SF Bay Area Indymedia indymedia
Indybay About Contact Newsletter Calendar Publish Community

Santa Cruz Indymedia | Health, Housing, and Public Services

Strongly Biased Public Safety Survey
by Brent Adams
Monday Jun 10th, 2013 11:29 AM
The Mayor's Public Safety Task Force has come up with a survey that they'd like you to fill out.
But that survey is loaded with inappropriate, imprecise, unprofessional, and inflammatory
language that enables blame instead of real solutions.

Following the hysterical syringe fear fest that has masqueraded as the Public Safety Committee, Mayor Hilary Bryant has appointed a Public Safety Task force to "go to the root" of problems we're seeing in our community.

So far the Task Force has met twice and will meet again Wednesday June 12 6pm

citizens safety task force meeting: The next task force meeting is at 6 p.m. June 12 in the Police Department's community room.

The Task Force has come up with a survey that is posted on the City of Santa Cruz's website. Here is the text of that survey:

"The City of Santa Cruz’s Citizen Public Safety Task Force consists of 15 volunteers appointed by the City Council. Task Force members will serve for six months and examine the root causes of local public safety issues. Made up of a diverse cross section of the community, from law enforcement and drug addiction specialists to small business owners and community organizers, this group is working to develop a set of specific policy recommendations for the City Council to guide the City’s response to anti-social and illegal behavior in our parks, open spaces, beaches and neighborhoods.
As part of that process, the Task Force invites your participation in this informal poll. Results of the poll will help to inform the Task Force when developing its priorities and recommendations to the City Council. Please rank your top three concerns with local public safety.

* List of public safety priorities and concerns was assembled with feedback from individual Task Force members and doesn't necessarily reflect the collective safety priorities of the Task Force or the City."


The survey is loaded with inappropriate, imprecise, unprofessional, and inflammatory
language that enables blame instead of real solutions - language such as,
"enabling" and "inappropriate activity".

I encourage you to NOT CHECK ANY of the offered selections but to go straight to the open field at the bottom where you may enter a comment of your own. Please do mention Sanctuary Camp as a proven solution.

§Here is the Survey's check list
by Brent Adams Monday Jun 10th, 2013 11:38 AM

Again, I encourage you to not check any of the boxes but to go straight to the open comment field at the bottom and offer the Task Force a comment.

Please feel free to suggest Santa Cruz Sanctuary Camp as a proven solution.
public_task_force.jpg
public_task_force.jpg

This is the Public Safety Task Force's list of "Safety Priorities"..


Comments  (Hide Comments)

by Robert Norse
Monday Jun 10th, 2013 12:51 PM
I note that few if any real crimes are on this list. It reads like a laundry list of NIMBY and DTA apprehensions. Seems clearly like a pre-arranged agenda to justify past, present, and future police empowerment against those outside.
by heartbroken
Monday Jun 10th, 2013 4:54 PM
I strongly agree that the language of the survey is inflammatory. Do we as a community even know what we're talking about? Where is the heartfelt community "Kindness Task Force"? I believe there ought to be some other ways the community can address fear. We should care for each other enough to not use derogatory terms like "mental illness." Terms that "other-ize," belittle, and demean are the chopping block upon which our expectations of a free and equal society get hacked off.

Unfortunately, it's not just the right-leaning city council that hasn't been respecting everyone. Even the mainstream community is using "untreated mental illness" as a phrase in its statement of solidarity to deal with homelessness. It is based on fear and a desire to take away personal autonomy from those that need loving support rather than to be drugged and/or locked up for being different.

Mad pride! The fringe has to raise its voice, since 50% so-called democracy treats us like shit.
by Challenge Is ON
Monday Jun 10th, 2013 5:02 PM
It's easy to pick apart the efforts of another. Its harder to do the work yourself that your nitpicking of others.

And so I offer a challenge to Brent and Robert and anyone else who'd care to play and is wont to complain. Let's see your list. How would you word a questionnaire aimed at addressing the complex criminal and socio-economic issues that are raising such levels of concern, conversation, and consternation in the Santa Cruz Community?

Let's see those lists!!
by Anti-POOR City
Monday Jun 10th, 2013 5:21 PM
....when the biased list is already up and being used, and the public has little say over these issues.

It's not nitpicking at this point, it's shock that list was presented.

The city has been seriously biased against poor people and minorities in the last few months/year/decade....
because that just leads to inaction. "Someone else will take care of the problem."

The question of who is stoking the "concern, conversation, and consternation" and what their agenda is comes to mind. Who benefits from people fearing each other?

