Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Santa Cruz Indymedia
Government & Elections
Health, Housing & Public Services
Police State & Prisons
Notes on the Proposed New Improved Downtown Ordinances Reducing Public Space
I made an early morning analysis of the proposed Downtown Ordinance changes and found the following gloomy results. Others may find more. The result is a very significant reduction in the amount of space allowed the public to sit, table, perform, or (gasp) sparechange. Naturally this primarily impacts poor and homeless people. And naturally they weren't consulted. Come to the 7 PM meeting Tuesday to watch this done deal go down and raise a few cries of protest.
PANHANDLING FORBIDDEN ZONES EXPANDED
OLD SECTION 9.10.030 (Panhandling locations)
Any person who solicits in any of the following places, or any person who solicits when the person solicited is in any of the following places, is guilty of an infraction: (a) At any bus stop; (b) In any public transportation vehicle or facility; (c) In any vehicle on the street; (d) On private property, unless the solicitor has permission from the owner or tenant; (e) Within fourteen feet of any entranceway into or exit from any building open to the public other than those referenced in subsection (f) of this section. Where any such entranceway or exit is recessed from the public sidewalk, the fourteen feet shall be measured from the point at which the building abuts the sidewalk; (f) Within fifty feet of any bank, savings and loan, or other financial institution buildings, including their outdoor automatic teller machines; (g) In the parking lot of any bank, savings and loan, or other financial institution; (h) Within fifty feet of all cash disbursal machines, outdoor vending machines, outdoor money changing machines, or any other outdoor machine or device which disburses or accepts coins or paper currency, except parking meters and newspaper vending machines; (i) Within fourteen feet of the face of any building not otherwise specifically referenced in this section or within fourteen feet of any fence or other structure separating private property from the public right-of-way, other than cyclone fences between vacant lots and the public right of way; (j) While seated on or leaning against any public bench, planter, monument or other public property; (k) While seated on or leaning against privately owned property without the property owner's or tenant's permission; (l) Within fourteen feet of any crosswalk.
NEW SECTION 9.10.030
(Notes following clarify how far the forbidden zones are expanded. E,H, I,J, L, & M have all been expanded; the code letters are capitalized for easier reference)
Any person who solicits in any of the following places, or any person who solicits when the personsolicited is in any of the following places, is guilty of an infraction:
(a) At any bus stop; (b) In any public transportation vehicle or facility; (c) In any vehicle on the street; (d) On private property, unless the solicitor has permission from the owner or tenant; (E) WITHIN FOURTEEN FEET of any building other than those buildings referenced in subsection (f) of this section. Where any portion of a building is recessed from the public sidewalk, the fourteen feet shall be measured from the point at which the building abuts the sidewalk; (f) Within fifty feet of any bank building or other financial institution buildings, including their outdoor automatic teller machines; (g) In the parking lot of any bank, savings and loan, or other financial institution; (H) Within fifty feet of any ATM machine or cash disbursal machine, or any other outdoor machine or device which disburses or accepts coins or paper currency except parking meters and newspaper vending machines; (I) Within fourteen feet of any fence that abuts a public sidewalk; (J) Within fourteen feet of any drinking fountain, public telephone, public bench, public trash compactor, information or directory/map sign, sculpture or artwork displayed on public property, or vending cart; (K) Within fourteen feet of any street corner or intersection; (L) Within fourteen feet of any open air dining area or café extension; or (M) Within fourteen feet of any kiosk.
Notes: “e” is now expanded to any point along a building's front, not just an entrance or exit...buildings no longer have to be open to the public (or occupied at all)... “h” arguably includes indoor cash disbursal machines... “i” is expanded to include all fences... “j” expands from “seated on” or “leaning against” to “within 14' of” and adds “vending cart”...adds street corners, intersections, open air dining areas, cafe extensions, and kiosks......also maintains the “person solicited” language
THREE INFRACTIONS AND YOU'RE MISDEMEANORED:
The title of the Ordinance is: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ AMENDING SECTIONS 5.43.020, 9.30.010, 9.10.030, 9.50.012, 9.50.014, 9.50.020 OF AND ADDING SECTIONS 4.04.015 AND 9.50.013 TO THE SANTA CRUZ MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO FAILURES TO APPEAR OR POST BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, NONCOMMERCIAL DISPLAY DEVICES, AGGRESSIVE SOLICITATION, SITTING ON SIDEWALKS AND OCCUPANCY OF PUBLIC BENCHES
BUT THE ACTUAL WORDING OF THE ORDINANCE ITSELF DOES NOT RESTRICT ITSELF TO THE SPECIFIC CODES OUTLINED IN THE TITLE. Notice the wording of the actual ordinance:
4.04.0150 FAILURE TO APPEAR OR POST BAIL.
(a) Any person who, on three occasions during any given six month period, fails to appear in court in connection with a citation issued for a criminal violation of any provision of this code or to post bail in connection with that citation, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
(b) Pursuant to and in accordance with California Penal Code Section 853.8 or, alternatively, California Penal Code Section 1427, whenever a person fails to appear in court or to post bail in connection with a citation issued for a criminal violation of any provision of this code three times within a given six month period, upon the third such failure to appear or post bail a warrant for the arrest of that person shall be issued.
