SF Bay Area Indymedia indymedia
About Contact Subscribe Calendar Publish Print Donate

California | Santa Cruz Indymedia | Government & Elections | Health, Housing, and Public Services | Police State and Prisons

The Proposed California Homeless Bill of Rights and Santa Cruz--Preliminary Thoughts
by Robert Norse
Friday Dec 14th, 2012 7:59 PM
The California Homeless Bill of Rights, modeled after the Rhode Island bill which passed this summer, is being heralded as a strong step towards ending selective enforcement, anti-homeless laws, and institutionalized Hate Crime. Since Santa Cruz has been a leader in these fields (that is, in laws the pioneer harassing the homeless), will the Bill of Rights impact homeless people on the ground here. The answer is unclear but activists in other cities are hopeful.





Some positive activist response to the Bill:

http://www.californiality.com/2012/12/california-homeless-bill-of-rights.html (comments by Sacramento Homeless Organizing Committee activist Paula Lomazzi)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/115086286/California-Homeless-Bill-of-Rights-Press-Release-2012-12-01 (comments by Western Regional Advocacy Project activist Paul Boden)

Boden's editorial in the S.F. Chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/California-needs-rights-for-homeless-4091545.php

The S.F.Chronicle's description of the bill: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Tom-Ammiano-backs-homeless-rights-bill-4091599.php


A right-wing attack on the bill believes the it to be more powerful than I think it is:
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/editorials/article/Tom-Ammiano-s-homeless-bill-is-bad-idea-4095005.php

The bill passed in Rhode Island back in June. I haven't gotten any clear sense of how it has changed police or prosecution activity there, but I'm still in the research stage.

The main problem in nullifying the local anti-homeless laws is that they don't use the word "homeless" but give the illusion of impacting everyone equally as a justifiable "time, place, and manner" restriction on constitutional liberty. In fact, the Sleeping Ban, the Sitting Ban, the Panhandling Ban--are anything but.

I include two flyers I distributed at the last City Council meeting of the year.
§Selections from the Proposed California Bill of Rights
by Robert Norse Friday Dec 14th, 2012 7:59 PM

§Text of the Two Flyers
by Robert Norse Friday Dec 14th, 2012 8:01 PM
Selections from the Proposed California Homeless Bill of Rights

This bill would enact the Homeless Person’s Bill of Rights and Fairness Act, which would provide that no person’s rights, privileges, or access to public services may be denied or abridged because he or she is homeless, has a low income, or suffers from a mental illness or physical disability. The bill would provide that every person in the state, regardless of actual or perceived housing status, income level, mental illness, or physical disability, shall be free from specified forms of discrimination and shall be entitled to certain basic human rights, including the right to be free from discrimination by law enforcement,.....


The bill would further prohibit discrimination under the above-described existing law provisions on the basis of “housing status,” would define that term to include homelessness, and would make conforming changes to related provisions, ....................................

SECTION 1. This act shall be known & may be cited as the “Homeless Person’s Bill of Rights and Fairness Act.” SEC. 2. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (a)  In the State of California, there has been a long history of discriminatory laws and ordinances that have disproportionately affected people with low incomes and who are without homes, including, but not limited to, all of the following:


(1)  Jim Crow laws: After the Civil War, many states, especially in the south, passed laws denying African Americans basic human rights. In California, these laws also targeted Chinese immigrants. In San Francisco, Chinese residents were forced to live in one area of the city. The same segregation laws also prohibited interracial marriage between Chinese and non-Chinese persons.


(2)  Ugly laws: In 1867, San Francisco was the first city in the country to pass a law making it illegal for people with “unsightly or disgusting” disabilities to appear in public. In many cities, these laws persisted until the 1970s.


(3)  Anti-Okie laws: In 1937, California passed an Anti-Okie law that criminalized “bringing or assisting in bringing” extremely poor people into the state. The United States Supreme Court struck down the law in 1941, when it declared that these laws are in violation of the Commerce Clause, and therefore unconstitutional.


(4)  Sundown towns: Town policies and real estate covenants were aimed at preventing minorities and other persons considered to be socially undesirable from remaining within city limits after sunset. Thousands of these towns existed prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1968, which made these ordinances and covenants illegal.


