Library Board to Consider Restrictive New Policies that Impact Homeless People (& You)

Why on earth should the library grounds not be closed after 9:30PM? It's a library, not a park or homeless shelter.

Instead of yet more selective persecution and overpriced security theater; how about outing some real criminals that break real laws for real dollar amounts?

Oh, right, those gangsters run things, never mind.

A library is NOT a homeless shelter. It is no longer a safe environment for kids. Also, the smell IS becoming unbearable in there. Look what happened in Berkeley. Santa Cruz Library is going the same way.

Also, it is Norse's own projection that "smelling bad" is some kind of monopoly held by homeless people. I know housed people who smell awful and homeless people who do their best to find access to regular showers.

It is typical of how he ACTUALLY views homeless folks that he ASSUMES that "smelling bad"= homeless. I don't care who is stinking up the place: take a shower, stinkies!

Either way, I support the Homeless Services Center to help out the homeless. I support County Health to fund health for the poor. I support the EDD to find jobs for the unemployed. I support the LIBRARY TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO FREE BOOKS AND MEDIA TO THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY, THAT'S THEIR JOB AND THEIR ONLY JOB! That's it, that's all they have to do. And Norse, you want to make their job harder.

In SLO, they have figured out a humane and friendly way to deal with this issue...

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/mar/05/local/me-smell5

In Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo, patrons who smell are not simply shown the door, McGee and Macias said. They are provided with a means of correcting the problem.

"We seldom have to ask someone to leave," McGee said. "It rarely happens. If it does we're very careful to give coupons about where they can wash their clothes or take a shower. We do it in as humane a way as possible."

If the library grounds are arbitrarily closed at 9:30 P.M., then I will no longer be able to return books after business hours, after 9:30 P.M. That doesn't seem right. Another abridgment of a right of access in order to harass the homeless.

Where is it stated in library rules that you may not drop books through a drop slot after 9:30, Mr. Cohen? I have not heard that before. I only see it in Norse's statement, and he is clearly not a credible, reliable source.

The posted hours forbid being on library property after 9:30 PM or thereabouts. So, yes, it's technically illegal to return books late at night through the outdoor slot. Just as its illegal to try to go read the City Council agenda after 10:30 PM at its posted spot outside City Council chambers.

You're only likely to be hassled, however, if you linger to rest on one of the few remaining benches, or perhaps try to use the lone payphone there and look raggedy. Or sit with your laptop nearby using the library wi-fi "after hours". The last actually happened to Craig Canada even before the new "no trespassing at night" hours were posted in the late summer of 2010.

Public areas are places where everyone should have the right to "hang out"--bums, bigots, blowhards--you name it.

The exclusionary policy at night isn't a matter of setting hours for "doing business" at all, but for the bad business of running off homeless people who socialize, rest, and seek mutual companionship there away from the hassles of Pacific Avenue. Naturally bigots (those who term homeless people "bums") don't have any problem excluding the poor. Hopefully the rest of us do.

Also the "no trespassing at night" policy was not subject to any kind of public input or debate. No showing of a need for it was made. It was cooked up in secret between the police chief Kevin Vogel, the head of parks and rec Dannettee Shoemaker(who controls these spaces outdoors), the mayor (Coonerty at the time), and City Manager Bernal. Or so I was told by Shoemaker in August of 2010.

I spoke with Council members and Library Board members Beiers and Terrazas at the Homelessness Summit earlier today. Beiers had no idea how she was going to vote; Terrazas neither. Neither seemed to know what the rules were currently and to what extent the rules were being changed as well as what specific evidence had been provided to show that such a change was necessary or beneficial. I suggest people e-mail them at their above addresses.

Beiers promised to "try" to forward me a set of the current rules and how they'd be changed. Terrazas evaded repeated attempts to get a meeting time, saying he had no time until late Monday afternoon (when it probably wouldn't make any difference, since that's right before the meeting). He did reluctantly indicate a willingness to be accessible after 3 PM on Monday.

E-mail them and other board members. Demand to know the specific complaints that have led to both the current proposed changes, and whether the earlier "forbidden zones at night" homeless-begone proposals went through their board formally or informally. Also urge that the library property be declared open at night. It's already a crime to sleep there, cover up with blankets, or set up camping equipment with the intention of remaining overnight.

And when will the benches be restored to the sides of the building?

Ask the questions. Demand the answers.

I've never had smell problems with anyone in the library (again, where are the reports?). But the stench of bigotry hangs heavy over some of the comments.

If you agree with these concerns, e-mail library board members...


Library Board to Consider Restrictive New Policies
that Impact Homeless People (& You)

Monday December 3rd 6:30 PM , the Library Joint Powers Authorities Board meets at the new Scotts Valley Library (251 Kings Village Rd.) to consider imposing new harsher policies regarding sleeping in the library, "smelling bad", service animals, & unattended property. Libraries are a last refuge for homeless people and folks should demand expansion not contraction of access there.

LACK OF SPECIFICS IN STAFF REPORT (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/11/30/18726836.php)
There are no stats in the staff report itemizing the number of complaints received in the last year about the offending behaviors, how many people have been suspended or appealed, and why the current policy isn't workable.
It's similar to what happened when the law banning people from assembling in parking garages and lots was passed at the behest of outgoing Council member Ryan "Constitution for Dinner" Coonerty. No indication of a greater crime problem, but more police power to harass---now being selectively used to target "suspicious" people (i.e. poor and homeless people).

EXPANSION OF EARLIER CRACKDOWN $80,000 funds a First Alarm goon patrolling the library and grounds, provoking complaints from one homeless patron that the burly wannabe cop followed him into the restroom to monitor his weewee. Benches have been removed. The area around the library has been made a "no trespass" zone after 9:30 PM--part of the "make Santa Cruz less welcoming to people experiencing homeless" agenda. Police and security thugs can now interrogate, hassle,cite, and or arrest if homeless don't show proper respect and deference and jump through the right hoops for being there.

