Real Safety for Homeless Women

About this flyer -
While Colette may have gathered (I believe) the second greatest numbers of sleep/camp/lodging citations during last summer's PreaceCamp2010 (after Gary), she was actually homeless during that demo. She slept "illegally" (because outside) nearly every nite of that demonstration, whether inside the demo or hidden on the other side of the courthouse like some others. I believe she currently is homeless, as well.

Her sleep options most of the time -- nada, zero or nowhere -- is inexcusable. There should be safer options for every woman living or passing thru' our County. Options that are carried out with fairness, not arbitrary, and with easy to understand rules.

But instead of opening places like City Hall and the fire departments' floor and the many EMPTY office buildings when it's raining, our town's response to growing homelessness is to make it explicitly ILLEGAL to curl up in front of the door jambs of closed-at-nite downtown businesses, and to direct builders to delete planned doorway overhands. Not that this is safe, either.

My point is that our collective response to swells in the homeless population is ALWAYS the opposite of resolution. And thus it creates danger and death for men and women and children, shredding family groups along the way. I have been observing this a LONG time, and can't think of an exception to these perverse policy responses. Both great (well planned) and nasty intentions, going political, somehow get deformed or pre-empted by frightened people's freak-outs when they have any contact with "the homeless" populations.

BTW, Colette found nearly a month in "the Loft" before their rules began getting wavy; it's not like she's suidical. Simply homeless.

As for me, I have only ONE ticket for lodging, and that was an accidental accomplishment. Because I had a warm van, not many steps away, the nite I was caught a-snooze on the steps of the courthouse. And nobody complained when I slept in there. It's not accurate to say I have a bunch. At least, in recent years...

We need to think of homeless people as human beings. Until we do, our society will keep killing homeless folks in this insidious manner, hiding behind the guns of state because we are ashamed of our collective behaviors. And then telling each other "it's THEIR fault" to explain away the blood on our shared hands.

In this weather, everyone who's not at work, eating, or sleeping right now COULD be helping somebody outside get warm for a few moments...this is not going to go away unless we all work on resolving this unjust and dangerous (and, I believe, growing) thicket of problems that we are currently hiding under the euphemism of 'homelessness.' One guy's efforts come to mind: hot baked potatoes in foil, warming both hands and tummies. He was bringing many spuds to a group of musicians gathered off Pacific Ave one nite and somebody there told him of more homeless folks demonstrating by City Hall (n it was chilly then). So he brought a dozen our way.

At least THAT guy isn't helping destroy people's health and lives! Also, it's dishonest and unfair to talk like being homeless is equal to using illegal drugs; there's some overlap to be sure, but mostly it's a very different group.

In this weather, everyone who's not at work right now COULD BE helping somebody outside get warm for a few moments...this is not going to go away unless we all work on resolving this unjust and dangerous (and, I believe, growing) thicket of problems we are currently hiding under the euphemism of 'homelessness.'

Thanks Linda for your very insightful and inspiring comment. I could not agree with you more. Homed or Homeless, were all human beings and should be treated with equal compassion and rights. Everyone should and can do something. It's sad a county of 50,000+ people cannot take care of a few thousand people who are cold, wet and suffering. Sadly, I tend to see poor people helping other poor people more often than well off people. I'm not saying this is true 100% of the time, it is just something I have noticed myself over the years.

50,000 folks...should take care of a couple thousands needs.

So every 50 folks should take care of 2.

Every 25 should take care of 1.

........really? You think 1 in every 25 is unable to care for themself and thus deserves our care?I don't think so.

Quit drinkin n druggin and take care of yourself. That would cut the 2,000 by about 3/4ths. I'm happy to pitch in for the remainder who are temporarily down,, but I'm not interested in caring for the meth-heads and alkies in this community who choose to be victims.. Pass.

Notwithstanding initial grumbling and ultimately direct verbal hostility from some of the Take Back Santa Cruz rally sponsors, the Sentinel did catch a few photos of two rally members (myself and one other) carrying signs linking the Sleeping Ban with lack of security for homeless women. See http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_17428973?IADID .

