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

Santa Cruz Indymedia | Health, Housing, and Public Services

Santa Cruz Sanctuary Camp Business Plan
by Brent Adams & Stacey Falls
Thursday Oct 10th, 2013 4:10 PM
This is the Community Proposal Including Business Plan that explains the establishment of a safe sleep space in Santa Cruz County.

Santa Cruz Sanctuary Camp is a proposal to the Community of Santa Cruz.
Following a year of research and campaigning, we've come up with a Business Plan that we wish to circulate in our community.


Comments  (Hide Comments)

by Another lefty weirdo
Thursday Oct 10th, 2013 7:38 PM
This must be a joke, but if not, when you've got your organization together, I'll join, Mr. Oblivious..

Do you think there is any political will for any of your solutions? The reality is there is no mainstream support for the liberal ideal, let alone more radical or libertarian views on drugs, autonomy from the mental health establishment, and so on.

We unfortunately get the government that the voters vote for... public safety task forces that are bigoted... and mean spirited do-nothing critics.
by Not a business plan
Friday Oct 11th, 2013 9:19 AM
Sorry, but this "plan" is based on hope and dream, not fact and reality.

Here are just 2 examples of why I don't find it credible:

1) It's going to have an art fence and open gate, as opposed to a true fence and controlled gate. And the open gate is going to be self-policed by residents. Now let's compare that to the current reality at the HRSC, where there is drug dealing going on right outside the gate, as well as consumption. So rampant and obvious that it's caused the community to demand a locked gate and i.d. checks to get in and out.

So tell me, how is the Sanctuary camp going to get by with less security and rule than the current one? Which is already being blamed for neighborhood deterioration due to lack of security and rule?

2) Brent himself. Sorry, but history follows one, and Brent's is as an anarchist activist and flag burner. Not a consensus builder, and not a community builder within the mainstream community. And you need mainstream community support to make this work. Case in point: Brad stated in the paper 6 months ago that the drunk guy on the mall (who got knocked down hard during his arrest) should just be left alone because he's not hurting anybody; he's just drunk in public.

So tell me, how is Brent now expected to be trusted with enforcing a no-drug and no-alcohol policy in his own camp? When he rails against it for the public and on the mall?

Sorry not buying it.
by because i don't want it to
Friday Oct 11th, 2013 12:04 PM
unlike his critics, brent has studied successful camps that work. what doesn't work are the uninformed tactics of local government and hate groups like TBSC.
Crime rates fell in the area around Dignity Village Portland. Crime rates fell in Oakland during their Occupy Camp.
Crime rates in our city are rising while they are falling in the rest of the county.
unlike the police, city staff, council, and TBSC, brent has a real solution to public safety.
by Razer Ray
Friday Oct 11th, 2013 12:13 PM
All we need is a safe place to sleep, with a licensed security guard or SCPD/Sheriff on duty so we can sleep with BOTH EYES shut. WE DO NOT WANT YOUR "Alternative Services" and 'security' that will be identical to the 'alcoholic inmates running the asylum' at the Occupy encampment that YOUR FRIENDS were ABSOLUTELY UNABLE to control and caused more problems that the people they targeted as 'problems'.

Did you know Occupy's "Chief" of security, Squirrel has been in dozens of fights and stabbed not once, but twice, since occupy?

THIS is YOUR idea of "Security" for an encampment.

But despite relatively widespread support on IndyBay last time I mentioned a simple and easy to actualize solution, you go ahead with your Delirium Tremors nightmare-for-the-rest-of-us and we know you'd sabotage ANY plan that wasn't yours Brent.

You ARE one of the hazards the homeless have to deal with... Self-Serving Opportunistic codependents sucking on the "Grant Tit"... Just like the 'Shelter'.
by Razer Ray
Friday Oct 11th, 2013 12:28 PM
1> Anarchists don't milk the system for grant money OR have a 'my way or the highway' attitude about their ideas. Brent IS NOT an anarchist as I understand it (and I'm old, and have known quite a few, including some globally known luminaries Brent's only read about in books).

