, 'housing the homeless is cheaper' is the new beltway song and dance. Even the local ACLU is seeing the errors of their ways! Perhaps in a few years the haters will follow the new trend.
I'd like to think it was conscience that brought change but suspect it was "violation of international human rights treaty obligations", and what that implies, that finally answered the calls for redress.
We'll see if class protection materializes...
For more information:
http://PeaceCamp2010insider.blogspot.com/
SLEEP MORATORIUM GAINS SUPPORT IN SANTA CRUZ
The Santa Cruz County Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union voted to adopt A Statement of Principle at its most recent board meeting, The Statement supports a proposed camping ban moratorium affecting the City of Santa Cruz.
The Moratorium represents a step across the chasm between people experiencing homelessness and the neighbors and governmental systems that rail against their very presence.
"Our ACLU chapter is moving toward a more progressive agenda," said Steve Pleich, vice chair, who has been advocating for a closer and more statistically accountable examination of Santa Cruz Municipal Code Section 6.36.010, the local sleeping ban ordinance, at least since the Occupy Movement began its local growing pains.
Rough sleepers and activists believe the camping ban is a bad law because it criminalizes public nighttime sleeping, a necessity to survive, anywhere in the City of Santa Cruz.
Housing NOW Santa Cruz believes that because such bans are part of a system used to criminalize homelessness, intentional or not, it is unconstitutional, and too easily used to selectively enforce in the same way a loitering ticket is. Many local residents claim that without such an ordinance our police would be unable to regulate the growing numbers of travellers and homeless people who are forced to sleep outdoors in the absence of sufficient shelter space.
Housing NOW Santa Cruz believes that a time limited moratorium on the sleeping ban ordinance would put these assumptions to the test.
Because such patterns of enforcement and impacts of criminalization are finally making their way into higher courts in this Nation, support from our ACLU for addressing the sleeping and camping ban couldn't come at a better time. Other chapters are also examining respective local 'criminalization of homelessness' problems, and the regional ACLU conference in Sacramento in April included a workshop on California history of criminalizing homelessness.
ACLU SC Statement of Principle:
"The Santa Cruz County Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union supports in principle a limited time moratorium on enforcement of camping ban laws and ordinances within the City and County of Santa Cruz on the grounds that such laws and ordinances selectively criminalize the homeless community.
"While the chapter is mindful that such a moratorium raises practical problems within the community at large, we believe that the benefits of such an approach in terms of the opportunity for civic leaders, policy makers and stakeholders to reassess the efficacy of these laws and ordinances outweighs any temporary adverse impact."
For further information contact about the work of the ACLU on this local civil liberties issue, please contact Steve Pleich at spleich [at] gmail.com.
Linda Ellen Lemaster
Housing NOW Santa Cruz
homes4everyone [at] yahoo.com
The Santa Cruz County Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union voted to adopt A Statement of Principle at its most recent board meeting, The Statement supports a proposed camping ban moratorium affecting the City of Santa Cruz.
The Moratorium represents a step across the chasm between people experiencing homelessness and the neighbors and governmental systems that rail against their very presence.
"Our ACLU chapter is moving toward a more progressive agenda," said Steve Pleich, vice chair, who has been advocating for a closer and more statistically accountable examination of Santa Cruz Municipal Code Section 6.36.010, the local sleeping ban ordinance, at least since the Occupy Movement began its local growing pains.
Rough sleepers and activists believe the camping ban is a bad law because it criminalizes public nighttime sleeping, a necessity to survive, anywhere in the City of Santa Cruz.
Housing NOW Santa Cruz believes that because such bans are part of a system used to criminalize homelessness, intentional or not, it is unconstitutional, and too easily used to selectively enforce in the same way a loitering ticket is. Many local residents claim that without such an ordinance our police would be unable to regulate the growing numbers of travellers and homeless people who are forced to sleep outdoors in the absence of sufficient shelter space.
Housing NOW Santa Cruz believes that a time limited moratorium on the sleeping ban ordinance would put these assumptions to the test.
Because such patterns of enforcement and impacts of criminalization are finally making their way into higher courts in this Nation, support from our ACLU for addressing the sleeping and camping ban couldn't come at a better time. Other chapters are also examining respective local 'criminalization of homelessness' problems, and the regional ACLU conference in Sacramento in April included a workshop on California history of criminalizing homelessness.