Analicia Cube, the TBSC founder, though initially expressing concern for the safety of both homeless and housed women, lost her cool towards the end of the evening, screamed "fuck you" and "you'd better watch out".

A misunderstanding with a marcher, who I'd thought was okay with an audio recording, turned out not to be, so I agreed to delete her remarks from my report--which I'll give tomorrow at 10 AM on Free Radio Santa Cruz.

Some TBSC marchers used this as a pretext to begin heckling and denouncing me. Kathy Agnone, the CCPVAW organizer. piled on and asked me to leave the rally. This I declined to do, though the threats made it quite uncomfortable.

Still it was good to see the Sentinel actually carry photos of a very relevant concern for vulnerable homeless women--laws that criminalize them and make violence against them less reportable and more likely.

Several HUFF supporters were slated to make the rally, but the weather had us meeting indoors, which made them think the rally had been canceled. The same was probably true for TBSC and other supporters.

Tune in tomorrow at 101.1 FM and http://www.freakradio.org for some audio of the event.

Taking care of doesn't not mean you have to supply the person everything they need. Point was, everyone should be helping, especially during this bad weather. People are in need of basic necessities.

Do drug addicts deserve shelter, food and warmth? Yes they do. They are human beings too. So you don't' mind chipping in, as long as the person has no issues? Your lack or compassion is part of the problem. I met a kid (19 or so) who was strung out on herion, he had gone through a real bad time and left his house and was on the Streets of Santa Cruz. All he needed was someone who cared to help him just a bit. Not with money, but in other ways. He needed food and a safe place in which to go through withdrawals. He kicked on his own over three days and went home to his family. People can help each other.

Judging who is worthy of basic necessities is ridicules in my book.

What, Ho! Robert Norse says "Analicia Cube, the TBSC founder, though initially expressing concern for the safety of both homeless and housed women, lost her cool towards the end of the evening, screamed "fuck you" and "you'd better watch out."

"You'd better watch out!" Now, what does that mean? A threat! And, from our very own award-winning Analicia Cube! I'm shocked!! And FOUL LANGUAGE!!! How can this be? The only thing to do is blow it off, because Ms. Cube is credible, our very own new and fast rising star. A fully endorsed by all that matter and beyond reproach paragon of virtue, and universally disdained Mr. Norse is not (goes without saying, of course). Besides, whatever happened, it's all evil provocateur Norse's fault!

Way to go TBSC! Analicia, tell us what to do!!

Isn't it shocking that Robert Norse can lie and name call all things TBSC and someone might tell him to "Fuck Off"? PLEEZ! I also know that there was no threat made of needing to "watch out" only more lies made up by Robert in an attempt to vilify Analicia. Robert tried to hijack a peaceful walk with his own agenda and then attempted to record a woman that was confiding in him her personal story without her knowledge which resulted in an abundance of stress and panic to her. Robert you're a real peach. Why would anyone tell you to fuck off?

Actually Analicia snarled rather than screamed. Let me not exaggerate. It's a free speech right, of course. However in the midst of her sympathizers, it seemed to be an abusive attempt to frighten me away. Using unjustified fears to mobilize anger against me seems to be S.O.P. for TBSC. Not unlike what TBSC's expeditions are accused of trying to do to people in "illegal" homeless camps.

And, just for the record, since some TBSCites are following this thread: Have they actually told their volunteers to be careful about those homeless camps when doing their "clean-up's"? Just wondering.

Anyway some of the radio interviews (from those who weren't hiding their names and a few who were) can be found at http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb11022.mp3 3:05 (three hours, five minutes) into the interview. Some summary notes of the whole show can be found at http://www.huffsantacruz.org/brb-descriptions.html under the date February 20, 2011.

I heard, I think, on the Robert Norse FRSC Sunday broadcast, that the City is in negotiations with Mr. Norse's legal team re Nazi salute. If true, after ~$150K to defeat your right to give a Nazi salute at Santa Cruz city council meetings, they are conceding.