PART OF A BROADER CRACKDOWN There is a four-fold increase in ticketing and concurrent survival gear destruction against homeless people on the levee, in the parks, and in the Pogonip (to respond to bogus security concerns). Also new: the anti-Occupy curfews at City Hall, the County Building, and the Courts, the new forbidden zones adjacent to the levee, as well as the creation of 14' "no go" zones around the big red Imagine anti-panhandling meters downtown, This library crackdown adding new library rules is another fashionable attack on poor and homeless people.

FIGHT BACK Demand restoration of the library as a welcoming space! Document and make public the real complaints and delay until homeless people and advocates can be contacted and consulted. And until real information is available about the real need for them.

HUFF resolution: Attend the next two meetings of the Board, The new policies fundamentally change the haven-nature our libraries have come to function as in a world of ever diminishing social services where need is increasing, not diminishing. Rules against backpacks, smells, sleeping, use of public space after hours etc. need to be carefully assessed.

Send a letter this weekend to the members of the Board:

Sam Storey Chair samforcapitola [at] att.net Leigh Poitinger Vice Chair lpoitinger [at] comcast.net
Nancy Gerdt ngerdt45 [at] gmail.com David Terrazas dterrazas [at] cityofsantacruz.com
Jim Reed jimreedsv [at] gmail.com Katherine Beiers kbeiers [at] sbcglobal.net
Ellen Pirie ellen.pirie [at] co.santa-cruz.ca.us Dick English rpenglish [at] sbcglobal.net
Mark Stone mark.stone [at] co.santa-cruz.ca.us

since I left California... the inequality between upper-middle class, working class, and destitute classes in California is even more prominent. (there is such a small middle class). It would be easy to have an attitude that the people with money to afford housing in Santa Cruz should be confronted as often as possible about the situations of other people. However, the problem is that this can't even be addressed at the individual level. Individual homeowners who are bothered by not being able to use the library or go downtown can't go home and do anything about it. And I find that many computer programmers/doctors and so forth are fairly aware of social problems, (except for a few who embrace Ayn Rand type principles), even if they aren't quite motivated to a radical solution yet. Even if the city of Santa Cruz decided to spend more on 'charity' like food banks and shelters, there is an endless tide of more destitute people. The high price of even a room in a slum apartment ($700 or more) results from the fact that this region has a lot of jobs where people are paid six figure salaries for their labor (plus people with investment income) and this drives up prices for everyone else, down to the immigrants working under minimum wage.
There is no easy solution, but I'm personally terrified by the fact that we're technically still in the recession, and we can only expect the economy in San Francisco and Silicon valley to rev up more in the next year, and what happens when prices get even more expensive??

Santa Cruz's campaign against the homeless, stoked by the Sentinel/Patch and driven by a hate filled group of angry bigots, bears some similarities to the Nazi's cleansing of German society of what they called degenerates and undesirables. One should be mindful before one joins this campaign how far it might go and where it might end.

"... it's technically illegal to return books late at night through the outdoor slot...
You're only likely to be hassled, however, if you linger to rest on one of the few remaining benches..."

Because 'lingering on the benches' has nothing to do with returning a library book. It's a library, not a shelter.

LOL. Couldn't have said it better. I'm fairly certain that if one were to go return a book through a slot at 10 pm, no one would look askance, regardless of the comportment of the returner. It's when this turns into a multitasking exercise (as in, "Honey, I'm going to step out to return "Voyage of The Beagle" and then I'm going to sleep on the benches outside the Library till 6 am, after which I'll take a crap in the bush by the north entrance. See you in the morning!") that one invites scrutiny.

I know, I know. It's selective enforcement. Go ahead and shoot me.

"Nazi cleansing"..because the community grows tired of having a small band of transients monopolize the library? Oh please. You're going to compare telling a couple of bums, who often smell odious and use the building for a sleeping lounge and bathing area as opposed to its intended purpose....and compare that to Nazi cleansing?

*lol* You've lost your perspective.

Some people use the library as a daytime shelter, warmth, bathrooms, … Some of those people have trouble with rules and regulation and the library has hired a security person to patrol and be available. And tonight the board is considering more limitations on behavior and appearance. I see an opportunity for Occupy Santa Cruz to organize itself, be available in shifts, reach out, provide individual personal support, find out what's lacking in the available supports.

If you read my post as it was meant to be, you would realize that I am referring to the Santa Cruz campaign against the homeless in total, not just at the library. Santa Cruz is trying to vilify and erase the homeless from the community and public spaces. If you read about what the Nazis did just after they came to power the campaigns bear striking similarities.

Unlike you guys, I don't have a fascination with the Nazis, nor do I draw any specific parallels between them and contemporary social policy. Could you please elaborate on why you feel that what the Nazis did to gypsys, homosexuals, Jews and so on - things such as forced labor and extermination in concentration camps - sees a modern day equivalent in the Santa Cruz City Council telling people to take a shower, leave the library at 9:30 pm and to stop crapping in the bushes? It really seems like an astounding leap of logic to jump from the former to the latter.

Really, what, besides dramatic emphasis, supports your position?

Here's a history lesson for you. Homeless people were targeted by the Nazis to die in concentration camps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_triangle_(badge)

Nazis didn't begin with forced labor camps, but rather by proscribing classes of people. That, I think, is the point of the comparison. When you deny people the right to sleep at night, the right to assemble in public, the right to show their wares, the right to use public services, etc., you start down that long road. Which is what Santa Cruz (and other cities) are doing (and have done for a number of years).