2> You can see from my comment above I totally agree with your assessment of what Brent considers 'security'. Further, Dignity Village and the other models he's alluding to are in cities WITH MUCH HIGHER POPULATIONS of NON-Transient (not traveling) houseless, and drop-in/drop-out at the user's whim is the only model that makes sense around here lest it become just another codependent-go-round like the Interfaith Satellite Shelter Program, which anyone can note, only ended up serving people who get 'gubmint checks' and has had many of the same (codependent) people warehoused for the last couple of years when there are others more urgently needing shelter
by good luck with those
Friday Oct 11th, 2013 12:30 PM
"widespread support on IndyBay last time I mentioned a simple and easy to actualize solution"
if there was wide spread support in the community we would already have a camp here.
by Razer Ray
Friday Oct 11th, 2013 12:56 PM
Don't recall you were around on that thread and NO just because something's do-able DOES NOT mean it simply gets done without effort. Brent's idea is the sabotage/'foil' mechanism allowing for denigrating all other ideas and potential for support for something so stupid simple and relatively inexpensive that even a neighborhood watch could drum up funds.


A rented or leased piece of bare land

A 6' fence open during sleeping hours

Latrines

A security guard or police officer to keep thieves and the intoxicated out.

That's really all that's needed.

You'd need so many less SCPD and "Security' guards patrolling Santa Cruz at night the funds to do this could eventually be reallocated (sure) from those budgets.

But nevertheless, the cost, compared to the city's relatively recent attempt to shell out a million dollars for a prime piece of real estate so their yuppie friends' dogs can shit on it (lighthouse field), is negligible.
by brentugly
Friday Oct 11th, 2013 3:48 PM
Leigh Meyers AKA Razor Ray has floated his idea on another Sanctuary Camp thread.
Here we see him again on a Sanctuary Camp thread he takes pot shots.
We encourage Leigh Meyers to develop a cogent plan, lay it out clearly in an space that isn't a Sanctuary Camp thread.
More power to you Leigh. For months I've invited you to meetings, dialogue and more but you only show up here.
I offer the reflection that your plan should be more if you're going to level such personal attacks.
The plan above contains much data from several highly successful camps.
If you wish to make an actual argument about some of our findings, that is well and good.
by and save money
Saturday Oct 12th, 2013 5:11 AM
"many less SCPD and "Security' guards patrolling Santa Cruz at night the funds to do this could eventually be reallocated (sure) from those budgets. "

this is exactly how a sanctuary camp increases public safety.
it is easier to keep an eye on.
the huge cost savings to the taxpayer is also one of the reasons it will be resisted by the system..
we can fire more cops.
A Rhetoric of YES: means that ultimately, it's all ONE CONVERSATION toward ONE END. Which, according to all the great thinkers and revolutionaries: Dalai Lama, Gandhi, King, Jesus and Buddha, aught to be The Highest Possible GOOD for all. Whatever the outcome(s), the dialogue(s) will continues evolving beyond the successful or unsuccessful manifestations. As the Nike commercial says: JUST DO IT! but we might add, "except please do the Right Thing!"..and so we are willing to try,Try and TRY!!
The Dialogue that Will continue, requires the Will of those willing to see it through. Period! Don't be a spoil sport when the surprising Passion of the unheard voices (read, "The Homeless" and advocates of “proposed” compassion) underlying so much dialogue about Being Human with other Humans, is excited into administration of Reform under the sudden and singular effort and willing action of a few initiators. Of course it boasts radical change and therefore consequences! Even if it fails (which in itself is a self-defeating notion), that's just the way of the world. Trial and error.. But those who are willing will know enough to be in the Trying Mode toward actual solutions. And aught to be seriously helped along, not resisted or dismissed.
Santa Cruz has an active history of intending Holistic remedies for social discordances. That's just part of it's character..and there are other characteristics of course.. It just so happens that this political bent is what's so unique about our fair old town.. I say we honor this brave and creative "personality" within Santa Cruz because, not only is it less common, yet needed, in other cities far and nearby, but we get the benefit of being known and refered to as "with it", "awake", "pro-active", "bold", "enterprising" and yes, even "revolutionary".
So..
Just want to support this AMAZING process by re-remembering for us all here, that
People in all parties present to this debate are simply PEOPLE and therefore have (sometimes blind and sometimes Not blind) PASSION for their own integrity toward their own commitments. PASSION is a great thing! As long as the self doesn’t get in the way of things.
So.. and this goes for everyone!
Ask: What is the common-denominator in all factions of the debate at hand? We know it’s a Human Problem (people are involved), so it must require a Human Solution..not skewed away from a future that is only, ever accountable to itself.
Ask: How is it ultimately all one single conversation? Is it the celebration of true Diversity? Is it growing healthy vegetables? Is it Compassion for other humans? Is it those crazy kids again? Who are those other kids anyways?! What?!
3) Examine your commitments! Pay attention to the unique way that keeps your view ticking.. Is it appropriate toward the direction of the highest possible good?
4) Be aware that without this level of self-cross-examination, there exists potential mis-steps toward the best or eventual outcome. **Are your beliefs bigger than you or are you bigger than your beliefs? **Your ACTUAL beliefs!!
5) Be willing to challenge (passion) each other on this level. However..
6) ..Do Not allow your view to trump what is The Highest Possible Good.
7) If you don’t find clarity, that is, heart, in your original commitment, which would be necessary to Will your view to the forefront of the debate, Don’t bother. Get out of the way of those who have it.
8) This way the right people will show up to see the job through!
9) ..repeat process.. Always find your true calling/passion for the thing(s)/level you can commit to.
by Razer Ray
Saturday Oct 12th, 2013 10:02 AM
First of all Brent, get the nick right.