Well, well, well. I would guess the overall point would be that Robert Norse, being Robert Norse, is not a crime. OK.

Now, regarding Ms. Analicia Cube's political ascension and concomitant anointment (she's probably called a PROGRESSIVE in some circles, you know, among the tonier wine and cheese fest politics scenes, those trusted with Santa Cruz' future, or so they conceit), the one-liner material produced by her very public gushing over Law Enforcement is too good to pass up. (And why not? Is there not a gain, a further understanding?)

TBSC, thought altogether fitting and proper in its key premise of visible social support for "public safety," by its unflinching, unquestioning, goosestep-esque reverence of Law Enforcement, begs, indeed demands, to be contradicted, in the streets and in the media - in the name of freedom of speech, the right to assemble, and equal protection under the law.

TBSC looks like an authoritarian bandwagon front in many ways, and must/is being checked - before you can't take a dump around here without permission, which is not many of your fellow citizens idea of a good time.

I received an email communique from "TBSC" (no name, just "TBSC") in response to an email and phone message from me requesting a meeting with Ms. Analicia Cube. I outreached to her. Request denied.

They admit to following Santa Cruz Indymedia. They found my comments on Santa Cruz Indymedia offensive, quoting several.

I suggested in my response that "Some people are offended when you disagree with them," and that TBSC consider a financial contribution, rather than just the typical anonymous posting, and to consider listening to Free Radio Santa Cruz, Robert Norse and Thomas Leavitt in particular, and calling in.

Included in the TBSC response to my most polite, fully open and humble meeting request is the veiled threat: "We realize your wife is a teacher and assume the safety of our children is a priority to your family."

The double standard is alive and well at TBSC. They get to play dirty, threaten and intimidate. No one may oppose them. If anyone dares, they "better watch out," as was said to Robert Norse, just like the bunch of little Nazis they are.

Bob,
If true that sounds like a threat to me. Its also very illuminating. Why not post the email, including header info, minus your own email address if your uncomfortable? I think its important if they are making such threats, veiled or not.

Rule broken for anonymous poster with a sincere request: I can't, won't. One person outside my household has the full thread, and I trust them with their discretion to do as they will. There was a response to my response in which Heather Babcock identified Analicia Cube as the initial respondent, to which I responded, and there it lies.

I will go wide here: TBSC needs to be exposed. They confuse "family values" with "public safety." They are not interested in helping the homeless or anyone else beyond removing their presence.

What is interesting is how quickly TBSC was endorsed and anointed by the local insiders. It should be obvious to anyone objective what they are trying to do: the Carmelization of Santa Cruz.

I would, as many of us would, appreciate open dialog with TBSC leadership. That does not appear to be their tactical style. Maybe that will change. "In regards to a meeting under such perceived offensive circumstances, "Democrats" and "Republicans" would never reach across the "aisle," (which is what I said in my first response to the now-known Ms. Cube).

Their basic premise is not bad: visible social support for "public safety." The problem arises when civil rights are raised, in mine and others opinions. In the land of the Nuclear Free Zone, local application of values civil rights MUST be raised, or everything else is meaningless.

Ultimately the decision makers of Santa Cruz trust whom they want to, to provide solutions that benefit the families and safety of Santa Cruz. This does not include Robert Norse or Bob Lamonica. You both have the ear of no one but each other.

Hello Terry Skeeter,

Assuming your name is real, here we go. Santa Cruz Indymedia has become a primary, maybe the primary source of non-establishment information dissemination, with excellent videos and stills, plenty o' fun stuff, and written word dialog for our community. There is no question, none, that those who oppose, for example, any discussion of TBSC other than shallow platitudes, follow Santa Cruz Indymedia religiously.

As for Robert Norse and myself having "the ear of no one but each other," we certainly have your ear, Mr. Skeeter. It is far, far easier to organize clean-up-this-town, gung-ho groups like TBSC, which offer ready-made enemies to those looking for short, snappy answers, who possess a deep set fear of ambiguity, and an even deeper set fear of taking their own position on an issue. Many of us marvel that folks like yourself seem to not see the danger in its unopposed, reactionary vigilantism.