It's maliciously deceptive to misdescribe the rule changes as "telling people to take a shower, leave the library at 9:30 pm and to stop crapping in the bushes". It's a matter of driving the homeless out of town--the library closes much earlier, but the grounds are now forbidden after 9:30 PM--specifically to deny homeless people a traditional place of refuge. Ditto with the removal of the benches. Crap in the bushes? Haven't heard specific complaints, but I wouldn't be surprised since public bathrooms close at night. Surprised why people fall asleep in libraries when it's illegal to sleep at night? I'm not.

UNEXPECTED VICTORY
More upbeat, however, was the 5-4 decision of the Library Board to defeat a proposal to add a Sleeping Ban to its lilbrary policy. This was unexpected until the very last moment. Katherine Beiers, who dissented from the broader motion supporting harsher policies against "rule breakers" (rules being things like having unattended property, smelling bad, and having a dog in the library), moved to divide the question, and finally got a substitute motion passed over the confusion of David Terazzas, which passed everything but the Sleeping Ban.

The Sleeping Ban was then proposed as a separate motion (with pretexts like sleepers were "in the way", "misusing the library for a purpose for which it was not intended", "discomforting others", "blocking access" and other pretexts that ignored the basic "they make us uncomfortable and we want a simple rule to exclude them"). Based on the general silence seeming to give consent to the Ban, this seemed like it would be Beiers alone, but Samuel Story gave an eloquent statement, and others apparently jumped on board. For once, the staff didn't get their way.

BROADER DEFEAT
But the victory was only on that one issue--and perhaps because the issue was what each speaker focused on--how libraries were sanctuaries, how there'd been a host of anti-homeless rules around the library, how the city-wide sleeping ban added insult to injury, how winter and Xmas time was the wrong time to bring the hammer down, etc. Apparently it all had an impact.

Of course, the staff got a new policy that allows for much longer suspensions for a variety of rules that weren't available for the public to read (there was no agenda packet available for the public). There was also a peculiar process that didn't allow public comment on any staff items, except, suddenly, the new policies issue, which was packaged as a "staff report" and not as an action item. I tried to raise this, but was silenced by Story, the chair of the meeting.

I did speak with Teresa, the chief librarian who was pushing these restrictive rules, saying that the existing policy just allowed for a 30-day suspension followed by a restraining order (that's now changed, and there can be much longer suspensions after the 4th warning). When I asked her how many people came back to repeat the policy after being suspended for thirty days, she had no stats or figures. she did say that they'd only issued one restraining order this year but that was because her staff was "heavily burdened".

Another member of the public objected on a different issue that the library had failed to provide a copy of the prior agenda on request, insisting that he fill out a written public records act request and wait 10 days because of "staff problems".

All very arrogant and unlikely--showing again that rules (as when the Homeless Lack of Services Center was closed--and remains closed) to "non-business" assembly during the day it was for the convenience of the staff. Upside down logic since the staff are supposed to be serving the public. But chillingly similar to why the Parking Lot Paranoia law (banning people from reading books in their cars in city parking lots, or gathering in a parking lot)---as Ryan Coonerty explained it--to accommodate city staff complaints (as well as the anxieties of his employees at the Bookshop Santa Cruz).

Still, it showed that liberals like to keep the pretty make-up on, particularly if enough people show up to challenge the latest civil rights seizure. I admit that I even applauded and thanked John Leopold (who actually proposed the motion to ban sleeping, but voting not to do so).

Nice work, Occupy Santa Cruz activists (all the critics were from Occupy Santa Cruz, and all over 50). Now we have to plan for the next library sleep-in when we receive reports of people being suspended from the library for objecting when they're told to leave their backpacks outside to be stolen.

It seems to me that what is maliciously deceptive is to characterize the application of common sense and traditional societal mores to this situation as somehow akin to, or a precursor of, the act of executing homeless people in a concentration camp. And I'm using the term "traditional" in an unadulterated sense, invoking as I am millennia-old societal boundaries in society. Using the term to describe an out-of-control drum circle at the Farmers Market (thank you, Nesh and Lulu's for decisively stomping that out) or a runaway problem with people sleeping and showering in the library, things that developed over the past 10 or 20 years, is delusional at best, and deceptive at worst.

That hyperlink is bad, but I get the point. It's not that I don't know the history. What I don't follow are these massive leaps of logic. You are simply not making a convincing case that a concentration camp is in store for us in the future, near or distant.

You guys don't like rules and boundaries, except for your sworn enemies. This is a sociopathic mindset that I'd venture traces its roots back to your failed and continuing adolescence. Your parents should have corrected this with a strong regimen of discipline. It's too late for that at this point, unfortunately, so we now have to all deal with it, I suppose.

I'd still really like to hear a convincing argument from you guys about how closing the library grounds at 9:30 pm today is going to result in the future establishment of a modern-day Dachau in the Santa Cruz city limits. Not a metaphorical concentration camp, but an actual one, where Ryan Coonerty dons a Wehrmacht uniform and charges about gassing people like Linda Lemaster, Shane Maxfield, Donna Deiss and White Dove.

I'm not holding my breath, though.

In response to Norse critics: Here is a version of a respected saying by Pastor Martin Niemoeller, 1892-1984 (googol "First they came", then see the Wikipedia entry):

"When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

"When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

"When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

"When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

"When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out."

--Lydia Blanchard

I think the Brown Act governs boards and commissions. I think it's a violation of good process to take an action on a staff report recommendation that isn't explicitly listed on the public agenda. It's a good thing Robert and others are tracking this. It takes a lot of diligence to follow our electeds and their appointees.

The Mental Health Advisory Board used the same kind of strategy to hide the plans for spending $13 million on a local Psychiatric Health Facility.

Naming and shaming draws public attention and protest. Providing listening and support one on one could detour around any regulations, arguably make enough impact to quell the librarians.