DISPLAY DEVICE (POLITICAL TABLERS, PERFORMERS WITH OPEN CASES)
Section 5.43.020 (d) has been modified: It previously read:
(d) Within ten feet of any drinking fountain, public telephone, or public bench.
The Mathews-Coonerty-Robinson version is now broadened to read:
(d) Within ten feet of any drinking fountain, public telephone, public bench, public trash compactor, information or directory/map sign, sculpture or artwork displayed on public property, ATM machine or other cash disbursal machines or any other outdoor machine or device which disburses or accepts coins or paper currency except parking meters and newspaper vending machines;
It also adds a section:
(g) Within ten feet of any fence that abuts a public sidewalk.
MOVE ALONG SECTION BROADENED BY REDEFINITION
The “Move Along” section 5.43.020(2) has been modified adding the words “police officer” those that are required to warn those who set up the display device. And a new section has been added redefining the word “person” to include 'group of persons' or 'Organization'--reminiscent of the Supreme Court's redefining “corporation” as a person protected, only in this case, it allows police or private parties to discriminate against groups of people and organizations.
FORBIDDEN ZONES FOR INNOCENT SITTING SIGNIFICANTLY EXPANDED
SECTION 5. Section 9.50.012 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
9.50.012 SITTING DOWN ON PUBLIC SIDEWALKS IN DESIGNATED CITY ZONES.
In the C-C community commercial, C-N neighborhood commercial, C-B commercial beach, CBD central business district, and R-T tourist residential zoning districts, no person shall sit upon the following enumerated portions of a public sidewalk:
(a) At any bus stop; (ADDED) (b) Within fourteen feet of any building. (CURRENTLY IT IS WITHIN 14' OF THE ENTRANCE, EXIT, OR WINDOW) Where any portion of a building is recessed from the public sidewalk, the fourteen feet shall be measured from the point at which the building abuts the sidewalk;
(c) Within fifty feet of any ATM machine or cash disbursal machine, or any other outdoor machine or device which disburses or accepts coins or paper currency except parking meters and newspaper vending machines;
(d) Within fourteen feet of any fence that abuts a public sidewalk; (ADDED)
(e) Within fourteen feet of any drinking fountain, public telephone, public bench, public trash compactor, information or directory/map sign, sculpture or artwork displayed on public property, or vending cart (VASTLY EXPANDED FROM THE PREVIOUS WORDING, WHICH SPECIFIED ONLY DRINKING FOUNTAINS AND PUBLIC PHONES) (f) Within fourteen feet of any street corner or intersection; (ADDED)
(g) Within fourteen feet of any open air dining area or café extension; or
(h) Within fourteen feet of any kiosk. (ADDED)
No Public Body has received any figures on the great Crime Wave that these expanded forbidden zones are supposed to stop. Nor on how much it will cost. Nor on how much has been spent and how effective the older laws have been. Instead of drawing in the folks involved, these laws were cooked up behind closed doors to override and criminalize them. Bad idea. Rushed process. Failed solutions. Backdoor staff, police, and merchant power. More public space converted to private security patrols (where the SCPD becomes the merchant cop force).
OLD SECTION 9.10.030 (Panhandling locations)
Any person who solicits in any of the following places, or any person who solicits when the person solicited is in any of the following places, is guilty of an infraction: (a) At any bus stop; (b) In any public transportation vehicle or facility; (c) In any vehicle on the street; (d) On private property, unless the solicitor has permission from the owner or tenant; (e) Within fourteen feet of any entranceway into or exit from any building open to the public other than those referenced in subsection (f) of this section. Where any such entranceway or exit is recessed from the public sidewalk, the fourteen feet shall be measured from the point at which the building abuts the sidewalk; (f) Within fifty feet of any bank, savings and loan, or other financial institution buildings, including their outdoor automatic teller machines; (g) In the parking lot of any bank, savings and loan, or other financial institution; (h) Within fifty feet of all cash disbursal machines, outdoor vending machines, outdoor money changing machines, or any other outdoor machine or device which disburses or accepts coins or paper currency, except parking meters and newspaper vending machines; (i) Within fourteen feet of the face of any building not otherwise specifically referenced in this section or within fourteen feet of any fence or other structure separating private property from the public right-of-way, other than cyclone fences between vacant lots and the public right of way; (j) While seated on or leaning against any public bench, planter, monument or other public property; (k) While seated on or leaning against privately owned property without the property owner's or tenant's permission; (l) Within fourteen feet of any crosswalk.
NEW SECTION 9.10.030
(Notes following clarify how far the forbidden zones are expanded. E,H, I,J, L, & M have all been expanded; the code letters are capitalized for easier reference)
Any person who solicits in any of the following places, or any person who solicits when the personsolicited is in any of the following places, is guilty of an infraction:
(a) At any bus stop; (b) In any public transportation vehicle or facility; (c) In any vehicle on the street; (d) On private property, unless the solicitor has permission from the owner or tenant; (E) WITHIN FOURTEEN FEET of any building other than those buildings referenced in subsection (f) of this section. Where any portion of a building is recessed from the public sidewalk, the fourteen feet shall be measured from the point at which the building abuts the sidewalk; (f) Within fifty feet of any bank building or other financial institution buildings, including their outdoor automatic teller machines; (g) In the parking lot of any bank, savings and loan, or other financial institution; (H) Within fifty feet of any ATM machine or cash disbursal machine, or any other outdoor machine or device which disburses or accepts coins or paper currency except parking meters and newspaper vending machines; (I) Within fourteen feet of any fence that abuts a public sidewalk; (J) Within fourteen feet of any drinking fountain, public telephone, public bench, public trash compactor, information or directory/map sign, sculpture or artwork displayed on public property, or vending cart; (K) Within fourteen feet of any street corner or intersection; (L) Within fourteen feet of any open air dining area or café extension; or (M) Within fourteen feet of any kiosk.