2011 has barely begun, and I cite at least one major instance where you are wrong: recent DIY New Years Eve 2011. At it's peak, by about Cathcart Avenue, over 200 fellow citizens were participating. And that's after repeated threats of reprisal from the SCPD, and Ms. Cube's (Analicia Cube, of the "Keep Santa Cruz Weird" Sisters) TV interview soundbite that they would be "Thumbing their noses at authority." One of my more cherished moments as a social human being, and as a public Santa Cruzan, was to be a part of that, and everyone who had the courage to come forth that night deserves praise.

"Ultimately the decision makers of Santa Cruz trust whom they want to, to provide solutions that benefit the families and safety of Santa Cruz," you say. Well, I and others say that's the problem. Your "public safety" stops at mine and others civil rights, which is never raised by TBSC, in fact, they strive actively to counter it as a matter of policy.

Freedom of speech matters. The right to assemble matters. Equal protection under the law matters, even here in Santa Cruz. Let's all try to not be so thin-skinned, and please stay tuned.

Anbody that believes that "We realize your wife is a teacher and assume the safety of our children is a priority to your family." equals a threat has severe mental problems. She is merely saying that because your wife is a teacher that you probably value children's safety, even if you have a different interpretation of public safety.

How is that a threat?

"Freedom of speech matters."

-Name one instance where TBSC has taken away your right to Freedom of Speech.

" Let's all try to not be so thin-skinned, and please stay tuned. "

-Says the thin-skinned ranting lunatic.

Hi Jeff, assuming that's who you are.

I never told TBSC my wife is a teacher. I didn't like the tone, and it reminded me of the "you'd better watch out" comment by Ms. Cube to Robert Norse. If I am wrong, I apologize. Ask your pals at TBSC to apologize to me for their aloofness, and bizarre intolerance of anyone not immediately agreeing with them. "Our "leadership" does not feel safe in your presence," said Ms. Cube. Now that's rich.

As I've said prior (and thank you, all you TBSC minions for reading these comments) TBSC's basic premise is not bad: visible social support for "public safety." When that is used to justify double standards, then it's time to challenge their anointed establishment supremacy.

Just because you don't like somebody doesn't mean you get to suspend their civil rights. TBSC, by its complicit silence, and often active denunciation, acts as an authoritarian front, in case after case after case. Among, others: Becky Johnson, Steve Argue, Robert Norse, and Santa Cruz 2010 fall guy Wes Modes, whose conviction as the only participant in DIY 2010 lies a moldering in a file cabinet at the County Courthouse. These are egregious symptoms of a community that has lost its tolerance. These days, "Keep Santa Cruz Weird" means you get to dress up for Halloween on Pacific Avenue.

To my knowledge, TBSC, has never stood up for any local application of values civil rights, and I have repeatedly cited the big 3 here: freedom of speech, the right to assemble, and equal protection under the law. TBSC without a civil rights conscience IS reactionary vigilantism. And deceptive.

You can't to toss around jingoism on your end while at the same time complaining if the other side does the same. Either both sides can be expected to be bombastic, or both can be civil. I'd say you're as engaged as the other side. (And in regards to the comment about your wife being a teacher? I took that at the writer saying she thought this would suggest that you'd therefore have a certain perspective, not as a threat or attempt at intimidation.). If you want one side to come down off their soapbox, you have to expect to do the same yourself. And while you may be trying just that, I don't think it's honest to suggest that your compatriot Norse is. He's throwing around slander and lies; so why would TBSC want to engage with him?

As for the parade? Thanks, I was in it and thought it was fun. I also have participated in two TBSC cleanups. OMG!...We Are They!.

200 in the parade..200 at several TBSC events. *shrug* Different people expressing their opinions in different ways; and some of us on both sides of those events. It's not as cut and dry, us vs. them, as you're trying to portray it, imho.

Tell us Robert, what was it that you and HUFF did to help these homeless women get indoors, and get their lives back on track?