You're evading and still not answering a very direct question, Robert. Can you answer Observant and articulate an intellectual, non-evasive equivalence between the given rules of operation for the library and executing 8 million people? Do you think continually avoiding civil discourse in lieu of extreme soap-box hyperbole helps or hinders your credibility and, ultimately, your cause?

TROLL TITTLE-TATTLE
As usual,critics with questions or denunciations are invited to call in to my radio show where this matter will be discussed at greater length. They rarely do, but the opportunity is there. See times and numbers above.

It's clear however that criminalizing poor people outside engaged in survival behavior and repeatedly restricting the space that they're allowed to use is at the very least a way of making folks unwelcome. Given the high death rate for homeless folks each year, it also impacts their health and safety since the ability to gather in groups and shelter oneself, or even to rest, impacts those conditions. This seems to me so obvious as to be beyond dispute, but those who defend the evil laws and procedures that perpetuate and aggravate these conditions needs some rationale, so they find it where they can.

MORE ON THE BOARD MEETING
These issues were a key factor in the dissent on the Library Board last night around approving a Sleeping Ban in the library (aside from it's being a break not just with traditional Santa Cruz library policy, but a break with library policy historically nationwide (as articulated by several former librarians who spoke).

The Board made no objection to the public-excluding procedures used around missing information, missing agendas, strange itemizing as action items under "staff reports", and an unequal treatment of public comment (only allowed for one "staff report" item).

David Terazzas seemed particularly clueless and unhelpful--a Ryan Coonerty in training--at this meeting. Neither he nor Beiers provided any information prior to the meeting. Beiers redeemed herself in a small way by expressing a dissent on the Sleeping Ban issue, which led to a general retreat on that issue. However, more broadly she empowered the library to impose much harsher penalties on "rules violations".

For those familiar with the Downtown Ordinances, we know how this kind of authority has been beern abused.

RULES WORSHIP
The only legitimate basis for being asked to leave the library (much less suspension) is actual disruption that interferes with other patrons. This should be and probably is decided on a case-by-case basis. However the new powers granted staff provide much more room for mischief. Patrons uncomfortable with the sight or scent of homeless people may now feel empowered to create a gated zone, regardless of the wishes of the staff--given the modified suspension procedures and new "unattended property"and "bad smell" rules. "It's the rule!" after all.

I don't necessarily think that's what the library staff were trying to do or want to do in the future, but the rules passed may allow for that. A "rules violation" is much different than a patron complaining about being interfered with in a real and tangible way that can't be resolved peacefully at the time. "Rules violations" are used by control freaks to impose a repressive kind of order and exact punishments when there are no real problems other than someone squeaking "you're not obeying the rules".

Draconian authority to enforce rules is an evil thing. It also creates a darker kind of climate which improperly and unwisely empowers people in positions of power or makes them subject to malicious manipulation.

Since no record of the actual complaints, suspensions, repeat problems, was made available to the Board last night, I'm following up with a Public Records Act request. PHONE At last night's meeting, the public was told to "go on line" to read the agenda packet (which didn't contain the actual complaint history in any detail nor how effective suspensions were).

CONTACTING THE FUHRER
Another member of the public complained about getting stonewalled when he previously asked for a copy of the prior agenda and minutes--on an issue entirely unrelated to the Spank-the-Homeless issue--told by Teresa Landers, Library Boss, that he'd have to wait 10 days and make a written public records act request because of "staff problems".

Teresa is the head cheese at the library (Director of the Libraries) apparently responsible only to the Library Joint Powers Board (the group that met last night). Not sure who hires and fires her or what her salary is--might be worth looking into. She told me she's been around for 3 1/2 years.

She seemed to be the driving force behind these changes--but that was only my impression and I only spoke with her briefly. Still she seemed quite adamant. Full disclosure: working library staff members that I've seen at the front desk of the main library were supportive of her changes when she called for their opinions. As with City Council's staff "experts", she seemed good at leading the Board around.

As a special treat, city attorney John Barisone was there, helping to smooth over the wrinkles in the "eliminate the unworthy" from library use.

Teresa's e-mail is landerst [at] santacruzpl.org Her phone number is 831-427-7706 X7612 (hours 8 AM to 5 PM).

I e-mailed this off about an hour ago. Teresa has 10 days to reply (unless she seeks an extension).

From: rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com
To: landerst [at] santacruzpl.org
...
Subject: Public Records Act Request
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 09:46:10 -0800

To whom It May Concern:

Please provide access to all copies of complaints against patrons at all branches of the Public Library system from Jan 1, 2012 through the present as well as any records, e-mails, statements, written, audio, or visual regarding library policies impacting library rules that might result in a warning or suspension of library access. This would include communications to and from the public, public officials, police, security agencies, and any other group or person around this issue.

Please also provide access to copies of all agendas and minutes of the Board's meetings through 2012.

I prefer e-mail access to these records. In the event this is not possible, I would like to see the records prior to deciding which ones I need to copy.

Please advise me whether a hard copy of the minutes of the prior meeting and agenda packet was available at each of these meetings.

Further, please advise me as to whether action items were listed as such on the agendas.

Finally, please advise me as to whether a public comment was provided for each agenda item (as it was not at the December 3rd meeting, except for the one "staff report" item on the rule changes).

I would suggest you publicly announce all these conditions will be corrected at the next meeting or face a Brown Act complaint.

If you have any questions regarding this request, feel free to call me.

Thanks in advance for your assistance.

Robert Norse
(831-423-4833)

...it's time to stop demanding rights and start TAKING them. Demands have gotten us nowhere, and the TBSC yuppies won't have any of it. They (and other anti- homeless/freedom/civil-rights groups) are TAKING from others, now it's time to TAKE from them.

Re takings; sounds like The Prince v Discourses On Livy...

Mr. Norse's comparison of the Santa Cruz situation is both odious and laughable. Not unexpected though, as those characteristics personify him to me and many others.