Notes: “e” is now expanded to any point along a building's front, not just an entrance or exit...buildings no longer have to be open to the public (or occupied at all)... “h” arguably includes indoor cash disbursal machines... “i” is expanded to include all fences... “j” expands from “seated on” or “leaning against” to “within 14' of” and adds “vending cart”...adds street corners, intersections, open air dining areas, cafe extensions, and kiosks......also maintains the “person solicited” language
THREE INFRACTIONS AND YOU'RE MISDEMEANORED:
The title of the Ordinance is: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ AMENDING SECTIONS 5.43.020, 9.30.010, 9.10.030, 9.50.012, 9.50.014, 9.50.020 OF AND ADDING SECTIONS 4.04.015 AND 9.50.013 TO THE SANTA CRUZ MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO FAILURES TO APPEAR OR POST BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, NONCOMMERCIAL DISPLAY DEVICES, AGGRESSIVE SOLICITATION, SITTING ON SIDEWALKS AND OCCUPANCY OF PUBLIC BENCHES
BUT THE ACTUAL WORDING OF THE ORDINANCE ITSELF DOES NOT RESTRICT ITSELF TO THE SPECIFIC CODES OUTLINED IN THE TITLE. Notice the wording of the actual ordinance:
4.04.0150 FAILURE TO APPEAR OR POST BAIL.
(a) Any person who, on three occasions during any given six month period, fails to appear in court in connection with a citation issued for a criminal violation of any provision of this code or to post bail in connection with that citation, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
(b) Pursuant to and in accordance with California Penal Code Section 853.8 or, alternatively, California Penal Code Section 1427, whenever a person fails to appear in court or to post bail in connection with a citation issued for a criminal violation of any provision of this code three times within a given six month period, upon the third such failure to appear or post bail a warrant for the arrest of that person shall be issued.
DISPLAY DEVICE (POLITICAL TABLERS, PERFORMERS WITH OPEN CASES)
Section 5.43.020 (d) has been modified: It previously read:
(d) Within ten feet of any drinking fountain, public telephone, or public bench.
The Mathews-Coonerty-Robinson version is now broadened to read:
(d) Within ten feet of any drinking fountain, public telephone, public bench, public trash compactor, information or directory/map sign, sculpture or artwork displayed on public property, ATM machine or other cash disbursal machines or any other outdoor machine or device which disburses or accepts coins or paper currency except parking meters and newspaper vending machines;
It also adds a section:
(g) Within ten feet of any fence that abuts a public sidewalk.
MOVE ALONG SECTION BROADENED BY REDEFINITION
The “Move Along” section 5.43.020(2) has been modified adding the words “police officer” those that are required to warn those who set up the display device. And a new section has been added redefining the word “person” to include 'group of persons' or 'Organization'--reminiscent of the Supreme Court's redefining “corporation” as a person protected, only in this case, it allows police or private parties to discriminate against groups of people and organizations.
FORBIDDEN ZONES FOR INNOCENT SITTING SIGNIFICANTLY EXPANDED
SECTION 5. Section 9.50.012 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
9.50.012 SITTING DOWN ON PUBLIC SIDEWALKS IN DESIGNATED CITY ZONES.
In the C-C community commercial, C-N neighborhood commercial, C-B commercial beach, CBD central business district, and R-T tourist residential zoning districts, no person shall sit upon the following enumerated portions of a public sidewalk:
(a) At any bus stop; (ADDED) (b) Within fourteen feet of any building. (CURRENTLY IT IS WITHIN 14' OF THE ENTRANCE, EXIT, OR WINDOW) Where any portion of a building is recessed from the public sidewalk, the fourteen feet shall be measured from the point at which the building abuts the sidewalk;
(c) Within fifty feet of any ATM machine or cash disbursal machine, or any other outdoor machine or device which disburses or accepts coins or paper currency except parking meters and newspaper vending machines;
(d) Within fourteen feet of any fence that abuts a public sidewalk; (ADDED)
(e) Within fourteen feet of any drinking fountain, public telephone, public bench, public trash compactor, information or directory/map sign, sculpture or artwork displayed on public property, or vending cart (VASTLY EXPANDED FROM THE PREVIOUS WORDING, WHICH SPECIFIED ONLY DRINKING FOUNTAINS AND PUBLIC PHONES) (f) Within fourteen feet of any street corner or intersection; (ADDED)
(g) Within fourteen feet of any open air dining area or café extension; or
(h) Within fourteen feet of any kiosk. (ADDED)
No Public Body has received any figures on the great Crime Wave that these expanded forbidden zones are supposed to stop. Nor on how much it will cost. Nor on how much has been spent and how effective the older laws have been. Instead of drawing in the folks involved, these laws were cooked up behind closed doors to override and criminalize them. Bad idea. Rushed process. Failed solutions. Backdoor staff, police, and merchant power. More public space converted to private security patrols (where the SCPD becomes the merchant cop force).