(5)  Vagrancy laws:  Vagrancy laws have been held to be discriminatory on their face because they criminalize a person’s status rather than a behavior. Nevertheless, these laws existed in California until the Legislature revised them in 1961.
(b)  “Quality of life” ordinances, “civil sidewalk” ordinances, and similar initiatives are the modern reincarnations of laws designed to force homeless people to flee local jurisdictions. These local ordinances result in de facto segregation as homeless people are forced out of specific jurisdictions or out of specific neighborhoods within jurisdictions. These discriminatory policies subject municipalities to an increased financial burden of caring for the homeless who have migrated there from their chosen home municipality in relief of the discriminatory legislation.  These practices tend to condemn large groups of inhabitants to dwell in segregated districts or under depressed living conditions that result in crowded, unsanitary, substandard, and unhealthful accommodations. Furthermore, these policies result in criminalization of homeless persons who choose not to migrate.........
(c)  Today, in the state many people are denied the following(1)  Housing due to their status of being homeless, living in a shelter, a vehicle, the street, or the public domain. (2)  Housing or shelter due to ...... (7)  Access to safe, clean restrooms & hygienic supplies necessary to maintain health, safety, & dignity.
(d)  Homeless persons are unfairly targeted by law enforcement, often resulting in the violation of the homeless persons’ constitutional rights. Lacking the resources necessary to obtain adequate legal representation, homeless persons are often denied relief or damages through the courts..........
(l)  Concordant with this fundamental belief, a person should not be subject to discrimination based on his or her housing status, income level, or mental or physical disability. Therefore, it is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act to ameliorate the adverse effects visited upon individuals and our communities when the residents of this state are homeless.
SEC. 3. Section 51 of the Civil Code is amended to read: 51. (a)  This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Unruh Civil Rights Act....
(b)  All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation, or housing status, are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever....
(3)  “Housing status” means the status of having or not having a fixed or regular residence, including the status of living on the streets, in a vehicle, or in a homeless shelter, or similar temporary residence or elsewhere in the public domain....
(f)  “Homeless” means those individuals or families who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence and who have a primary nighttime residence in a shelter, on the street, in a vehicle, in an enclosure or structure that is not authorized or fit for human habitation, substandard apartments, dwellings, doubled up temporarily with friends or families, or staying in transitional housing programs.  “Homeless” means any person staying in a residential hotel without tenancy rights, and families with children staying in a residential hotel whether or not they have tenancy rights.
(g)  “Housing status” means the status of having or not having a fixed or regular residence, including the status of living on the streets, in a vehicle, or in a homeless shelter, or similar temporary residence or elsewhere in the public domain....
(k)  “Public space” means any space that is predominantly within the public domain or that is held open to the public, including, but not limited to, plazas, courtyards, parking lots, sidewalks, public transportation, public buildings and parks, and may also refer to those places that receive additional services through business improvement districts or other, similar public-private partnerships.

53.2. No person’s rights, privileges, or access to public services may be denied or abridged because he or she is homeless, has a low income, or suffers from a mental illness or physical disability. Such a person shall be granted the same rights and privileges as any other resident of this state. Every person in the state, regardless of actual or perceived housing status, income level, mental illness, or physical disability, shall be free from all of the following:
(a)  Any type of discriminatory treatment by law enforcement, public or private security personnel, business owners, property managers, or BID agents, including, but not limited to, harassment, intimidation, or selective enforcement.....
(e)  Unreasonable searches or seizures of his or her personal property, including property stored in vehicles, tents, grocery carts, bags, or any other carrying or storage device, if the intervention of law enforcement is based upon the actual or perceived housing status, income level, mental illness, or physical disability of the person in possession of the property.

53.3. Every person in the state, regardless of actual or perceived housing status, income level, mental illness, or physical disability, shall have the right to all of the following basic human rights and legal and civil protections:
(a)  The right to use and move freely in public spaces, including, but not limited to, plazas, parking lots, public sidewalks, public parks, public transportation, public streets, and public buildings,
in the same manner as any other person, and without discrimination.
(b)  The right to rest in public spaces without being subject to criminal or civil sanctions, harassment, or arrest by law enforcement, public or private security personnel, or BID agents, as long as such rest does not maliciously or substantially obstruct a passageway.
(c)  The right to own and possess personal property in public spaces without being subject to criminal or civil sanctions, harassment, or arrest by law enforcement, public or private security
personnel, or BID agents, as long as that personal property does not maliciously or substantially obstruct a passageway.
(d)  The right to share, accept, or give food in public spaces without being subject to criminal or civil sanctions, harassment, or arrest by law enforcement, public or private security personnel, or BID agents.
(e)  The right to the same protections that law enforcement agencies afford to all other citizens, including, but not limited to, the right to reasonable protection from domestic violence, sexual assault, hate crimes, or robberies.
(f)  The right to engage in life sustaining activities that must be carried out in public spaces because of homelessness, including, but not limited to, eating, congregating, possessing and storing
personal property, urinating, or collecting and possessing goods for recycling, even if those goods contain alcoholic residue, without being subject to criminal or civil sanctions, harassment, or arrest
by law enforcement, public or private security personnel, or BID agents.........
(n)  The right to make his or her own decisions regarding whether or not to enter into a public or private shelter or any other accommodation, including social services programs, for any reason he or she sees  fit, without facing criminal or civil sanctions, harassment, or arrest from law enforcement, public or private\ security personnel, or BID agents.
(o)  The right to occupy vehicles, either to rest or use for the purposes of shelter, for 24 hours a day, seven days a week while legally parked on public property without facing criminal or civil sanctions, harassment, or arrest from law enforcement, public or private security personnel, or BID agents.

Flier by Norse of HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom) 831-423-4833 http://www.huffsantacruz.org 309 Cedar PMB #14B S.C. 12-11-12


Proposed Homeless Bill of Rights May Provide New Legal Protections
Meanwhile: Witness & Document City-Wide Attacks on the Homeless

Assemblyman Tom Ammiano's AB-5, the Homeless Person’s Bill of Rights and Fairness Act, asks police & municipalities to respect the rights of homeless people:


“No person’s rights, privileges, or access to public services may be denied or abridged because he or she is homeless, has a low income, or suffers from a mental illness or physical disability....Every person in the state, regardless of actual or perceived housing status, income level, mental illness, or physical disability, shall be free from specified forms of discrimination and shall be entitled to certain basic human rights, including the right to be free from discrimination by law enforcement.”