Here's why I think the comparison is unequal and a joke Mr. Norse:

1) The nazis also killed drug addicts. If that were the case in Santa Cruz?..there'd be nobody left to be passing ordinances against.

2) Last I checked, the Jews weren't a population that was 100% dependent upon community support for their existance.

3) Last I heard, the Nazi's weren't funding food programs and shelters and counseling and other services to sustain Jewish existence.

Nuff said. You go right along with your odious comparisons. I think they do more damage to Santa Cruz-Homeless relationship than darn near any other single thing I can think of in Santa Cruz. But hey, you think you're doing some good, and I think you're sinking your own ship for me? I call that a win-win, so keep up the good work sir.

...but the "Santa Cruz enforcement is similar to Nazism" metaphor you and Colby have introduced is a joke to any right minded person.

This is currently under discussion at the Library Board where I live. One commenter on an IndyMedia post has mentioned that San Diego and another city take a principled proactive approach and give the person with the offending odor a coupon for a shower at a local facility. Also note that foul odor can be a medical condition, and in light of many city facilities requesting a fragrance-free environment from their patrons, it may make it impossible for someone with an affliction such as "Stinkfoot" (Bromhidrosis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_odor#Medical_conditions) to use public facilities.

http://www.quora.com/Should-public-libraries-have-showers-for-homeless-people

The last word on stinkfoot from someone who wore his Python Boots too tight. But seriously. I had a friend who was refused enlistment in the US Navy during the Vietnam war due to this condition.

Its not right to make me feel bad for being legitly disabled. I get treated like a sub human because of it. Just cuz ure not happy with the economy doesnt mean you can treat me like a war criminal. Stop this practice. Move on with your life. You shouldn't own pets.

The Nazis targeted the homeless ("work-shy") as degenerates and undesirables. The camps were not the beginning point of the Nazi's campaign against their victims. They began with harassment, violence and civil rights violations. They ramped it up a bit before they reached the concentration camp stage.

A certain bigoted group of Santa Cruz residents, especially in public forums like the Sentinel comments sections, call for cleansing the homeless from our community. They say, "kick the bums out". This kind of cleansing is not qualitatively different from the ethnic cleansing pursued in the former Yugoslavia and by the Nazis and their satellite nations in WW 2. Ethnic cleansing is the last step before genocide.

What happens when those who wish to purge Santa Cruz of the homeless are met with resistance from a homeless population that just won't budge? I imagine increased harassment, violence and finally a mob. When organized by a neoliberal state with fascist leanings like our local government this is cleansing akin to ethnic cleansing just short of genocide. Thus I suggest that people be careful when slinging hate speech around, because it may lead to serious consequences.

at http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_22125587/library-board-votes-down-sleeping-ban and check out the well-reasoned dispassionate comments that follow the main story. Clearly regular patrols of each individual aisle in this threatened building [expecially the Downtown Library, long a terrorist haven) are long overdue...

It's not clear to me whether Rhode Island's Homeless Bill of Rights is being effectively used to combat the Bigots' Brigade there, but here's activist Paul Boden's call for supporting Ammiano's California Homeless Bill of Rights:

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/California-needs-rights-for-homeless-4091545.php

A homeless woman, living in her car, who had lived and worked in Santa Clara County all her liife (worked in electronics where they toss you out like so much garbage, years before retirement age in the Bay Area) was sitting quietly on a bench outside of the library (HER FRICKING LIBRARY, AS MUCH, IF NOT MORE, THAN THE PREDATOR CLASS WHO RUN SILICON VALLEY) with a homeless sign in her lap, She was not vocally soliciting money, and quite pleasant to speak with, but was inhumanely booted from the premises by an inhuman witch who worked at the library, may that woman rot in hell.

A sobering and saddening story from Salinas: http://www.thecalifornian.com/article/20121129/news01/311290009/salinas-man-s-friends-stunned-by-beating .

This kind of violence is reportedly happening via police officers according to reports I'm getting at the Red Church on Monday nights:

Please keep your eyes open, your cameras handy, and take the time to post what you see.

Or call in to my radio show.

From the article Robert cites:

"Anderson’s injuries were so severe that he had to be flown by air ambulance to a San Jose hospital. On Wednesday, Salinas police Officer Miguel Cabrera said Anderson is no longer in a coma. He’s still recovering at the hospital, Cabrera said".

The article further states that Anderson was beaten "nearly to death".

Now, here's Robert Norse:

"This kind of violence is reportedly happening via police officers according to reports I'm getting at the Red Church on Monday nights".

Really, Robert? So you say that Santa Cruz police officers are beating people nearly to death at the Red Church, and that these people are being airlifted to San Jose in comas? This is a major scoop, Robert. You realize that, don't you?

Several reports of police slamming down homeless people to the sidewalk and against their car are what I'm referring to. There have been three deaths in the County Jail this year, incidentally. But no--no beatings of that intensity reported to me. Sorry for any confusion. Police violence of any kind is a matter of grave concern, particularly when coupled with cover charges of "resisting arrest".

We know that police departments don't do that sort of thing, right? Oh, wait, Oakland just had an oversight guy with the power to spend and fire appointed because the OPD can't control its violent force. And I think I heard something about the LAPD Ramparts scandal too.

Please post specifics of anything you observe or experience here.

Right after the raids on the homeless in Santa Cruz began in late July/early August, I interviewed two homeless people who said they were roughed up by the police when they were sleeping near the San Lorenzo River area. Many others in San Lorenzo Park and near the river levee at that time also reported to me that they had been yelled at and/or treated poorly in some way by the police. They all felt their experiences were directly related to the orchestrated raids and the resulting escalated attitude on the part of the SCPD.

There is of course, a history of organized violence against local homeless people by the Santa Cruz Police Department, and that history could still be fresh in the minds of those who may be homeless today.