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
man, your local pols must not have much to do, since it seems like all they spend their time on is trying to squeeze the last few drops of weird completely out of Santa Cruz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namby_Pamby
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/namby-pamby
and I don't think I've ever seen as many police per square inch as I have when I visit your decreasingly fun town
it's sad, really
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namby_Pamby
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/namby-pamby
and I don't think I've ever seen as many police per square inch as I have when I visit your decreasingly fun town
it's sad, really
So now the next favorite place for tablers, the sidewalk in front of O'Niels is off limits since there is a directory there and a scuplture taking up most of the preferred space to table. I wonder if the traditional spot in front of bookshop Santa Cruz is within 10 ft of the statue there?
This is real bad news. According to this new law...the street performer can't stand barely anywhere on the area between New Leaf and Kianti's Restaurant. That has been one of the most popular places for musicians to play.
By the way, the bench in front of Kianti's is now gone.
Is this clear to you? There is going to be, pretty much, no place to stand where we can't be driven away.
THIS MEANS THAT THEY HAVE DECIDED TO MAKE IT MOSTLY ILLEGAL TO PLAY ON THE STREET!
We would have to receive tickets to fight this. Which I, and most other people, will be unwilling to take. We will be sent out of EVERYWHERE. What a lonely street!
On the corner of Borders...there is a small place to stand before you are too close to a change machine. Or else you get into the crosswalk area and that's already illegal.
There's a small amount of space left on the other side of the street, then there are benches.
This has been planned a long time.
There were benches taken out AND the change machines and directory signs were put in long ago in plans to make it illegal to be there.Musicians and panhandlers both. Now there are art works creating forbidden areas.
SAFE,Society for Artistic Freedom and Expression,...a group of street performers who have tried to fight these laws by coming together and meeting each other on the street so we can get a group together and stop the laws, have not come together. All they want to do is jam and leave. Hardly anyone wanted to be active and try to change the laws.
Where SAFE usually played, in front of New Leaf, is within 10 feet of the kiosk and art work.The other places musicians like to play is in front of the Del Mar Theater, which is near
a trash compactor and directory sign. All will be illegal soon.
There is ONE place I found between a tree and the other kiosk nearer to the Del Mar theater. That MAY be safe if the cops don't lie and tell us it's against the law when it isn't, which I have experienced.
One of our best musicians was ticketed for sitting on a planter which isn't even in the ordinances that I can see. He is a fine musician! Doesn't deserve it! Love you, Jay!
Neither did Daveed and Chris who were also accomplished musicians. Who were homeless and ticketed often for little more than sleeping or playing guitar (in the "wrong spot"). These are great musicians.....special!
I suppose I could walk around with my guitar...and carry a sign that says
I CAN"T PLAY ANYWHERE
IT"S AGAINST THE LAW TO PLAY HERE!
A BIG group is the only way to fight this.
GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL TOMORROW! Please make a stink!
Can you imagine a Santa Cruz without music on the streets? Must we all say good-bye to it? Why?
What a sad day!
And for those who plan to just dis me on this blog for my comment with a large and stupid negative comment. Since it happens almost all the time, let me be the first one to say to that
non-compassionate and people-hating dimwit, **** off!
By the way, the bench in front of Kianti's is now gone.
Is this clear to you? There is going to be, pretty much, no place to stand where we can't be driven away.
THIS MEANS THAT THEY HAVE DECIDED TO MAKE IT MOSTLY ILLEGAL TO PLAY ON THE STREET!
We would have to receive tickets to fight this. Which I, and most other people, will be unwilling to take. We will be sent out of EVERYWHERE. What a lonely street!
On the corner of Borders...there is a small place to stand before you are too close to a change machine. Or else you get into the crosswalk area and that's already illegal.
There's a small amount of space left on the other side of the street, then there are benches.
This has been planned a long time.
There were benches taken out AND the change machines and directory signs were put in long ago in plans to make it illegal to be there.Musicians and panhandlers both. Now there are art works creating forbidden areas.
SAFE,Society for Artistic Freedom and Expression,...a group of street performers who have tried to fight these laws by coming together and meeting each other on the street so we can get a group together and stop the laws, have not come together. All they want to do is jam and leave. Hardly anyone wanted to be active and try to change the laws.
Where SAFE usually played, in front of New Leaf, is within 10 feet of the kiosk and art work.The other places musicians like to play is in front of the Del Mar Theater, which is near
a trash compactor and directory sign. All will be illegal soon.
There is ONE place I found between a tree and the other kiosk nearer to the Del Mar theater. That MAY be safe if the cops don't lie and tell us it's against the law when it isn't, which I have experienced.
One of our best musicians was ticketed for sitting on a planter which isn't even in the ordinances that I can see. He is a fine musician! Doesn't deserve it! Love you, Jay!
Neither did Daveed and Chris who were also accomplished musicians. Who were homeless and ticketed often for little more than sleeping or playing guitar (in the "wrong spot"). These are great musicians.....special!
I suppose I could walk around with my guitar...and carry a sign that says
I CAN"T PLAY ANYWHERE
IT"S AGAINST THE LAW TO PLAY HERE!