A hopeful but limiting provision of the bill states:


“Every person in the state, regardless of actual or perceived housing status, income level, mental illness, or physical disability, shall be free from all of the following: ...Any type of discriminatory treatment by law enforcement, public or private security personnel, business owners, property managers, or BID agents, including, but not limited to, harassment, intimidation, or selective enforcement.....Unreasonable searches or seizures of his or her personal property, including property stored in vehicles, tents, grocery carts, bags, or any other carrying or storage device, if the intervention of law enforcement is based upon the actual or perceived housing status, income level, mental illness, or physical disability of the person in possession of the property.”

 ** Support Briana Brewer-facing 6 months in jail /$1000 fine for protesting abuse (“disturbing the peace”) by Denise, the “Hospitality” worker, targeting Briana for a service dog and giving away Xmas wreaths for donation downtown. A judge dismissed previous “dog tickets” by Denise, Sgt. Bush, and his officers apparently angering the Pacific Avenue Pooch Patrols.
** Support Brent Adams—facing hundreds of dollars in fines for observing police (“sitting near a building”) engaged in “sitcrime” harassment downtown. Brent is also a member of the SC-11.
** Report Sleeping Tickets; ask the Homeless (Lack of) Services Center for a written form showing you are on their Waiting List if you've signed up, or for a statement that their shelters were full on the date you received a ticket. Check in with activists Monday evening 5-7 PM at the Red Church.
** Share info & food with Food Not Bombs Sat Dec. 15 4 PM at the Main Post Office.
** Check http://www.huffsantacruz.org for updates & debates. Check in with HUFF Wed 10 AM-noon Sub Rosa Cafe at 703 Pacific. Free coffee; lots of chatter.
** Phone in reports to Free Radio Santa Cruz at 831-427-3772 or HUFF at 423-4833.
** Act to Restore Regular Use of Public Spaces Arbitrarily Closed to Repress Protest.
** Post Written & Video Reports on Facebook, http://www.indybay.org/santacruz etc.
** Volunteer to fight the Campaign to Scapegoat and Sweep Away the Poor: 423-4833.
** Fill out specific complaints against abusive SCPD, Host, or First Alarm Goonsquads.
** Contact Steve Pleich's Homeless Legal Assistance Project at 466-6078 with reports of police abuse or confiscated property. New SCPD property pick-up times: Tue/Thur 12:30-2:30 PM
** Support the Santa Cruz Eleven at http://www.santacruzeleven.org Prospective benefit Sunday January 6th. Time TBA Next court date: January 7th 9 AM

COMING UP: 5:30 PM Monday December 17th: Public Safety Committee Scapegoat-arama on “Illegal Campsites”. Drop in on the Bigotocrats at Work at City Council Chambers 809 Center St. Be ready to face Take Back Santa Cruz & other hostile activists.

Flier by Norse of HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom) 831-423-4833 http://www.huffsantacruz.org 309 Cedar PMB #14B S.C. 12-11-12
§Another Flyer from Supporters of the Bill
by (posted by) Norse Friday Dec 14th, 2012 8:03 PM

Download and distribute
§And this...
by WRAP Friday Dec 14th, 2012 8:05 PM

Download and distribute...
§Some Background on Discrimination
by WRAP Friday Dec 14th, 2012 8:06 PM

Download and distribute...

Comments  (Hide Comments)

by John E. Colby
Friday Dec 14th, 2012 9:21 PM
This bill of rights is only as good as the judges who would be obligated to enforce it. Notice how the federal bill of rights has been shredded by Congress and the Judiciary.

I don't trust Santa Cruz judges to ever uphold people's civil rights, especially the homeless. However their decisions can be appealed to higher courts which might uphold a homeless bill of rights.
Given the discretionary powers, and pattern of abuse in Santa Cruz, California, it is my opinion that the vote for District Attorney is one of the most important votes one can cast. A single person can overrule the will of the people, their representatives, and their judges. A kinder, gentler tyranny, especially when that power is placed in unclean hands.

#FireBobLee
by John E. Colby
Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 3:51 PM
Obviously the local authorities — like the judiciary — aren't going to correct the civil rights abuses of DA Bob Lee. It's time to call in the federal government. I ask the Santa Cruz 11 to consider filing complaints with the FBI for Bob Lee abusing his authority under color of law to deprive individuals of civil rights. Refer to the link below.
by Observer
Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 4:30 PM
" Since Santa Cruz has been a leader in these fields (that is, in laws the pioneer harassing the homeless)"

Sorry, but that statement is simply delusional.
Sure, Santa Cruz is mean and terrible to homeless people, which is why they come here from all over the country.
by Watcher
Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 4:46 PM
That's a remarkably toothless bill. I suppose it plays to the base, though.

One thing, however. Rights must be free. If an amenity costs any manner of resource, be it money or time or what have you, then it is no longer a right. It's a privilege. That's not an opinion, and it's not subject to interpretation. So, things like public showers and toilets, etc., cannot be rights. One can certainly demand that society provide those privileges with money from people who pay taxes, but they still aren't rights.

Before everyone calls me anti-homeless and Nazi and fascist and whatnot, let me be clear that I would tell the bourgeoisie the same thing about roads and health insurance and whatever else we've come to believe are rights, that infact have to be paid for.

Failure to understand and acknowledge this simple fact is why our government is perpetually broke.
by Robert Norse
Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 4:56 PM
Delusional Observer and others who doubt the severity of Santa Cruz's laws should check out a selection of the Deadly Downtown Ordinances at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/08/29/18657087.php .

It's accurate to say Santa Cruz pioneered these laws in that it was the first city in California to pass them (the Sitting, Peaceful Sparechanging, Performing, Bans in 1994, the Sleeping Ban in 1978) and has progressively hardened them at the behest of the Downtown Association and Police Department. Hopefully, one way or another, the Bill of Rights may make the city attorney nervous enough to recommend reform or repeal (which is probably the only way, short of an uprising) that such action would happen.