In this video I shot of Deputy Police Chief Steve Clark in February, Brent Adams briefly questions Clark about the "Code Blue" program of organized police violence against the homeless, which Clark states in the video, resulted in charges being leveled against the police, which then created an opportunity for him to join the force when he was first starting here.

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/02/17/18707600.php#18707603

(The discussion begins at minute 4:00 of the video)

Code Blue... Cattanni Reyes Chevalier... a couple of others working off-duty as thugs in consort with on-duty officers was real and the whole PD got roughed up by the State. That was in the early 1980s right? I remember. I SAW THEM IN ACTION.


NOTHING like this is happening, and you know I know. There's a WHOLE BUNCH OF OTHER STUFF like kids growing up in a town where they KNOW (rightly or wrong) that they're never gonna raise a next generation of family here so they become alkies and junkies and crackheads and, just as programmed by AmeriKKKan society, blame and attack anyone they see as responsible for those circumstances.

Guess who gets attacked? Or Junkie action as seen on Depot Hill a few weeks ago. Most of those people have lived here for years if not all their lives.

As far as the SCPD goes.. The thuggery is institutionalized now. The targeting people for tickets... A security guard standing nearby while one tries to have a private conversation on Pacific or on a bench by the library with a friend. They changed the "invisible lines" by the newsstand at Walnut in regard to where one may smoke last night and gave someone a ticket.

Harassment... Dissuasion... As I mentioned above DON'T EVER turn your back on them or they'll tackle you down for fleeing (and if you have ANY alcohol in you TSOL 4 U).

But NOTHING EVEN REMOTELY RESEMBLING "Code Blue". A moniker unknown to me until recently.

Did Robert Norse think that nifty degrading phrase up?

Those guys were OUT-OF-UNIFORM BLACKSHIRTS, and a local merchant blew them up... Because they, AS INDIVIDUALS, were way out of line.

The SCPD as a police agency is Out of Line now. They've been politicized to the point where they no longer function correctly as protectors of the community, but are driven to select who is defined as "community", and if anything, the officers on the SCPD, by their very involvement in that sort of law enforcement "normality", are individually ethic-less and corrupt.

Thanks for adding some info, Ray. I wasn't suggesting that the current violence practiced by some in the SCPD against homeless people is on par with that of the "Code Blue" days (that was Brent's recollection of the name. I remember it had the word "blue" in it, but I don't recall exactly what it was called, though I was also living in the area at the time).

I was merely providing some background info that pertains to why people now might want to compare the reign of the SCPD to that of the Nazis. Considering the fact that the "Code Blue" days were 30 years or so ago, and that current Deputy Chief Steve Clark was hired as a result, I see the events as still relevant.

The Sentinel is starting to reap what they have sowed. The anti-homeless sentiment they have been stoking has resulted in the Sentinel comment forums overflowing with anti-homeless hate speech. Regrettable that our local newspaper is so irresponsible. This marks more than a hundred year tradition of the Sentinel inciting hatred towards minorities.

Drawing a parallel between any modern day government and the Nazis is callous and disrespectful to those of us who lived through that time. There are very few of us left, but please be sensitive to those of us who are.

I don't know much about your city council because I live in Freedom, but I can't imagine they're anything like Nazis.

So please refrain from disrespecting a whole generation, my brethren, who sacrificed so you could say what you say here.

It's not disrespectful to the victims of the Nazi regime to point out analogies with present day regimes. In fact, the saying "Never again!", requires that we point these similarities out.

I think the commenter's point is that there isn't a meaningful analogy between the Santa Cruz PD ticketing you for smoking in a no-smoking zone, and the horrific excesses of the Nazis. None whatsoever.

This exercise in the Theatre of the Absurd, flashing Sieg Heil salutes at City Council, and calling people bigots, Nazis, Fascists if they disagree with you, has real emotional impact on people who have lived through actual bigotry, actual Nazis and actual Fascists.

Bandying these powerfully symbolic words around is incredibly insensitive and selfish. There are other more appropriate ways to express your dismay with the PD and City Council. Try using them. It would advance the dialogue immeasurably.

You keep misrepresenting the analogy to Nazism.

It's not about an SCPD officer ticketing a homeless person for smoking. It's about a culture of hate given authority by a city government which has whittled away relentlessly at civil rights. The city's anti-homeless campaign, whipped up with anti-homeless hatred by the Sentinel, is happening within the context of our federal government taking off the gloves with its own citizens with terrible brutality reminiscent of fascist states like the Nazi regime while it pursues endless imperial wars abroad.

I'm going to throw you guys a bone, since you can't seem to argue your way out of a paper bag.

I'm guessing that your use of the terms "Nazi" and "fascist" are epithetical, and one is expected to interpret them not literally, but in that sense, slurs directed at people and governmental bodies for whom you have a great deal of contempt.

Sound about right? Why not say so? I mean, I've heard Robert described as a "fucking asshole" before, and, not knowing much about his sex life, and being certain that he isn't the anus of another living being, I assume that this is a coarse slur, and nothing more.

Doesn't change the fact that your choice of words is very insensitive, and I think, ultimately fails to help accomplish your goals.

I suppose one could argue that all the fucking assholes around could be offended by the casual use of the term to describe Robert, but they're fucking assholes. So who cares what they think?

Image: Beitar Jewish Fascist Youth With Nazi collaborator and prominent Zionist Ze'ev Jabotinsky

I'm a Jew, and your "soldier" schtick doesn't impress me as relevant, and I DO understand the semantics of Colby and Norse' usage of the term.

Scale notwithstanding within American society (and it only took how many years for the Nazis to rise to power?), your version of Nazis (a term I object to mostly because it's fixed in time with images frozen to match) and your Holocaust stopped at WWII. Because you're the typical American Jewish narcissistic sociopath with an agenda of remembering the past but NOT looking at the presence of Fascism and authoritarian totalitarianism in modern society.