A BIG group is the only way to fight this.
GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL TOMORROW! Please make a stink!
Can you imagine a Santa Cruz without music on the streets? Must we all say good-bye to it? Why?
What a sad day!
And for those who plan to just dis me on this blog for my comment with a large and stupid negative comment. Since it happens almost all the time, let me be the first one to say to that
non-compassionate and people-hating dimwit, **** off!
What a shame. How do we as a community have a naionwide reputation of progressive politics, yet we can't stop this from happening in our front yard? They have outlawed everything fun and interesting and unique about our downtown. They've made it illegal to do anything except spend money on Pacific Ave. Where's the outcry?
The soul of Santa Cruz is being left to rot. Why doesn't anyone care?
The soul of Santa Cruz is being left to rot. Why doesn't anyone care?
To both of the posters above me, I respectfully suggest that you try to see beyond your own needs or desires.
One says that anyone who disagrees with her is non-compassionate and can fu** off? The other says the town's soul is being rotted away.
To both, I propose that you are looking at it only from your personal perspective and point of personal opinion. Seems pretty clear to me that a larger number of people don't appreciate what you offer. You see it as a gift, they see it as an imposition.
I think that the majority should hold sway. If the majority want a more open, less enforced mall, then these resolutions won't move forward. But I also think that the very fact that they are being proposed makes it evident that the majority don't feel like they want this. They feel, as I do, that the mall has been commandeered by a small number of people who feel like they own it. And they do what they want.
And if we don't like it, then we're non-compassionate and can just fu** off? Well, I invite you to do the same.
There are plenty of places music can be played in this fine city. You can play music darn near anywhere. Why do you insist on doing it in a location where many don't want to hear it? I suggest that it's not about the music as much as it is about generating a revenue stream or having your ego stroked.
One says that anyone who disagrees with her is non-compassionate and can fu** off? The other says the town's soul is being rotted away.
To both, I propose that you are looking at it only from your personal perspective and point of personal opinion. Seems pretty clear to me that a larger number of people don't appreciate what you offer. You see it as a gift, they see it as an imposition.
I think that the majority should hold sway. If the majority want a more open, less enforced mall, then these resolutions won't move forward. But I also think that the very fact that they are being proposed makes it evident that the majority don't feel like they want this. They feel, as I do, that the mall has been commandeered by a small number of people who feel like they own it. And they do what they want.
And if we don't like it, then we're non-compassionate and can just fu** off? Well, I invite you to do the same.
There are plenty of places music can be played in this fine city. You can play music darn near anywhere. Why do you insist on doing it in a location where many don't want to hear it? I suggest that it's not about the music as much as it is about generating a revenue stream or having your ego stroked.
I don't think it's fair to jump to any conclusion on here. I work, pay taxes, and more importantly live downtown. When my fiancee's grandfather was here, he had to stop every hundred feet or so (old, overwight, diabetic). With no benches he would have been in serious pain. The whole purpose of this series of under-the-table law-writing is allegedly to make downtown more safe. allegedly; but it's gotta be getting hard for the City Council to keep saying that with a straight face when it's glaringly obvious who they're after.
This isn't about individual wants or perspectives, at least not to me. It's about seeing a city I love and have lived in for a decade not feel like home anymore. It's about this town turning into just another tourist trap, with 30 percent of our anniual budget as the armed enforcers of consumption.
More than anything else for me, though, is that I felt safer before they brought in so many police. And it's an entire squad of officers writing the same open container tickets to the same drunken homebums, wasting their time with this trivial nonsense. I can't be the only person in town that noticed there's a raging methamphetamine epidemic?
This isn't about individual wants or perspectives, at least not to me. It's about seeing a city I love and have lived in for a decade not feel like home anymore. It's about this town turning into just another tourist trap, with 30 percent of our anniual budget as the armed enforcers of consumption.
More than anything else for me, though, is that I felt safer before they brought in so many police. And it's an entire squad of officers writing the same open container tickets to the same drunken homebums, wasting their time with this trivial nonsense. I can't be the only person in town that noticed there's a raging methamphetamine epidemic?
Here we go again!
It's so hard to share some facts with my fellow friends who KNOW what I'm talking about without "git over yourself" bullshit butting in and spouting off their mouth about something they know anything about. I've met people like you on the street.
Please, misinformed person, talk to someone who understands your problem. Obviously you don't understand mine or want to know and don't give a damn anyway.
Hence your anonymous self.
You got nothing better to do with your time than PUT ME DOWN!
You have nothing to do with life on the street or you'd understand, so don't be wasting our time.
You just walk by and point at the zoo!
Leave me alone, please. Stop dissing me!
It's so hard to share some facts with my fellow friends who KNOW what I'm talking about without "git over yourself" bullshit butting in and spouting off their mouth about something they know anything about. I've met people like you on the street.
Please, misinformed person, talk to someone who understands your problem. Obviously you don't understand mine or want to know and don't give a damn anyway.
Hence your anonymous self.
You got nothing better to do with your time than PUT ME DOWN!
You have nothing to do with life on the street or you'd understand, so don't be wasting our time.
You just walk by and point at the zoo!
Leave me alone, please. Stop dissing me!