You made some ludicrous demands on the people that actually DO something??

Yeah, that's a BIG "help".

What's "ludicrous" about asking that TBSC advise their folks to respect homeless property? Especially when it's a survival necessity?

Still no answer from the TBSC higher-up's, by the way. Could they be nervous about showing sympathy for "illegal campers"?

There isn't one shred of evidence that any TBSC cleanup has ever taken away survival gear of homeless people, or dismantled camps. There is ample evidence that they've cleaned up thousands of pounds of gear discarded by drug addicts in Evergreen and homeless campers who left stuff behind when they were done with it.

The pictures don't lie; what was gathered up was soaking wet, mud covered, discarded materials mixed with substantial quantities of garbage.

Robert has lied twice and fabricated quotes by 2 people who have discredited his lies when he tried to claim that TBSC confiscates gear or destroys camps. Robert is continuing his bleating complaints to keep focus off the fact that he's been caught lying and there has never been a claim by a homeless person that TBSC took their property.

In fact, the one piece of evidence Robert could produce quoted a homeless person saying that other homeless people took his stuff.

Steve Pleich noted again on Free Radio last night that Save Our Shores regularly and carefully instructs its volunteers to respect homeless camps and equipment. (Archived at http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb110306.mp3 [5 hours, 12 minutes into the audio file]).

Why doesn't TBSC do the same?

This question was raised again in this thread on February 21st. It was raised in the "Back Again and Stalking the Community in Progressive Garb" thread earlier (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/02/13/18671897.php) on February 13th.

Still no answer.

There is a long discussion around this issue at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/01/14/18669204.php?show_comments=1#18669237 in a still earlier thread titled "Take Back Santa Cruz Uses the Anarchist 'A' in Video about SC Drug and social Problems".

In that thread, I wrote the following; "It's my understanding that TBSC does destroy homeless survival gear. This is my information from Steve Pleich, who regularly does clean-up's with Save Our Shores. SOS, in contrast to TBSC, carefully instructs its members not to disturb homeless encampments. Pleich says SOS volunteers report that TBSC regularly destroys camps and camping gear. "

I wish to correct that statement. While it is my fear that some TBSC voluteers, given the anti-homeless aspect to some of the TBSC rhetoric, may have destroyed homeless gear, I have no tangible and specific date-and-time evidence. This, I think, was my apprehension (and, I believe, Steve Pleich's), but the case was overstated in the paragraph above. I apologize for this overstatement.

However, I believe it to be true that SOS does give advice to respect homeless camps. TBSC and its supporters are pretty coy on this issue. There has been no direct TBSC answer to this question--leading me and others to suspect that TBSC doesn't give out such warnings.

I hope this clarifies the discussion. The point is to protect the property of homeless people from misguided vigilante action. Given TBSC's rhetoric about 'illegal campsites" implicitly being some sort of danger, I think that is a worthy cautionary concern.

And it doesn't take much effort for TBSC to say either they do or they don't so advise their volunteers.

And not much more effort to make it a consistent practice.

My apologies again if I've exaggerated this issue in the past. And kudos to TBSC if they have respected homeless campsites and will do so in the future.

The problem at the moment is we don't know and they're not saying.

And kudos to Robert Norse for expressing the high virtue of accountability, right here on Santa Cruz Indymedia, to the marvel and amazement of us all. The selfsame Robert Norse who takes a lot of vitriol from anonymous posters, though not as vile as what's leveled on Becky Johnson.

If you are going to condemn someone because they are wealthy, do it across the board. Include all the trust fund wealthy in Santa Cruz in your next invective. If you are going to condemn someone because of their body type, do it across the board. Include all the body types you don't like in Santa Cruz in your next invective.

I believe this platform, Santa Cruz Indymedia, a good place to attempt open dialog with TBSC supporters. TBSC leadership has power, they are spokespersons for issues far beyond cleaning up litter and visible social support for "public safety." There is nothing fundamentally wrong with inquiring and challenging their position on issues.

if that is your real name, Robert got called on misquoting Steve 7 weeks ago. And being called on it, turned around and did the same thing again with Ricardo, and ended up getting called on that as well. and now he's some paragon of accountability? Hell, earlier in the thread he back tracked from "screamed" to "snarled".

