From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Freedom SleepOut #20: City Council Chatters While Folks Freeze
Date:
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
Time:
3:00 PM
-
3:00 PM
Event Type:
Protest
Organizer/Author:
Robert Norse
Location Details:
In front of City Hall and in the sidewalks around City Hall at 809 Center St. Freedom Sleepers will be on hand from midafternoon Tuesday to mid-morning Wednesday to deter or document new SCPD harassment tactics used to discourage homeless people from protesting the City's Sleeping Ban--and to establish the usual (sort of) Safe (from Citation) Sleep Zone.
THE CHILL OF COUNCIL'S WARMING CENTER TALK
On the afternoon agenda coming up sometime between 3 and 5 PM is Item #21. It directs city staff to make available a facility for up to 10 nights this winter free if a "Warming Center Organization" agrees to find facilities and commit to 30 nights of Warming Center use. No budget is proposed until a site is "identified".
Last month, defying the wishes of hundreds who marched there, City Council refused to consider eminent domain or other pressures to get the Seaside Company to allow the continuation of the Beach Flats Garden at its present location and size. Instead they passed their staff’s prefabricated sell-out to Canfield’s Seaside Company. Should we expect anything more from them here?
The staff’s “Warming Center” proposal lacks any committed funding or real acknowledgment of the upcoming (and ongoing) shelter emergency. It instead throws all the responsibility on private charity groups, abdicating its responsibility for City’s 1500-2000 homeless. Instead it continues to fund police and rangers harassing, citing, and arresting folks for sleeping, covering up with blankets and other survival behavior.
BAN RV PARKING AND BABBLE ABOUT EMERGENCY SHELTER
The last item on the evening agenda, Item#3--the RV Parking ordinance--would ban RV parking city-side unless vehicle owners get a permit.
Its definition of "resident" seems to exclude travelers and unhoused people. It reads: "["Resident"] shall not mean a
person who maintains an address at a post office box, mailbox drop, or who rents a room without it being the primary place of abode."
The 10 PM to 5 AM on all RV parking is another extension of the NIMBY "no homeless vehicles allowed to park at night" signs posted in many areas throughout the signs (with the word "homeless" discreetly omitted).
It sets up "no parking" zones within 20' of an intersection or 30' of a traffic light. Why?
Exempted are hotel guests, government vehicles, and folks who buy 72-hour permits (only 4 periods per month, not continuous).
"Residents" as defined above, can buy permits for parking outside their residences--no sleeping or camping, of course, even in a vehicle specifically outfitted for that purpose.
Hotels who allow non-paying guests to park their vehicles will be fined; likewise if anyone sleeps in their vehicle.
THE FLUFF VS. THE STUFF
IN 45 DAYS, staff is asked to return with proposals for "safe zones for non-resident owners". That'll be some time in mid-January with nothing mandated for the winter. THERE IS NO PROPOSAL FOR FUNDING OR EVEN A SPECIFIC RV PROGRAM.
There is no move to eliminate the sleeping, blanket, or camping bans--as promised by Posner many months ago. Nor is there any move to decriminalize by suspending ticketing for non-crime crimes like being in a park after dark./
NEW POLICE HARASSMENT TACTICS
Indeed though the Klieg lights and "no parking" restrictions used to attack the Freedom Sleeper protests in September and October have disappeared, SCPD used a new tactic last Tuesday.
A squad of six cops descended on homeless people sitting legally in the City Hall courtyard in the daylight hours before the protest and confiscated "unattended property" which one person was watching for others. A similar sweep took place the next morning after most of the protesters had left with tickets issued both before and after but not during the protest.
Freedom Sleepers will be in front of City Hall through the night nonetheless.
IMPORTANT MEETING TUESDAY DECEMBER 1ST
We will also be inviting unhoused folks to attend a meeting Tuesday December 1st before Freedom SleepOut #21 to ask them "Do you Want the Freedom SleepOuts to Continue?" and if so, in what form?
As the weather worsens and rain descends, Freedom Sleepers is considering moving inside city buildings to establish emergency shelter (unless the proposed Warming Centers are actually available on those nights).
FREEDOM SLEEPERS INSPIRE BERKELEY CAMP-OUT
Unhoused folks in Berkeley gave hours of angry testimony against new anti-homeless laws in Berkeley (which passed in diluted form: see http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_29134875/berkeley-council-approves-sidewalk-rules-that-some-call-an-attack-on-homeless-people ).
Inspired by the Freedom Sleeper movement here and by their own First They Came for the Homeless encampment up there, Berkeley activists were still camping out at City Hall every night since the Council moved to expand criminalization there.
I've broadcast a discussion of the Berkeley fight against the anti-poor laws at http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb151122.mp3. You can also follow the full debate on line at http://berkeley.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=0d7d811d-8e59-11e5-8170-f04da2064c47 .
MODEST FOOD--BUT BUNDLE UP!
The ever-popular Peanut Butter 'n Jelly sandwiches, hot coffee, and perhaps hot soup will be available at various points throughout the night.