Why are you so full of hate. "Git over yourself" made a good point. While I do enjoy the music downtown, at times it can be overwhelming. I've put money down at one musicians jar only to be harassed because I didn't put enough in or I walked by another musician and put nothing in their jar and was told to f*off. Some days its a war of music - and don't even get me started on the aggressive drummers - they really ruined it for all musicians downtown.
We all have opinions and just because you feel some are anti-music doesn't mean they are less entitled to enjoy downtown nor do they deserve to be told to **** off or be called a dimwit. If everyone was on the same page, it would be a very boring world!
We all have opinions and just because you feel some are anti-music doesn't mean they are less entitled to enjoy downtown nor do they deserve to be told to **** off or be called a dimwit. If everyone was on the same page, it would be a very boring world!
And so the yuppies of SC bully the poor of SC.
no, they are obviously MORE entitled. so entitled, in fact, that those unlike them are being forceably pushed out by armed guards of the merchant class
heaven forbid if a shopper has to deal with, or even see, someone unlike themselves on the streets
I can't tell residents what to do to fight these policies, but it occurs to me that local folks organizing a tourism boycott would hit those in power where it hurts, perhaps even organizing protests or civil disobedience at key points in the city. That is if the majority can't be reasonably persuaded to do the right thing and be a bit more open minded and less militaristic and threatening toward the "others"
heaven forbid if a shopper has to deal with, or even see, someone unlike themselves on the streets
I can't tell residents what to do to fight these policies, but it occurs to me that local folks organizing a tourism boycott would hit those in power where it hurts, perhaps even organizing protests or civil disobedience at key points in the city. That is if the majority can't be reasonably persuaded to do the right thing and be a bit more open minded and less militaristic and threatening toward the "others"
"heaven forbid if a shopper has to deal with, or even see, someone unlike themselves on the streets"
-It's not "being different" that bothers us. It's being aggressive, drunk, bugging people for leftovers THAT AREN'T EVEN LEFTOVERS. Seriously, I go to Pizza My Heart every once in awhile and get a couple slices to go. I'm working class and that is a fair amount of money for me. Never fails: within five steps, somebody asks me for my "leftovers". If they were leftovers, I might give them a slice. But they don't even think about it. It is these little things that bother people, not someone strumming a guitar.
"I can't tell residents what to do to fight these policies, but it occurs to me that local folks organizing a tourism boycott would hit those in power where it hurts, perhaps even organizing protests or civil disobedience at key points in the city. That is if the majority can't be reasonably persuaded to do the right thing and be a bit more open minded and less militaristic and threatening toward the "others"
- Good luck with that! Considering the small number of people who care and their relatively low purchasing power, you're not going to have much impact. Also, as long as Robert Norse is your public face, you will get very little sympathy from the community. My suggestion: move to a town that is more open to the homeless.
-It's not "being different" that bothers us. It's being aggressive, drunk, bugging people for leftovers THAT AREN'T EVEN LEFTOVERS. Seriously, I go to Pizza My Heart every once in awhile and get a couple slices to go. I'm working class and that is a fair amount of money for me. Never fails: within five steps, somebody asks me for my "leftovers". If they were leftovers, I might give them a slice. But they don't even think about it. It is these little things that bother people, not someone strumming a guitar.
"I can't tell residents what to do to fight these policies, but it occurs to me that local folks organizing a tourism boycott would hit those in power where it hurts, perhaps even organizing protests or civil disobedience at key points in the city. That is if the majority can't be reasonably persuaded to do the right thing and be a bit more open minded and less militaristic and threatening toward the "others"
- Good luck with that! Considering the small number of people who care and their relatively low purchasing power, you're not going to have much impact. Also, as long as Robert Norse is your public face, you will get very little sympathy from the community. My suggestion: move to a town that is more open to the homeless.
Valerie says I should walk by the zoo and leave her alone. But that would suggest to me that I don't have as much right to enjoy the mall as she does. And that's not right.
So Valerie, if you're representing for the zoo, and telling me to leave you alone cause it's yours, and I can F-off if I don't agree with you? You're merely reinforcing to me, and thousands of other like-minded residents, that it's time to reclaim OUR space from the few who abuse it and consider it their sacred domain.
I've been here for decades, and the mall ss as much mine as yours, and IMO way more mine than some transient who rode into town last week and will leave next month.
If you're going to post your opinion on a public forum and then expect that only those who agree with you are going to post, you might enjoy posting at FOXnews too......that seems to be their method.
So Valerie, if you're representing for the zoo, and telling me to leave you alone cause it's yours, and I can F-off if I don't agree with you? You're merely reinforcing to me, and thousands of other like-minded residents, that it's time to reclaim OUR space from the few who abuse it and consider it their sacred domain.
I've been here for decades, and the mall ss as much mine as yours, and IMO way more mine than some transient who rode into town last week and will leave next month.
If you're going to post your opinion on a public forum and then expect that only those who agree with you are going to post, you might enjoy posting at FOXnews too......that seems to be their method.
EVERYONE is ENTITLED to use downtown. But you have to agree that the music gets out of hand a lot. I see nothing wrong with being able to shop, listen to music, talk and walk along the sidewalk downtown. As it is now, that really can't be done.