He's still dragging out the question about instructions received during clean ups. As he has in just about every posting of his in the last three threads. It's all he has now. It works great for him, if he gets no answer, he can keep beating up TBSC with it. If they do answer, he'll bitch about how long it took, and what damage may have been caused until that moment. It's not unlike me asking you if you have stopped beating your wife. At least Robert is learning. In the post above he uses "suspect" and "I believe", classic weasel words.

He can keep asking all he wants. I don't have the answer. He should show up at a clean up. That way he will know. Then he can point out all the survival gear. Since I didn't do too well in those videos, it all looked like rank garbage to me. Robert, could you point out the survival gear in those videos?

Sorry Mr. Lamonica, I can give no praise to Robert for his accountability, though I do acknowledge he's finally told the truth. I've challenged his accounting for weeks and now months before getting his acknowledgement that there is no evidence that TBSC destroys camps or takes property: "I have no tangible and specific date-and-time evidence."

"I have no tangible and specific date-and-time evidence. ".

Andnow that it's been said? It supports my primary premise: Robert has conducted a smear campaign, and he continues to voice a demand that is based on no credible evidence other than his own prejudice and misinformation.

There is no evidence that TBSC has ever taken homeless property or destroyed their camps. None. And as such, I find his campaign where he's implied as such repugnant.

It's akin to a racist in the 50's saying "black men are a sexual threat to white women and they're raping white women and we have proof they're raping white women. Oh, well, actually, we don't have proof, but still, we know they're a threat. They must be, because it is my fear that they are. I have no tangible and specific date-and-time evidence, but I'm apprehensive.".

Crappy propaganda, and profiling...based on his fears and politics.

[Fill in the blanks]

Mr. Norse, why do you continue to call on the "leadership" of TBSC to somehow engage you on a community discussion board to make some sort of definitive statement that would only give credence to the lies you have been spreading for almost two months now? If the "leadership" of TBSC were to issue some sort of statement, they would be acknowledging you as someone who should be responded to in a grown-up fashion, and, to be frank, you don't deserve such acknowledgment.

Would your next demand, after insinuating and lying for a few weeks that TBSC volunteers routinely kick homeless people while they're sleeping, be that the group come out with a definitive statement that they never instruct their volunteers to do such a thing? And then, you could start another campaign of lies and shady suggestions that TBSC volunteers routinely set fire to homeless encampments, even if there are still people in them. Then you could have another few weeks of "why won't TBSC leaders make a statement that they don't commit arson and murder?" to keep you busy.

Do you understand? The basic point is that you have lied to create a situation that doesn't exist, and then have demanded that this group somehow disavow that they do anything like what you have made up. For them to do so would be to validate your initial lie(s). I do not know anyone who could consider themselves a "leader" of TBSC, but from simple common sense I can tell you that they would be stupid to do so. They are obviously smarter than you (since they see through your lies and your decades-old tactics that haven't worked) and will never do so.

The sooner you understand this, the sooner you can FINALLY put this (particular) charade to rest and move on to your next made-up battle with the windmills of La Mancha.

It's not about me and what I say, it's about what TBSC does or doesn't do regarding instructions to its volunteers. As distinguished from what Save Our Shores does. Advise their volunteers to take care re: homeless camps.

Since S.O.S. reportedly does this many more times a year than TBSC does, and so advises its volunteers (source: Steve Pleich, see above). Then it would seem advisable for a group with less-experienced volunteers to be advised to take the care that S.O.S. leaders feel it necessary to advise their workers.

Unless, of course, respecting homeless property is not a priority for TBSC.

Mr. Norse, I think it has been well-established that with you, it is ALWAYS about you:

YOU made up a story that TBSC destroys homeless encampments.

YOU then demanded a statement of some kind that TBSC leadership encourages volunteers not to do this.

YOU keep trying to bring this up again and again and again because

YOU need to somehow gain this verification, not anyone else.