Actually I'm pretty clear the Kennedy-Rotkin Council of 1994 in its historical deal with the merchants was the first to pass the Downtown Ordinances; not quite as sure about the 1978 Sleeping Ban, but I haven't seen other ordinances in other cities that predate its specific criminalization of "falling asleep after 11 PM".
by Watcher
Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 5:02 PM
There isn't going to be an "uprising", Robert. That sort of language is why Observer calls you delusional.

by John E. Colby
Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 5:02 PM
Here's the definition of human rights from The Free Dictionary. You can have a right to tangible items that cost money like housing, food and drink. It's a right if LAWS guarantees it for human beings.

human rights
pl.n.
The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law.

U.S. law and international law guarantee the right to housing, food and drink for example. These are NOT privileges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_housing

http://www.hrea.org/index.php?doc_id=404

by Observing
Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 5:03 PM
-skipped over is the fact that it is now illegal for a homeless and money-less person to urinate or defecate at night, since there are no restrooms open to the public at night, or any other facilities or land or public space

-sounds like rights are being violated to me, and a biological human function necessary to human survival has become a privilege, when a people cannot legally relieve themselves at night, what could be more fascist?

-also, why does Watcher/Observer/Helper/Amazed feel the need to post under so many different handles?

-i smell insincerity
by Watching
Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 5:34 PM
now 'Watcher' is talking to 'Observer' lol













stop trolling, you are the same person

and since indybay deleted my comment, here's some more info

this troll is named David Schlesinger

for more info about how he may have profited from his trolling, and from disrupting other social movements, just do a google search for

"david schlesinger troll stalker" or "stone mirror troll stalker"

he's well known around the web lol
by Amazed
Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 5:35 PM
Oh, so when I use a web dictionary to easily define the word "lodging" in simple, incontrovertible language, your head explodes and all hell breaks loose. And when you use the same dictionary to define "rights", you're the cleverest person here, eh?

So, I was being sloppy. Here's a clearer distinction between natural and legal rights that actually put both of us in the right. Haha. Get it? Right :-)

"Natural and legal rights are two types of rights theoretically distinct according to philosophers and political scientists. Natural rights are rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable. In contrast, legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by the law of a particular political and legal system, and therefore relative to specific cultures and governments."

So there. And no, Watcher and Observer aren't the same person. You silly, paranoid vehicularly housed individual.
by Amazing Watcher
Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 5:38 PM
Mind you, what I'm calling a privilege, and what Robert is demanding, namely, free toilets and showers and toothbrushes for the homeless, are closely associated with legal rights. But tell Robert that they're anything but inalienable, natural rights and his face will turn purple and he'll stomp off, inviting the "critics and trolls to in call into my radio show".

That's why we've never formed a rare and beautiful friendship, Robert and I.
by Observing
Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 5:41 PM
schlesinger, i suspect there are other reasons why you and robert arent friends

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
by John E. Colby
Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 5:51 PM
Arguably human rights are natural rights which become enforceable when enshrined in international and domestic law, but natural rights none the less. They are rights which we possess because we are human beings.

Here's some reading for you.
by Sum Watcher
Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 5:59 PM
Yeah. Feel free to argue that all you want. But arguing that a legal right becomes a natural right via legislation means that you're an idiot who can't read, a natural right that most of us choose not to exercise.
by John E. Colby
Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 6:06 PM
You got it all wrong. Human rights are natural rights. They become enforceable when they are enshrined in law. They are NOT legal rights which become natural rights by being made law.
by RazerRay
Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 6:21 PM
slavery_never_abolished_450px.jpg
slavery_never_abolished_4...

(RazerRay has escaped the cube! Read Alert!)

[...]"Since Santa Cruz has been a leader in these fields (that is, in laws the pioneer harassing the homeless)"

Sorry, but that statement is simply delusional. [...]

Absolutely delusional on your part Observer. The gentrification of Santa Cruz was planned along the same lines... with the same plan for ridding themselves of their pesky working class, with a number of other small and large cities nationwide such as Tempe Arizona, in the same size range.

Reference "Street people and the contested realms of public space" in re the gentrification of Tempe by sociologist Randall Amster
http://books.google.com/books/about/Street_people_and_the_contested_realms_o.html?id=JnVHAAAAMAAJ

Even to this day the city of Santa Cruz, Berkeley, and unknown other cities in California have am intercity interdisciplinary working group 'planning' their "Homeless Problem".

The plan APPEARS to be "Run their displaced from town to town to town and back again until there's attrition..." Which in these days of declining income and job resources seems an endless task destined to continually grease the slimy dollar-driven wheels of Poverty Pimps and police departments statewide.

Funny how that happens...
by FD
Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 6:21 PM
...is meaningless in California. The State constitution and law grants local authorities broad police powers to provide for public safety, unless the state preempts a particular field to be regulated. In addition, charter cities such as Santa Cruz are constitutionally home rule communities and can exempt themselves from many (not all) state laws. I don't see anything in the bill that says the State intends to fully preempt local authorities in dealing with the homeless.
by Amazing
Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 6:24 PM
"You got it all wrong. Human rights are natural rights. They become enforceable when they are enshrined in law. They are NOT legal rights which become natural rights by being made law."

This why I called you an idiot who can't read.