You're suggesting that walking through downtown can't be done in it's current state. In all due respect, I beg to differ. When I moved here ('98) I was so inspired by the art and music scene downtown; it had enough persuasive energy to convince me that this town deserved some love and a chance to do right by me. I've never regretted the decision to move here, but the police presence is nudging me out of here on general principle.
I don't recognize our downtown anymore, as far as friendly familiar faces go. The people that had the right energy and attitude to make a place like this unique from, say State St in SB or Pacific Beach in San Diego, were herded out of the city limits like cattle because the PD gave them pointless tickets for sitting on curbs, blowing bubbles, etc, while the lowest of the low in our town (see: methamphetamine, 20" bikes) seem to slide under the radar of our local law enforcement. The arbitrary laws our city council writes up are meant intentionally to be selectively enforced---I am yet to see some velour-sweat-suit wearing yuppie trophy wife getting a ticket for walking their dogs down the Avenue.
Regardless of your feelings about Robert Norse and his strategies to bring attention to this issue, it doesn't make his point any less valid. And as to the suggestion that the downtown area has been commandeered by a small group of people who treat it as if it were their own personal property, you're right---they're called the Santa Cruz Police Department. I get the feeling that most of the people in support of these additions to the lawbooks are people who would never, EVER have to worry about being singled out by the fuzz on appearance alone, and can't understand how hard it makes your life to have your every breath and movement being considered illegal.
Finally, lay off of Valerie; I've known her for a few years now, and while you may disagree with some/all of what she has to say, her intentions have always been for righting the wrongs our society creates. We live in a world where our pets are treated much better than our poor, and it's rare that somebody cares enough to speak up against the popular opinion (ie EWWWW Homeless people---GROSS!) in such a one-sided battle.
With few exceptions, I can't think of anyone in my life (friends, family, et al) that is more than a sprained ankle and two missed paychecks away from being in the same position as the folks our city council is trying to erase from visibility. Being poor sucks, and that's old news.
But maybe the convenience of your shopping trip should be a bit less of a priority than the rampant poverty you're seeing around you. There's people suffering around you; the fact that so many people's first "decision" they make regarding that is whether or not to acknowledge their existence speaks volumes about our community's empathy.
I don't recognize our downtown anymore, as far as friendly familiar faces go. The people that had the right energy and attitude to make a place like this unique from, say State St in SB or Pacific Beach in San Diego, were herded out of the city limits like cattle because the PD gave them pointless tickets for sitting on curbs, blowing bubbles, etc, while the lowest of the low in our town (see: methamphetamine, 20" bikes) seem to slide under the radar of our local law enforcement. The arbitrary laws our city council writes up are meant intentionally to be selectively enforced---I am yet to see some velour-sweat-suit wearing yuppie trophy wife getting a ticket for walking their dogs down the Avenue.
Regardless of your feelings about Robert Norse and his strategies to bring attention to this issue, it doesn't make his point any less valid. And as to the suggestion that the downtown area has been commandeered by a small group of people who treat it as if it were their own personal property, you're right---they're called the Santa Cruz Police Department. I get the feeling that most of the people in support of these additions to the lawbooks are people who would never, EVER have to worry about being singled out by the fuzz on appearance alone, and can't understand how hard it makes your life to have your every breath and movement being considered illegal.
Finally, lay off of Valerie; I've known her for a few years now, and while you may disagree with some/all of what she has to say, her intentions have always been for righting the wrongs our society creates. We live in a world where our pets are treated much better than our poor, and it's rare that somebody cares enough to speak up against the popular opinion (ie EWWWW Homeless people---GROSS!) in such a one-sided battle.
With few exceptions, I can't think of anyone in my life (friends, family, et al) that is more than a sprained ankle and two missed paychecks away from being in the same position as the folks our city council is trying to erase from visibility. Being poor sucks, and that's old news.
But maybe the convenience of your shopping trip should be a bit less of a priority than the rampant poverty you're seeing around you. There's people suffering around you; the fact that so many people's first "decision" they make regarding that is whether or not to acknowledge their existence speaks volumes about our community's empathy.
Maybe it's all perspective and personal opinion, how one sees the town. I think that's the case.
So while you say "I don't recognize our downtown anymore, as far as friendly familiar faces go."....I say the same thing. I got here well before 98 when you arrived. And while you think 98 was a highpoint and it's been downhill since then, I think it was already slipsliding away then. The good times I remember on the mall were the 70's and 80's. I think it's been in steady decay since then. It's the vibe of the 70's and 80's I'd like to see return. The performers were here then too. So were the panhandlers. But the aggressive, confrontational mood wasn't. Neither was the crime, or overt drug dealing and consumption. And what was particularly lacking was what I would now describe as a strange sense of entitlement.
I agree with you; a few people should not get to dictate to the rest how its going to be. You seem to think the rich are dictating now. I feel the opposite. I feel like a small number of folks who make the mall their home have been dictating to the rest of us. I think that the new ordinances are a result of the majority being tired of what's going on and wanting it changed.
Some, like Robert, will contend that it's a small number or merchants and cops meeting in secret who are the driving force behind this. I know for fact that it's not the case. It's hundreds of people talking to the City Council members and cops who have caused the action by these City Council Members. I know because I, and several of my friends, have spoken to these city council members about our feelings about the mall.