Bundle up--it's likely to be cold and possibly rainy. We encourage donations of food, tarps, blankets, and sleeping bags. We suggest folks bring their own gear (if it hasn't been taken by police or thieves).
For more background go to "Fight Cold Hearts and Cold Weather: Freedom SleepOut #19 " at https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/11/16/18780045.php
The opinions expressed here are mine and likely shared by many of my fellow Freedom Sleepers.
On the afternoon agenda coming up sometime between 3 and 5 PM is Item #21. It directs city staff to make available a facility for up to 10 nights this winter free if a "Warming Center Organization" agrees to find facilities and commit to 30 nights of Warming Center use. No budget is proposed until a site is "identified".
Last month, defying the wishes of hundreds who marched there, City Council refused to consider eminent domain or other pressures to get the Seaside Company to allow the continuation of the Beach Flats Garden at its present location and size. Instead they passed their staff’s prefabricated sell-out to Canfield’s Seaside Company. Should we expect anything more from them here?
The staff’s “Warming Center” proposal lacks any committed funding or real acknowledgment of the upcoming (and ongoing) shelter emergency. It instead throws all the responsibility on private charity groups, abdicating its responsibility for City’s 1500-2000 homeless. Instead it continues to fund police and rangers harassing, citing, and arresting folks for sleeping, covering up with blankets and other survival behavior.
BAN RV PARKING AND BABBLE ABOUT EMERGENCY SHELTER
The last item on the evening agenda, Item#3--the RV Parking ordinance--would ban RV parking city-side unless vehicle owners get a permit.
Its definition of "resident" seems to exclude travelers and unhoused people. It reads: "["Resident"] shall not mean a
person who maintains an address at a post office box, mailbox drop, or who rents a room without it being the primary place of abode."
The 10 PM to 5 AM on all RV parking is another extension of the NIMBY "no homeless vehicles allowed to park at night" signs posted in many areas throughout the signs (with the word "homeless" discreetly omitted).
It sets up "no parking" zones within 20' of an intersection or 30' of a traffic light. Why?
Exempted are hotel guests, government vehicles, and folks who buy 72-hour permits (only 4 periods per month, not continuous).
"Residents" as defined above, can buy permits for parking outside their residences--no sleeping or camping, of course, even in a vehicle specifically outfitted for that purpose.
Hotels who allow non-paying guests to park their vehicles will be fined; likewise if anyone sleeps in their vehicle.
THE FLUFF VS. THE STUFF
IN 45 DAYS, staff is asked to return with proposals for "safe zones for non-resident owners". That'll be some time in mid-January with nothing mandated for the winter. THERE IS NO PROPOSAL FOR FUNDING OR EVEN A SPECIFIC RV PROGRAM.
There is no move to eliminate the sleeping, blanket, or camping bans--as promised by Posner many months ago. Nor is there any move to decriminalize by suspending ticketing for non-crime crimes like being in a park after dark./
NEW POLICE HARASSMENT TACTICS
Indeed though the Klieg lights and "no parking" restrictions used to attack the Freedom Sleeper protests in September and October have disappeared, SCPD used a new tactic last Tuesday.
A squad of six cops descended on homeless people sitting legally in the City Hall courtyard in the daylight hours before the protest and confiscated "unattended property" which one person was watching for others. A similar sweep took place the next morning after most of the protesters had left with tickets issued both before and after but not during the protest.
Freedom Sleepers will be in front of City Hall through the night nonetheless.
IMPORTANT MEETING TUESDAY DECEMBER 1ST
We will also be inviting unhoused folks to attend a meeting Tuesday December 1st before Freedom SleepOut #21 to ask them "Do you Want the Freedom SleepOuts to Continue?" and if so, in what form?
As the weather worsens and rain descends, Freedom Sleepers is considering moving inside city buildings to establish emergency shelter (unless the proposed Warming Centers are actually available on those nights).
FREEDOM SLEEPERS INSPIRE BERKELEY CAMP-OUT
Unhoused folks in Berkeley gave hours of angry testimony against new anti-homeless laws in Berkeley (which passed in diluted form: see http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_29134875/berkeley-council-approves-sidewalk-rules-that-some-call-an-attack-on-homeless-people ).
Inspired by the Freedom Sleeper movement here and by their own First They Came for the Homeless encampment up there, Berkeley activists were still camping out at City Hall every night since the Council moved to expand criminalization there.
I've broadcast a discussion of the Berkeley fight against the anti-poor laws at http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb151122.mp3. You can also follow the full debate on line at http://berkeley.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=0d7d811d-8e59-11e5-8170-f04da2064c47 .
MODEST FOOD--BUT BUNDLE UP!
The ever-popular Peanut Butter 'n Jelly sandwiches, hot coffee, and perhaps hot soup will be available at various points throughout the night.
Bundle up--it's likely to be cold and possibly rainy. We encourage donations of food, tarps, blankets, and sleeping bags. We suggest folks bring their own gear (if it hasn't been taken by police or thieves).