So here's the UNHCR, without a trace of irony, on the subject, from your hyperlink:

"These rights are human rights. Like other human rights, they contain dual freedoms: freedom from the State and freedom through the State. For example, the right to adequate housing covers a right to be free from forced evictions carried out by State agents (freedom from the State) as well as a right to receive assistance to access adequate housing in certain situations (freedom through the State)"

So the state must first give, and then the state must give more. LOL. Sounds like something written by Steve Argue, doesn't it?

I hope some day you guys all get to live in this utopia you're envisioning. That should be fun to watch.
by Idiot
Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 6:29 PM
you call him an idiot because you are a troll and a professional time waster
by Idiot
Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 6:32 PM
a good article about the 'professional' troll

http://techrights.org/2010/01/16/alternate-time-lines/
by RazerRay
Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 6:34 PM
Fucking STOP RHYMING!
..."Deadly Downtown Ordinances"
It's simply foolish and denigrates... allows for disrespect for whatever points you try to make.

Signed,
Deadly Serious

th_RazerRayFriend.jpg
Hey everyone... Meet my dog... Cujo.
by Idiot
Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 6:34 PM
Amazing doesn't seem solution oriented

you are so skilled, how about you help end homelessness ?
by anon
Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 6:37 PM
Richard Stallman and Bruce Perens Defamed by Troll
http://techrights.org/2010/02/19/defamed-by-access-employee/
by RazerRay
Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 6:41 PM
"FD" suggests: "The State constitution and law grants local authorities broad police powers to provide for public safety,"

MY PUBLIC SAFETY TOO... which IS the point of this issue to RE-Emphasize the fact that displaced workers ARE CITIZENS due PROTECTION under the State Constitution... which the city of Santa Cruz does NOT seem to understand.

Personally, I prefer a Jones-like decision as resolution to this issue and a state or federal judicial watchdog assigned as Santa Cruz seems unwilling to comply with a good portion of it's citizen's rights to public safety... A SELECTIVE portion. It's a problem, and a potential MASSIVE liability to Santa Cruz taxpayers in the form of lawsuit expenses.
by Custodiet
Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 6:55 PM
"...a potential MASSIVE liability to Santa Cruz taxpayers in the form of lawsuit expenses..."

Yeah. Here's another classic Norse straw-man. The old MASSIVE LAWSUIT that we've been hearing for the past 30 years is about to happen.

Any day now. Really. Im serious. Okay, no. Now I'm serious. Really...
by money
Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 6:58 PM
how much did norse cost the city of santa cruz in legal fees ?

a lot

if you deny us our rights, we will come for you in the courts
by RazerRay
Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 7:10 PM

Haha... He's not a troll... At least that's not how *I* know him.

A friend of mine did 5 years in a British prison because of this dude.

I hadn't seen him for at least ten years. I had word that he was living in Berkely, then he showed up shortly after OccupySantaCruz began and attempted to disrupt it by "Charisma-enabled sidetracking" of people along with their labor and and resources, much like Western Service Workers Association, a LaRouche related org, attempts with other organizations and cohorts of people.

This Pseudo-"union" that seems almost legit to the outside uniformed observer made an attempt to compromise the selfsame OSC by repeatedly cajoling and haranguing the OSC GA to get involved in a letter writing campaign ostensibly on behalf of Chicano in-home health workers in Watsonville and Pajaro, while taking food and blankets from those generally impoverished people and offering them to mostly middle class OSC as a "donation".

By their works ye shall know them... Someone said that a long time ago, and it's still good advice.

But I digress... About Dave...

Many of the Norse-related prog-libs who hung around occupy were quite fond of Dave at the time and refused to heed my warning about his snitchjacket. I've also mentioned him to anyone I've known who came in contact with him at that time.

PDF Attachment: Rats - Your guide to protecting yourself against snitches, informers, informants, agents provocateurs, narcs, finks, and similar vermin.
by RazerRay
Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 7:19 PM
The Jones decision was a CLASS ACTION suit, and not comparable in any way to Norse's self-serving "Nazi Salute" case which despite his bleatings has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of displaced workers or the so-called homeless.

FWIW, and indicative of my 'philosophical' and tactical differences with him, the people he 'saluted' I'd just as soon see hung from lamp posts about town as a reminder that Fascists aren't welcome in civil society

Add something intelligible or gtfo troll. "Norse baiting" REALLY REALLY bores me.

There should be a "Godwins Law" about invoking his name here for no good reason.
by The Elephant's child
Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 7:56 PM
Maybe you shoulda signed up for the 401K at Seagate. Or joined the Teamster's union.

Then maybe you wouldn't be outdoors and unemployable.

But that's somebody else's fault, right???

so it MUST be time to "Smash the State"!!!

P.S. Thanks for being so amusing and entertaining!!!!
by RazerRay
Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 8:11 PM
There is no way he could be David Schlesinger. David is a complete political rube and was not anywhere around when BJ sued LA.

Caveats and disclaimers:
Unless ofc he's directly a fed with too much time to do research or has a 'mole' who has known her for a long time (which IS possible as I pointed out earlier many of BJ's HUFF friends were quite fond of him and could have told him historical info about her)

Indeed, the whole SC11 indictment scam is an attempt to see if Facebook-like social web (network) tracking works just as well in real life as it does in the virtual one, which is why it seems the indictments were "popularity based" on how much of a social butterfly the indicted was, not reality based on evidence (BJ as prime example was never in the building or even on the lawn after the no trespass signs went up hence not only is she un-indictable, she's just milking her non-involvement for notoriety a la RN), so I wouldn't COMPLETELY rule that possibility out, but it seems really really unlikely as the troll in question isn't bright enough to run an op like that, and when I knew him, was basically a "spun hon", scribbling rather intricate Koh-I-Noor penned designs, while constantly seated at Java House (Pono Grill now) or sitting in his Faraday shielded (REALLY!) windowless white van outside the coffee shop.