Why just last night I saw a flock of 5 or 6 cops, including Brass... The same ones I saw Robert badgering earlier in front of Forever21 (a sweatshop operation with factories in the US employing US citizens) stand for over an hour in front of PacificWave doing nothing and watching all the cars NOT STOP at the stop sign at Cooper & Pacific without hailing a single one down and THEN they swarmed a car that DID stop, that had music playing not loudly at all and a window open. They were swarmed like wanted criminals because they had music playing in their car that could be heard outside the car. Again, not loudly... . OF COURSE there were CHICANOS in the car.

Bet you didn't know Chicanos are one 'tribe' of the New Jews being singled out for scapegoating in Rich White Santa Cruz' SHOPPING MALL along with the houseless, and anyone deemed by APPEARANCE to be "Not Shopping".

Image: What Good is a Pig: Cuts of Pork, Nose-to-Tail
http://sugarmtnfarm.com/2012/05/03/what-good-is-a-pig-cuts-of-pork-nose-to-tail/


Nazi... I mean it literally as in "American Nazi".

Here's what happens when they get a grip on your society:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/greece/9330223/Rise-of-neo-Nazi-Golden-Dawn-party-leads-to-spate-of-immigrant-attacks-in-Greece.html

Did you know that it's said 50% of the Greek Police voted for the Fascist Party in this last election?

Here's a Straight Press attempt to debunk the story that fails to prove it's point that, in large numbers, Police DON'T Luv Fascists: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/are-greek-policemen-really-voting-in-droves-for-greeces-neo-nazi-party/258767/

The American 'Bastion of Democracy" is quite the same

But I don't call them Fascists. Like "Pig" it just reinforces their machismo self-image.

I prefer to call them Fascia... as in something with Fascist symbolism made from FAGGOTS of wood.

It's interesting to note that the underpaid and certainly under-trained False Alarm people the city has patrolling and observing the xmas shoppers in the evening are having to bear the brunt of the blowback from a VERY HOSTILE COMMUNITY. Many of the people I know are beginning to resist the illegitimate citations being handed out like so many Fascist Xmas cards to non-shoppers on Pacific.

..and the next time that over-age overweight Fascist patrolling the library on Weekdays glares at me while I'm working at my computer at the library there WILL BE a disturbance when I ask the librarian to get him to stop staring or leave. Besides he smells bad... Like "Bacon" crisping.

You're doing exactly the same thing as the others, Ray. Golden Dawn and fascist sympathizers in the Greek Police force do not implicate anyone in Santa Cruz of anything.

And that Worst Alarm guy can stand there and stare at you all day if he likes. For all I know, he can videotape you too. That's how this works. The problem is that you like these freedoms until someone exercises them in a way you don't like.

That, I believe, is at the heart of authoritarianism. No?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelle-alexander/the-new-jim-crow-how-the_b_490386.html

http://www.nyclu.org/issues/racial-justice/stop-and-frisk-practices

http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/fatal-police-shooting-anaheim-sparks-anger-0022294

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_13686438

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqNcU17ySXs

http://tinyurl.com/bp5ucvb

"Your Fascist Superhero". A ten minute presentation by Superman and Batman in the left dialectic about how "nuisance laws", and Santa Cruz LIVES FOR nuisance laws, only serve to further two interests.

Namely the police-industrial complex of the city and, of course, the Commercial Property Interests.

Good viewing and the dialectic is kept simple enough for even a Fascist to understand.

"FWIW, after being jumped by three kids while I slept last month, the police officer DID NOT WANT TO let me file a complaint. When I INSISTED. He wrote up an attack by three people on a sleeping victim as "Misdemeanor Battery" instead of a felony."

Wait a minute. You're telling me that after all your railing against the Police State and against the SCPD for being fascists, Nazis and who knows what else, that you are now upset that they didn't respond forcefully enough when you needed them for law enforcement on your behalf?

Are you serious? Really?

So, because Ray is a critic of the local police, he should not be able to call them for service?

He should not expect the police to treat his complaint the same as others who have called them?

Should the SCPD check Indybay first to see who they should respond to for service calls?

Should we all, who don't pass their 'smell test', shut up and never call the police?

We should let the SCPD do all the thinking and all the decision making?


Thank you for making the case that we are living under Nazism here in downtown Santa Cruz.

...Against Nazi police. You read me call them, in so many words, "tools of Fascists", and I suggest IF the police ACTUALLY DID THEIR JOB protecting EVERY citizen of the community with equal vigor they'd be doing something VERY DIFFERENT than what they're doing now.

What? Did yo think I was some sort of Nihilist Anarchist or somesuch Troll-like delusion?

Sorry to disappoint you.

BTW, had a discussion with someone wearing "Brass" yesterday. Told me indirectly to demand more services. I refused a trip to the hospital for the bloody nose and blacked eye. THAT made the misdemeanor/felony difference.

The reason I didn't take the ambulance trip.. In order of Importance.

10> I'm tougher than the backstop at a shooting gallery. ie. I wasn't dying.

1> If I took that trip, my possessions... My sleeping bag, my clothing, my bike etc, would have been left at the scene and most likely be stolen, or confiscated by the city with a recovery time.... unknown.

...and we're back to some thorny issues regarding certain problems unique to displaced workers and the homeless in general aren't we?

It's incredibly hard to get 'justice' EVEN IF the PD is compliant... when you're a law abiding citizen but have no domicile.

To call Ray a critic of the Santa Cruz PD is like calling Adolf Hitler a critic of the Jews. The only thing keeping the police alive in Ray's presence is the fact that they're armed with guns and Ray only has oven cleaner in his backpack.

It's just very hypocritical to spew that much invective against a governmental body and then cry Uncle when miscreants wake you up sleeping outdoors..

