I was gonna boycott them if it were there, but it wasn't so I had 2 tacos.

That's sort of the deal, right? We draw up sides, support those who agree with us and boycott those who don't. So I'll keep shopping there until I see your poster go up, then I'll stop going and tell them why I'm boycotting them.

I didn't see one this morning at Starbucks either. I made a point of looking for it.

I was just over at Starbucks and I looked all over for the sign. Didn't see anything. And I looked everywhere.
So I asked the girl behind the counter about it when I got my coffee and she just laughed. Didn't answer the question, just laughed.

Robert says "While we respect the right of Bunny's to manage its own property, when it supports police action on public property against those that have no choice, it needs to hear from the community".

Could Robert please clarify if Bunny's contacted police about activity that was happening on public or private property. And since he is targeting Bunny's could he please enlighten everyone where exactly these incidents took place?

Yeah, I couldn't find them at Streetlight or the Perfumed place either? Robert, are you sure these groups were sincere? They may have just said "yes" and tossed them in the recycling.

Believe me, business owners downtown see this for what it is. This "pledge" is nothing more then extortion and a bullying tactic. Norse can't find any headway with the city so he has decided to go after the business owners and hit their revenue. The only thing is it's not working. No one is going to give in to these practices of fear and intimidation.

What is truly amazing is that there is a lot more back story in the details of the incident that sparked this protest. Norse and his friends at the HRO have not been entirely forthcoming when telling the complete story about Anna and Miguel. While the couple was cited for sleeping infractions, there were surrounding incidents of vandalism, breaking and entry, urination, defecation, trespassing, and refusal to leave private property. Norse, Johnson, et al have only told one side of this story. The other side of the story is well documented and could be enlightening if only they would ask.

The issue is the downtown businesses' move to intensify criminalization of homelessness downtown under the cover of dealing with "bad behavior."

In January merchants showed up en masse to support making three "unattended" Sleeping Ban infractions a criminal misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months in jail and $1000 fine. (Actually any three infractions--even if only one or two of them involve Sleeping).

Merchants and the Coonerty-Robinson-Mathews coalition at City Council, are all too willing to blame the depression on the presence of poor people hanging out downtown (having been driven out of the parks, off the beaches, and out of the Pogonip).

The "forbidden zones" for innocent behavior such as sitting, sparechanging, political tabling, and street performing now cover more than 90% of the Pacific Ave. sidewalks and 100% of sidewalks where there are businesses within 14' everywhere else in town.

It's illegal to sit down next to a closed or vacant storefront any time of the day or night. Do it three times, ignore the absurd tickets, and you get a jail sentence? I think tourists should be advised that this is the kind of crap merchants are letting their Downtown Association push through City Council.

The May Injunction against Anna Richardson and Miguel de Leon only covers sleeping and has nothing to do with "bad behavior." Lulu Carpenter's, Bunny's, the Palomar, and Borders--who all contributed declarations to support it--should repudiate it.

A new more militant set of Hosts (the "Ambassadors") appeared on the streets yesterday. We have yet to see how abusive they are, but folks should report what they see at 423-4833.

Portland, OR courts recently threw out a much more limited Sitting Ban (see http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2009/06/392371.shtml ). Instead of piling on more repressive laws and wannabe cops, local merchants need to turn to better solutions like those proposed by the reconstituted Street Performers Guild.

The Sleeping Ban went down in L.A., San Diego, Fresno, Richmond, and Laguna Beach. It's only a matter of time (and money) before it happens here.

As mentioned above, if it's behavior on private property that worries businesses (a legitimate concern), then let them clearly state they support non-discrimination and an end to the Sleeping Ban, somewhere, not everywhere, in Santa Cruz. If not, then potential customers should know where their dollars are going.

Buy a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Their pledge is clearly visible.