In other words he's a slightly charismatic wordy ex-acid head who doesn't really have a political bone in his body afaik, and he's paranoid, and OCD'd illustrated by the fact that during his stint hanging around Java House was quite a maven of hand sanitizers, which he insisted contain Nonoxynol-9.

by RazerRay
Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 8:18 PM
i_sleep_in_my_car.jpg
i_sleep_in_my_car.jpg

The truth is Teamsters, like LOCAL SURFERS, often sleep in their trucks, and wake up in the neighborhood of their choice... IOW, we're ALL kind of "Street People"

And you're a troll.
by RazerRay
Saturday Dec 15th, 2012 8:54 PM
This is my last response to "Elephant Chid", who is one of two people. One of whom was/is a snitch for the government as discussed up-page or a former employer, Ken Bothello, Caffe' Bene', Libertarian scum, who attempted to blackmail me by purloining my personal property requiring police intervention when I quit his shitty job a few years ago.

They would be the only two people aware of that short segment of my 30+ years history as a well-respected worker in Santa Cruz when I worked for Seagate and a local trucking company where I trained truck drivers until an upper back injury forced my retirement a year later.

The only other person MIGHT BE a disgruntled GF, or my Ex, but it's unlikely as I'd recognize the writing style of the former immediately, and my ex... Well lets just say last I knew she was barely able to string a complete sentence together due to the years of her methampetamine use post-marriage.

Either way Dave or Ken, consider yourself outed.

..and BTW, I never have felt the need to keep my identity in re my nicks vis a vis my real name secret.

Troll.
by G
Sunday Dec 16th, 2012 7:34 AM

It seems to popular with republicans libertarians tea partians Kochians, um, what is their new and improved brand name?

As for the identity of the hand waver, well, who cares, even if it's a transplant.

by Observer
Sunday Dec 16th, 2012 10:58 AM
Per John Colby
"U.S. law and international law guarantee the right to housing, food and drink for example. These are NOT privileges. "

Really? What type of housing, food and drink am I guaranteed? If I go into a bar, am I guaranteed to be given a beer (for free) because some supposed law guarantees me 'food and drink'? If I'm going to get the beer, I might as well order up the bangers and mash. Then again, if it's guaranteed, why not just get the steak and lob with a nice Cinnabar cabernet?

And to those above, no I am not 'watcher'. I'd use my real name, but I've seen how Robert, et. al. harrass those who disagree with them.
by John E. Colby
Sunday Dec 16th, 2012 2:51 PM
Compassionate communities provide these natural rights for their members as much as possible. Do we live in a compassionate society or a jungle? Watcher/Observer desires a free for all society where no man is responsible for the well-being of his brother. European societies rejected this view because it brought them two world wars in the last century.

Watcher/Observer buys into the competition meme. Successful societies — much more successful than ours — are also compassionate ones where human rights are considered natural rights.

Clearly, as the last five years show, Watcher/Observer's meme is a bust. Our society must become more compassionate, providing for human rights, if we are to survive and address the great challenges of our time.
"come to the table in a spirit of compromise"

You and yours first, blamer of victims. Don't start nothin', won't be nothin'.

When the persecution ceases, when people are 'allowed' to exist without oppression, when the petty avarice driving the criminalization of basic survival needs comes to an end, then such a statement will cease to be laced with lopsided cruelty and ignorance.

I suggest you make haste in bringing an end to such tyranny, before it is ended for you.
by John E. Colby
Sunday Dec 16th, 2012 4:00 PM
You wrote:

"So here's the UNHCR, without a trace of irony, on the subject, from your hyperlink:

"These rights are human rights. Like other human rights, they contain dual freedoms: freedom from the State and freedom through the State. For example, the right to adequate housing covers a right to be free from forced evictions carried out by State agents (freedom from the State) as well as a right to receive assistance to access adequate housing in certain situations (freedom through the State)""

This isn't double dipping as you describe. It describes the nature of freedoms inherent in human rights. One is free from state intrusion which violates your human rights and receives assistance from the state in certain situations, which is freedom through the State.

Your exaggerations belie the weakness of your meme. The fact is we have a failed society. Our nation has more than enough money to provide for human rights and still be economically successful. If we shifted out priorities from war to peace, and from the 1% to the 99%, we could meet all these needs with extra money left over. Europe has done this without as big an economy as ours. Naysayers like you are hyper individualists who buy into the corporate capitalist propaganda.

People like you are bringing our nation, in fact our world, down the path to ruin.
by Listener
Sunday Dec 16th, 2012 4:27 PM
By the way, one compromises with hate filled tyranny the same way one compromises with jackass-inspired tomfoolery and with people who play games with the meaning of the word "lodge" to weasel out of responsibility for their actions.

You come to the table, shake hands and find common ground from which to start. Then, at the sound of the starting pistol, you're off to the races!
"people who play games with the meaning of the word "lodge" to weasel out of responsibility for their actions"

That is an apt description of the way the District Attorney and the Santa Cruz bench has behaved.