For more background go to "Fight Cold Hearts and Cold Weather: Freedom SleepOut #19 " at https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/11/16/18780045.php
The opinions expressed here are mine and likely shared by many of my fellow Freedom Sleepers.
For more information:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/freedomsle...
Added to the calendar on Mon, Nov 23, 2015 12:02AM
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
From: Robert [mailto:rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 12:08 AM
To: Brent Adams
Subject: RE: [SCPEL] ALERT! Warming Center is on the City Council Agenda. We need your help.
How much of the budget for 30 days of warming has actually been secured by your Warming Center group, Brent? Candidly?
Again, it's not a criticism of you, but of the City Council--which is presenting you with an unlikely if not impossible task.
In other words, for it to make any sense here, the Council has to be prepared to do far more than it's offering to do. Am I wrong here?
Robert
From: MPosner [at] cityofsantacruz.com
To: rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com
CC: Brent Adams
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 10:48:58 -0800
Subject: RE: [SCPEL] ALERT! Warming Center is on the City Council Agenda. We need your help.
Dear Robert,
I think if the Council moves forward with this there will be more pressure on people like myself and the City staff to make the program a success, including the other 20 days. While that may be a reason for Councilmembers not to support the motion, if we do pass it, I think it will make it more likely for the overall program to succeed, though it is not a specific commitment on our part.
Micah Posner
RE: [SCPEL] ALERT! Warming Center is on the City Council Agenda. We need your help.
Robert
10:57 AM
I appreciate your candor, but I think folks you're supposedly moving to protect would be better served for you to present a very specific proposal and then let the community respond with its own outrage and independent solutions if the Council votes it down.
You could still present a specific proposal. You might join forces with Brent Adams as far as the Warming Center goes or with Steve Pleich regarding Safe Sleeping Zones or with the Commission for the Prevention of Violence to Women regarding safe spots for women and other vulnerables) by introducing emergency measures. Tiptoeing around in hopes of teasing out votes is an insult to the very harsh survival needs here.
Otherwise these proposals smack of window dressing, hypocrisy, and good intentions devoid of real action as freezing weather sets in. The excuse of the "politically possible" is ever a convenient dodge.
R
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 12:08 AM
To: Brent Adams
Subject: RE: [SCPEL] ALERT! Warming Center is on the City Council Agenda. We need your help.
How much of the budget for 30 days of warming has actually been secured by your Warming Center group, Brent? Candidly?
Again, it's not a criticism of you, but of the City Council--which is presenting you with an unlikely if not impossible task.
In other words, for it to make any sense here, the Council has to be prepared to do far more than it's offering to do. Am I wrong here?
Robert
From: MPosner [at] cityofsantacruz.com
To: rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com
CC: Brent Adams
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 10:48:58 -0800
Subject: RE: [SCPEL] ALERT! Warming Center is on the City Council Agenda. We need your help.
Dear Robert,
I think if the Council moves forward with this there will be more pressure on people like myself and the City staff to make the program a success, including the other 20 days. While that may be a reason for Councilmembers not to support the motion, if we do pass it, I think it will make it more likely for the overall program to succeed, though it is not a specific commitment on our part.
Micah Posner
RE: [SCPEL] ALERT! Warming Center is on the City Council Agenda. We need your help.
Robert
10:57 AM
I appreciate your candor, but I think folks you're supposedly moving to protect would be better served for you to present a very specific proposal and then let the community respond with its own outrage and independent solutions if the Council votes it down.
You could still present a specific proposal. You might join forces with Brent Adams as far as the Warming Center goes or with Steve Pleich regarding Safe Sleeping Zones or with the Commission for the Prevention of Violence to Women regarding safe spots for women and other vulnerables) by introducing emergency measures. Tiptoeing around in hopes of teasing out votes is an insult to the very harsh survival needs here.
Otherwise these proposals smack of window dressing, hypocrisy, and good intentions devoid of real action as freezing weather sets in. The excuse of the "politically possible" is ever a convenient dodge.
R
Comstock Matthews David T and Noroyan voted NO on Micah's rec to do something with the Women's Commission's plea for some sort of safe haven for homeless women?
Comstock seemed like she just wanted to go to her warm home and said it wasn't needed. And Matthews in more words said the same. Noroyan votes the way Analicia tells her to and David only seems to care about getting homeless people moved out of parks and this town.
Anyone have anything else to add?
Comstock seemed like she just wanted to go to her warm home and said it wasn't needed. And Matthews in more words said the same. Noroyan votes the way Analicia tells her to and David only seems to care about getting homeless people moved out of parks and this town.
Anyone have anything else to add?
From what I understand, some of the council are beginning to consider the idea that the City should get out of the business of providing or funding social services. It is actually Santa Cruz County's job under state mandates, not the City's in the absence of federal funds in the equation. It's entirely possible the city will ultimately decide not to apply for HUD CDBG funds-if that happened, the City could walk away from homeless and other social programs altogether.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
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