(And on a side not about Valerie? If I'm "laying on" Valerie because I disagree with her, then I'm not gonna lay off. My opinion is as valid as hers. If anyone should be "laying off", its her; she started this thread with the pre-emptive strike of suggesting that anyone who disagreed with her could fu*k off, and followed that with a post that essentially says anyone who is disagreeing with her is a yuppie and anti-poor. That's b.s., not to mention confrontational and causing the responses she's getting. She's reaping what she sewed.)
So while you say "I don't recognize our downtown anymore, as far as friendly familiar faces go."....I say the same thing. I got here well before 98 when you arrived. And while you think 98 was a highpoint and it's been downhill since then, I think it was already slipsliding away then. The good times I remember on the mall were the 70's and 80's. I think it's been in steady decay since then. It's the vibe of the 70's and 80's I'd like to see return. The performers were here then too. So were the panhandlers. But the aggressive, confrontational mood wasn't. Neither was the crime, or overt drug dealing and consumption. And what was particularly lacking was what I would now describe as a strange sense of entitlement.
I agree with you; a few people should not get to dictate to the rest how its going to be. You seem to think the rich are dictating now. I feel the opposite. I feel like a small number of folks who make the mall their home have been dictating to the rest of us. I think that the new ordinances are a result of the majority being tired of what's going on and wanting it changed.
Some, like Robert, will contend that it's a small number or merchants and cops meeting in secret who are the driving force behind this. I know for fact that it's not the case. It's hundreds of people talking to the City Council members and cops who have caused the action by these City Council Members. I know because I, and several of my friends, have spoken to these city council members about our feelings about the mall.
(And on a side not about Valerie? If I'm "laying on" Valerie because I disagree with her, then I'm not gonna lay off. My opinion is as valid as hers. If anyone should be "laying off", its her; she started this thread with the pre-emptive strike of suggesting that anyone who disagreed with her could fu*k off, and followed that with a post that essentially says anyone who is disagreeing with her is a yuppie and anti-poor. That's b.s., not to mention confrontational and causing the responses she's getting. She's reaping what she sewed.)
1. Not more social workers, less anti-social workers!
2. For increased police presents: give out their birthdays!
3. ok you get the point...
friends of mine who visit here comment on the lack of funk in downtown, the increase in yuppification...i remember 88, man, when the mall wuz the pacific garden mall and i smoked freakin reefer on the porch of the perg like amsterdam and shit...
don't get me reminiscing, but The Maul don't feel like public land anymore, that much we can all agree on...it's slipping away in to the land of insane/druggies and yuppies, though at least the homeless are somewhat friendly, the old skool homeless drunks or chessplayers...where're the freaks? just ain't been the same since jerry died...but maybe we can have some sort of no holds barred wrestling between the cops and meth heads to raise all our spirits...why do i have more hope that there is going to be a love-in between the palestinians and jews before santa cruz has a groovy downtown full of wierdos and street performers having shopping cart/dumpster races...actually lemme take that last one back, santa cruz can be fun when the avenue is closed and all can come out and hang out and stuff. shut down the mall!!! come on, at least on the weekends and friday night!!!
2. For increased police presents: give out their birthdays!
3. ok you get the point...
friends of mine who visit here comment on the lack of funk in downtown, the increase in yuppification...i remember 88, man, when the mall wuz the pacific garden mall and i smoked freakin reefer on the porch of the perg like amsterdam and shit...
don't get me reminiscing, but The Maul don't feel like public land anymore, that much we can all agree on...it's slipping away in to the land of insane/druggies and yuppies, though at least the homeless are somewhat friendly, the old skool homeless drunks or chessplayers...where're the freaks? just ain't been the same since jerry died...but maybe we can have some sort of no holds barred wrestling between the cops and meth heads to raise all our spirits...why do i have more hope that there is going to be a love-in between the palestinians and jews before santa cruz has a groovy downtown full of wierdos and street performers having shopping cart/dumpster races...actually lemme take that last one back, santa cruz can be fun when the avenue is closed and all can come out and hang out and stuff. shut down the mall!!! come on, at least on the weekends and friday night!!!
If it were not for the merchants the mall would be a really nasty place. It takes businesses to make a place like the mall work. It takes people wanting to shop for the businesses to stay in business. The business of mall is business. It does not exist to give folks a place to hang out. If the undesirable element can't understand that then the mall could go the way of many towns I have seen. Few businesses left and only drunks, bums and trouble makers hanging out.
Robert, your website at: "http://www.santacruzcopwatch.org/robert/" is down. [You probably already know] I have really missed you last two shows because I want to hear your comentary on these new ordinaces. Please get your show archives back ASAP.
Thanks.
Thanks.
The HUFF link to Bathrobespierre's Broadsides is down.
To directly access any particular show type in http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brbYYMMDD.mp3 where YY is the year (09 is 2009), MM is the month (02 is February), DD is the day of the month (01 is yesterday, February 1st, the date of the last show). Hence go to http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb090201.mp3 to access the most recent show.
Thanks for asking. I'd hoped the link would be repaired by now.
To directly access any particular show type in http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brbYYMMDD.mp3 where YY is the year (09 is 2009), MM is the month (02 is February), DD is the day of the month (01 is yesterday, February 1st, the date of the last show). Hence go to http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb090201.mp3 to access the most recent show.
Thanks for asking. I'd hoped the link would be repaired by now.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$170.00 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