I look forward to their apologies, forced or not.
by Doer
Sunday Dec 16th, 2012 4:47 PM
Not likely those apologies are going to be forthcoming very soon, G. Perhaps after you guys are all convicted and the last vestiges of your phony sandbox activism have been stamped out by policemen in hobnailed boots, then maybe, just maybe, Bob Lee will come outside, look at you, shake his head in lieu of just smirking at you, and offer his apologies for thrashing y'all so badly, before heading back inside to yuck it up about you guys with his underlings behind closed doors.
by G
Sunday Dec 16th, 2012 5:02 PM
"stamped out by policemen in hobnailed boots"

Careful, your true colors are showing.

"with his underlings behind closed doors"

As is your taste in governance.
by Thinker
Sunday Dec 16th, 2012 5:28 PM
That's why I obey the law (most of the time) and thus stay free. Considering that you're the one who pawned yourself for Roberts shenanigans, and spent time behind bars for it, I'd suggest that you're the one who hates liberty. Not I.
by John E. Colby
Sunday Dec 16th, 2012 5:49 PM
All of your posts (many which have been removed because they were inappropriate) add up to:

"I hate liberty".
You are confusing obedience to tyranny with seeking redress.

Perhaps someday, after studying the legal system you have so blindly consented to, you will understand our actions.

I suspect that understanding will take longer than our appeals. I suspect your expressed opinions will lack accountability, if higher courts rule in our favor. I suspect your anger will grow, as your guilt grows. I hope I am wrong about that. I hope you are blessed with an awakening, and you embrace it. I hope you repent, before it is too late.
by Robert Norse
Sunday Dec 16th, 2012 7:06 PM
Perhaps Observer can name some of the folks that have been harassed because they've come out from behind their psuedonyms?
I can't think of one.

Public Safety Committee of the City Council meets tomorrow in Council chambers at 5 PM. Under discussion: the "needles and feces" concerns and more probable anti-homeless hysteria.
by RazerRay
Sunday Dec 16th, 2012 7:24 PM
I for one am well known to the police and all it would take would be simple comparison of my public words with my words here by SCPD's 'moles' on these threads. Because my analysis IS known to most SCPD officers who have 'checked me' or spoken with me. I'm not shy.

Also note the officer investigating my incident ask to see the weapon I used to shove the stupid drunk kid off me before his thug older 'buddy' kicked and punched at me. I handed it to him, he looked at that steel spike, shrugged and gave it back to me.
by Observer
Monday Dec 17th, 2012 12:16 AM
Norse:
"Perhaps Observer can name some of the folks that have been harassed because they've come out from behind their psuedonyms?
I can't think of one."


Analicia Cube is the first that comes to mind. You've leveled all manner of vitriol at her. And your minion Becky went so far as to ask for a boycott of a business who she assumed was owned by one poster. Let's not even get into Bunny's, whose 'crime' was not wanting people to break into their property. Yes, that's harrassment.
by G
Monday Dec 17th, 2012 4:40 AM
As there is someone that clearly stated they were trolling (and enjoyed it), before the comments were censored, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that their intellectual dishonesty trumps their claims of intellectual discourse.

In other words, they seem to hate real life people simply trying to exist, yet act so ugly on IndyBay.

That speaks volumes about their character, in my opinion.
by anon
Monday Dec 17th, 2012 6:07 AM
Observer, analicia cube is the co-founder of 'take back santa cruz'

if criticism cant be directed towards her, I dont know towards whom it could be.

Norse is polite towards her, and comparing your behavior to his is silly; you and your other aliases who are posting here have been anything but civil.

analicia cube has never been harassed here or anywhere else by Norse
by RazerRay
Monday Dec 17th, 2012 8:24 AM
Copy the following to embed the movie into another web page:
download video:

_eternal_fascism__fourteen_ways_of_looking_at_a_blackshirt__by_umberto_eco.mp4 (19.9MB)

Video: "Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt" By Umberto Eco"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn-5qG_ZR9I

Short form article: http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html

Pay attention to Point #6

Analicia Cube?

No DEXTER CUBE, if I remember correctly two time financial frauder. Felony convictions. That's public information,. This freak is someone who needs to be outed continually at least as the moral and ethical underpinning of what's called Take Back Santa Cruz.

Why not? These freaks believe stupid unscientific shit like "once a junkie always a junkie"... I think the whole basis for the organization is somehow related to FINANCIAL FRAUD. Once a fraud always a fraud.

As far as the rest of the TBSC org. It' like American Express you know? They look HUGE but have about 500 employees worldwide, TBSC has a tiny core group INCLUDING Analicia Cube as 'spokesperson', whom I consider along with the rest to be NOT PUBLIC SPIRITED, as in "ALL OF THE PUBLIC" in their pursuit of an alleged 'clean and sane' middle class (and the middle class being friggin sociopaths are able to define sane?) Santa Cruz. The majority of their alleged 5000 members live elsewhere around the planet and "Like" their FB page. A CLOSED FB page where they want to view your profile before allowing you to 'join'

They ARE a Fascist front organization with a 'puffed-up' shell of a following, created by a convicted felon, and apparently with the help current city council person Pamela Comstock.

Which means elements of the city government consorts with Fascists .

Hanging from lamp posts around town as a reminder that Fascism is unacceptable in a civil society would be too fitting a fate for these scumbuckets (The founders and core organizers of TBSC, and perhaps a city councilmember or two)

by RazerRay
Monday Dec 17th, 2012 9:08 AM
For those 'too busy' to watch the video or look at the article:

One of the things to be noted when "Looking for Blackshirts":
6. Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration.