If YOU are so concerned about this, why don't you actually attend a single, solitary one of their cleanups and make the request to the volunteers yourself? This (and some version of this) question has been asked of you so many times it is laughable.

YOU have the power to effect the change you are demanding, but have decided instead to use this as a foil to keep yourself relevant to yourself.

Respecting homeless people's property probably isn't TBSC's priority. Similarly, protecting private property isn't yours, nor is protecting public property or actually helping get homeless people off the streets. But that doesn't mean they don't care about or understand the issue. Just because they aren't consulting you and your vast understanding of the plight of homeless people doesn't mean they don't care. But you don't see that, because then it wouldn't be about YOU.

This isn't about SOS (which, as was pointed out in an earlier thread, does not always explicitly tell volunteers to avoid homeless encampments, a point you have ignored since it doesn't suit your needs). It is about the fact that TBSC has never destroyed a homeless encampment, but you have lied and accused them of such. You are nothing more than a self-aggrandizing lier who has no shame in distorting the truth to fit your warped worldview.

You should stop pretending that this crusade of yours is even about the homeless anymore. It is clearly about you, as everyone but yourself (and whoever Bob Lamonica is, poor deluded soul) seems to understand.

On both counts, the answer is NO.

He's whining because TBSC doesn't instruct it's volunteers to do something that there is no evidence they've ever done?

He's bitching because they don't tell people to stop an activity which nobody has ever claimed they engage in? Except for Robert? In two now-well proven blatant lies that have been discredited?

He's "proving" that, atlernatively, SOS does this, based on his self-reported statement of a man that he has already misquoted and lied about per above;Steve P?


Robert? Shut the F up and go back under your bridge. You, who constantly calls others such, are the Uber-Troll.

...ever heard TBSC leaders advise volunteers to take care in their clean-up's, as S.O.S. volunteers say they do?

...to respect the property and survival gear of those outside, that is.

Has HUFF done the same thing? Has there been a statement from HUFF that campers should respect private property and not trespass? Has HUFF made a statement that campers should clean up after themselves by taking the same trash out that they carry in? HUFF should lead by example.

Anna the tweaker is in jail.

Good job Robert.

Check out the latest "Take Back Scotts Valley Launched" at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/03/10/18674266.php .

In the latest Save Our Shores clean-up, Steve Pleich reports there was, as he says is usual, an advisory to all volunteers to respect homeless property.

If anyone has actual news of a change in apparent TBSC practice (not explicitly advising its clean-upsters to respect the outdoor survival gear of the homeless in their Clean-Up Zone), please post here immediately! Or call my radio show (427-3772 Sundays 9:30 AM to 1 PM, Thursdays 6 PM to 8 PM).

In the meantime, on our regular HUFF clean-up expeditions into the homes and yards of TBSC members, to advise our volunteerrs not to disturb their IDs, bedding, and food. Save Our Shores is a good teacher.

Though there is that lingering odor of hypocrisy and class prejudice...

And I do advise campers to camp lightly on public property. Hopefully authorities will start measures (like dumpsters, trash cans, garbage bags, ending police intimidation patrols) to facilitate this.

"And I do advise campers to camp lightly on public property. "

But what about private property? Have you made an official HUFF statement that campers should respect private property and not trespass? Why no response from you on this question? If you want people to respect certain practices by campers is it really too much to ask that campers respect private property? What are you trying to hide?

Anna looks like the postergirl for "Faces on Meth"

HUFF's protest of Bunny's downtown was a big "Help"

Robert, why didn't you and Becky try to do anything for her?

All you did was exploit her and Lito to draw attention to yourselves.

...for a change in TBSC policy to show the minimal respect that S.O.S. does.

Perhaps folks at their joint hoe-down with the SCPD can ask their leaders whether there's been a change of heart (see ""Take Back Santa Cruz" and the SCPD Pal Up" at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/04/25/18677978.php ).

Keep us posted on whether TBSC has decided to move out of the medieval mob approach into a respect for the human rights of everyone.