Council Member Cynthia Chase Refuses Dialogue on Homeless Voting Record

Cynthia Chase, former director of the GEMMA program which supports women in and transitioning out of prison, was elected in 2014 with a lot of progressive support. As a candidate and Council member, Chase has often expressed sympathy for the plight of homeless people, noting that many of the women she worked with would end up on the street. However, her voting record includes some deeply problematic choices, including the "stay-away ordinances" which further penalize sleeping outside in the parks, and the ban on RVs which criminalizes sleeping in vehicles.

Supposing the City paired such restrictions on sleeping with the creation of alternates like designated camping and parking areas, these policies would seem reasonable to me both on practical and moral grounds. However in their absence, these decisions seem cruel and ineffective, so I wrote Chase asking for an explanation of her votes. Despite the fact we were acquaintances and on friendly terms prior to her election, Chase refused to answer my questions, calling it a personal attack. I continued to try and engage and have a dialogue, to no avail.

I encourage other progressives to let Chase know that we want an explanation of her voting record, and that if she won't even engage with us she cannot expect our support. You can contact her at: cchase [at] cityofsantacruz.com, or through City Hall's phone 420-5020.

Below is the email exchange, reformatted to read in chronological order:


From: steve [at] santacruzhub.org [mailto:steve [at] santacruzhub.org]
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 10:41 AM
To: Cynthia Chase
Subject: the war on the homeless

Dear Cynthia,

I remember before you were elected a City Council member, you had
seemed very sympathetic to the plight of homeless people, based in
part on your relationships with women who upon leaving prison
sometimes ended up on the street. You also seemed motivated in part
by wanting to counter the hysteria and fear-mongering that were
dominating our local discourse, as opposed to compassion and
evidence-based decision-making.

Even since your election, I have heard you repeat that you feel
concern for the plight of homeless, and you continue to reference
your experience with homeless women struggling on the streets.
Therefore I find it hard to understand how you have voted for so
many cruel and repressive policies against the homeless.

In particular I have in mind the so-called "stay away ordinances",
which further criminalized behavior like sleeping in a park, for
people who clearly have nowhere else to go. Sleeping, as well as
relieving one's wastes, are unavoidable biological functions. Why
do you and your colleagues see fit to make a crime out of
something one cannot avoid doing, on account of them being very
poor and having no private space to be in?

More recently, you voted on the same night to make it illegal for
people to sleep in RVs in the City, while also opposing a City
collaboration with the warming program that offers indoor spaces on
the coldest nights. These votes literally leave people out in the
cold, restricting their options for seeking shelter on their own,
while negating efforts to offer even very modest alternatives.
[Note: on the last point, I had the details wrong: while Chase did not
vote for the warming center, neither did she vote against it. She voted
to have the staff look at it and come back later.]

I appreciate that you profess to have compassion, but actions speak
louder than words. Whatever it might feel like inside of your
heart, for the people struggling to survive without a home, your
actions are as bad as those of the Council members who clearly
despise homeless people.

I hope that going forward you make use of your privilege and
responsibility as Council member for some greater good, instead of
playing to the worst elements of our community, at the expense of
the most vulnerable.

Best regards,

Steve Schnaar


HI Steve,

It's unlikely that I'll continue to reply to your emails since they
continue to be riddled with conclusions and insults rather than
indicating any semblance of openness to a dialogue which could
include my decision making process, the actual actions I am taking
to find reasonable and sustainable solutions to really complicated
issues in our community, as well as my intentions and what is in
my heart.

I am presently working with a whole variety of people including
Brent to establish safe and warm places for vulnerable community
members to sleep. This issue is far from over.

It's unfortunate that you choose to alienate people like myself who
actually could be allies in moving policy forward to address
issues that you profess to care deeply about.

I'll continue to work toward those ends regardless.

Cynthia Chase
City of Santa Cruz Councilmember
(831) 420-5026 (Direct) | (831) 420-5020 (Main) | cchase [at] cityofsantacruz.com


Dear Cynthia,

It was not my intention in writing you to insult you personally, and in
fact I find it quite odd that you should claim so. My note is focused
on issues that you voted on. Considering that you are an elected
official, it seems bizarre to have your response not be to answer my
questions, but to declare that I am not worth responding to.

If I was wrong about your position on warming center, I appreciate you
clarifying your position (indeed that is the whole point of a
conversation like this). I am still wondering though about your votes
criminalizing sleeping in parks and RV's, without offering people
anywhere else to go? If these are not cruel and repressive policies,
please help me understand them better. But on the surface they seem
repressive to myself and everyone I know, so please understand that is
how a large part of the public perceives the facts of the matter, and
don't blow off the question by labeling it a personal attack.

Also I appreciate that you think there is a possibility of us working
together as allies. I would certainly appreciate that. Although if you
only work with people who don't challenge you on the issues, well in
that case I think it will be you who are alienating me, leading to
further mistrust and criticism.

Best regards,

Steve


[No response after several days]
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 10:51 AM
To: Cynthia Chase
Subject: RE: the war on the homeless

Dear Cynthia,

I am sorry you feel offended by my questioning you. Again I don't
really see this as a personal issue. I like you just fine as a person.
I also have questions and concerns about some of your votes as a
Council Member.

I would appreciate if you would address my questions. Also FYI I have
written in frustrated and angry letters to the City Council several
times over the years, and no one before has ever said it was so out of
line they would refuse to engage with me.

Best regards,

Steve


Quoting Cynthia Chase :

Steve,

I am actually happy to have a respectful dialogue with anyone who requests one. I am
not personally offended by what you are saying. You misunderstand why I have elected
not to respond to your emails. I will repeat again why I am choosing not to respond to
you. In it's most simplest form, it is because your emails do not include even a hint
of invitation to a dialogue. The content of your emails have consistently contained
accusations, conclusions and assertions, not questions, not inquiries, no curiosity,
interest or openness to an exchange - a dialogue. It was merely a courtesy of mine to
inform you as someone whom I know and who I have attempted to work with over the years
that you should not expect a reply from me since there is nothing to reply to. You are
welcome to continue to make accusations.

Cynthia Chase
Vice Mayor, City of Santa Cruz
809 Center Street, Room 10
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
General: 831.420.5020 Direct: 831.420.5026



Dear Cynthia,

I honestly don't understand what is going on here. Please read again from my most recent
email to you:

"If I was wrong about your position on warming center, I appreciate you
clarifying your position (indeed that is the whole point of a
conversation like this). I am still wondering though about your votes
criminalizing sleeping in parks and RV's, without offering people
anywhere else to go? If these are not cruel and repressive policies,
please help me understand them better. But on the surface they seem
repressive to myself and everyone I know, so please understand that is
how a large part of the public perceives the facts of the matter, and
don't blow off the question by labeling it a personal attack."

I realize email is an imperfect form of communication, but when I read my words I see an
expression of appreciation for you having clarified a position, and an invitation for you
to "please help me understand" if I am mistaken on another issue. How is that interpreted
as "not even a hint" of interest in dialogue??

I am trying to engage you as an elected official about your policy choices, and if the
response keeps being not to get answers to my questions but instead to be told I'm not
worth responding to, we are caught in a cycle of escalating mistrust and animosity. I
would rather that not be the outcome, but at this point the ball is in your court.

Respectfully,

Steve


[That last note I sent was on Thursday, December 17th and I still have received no response.]