That is why one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups. In our time, when the old "proletarians" are becoming petty bourgeois (and the lumpen are largely excluded from the political scene), the fascism of tomorrow will find its audience in this new majority.
I do believe that about sums up the sick psychology behind TBSC.

Hitler Youth picked up trash and 'helped old ladies across the street' too. But that didn't preclude their being Fascists.
Clipped from a conversation at another site with Linda Lemaster who said (spelling cleaned):

"...under the impression the group was just a Beaver-driven political party for Real Estate Equity and neighbor opportunism? I didn't object when they became a "local force" because aesthetically they had the guts to pick up trash left from the broken systems they're/we're still paying for while we watch it break from exhaustion and neglect. I'm FOR the people who are willing to take some "in hand" responsibility for their world, even when the specific aesthetic differs from mine..."


The 'neighbors' are being misdirected.

Is a mattress in the woods REALLY more of an environmental nightmare than an underused golf course that strips so much of the city's available water, and due to the fact that many of the 'neighbors' work multiple jobs just to maintain their lifestyle most of the 'neighbors' could never use the facilities... even IF they WERE golfers, because they just don't have the time.

TBSC sells all that frustration to their members too. Instead of being concerned their members HAVE TO work three jobs to afford to live here and affordable housing with a wide variety of jobs and housing to match whatever income a worker earns would leave their members having less frustrated lives AND more leisure time

So... What's the the big ecodisaster of MAYBE 10 mattresses spread out over literally hundreds of square miles of forest?

While ticky tacky condos being built en masse on Graham hill road without adequate water supply in the area isn't an ecodisaster according to TBSC's way of thinking. Or for that matter their followers... for whom a few of them MAY have seminal thoughts like that. TBSC would suppress that thought.

On the part of the core organizers, most of the 'leadership' passed on to their followers, their neighbors, is intentional misdirection.

Dexter Cube was/is a scam artist who ended up convicted of 2 SEC felonies. TBSC is a scam too. with other parties besides the Core or the Neighbors being the primary beneficiaries of the scam, but the neighbors, AKA 'rubes' aren't aware of that while the TBSC leadership parlays their benefits as 'political gains', but it's STILL a scam, and the sociopaths at the top use the rubes to achieve THEIR interests.
by Robert Norse
Tuesday Dec 18th, 2012 4:00 AM
I acknowledge that in some cases, using a psuedonym, can be a wise choice, however it detracts from your credibility.

It is also false to suggest that I have "harassed" those who came out from behind a false name, nor that my criticism of Take Back Santa Cruz is a form of "harassment".

Analicia Cube (co-founder of Take Back Santa Cruz) and I have strongly divergent views and have challenged each other publicly. I'm not aware she was writing under psuedonyms, was "outed", and then "suffered harassment". I think she expects that those of strongly different views will criticize her and she has the courage of her (mistaken) convictions.

Ed Natol has criticized me repeatedly in public, called my show and done so there, and doesn't hide behind psuedonyms as some on this thread do.

Bunny's was part of a group of merchants that supported banning a homeless couple from downtown, the main complaint about them being that they slept on public property (and yes, in the private breezeway between Pacific and Front Sts. in the wee hours of the morning when no one was there) When repeatedly harassed by police, they vigorously and vocally objected--and this was their real "crime". In response City Attorney Barisone used a costly rights-be-damned civil procedure to encourage police to intensify their harassment. (See "Final Decision Expands 'Go to Sleep, Go to Jail' Persecution of Two Homeless Musicians" at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/11/08/18663560.php?show_comments=1#18665687)

Bunny's and other businesses who lent themselves to this "short circuit the constitution" approach were named, criticized, and (by some) boycotted. That's not "harassment" but rather constitutionally-protected protest that seeks to expose abuse of the legal process and targeting of vulnerable homeless people.

Lito (Miguel de Leon) is now the paranoia-poster child for the hysteria-heavy War on Drugs. Instead of acknowledging this is a medical problem, NIMBYs use meth use to drum up abusive activity against homeless people for survival sleeping and presence in public spaces--such as the library. See

Any recent reports on how the main library--and our favorite First Alarm "guard" John--is treating the more raggedy folks there?

Still no response from Landry, the head librarian, regarding the Public Records Act made on December 4th (see http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/11/30/18726836.php?show_comments=1#18727166).

A real homeless bill of rights wouldn't be such a bad thing for sure.
Hold your nose and go to the comments at http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_22125587/library-board-votes-down-sleeping-ban .

This is the kind of bigotry that calls out for civil rights protection.
by RazerRay
Tuesday Dec 18th, 2012 11:01 AM
I walked up on the first attempt to have a meeting about the Bill last summer near the county building (which ofc was sidetracked and re-purposed when a celebrity SC11 DA showed up) to one of the HUFFers saying (in jest... I know the person)

"A real homeless person to lend us some legitimacy!"

There's NOTHING I can do to 'lend legitimacy' to HUFF.

Robert Norse is OCD'd and anal enough to be a good researcher, but beyond that there isn't much there except showman. He's the PT Barnum of homeless 'politics' Shouting "Looky Here!" which is something he also does well. But afaict he has no solutions.

He thinks more beds at their dysfunctional shelter or it's multiple doppelgangers, the "Interfaith Satellite Shelters", is a 'solution'. Even as a temporary thing, there's NO SOLUTION THERE.

Just another codependent-go-round for the do-gooders to get their feel-goods on, and to affiliate, and get used to, cooperating with INSTITUTIONAL POVERTY PIMPS.