Mind you, the cops didn't even ticket Ray for sleeping outdoors. Which is a big part of the Santa-Cruz-is-a-police-state argument, right?

"Mind you, the cops didn't even ticket Ray for sleeping outdoors. Which is a big part of the Santa-Cruz-is-a-police-state argument, right?"

So the SCPD, after not taking his complaint of abuse seriously, should have ticketed Ray for telling them that he was sleeping, even though they did not themselves find him asleep?

I wonder what you think should happen to a homeless woman who calls the SCPD after being raped while sleeping "illegally" ? I guess if that ever happens, she should feel lucky if she doesn't get a ticket? Would this encourage or discourage those who are vulnerable and at risk to call the police after a violent attack? Which should be the SCPD's priority, addressing violence, or addressing people who are sleeping?

You, sir or madame, are the voice of fascism that fuels the SCPD and the local police state, one that discriminates against the homeless.


"To call Ray a critic of the Santa Cruz PD is like calling Adolf Hitler a critic of the Jews."

Ever heard of poetics? Ray uses a lot of it.

I'd also like to remind everyone that Ray has self-identified as having a personal link to Judaism, which further adds context to Watcher's comments, and the Hitler reference.

Ray's arguments prevailed. The video he presented was excellent. I wish this obsessive poster would just accept it and stop posting personal diatribes.

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/3/29/killed_at_home_white_plains_ny

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/10/nypd_a_video_hi.php

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/08/kelly-thomas-beating-video_n_1499771.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/20/local/la-me-sheriff-clique-20120420

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/18/utah-video-police-kill-man-drug-raid_n_810420.html

For those interested in the selective and arbitrary use of the Downtown Ordinances, the Sleeping Ban, and other anti-homeless laws, hear first hand-accounts tomorrow night on my show 6-8 PM 101.3 FM, streaming at http://tunein.com/radio/FRSC-s47254/. The proposed California Homeless Bill of Rights proposes to combat these abuses or discourage them: see http://wraphome.org/?p=2831&option=com_wordpress&Itemid=119.

Arguing with folks who wish to dismiss or minimize the escalating abuses and violence against homeless people--institutionalized in the curfews, police sweeps, modified library rules, and "quality of life" laws--is really a waste of time.

The real issue is how do we mobilize to expose, resist, and discourage this kind of hate crime.

I encourage people to keep a close eye on the library and report on how librarians (and their security guard pals) are treating homeless-looking folks there. Please be accurate and specific in your reports. Time, place, specific names, details, etc.

"Arguing with folks who wish to dismiss or minimize the escalating abuses and violence against homeless people--institutionalized in the curfews, police sweeps, modified library rules, and "quality of life" laws--is really a waste of time. "

Yes, and preaching to the choir is far more productive...

Sorry, but not letting people use the library as a dorm doesn't quite rise to the level of 'hate crime', even in a hyperbolic world.

NOT whether someone is committing some institutional administrative infraction but Where's the INSTITUTIONAL RECOURSE if one IS accused of using the library as a "Dorm" or someone says they "Smell".

As I stated earlier, the over-aged security guard who saunters around the library grounds on weekdays like he owns the place and DIRECTLY INTERFERES BY HIS OVERBEARING AND UP-CLOSE PRESENCE with MY PRIVATE CONVERSATIONAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY while sucking the taxpayer's teat for a paycheck and calls the police for illegitimate reasons (as the police verified for me in a recorded conversation) smells like cooking Pig, and that odor is offensive to vegetarians... housed or allegedly "Dorming" at the library.

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/9-frightening-things-about-americas-biggest-police-force

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/traffic/ci_19515580

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/10/26/police_fire_tear_gas_flash_grenades

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/29/4150415/sacramento-homeless-evicted-from.html

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_21431172/effort-reduce-santa-cruz-homeless-camps-sees-mixed

Interesting statistic...

Number of comments about napping = a pile
Number of comments about desal spending = a few

Does anyone know the desal:library cost ratio, offhand? Just curious.

The Public Records Act sent to head librarian T. Landers is now 14 days old and unanswered. State law requires a response within 10 days. I'll be seeking legal advice on how to encourage Landers, a big fan of rules for the poor in the library, to follow state law herself.

For a copy of the request see http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/11/30/18726836.php?show_comments=1#18727166 above.

If anyone has gotten a complete copy of the library rules, please post them here, so we can all be good law-abiding folks. And perhaps serve as a shining example to the privileged rulesmaker T. Landers.

From my memory of your public records request to Ms. Landers, you would have a slam dunk case if you choose to spend $500-$1000 to take her agency to court and your lawyer's fees would be paid by her agency in case you prevail. I see no way she can argue the records you seek are exempt. Consult a FOI attorney.

What better agency to force transparency on than a library!

[Image: Seen @ Santa Cruz City Hall]

Let's get to the roots toots... Ms Landers IS NOT the person driving the policy changes. She's just the manager-in-the-middle and albeit the appropriate person to go to for information and documentation, those changes are driven by political demands responding to sociological issues essentially set in motion by the city of Santa Cruz' failure to develop a viable community for EVERYONE who lives here. To the best of their ability.

The library gets the 'fallout' from the city's "Nuclear" policies about their displaced workers and other low income Santa Cruz residents. Poor people go to libraries when there's nothing else to do or anywhere else to go.

I call "Nuclear Option" too. Fuck FOIA & Library... RICO Act & City of Santa Cruz... drag their influence over an allegedly independent library board into court and subpoena the dox.

Just sayin'

#MoreForensicAccountingPlease

"The state or federal government could EASILY tear this city's government apart just as surely as they tore the SCPD apart three decades ago, and Santa Cruz citizens would ALL benefit from that."

Only the Feds can clean up this dirty little city now. All the local checks and balances have failed.