ACLU SC Statement of Principle:
"The Santa Cruz County Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union supports in principle a limited time moratorium on enforcement of camping ban laws and ordinances within the City and County of Santa Cruz on the grounds that such laws and ordinances selectively criminalize the homeless community.
"While the chapter is mindful that such a moratorium raises practical problems within the community at large, we believe that the benefits of such an approach in terms of the opportunity for civic leaders, policy makers and stakeholders to reassess the efficacy of these laws and ordinances outweighs any temporary adverse impact."
For further information contact about the work of the ACLU on this local civil liberties issue, please contact Steve Pleich at spleich [at] gmail.com.
Linda Ellen Lemaster
Housing NOW Santa Cruz
homes4everyone [at] yahoo.com
We need ACLU attorneys litigating to strike down the outrageous Santa Cruz ordinances criminalizing homelessness. Toothless resolutions by the local ACLU chapter won't cut the mustard.
At LEAST read the last couple of 'graphs before you say anything else stupid.
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/07/01/18758158.php?show_comments=1#18758164
Waiting for the ACLU to actually do something substantial is an absolute waste of time. There are OTHER legal organizations that are"do-ivists"... The ACLU is 'act-ivist' as in "Act like they actually do something." The something they really do is publicize THEMSELVES using other people's legal legwork.
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/07/01/18758158.php?show_comments=1#18758164
Waiting for the ACLU to actually do something substantial is an absolute waste of time. There are OTHER legal organizations that are"do-ivists"... The ACLU is 'act-ivist' as in "Act like they actually do something." The something they really do is publicize THEMSELVES using other people's legal legwork.
Vice-Chair Steve Pleich confirmed today at the Red Church meal what I'd thought was the case: Chair Peter Geldblum tried to steamroller his way forward past the Camping Ban moratorium resolution without any vote once the public was safely out of the room. Jay Campbell insisted on a vote--something I've demanded without results for years--and the resolution passed 5-3.
I suggest it was the presence of 15 members of the public (at least 12 of them homeless) in the room speaking out that turned the tide. I wonder if any Board member would have demanded a vote without those insistent voices. Pleich hadn't even prepared copies of the laws--which gave reactionary members of the Board a pretext for further delay. Given a month to prepare his resolution, Pleich still had no final resolution days before the meeting. So I wouldn't call it steady stewardship that won the day. In the end even office-seeking mice can roar if homeless cats are snarling behind them.
I understand Ray's cynicism regarding the likelihood of no further action by the ACLU.
Still I feel the overturning of the Old Guard (Rotkin, Geldblum, and Lazar), even in a vote without legal consequence, shows the power of strong voices raising unpleasant truths persistently and insistently.
Audio on the meeting was broadcast on two Free Radio Santa Cruz shows at http://radiolibre.org/brb/brb140703.mp3 (last quarter of the audio file) and at http://radiolibre.org/brb/brb140706.mp3 (shortly after the beginning of the file). Lots of eloquent testimony there as well as Rotkin's usual spurious arguments.
I suggest it was the presence of 15 members of the public (at least 12 of them homeless) in the room speaking out that turned the tide. I wonder if any Board member would have demanded a vote without those insistent voices. Pleich hadn't even prepared copies of the laws--which gave reactionary members of the Board a pretext for further delay. Given a month to prepare his resolution, Pleich still had no final resolution days before the meeting. So I wouldn't call it steady stewardship that won the day. In the end even office-seeking mice can roar if homeless cats are snarling behind them.
I understand Ray's cynicism regarding the likelihood of no further action by the ACLU.
Still I feel the overturning of the Old Guard (Rotkin, Geldblum, and Lazar), even in a vote without legal consequence, shows the power of strong voices raising unpleasant truths persistently and insistently.
Audio on the meeting was broadcast on two Free Radio Santa Cruz shows at http://radiolibre.org/brb/brb140703.mp3 (last quarter of the audio file) and at http://radiolibre.org/brb/brb140706.mp3 (shortly after the beginning of the file). Lots of eloquent testimony there as well as Rotkin's usual spurious arguments.
