Santa Cruz Beach Flats Community Garden March To City Hall

It's great to see people come together (again) against strong local powers trying to dominate their lives and public space.

unfortunately, as a viewer watching the proceedings (circus) last night via live stream I was struck by how seemingly contemptuous most of SC City Council was to last nights speakers and issue being brought forth.

I could have sworn I heard 1 or 2 council members (it was a female so it would have been chase, noroyan or comstock) call a member of the public an asshole and then later it was a jackass. unbelievable. I don't think I've ever seen something like that locally before and the Mayor did nothing other than to chide the audience for not showing respect to the Seaside rep!!!! And then though the camera focused mostly on the speakers of what I could see of city council members was an attitude of at least disassociation if not contempt that they had to sit through this discussion.

Micah raised the realistic issue of possibly having to use eminent domain to gain that property from the Seaside company and of course NO ONE not even supposedly liberal Don Lame or the joke of a progressive Cynthia chase would even second his motion so that it at least merited a deeper discussion/debate. basically seaside company's ass was kissed....again.

I have no idea the ultimate outcome of the issue but it's clear that if Beach Flats/tenants rights groups/students/ the so-called compassion civil rights anti-poverty crowd want any movement away from the corporate shills that currently sit on city council (minus micah who at least manages to go through the motions) then there has to be a serious coalition to oust this current city council (the TBSC conservatives) who seems only interested in being responsive to SCPD and the large economic interests that own the city.

Petra, I've followed the garden saga via the Sentinal and here to get a full perspective on the story. You're unhappy at the council for, in your view, failing to act and for disregarding your opinion.

Perhaps if the larger community supported using eminent domain to purchase the land from the Seaside Co., the council would too. The reality is, the community doesn't. From reading the letters to the editor I get the impression a significant percentage of residents take a dim view of the council using public money to benefit a very small group of people. Since the council is charged by law to represent the entire community, it can't ignore the naysayers.

First, in the City of Santa Cruz, where only 8% are registered Republican, we can be sure all members of this city council are members of the Democratic Party, acting like feudal overseers, putting property rights before human rights and profits before people. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_locations_by_voter_registration
For the members of the Santa Cruz City Council, see
http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/city-government/city-council/councilmembers/councilmembers

Second, gardens by definition benefit the entire community as they provide oxygen via photosynthesis, the food making process of plants, to everyone, and good exercise and mental therapy to all who work in the garden, thereby benefiting the social well-being of the entire community. Gardens that have food-producing plants help the poor survive and receive better nutrition than junk food, also a program that benefits the entire community.

Third, letters to editor are usually written by a handful of people, and when it comes to concern for private property, the letters will be from the reactionaries in town. There is no reason for any city council to cater to these selfish, narrow-minded, reactionary bourgeois Babbitts.

Fourth, the minority in any community has rights. This is the basis for all civil rights laws. While a minority of the community may work in the garden, the majority, namely everyone, benefits in one way or another from gardens in their community.