Police
The pharmaceutical industry
Psychiatry as a "profession"
"Home Security" providers
Those who seek to profit by selling us stuff to quell our fears of "the other"

What is causing YOUR fear, concern, and consternation, my friend? Let's have a conversation about it.
by G
Monday Jun 10th, 2013 5:46 PM
On campus or off?

Interesting...
by Natalie Clifford Barney
Monday Jun 10th, 2013 9:08 PM
Brent Adams has provided a convincing argument that a Sanctuary Camp for the Homeless is the best option based on examples in other cities. He has worked hard for many months trying to make this happen. He has received some support from some friends and fellow activists.
My fear is that Mr. Adams has trusted certain members of the City Council that they are onboard with his ideas, however over a period of months now he appears to have encountered stalling by Mr. Posner and Mr. Lane in this area. It is my fear that there is no intention create the Sanctuary Camp.......To delay this process so that it never comes to fruition.

Mr Posner and Mr. Lane are known for their appeasement policies......Can we say Neville Chamberlain!
by zouzou
Tuesday Jun 11th, 2013 12:34 AM
When trying to confront fear based beliefs and actions, it's imperative to counter with easy to understand observations and solutions.

quite frankly, on the PR front I think the other side is doing much better. naturally they have the media on their side but even so they are careful to control their message, keep proposals not too complex, reference the family and safety at every utterance, have female spokespersons (mostly) and do constant outreach to a multitude of organizations and population groups.

The homeless and sanctuary movement in terms of a public face is basically a sausagefest.

Image matters in this case.

It's pretty easy to see why the neighborhood groups are doing what they are doing whether they are doing it intentionally or not. Their appeal is to the middle class families via women/moms. The secondary appeal is through everyone who wants to see a protected environment. Those 2 pretty much encompass most of SC.

So while Occupy was busy occupying banks and such and seemingly being content with that level of action, the other group has been steadily worming its way through most of the community.

As a result of their action, at this point there are only 2 moderately sympathetic voices on SC City council. And both of them seem to be cowed in the face of the supposed grassroots movement of TBSC and the like. This shouldn't be surprising.

If you think that middle class interests and perceptions are basically bullshit, then you ignore retail politics and end up with few if any resources on a legislative level.

So. Now what?
by G
Tuesday Jun 11th, 2013 7:51 AM
Exhaust redress?
by Sylvia
Tuesday Jun 11th, 2013 1:06 PM
The mayor appointed 15 people. Those 15 were asked to name their priorities. City staff then provided a report focusing on those named priorities. And the resulting items in the survey have been distilled from those iterations to what is now online. So the frame of 'safety' plus economic shortages combine to name as unacceptable people who are poor and the behaviors that go with being poor, having no place to be ... There's not yet been a discussion of solutions - this is a survey about threats to safety. Though of course the threats often imply solutions.

I am drawn to the Compassionate Cities campaign as a way to organize and redirect energy.
http://compassionateaction.org/cities

And Heartbroken: Yes! "Who benefits from people fearing each other? " is an important question. I think force benefits, government benefits, those in power already benefit - more police funding, more legal restrictions/citations, more in jail and out of sight, more in the psych lock up and out of sight, ... more incumbents re-elected and not accountable. ... Lots more of what isn't working so far.
by Trip Weir
Wednesday Jun 12th, 2013 9:04 PM
35. Huntington Beach, CA
by liveWhereYouWork
Thursday Jun 13th, 2013 5:36 PM
"ineffective law enforcement" the task force got that right. time to fire cops and outsource
"public safety". maybe the Bike Dojo could do as good a job with "public safety" as they have with
giving bikes to kids.
by Linda Lemaster
Friday Jul 12th, 2013 7:04 PM
Ok, sez here, the safety committee's list of fears

And in the paper this week: their Reccommendations to City Council for giving cops money and squashing homeless service center and demanding "ID" from anyone unknown...and what else? Too upset to remember, now?

Did I umm MISS the middle part Sylvia mentions, above?

Why is this city task force (oops - this invented Mayor's closed crew, I mean) about safety, not being provided with the training and professional expertise they need in order to be successful? I want to laugh, it's so absurd, but consequences of such poor regard for citizens -- all of whom want to contribute toward public and civic safety -- are potentially deadly. And we're having too many unattended deaths already, due to more passive abuses and "austerity politics".

Wish we could dump any half of them, and refill their seats with transitioning, homeless, institutionalized, uprooted, foreclosed and younger people. Then ANY dialogue at all would be insightful.maybe depth or creativity could flourish?