In the Federal 9th opinion for Desertrain v. Los Angeles, the judge(s) wrote about the legality of sleeping on the sidewalk. If I understand correctly; that is a reference to the (pre appeal) deal ($ and the sidewalk allowance), which is rumored to have been powered by protesters organizing wave after wave after wave after wave of arrested protesters (I was told hundreds, but rumors have incredible growth rates).
That's why large scale non-cooperation is so scary, and so difficult, for every side.
Rosa Parks refused to move. Lacking a molotov and AK-47 is a secondary detail. Non-violence is the adverb, non-cooperation is the verb. Contrary to the often repeated claims made by (iPhone wielding, latte sipping) promoters of other habits; when persistently applied, it works.
If everyone stopped buying anything at all, in time the Downtown Association would shrivel up and blow away. If a majority stopped, the Downtown Association would scramble to save what they could. If a sizeable minority stopped, perhaps change would still be possible. If consumers continue to consume, then change is unlikely, for there is no motive for it.
A majority of people (even the 'active' contrarians) prefer comfortable victimhood, apparently.
That's why large scale non-cooperation is so scary, and so difficult, for every side.
Rosa Parks refused to move. Lacking a molotov and AK-47 is a secondary detail. Non-violence is the adverb, non-cooperation is the verb. Contrary to the often repeated claims made by (iPhone wielding, latte sipping) promoters of other habits; when persistently applied, it works.
If everyone stopped buying anything at all, in time the Downtown Association would shrivel up and blow away. If a majority stopped, the Downtown Association would scramble to save what they could. If a sizeable minority stopped, perhaps change would still be possible. If consumers continue to consume, then change is unlikely, for there is no motive for it.
A majority of people (even the 'active' contrarians) prefer comfortable victimhood, apparently.
For more information:
http://PeaceCamp2010insider.blogspot.com/
It was pitiful watching RN stump for support of this useless petition last night at the Red Church.
The city council didn't give a fuck what it's citizens wanted when the Performance space issue was publicly discussed and they'll give even less of a fuck (if that's possible) about 'resting' their camping ordinances, which amount to nothing more than a 'motel tax for the homeless' and a source of surefire, guaranteed-by-the-state-via-collection-agency-buyout revenue as well.
Blue Sky... Nothing more. Let me know when there's actually LAWYERS doing anything about it, like presenting subpoenas for city administrators to appear in front of a STATE judge to testify why a law that's, with the rarest of exceptions, only applicable to poor people, should be valid and not considered selective at face in light of a city that's patently refused to answer any call for average job creation to replace the light industry their own regulations chased away, and housing that can be afforded with the jobs available.
As ACLU Fanboy Steve Pleich told me once "There's no political will" for that.
That's WHY IT TAKES LAWYERS
Where ARE they Steve?
Until then, I call this a fraudulent and MEAN-SPIRITED side-track to doing more of nothing but wasting energy while making it appear something is going to be done about an issue so petty that it's not worth wasting time, no less breath on.
The city council didn't give a fuck what it's citizens wanted when the Performance space issue was publicly discussed and they'll give even less of a fuck (if that's possible) about 'resting' their camping ordinances, which amount to nothing more than a 'motel tax for the homeless' and a source of surefire, guaranteed-by-the-state-via-collection-agency-buyout revenue as well.
Blue Sky... Nothing more. Let me know when there's actually LAWYERS doing anything about it, like presenting subpoenas for city administrators to appear in front of a STATE judge to testify why a law that's, with the rarest of exceptions, only applicable to poor people, should be valid and not considered selective at face in light of a city that's patently refused to answer any call for average job creation to replace the light industry their own regulations chased away, and housing that can be afforded with the jobs available.
As ACLU Fanboy Steve Pleich told me once "There's no political will" for that.
That's WHY IT TAKES LAWYERS
Where ARE they Steve?
Until then, I call this a fraudulent and MEAN-SPIRITED side-track to doing more of nothing but wasting energy while making it appear something is going to be done about an issue so petty that it's not worth wasting time, no less breath on.
I recommend Santa Cruz activists commence a BDS like campaign against Downtown businesses until the City Council comes to the table against violating homeless human/civil rights. As their business dries up, Downtown merchants will pressure the Council to end their homeless criminalization racket.
The citizens can make them squeal.
The citizens can make them squeal.
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