Second. Anyone who reads the comments on indybay and has spoken with me over the years for more than a minute knows who I am. At least one SCPD officer knows my nick.

I don't care.

I know members of TBSC who know.

I don't care.

So your lede: "Leigh Meyers AKA Razor Ray has floated..." seems a little like "Snitching-into-a-Vacuum"

I seem to get some respect for the consistency of my worldview from most people though.

I'm NOT looking to be loved and I'm not disappointed but I damn well try to be honest about what I believe, can explain the reason for my opinions, and value critical analysis, and even nonsensical insults in return.

You can't even handle criticism from an individual. You have a snowball's chance in hell of not getting 'eaten alive' by city bureaucrats, albeit I may be wrong... you MAY be 'cut from the same block of scum' and get on quite nicely...

But, to the gist. I want to thank you very much for going ballistic on me at the transit center last night. You clarified my thinking and indeed made my point about what I've been saying in regard to your sanctuary camp pipedream.

You admonished/threatened me that the "Sanctuary Camp" was your business and I should start my own thread and/or project and/or butt out.

Brent. The camp is ostensibly a PUBLIC project with PUBLIC input... IF you intend it to be a "Brent Adams Production" then what business do you have stumping for support on IndyBay unless it's fundraising support?

What you're seeking, a business, simply requires a license, funding, perhaps some 'special' permit, and in this case the wherewithal to convince whomever's property is nearby that you will have certain things like sanitation and the appropriate zoning-related issues approved by the city.

You SHOULD be saying so in your posts, instead of "Join the conversation" (as you said in your transit center rage minute) when that 'conversation is really a Q&A session after a sales pitch.

As far as creating my own project, I DO NOT WANT MY OWN PROJECT I WANT THE CITY TO GET OFF IT'S ASS AND DO SOMETHING NECESSARY AND SIMPLE to remedy the dangers faced nightly by people sleeping without walls!

But in this case your pipedream, and your mental instability noted by many who will simply write you off as a clown, endanger any potential progress towards a simple, safe place to roll out my sleeping bag at night, and that, because I HAVE SKIN IN THIS GAME, endangers ME.

I don't think the average person reading you schpiel understands that you DO NOT intend this to be a city-overseen camp, or that your idea of what you described as "Joining the conversation" about the camp is actually no conversation at all, but in reality a questions & answer session related to a sales pitch.

That's not a conversation Brent, and what I said earlier:

"You ARE one of the hazards the homeless have to deal with... Self-Serving Opportunistic codependents sucking on the "Grant Tit"... Just like the 'Shelter'."

stands prescient... But I knew it all along. I've seen this schtick before.

"...and we know you'd sabotage ANY plan that wasn't yours..."

I MAY be negative, but I KNOW HOW TO collaborate when I feel it's worth my effort, and when I don't I offer my opinion or critique or simply ignore/dis-involve myself from the proposal as I've done with most of Robert Norse's HUFF org's 'homeless activist' activities over the years, for many of the same reasons I state here in regard to your camp proposal/sales pitch.

by brentugly
Saturday Oct 12th, 2013 5:46 PM
forum_schs_brentbusiness_plan_meme.jpg
forum_schs_brentbusiness_...

I'm ecstatic to share this Business Plan.
by Robert Norse
Tuesday Oct 22nd, 2013 8:54 AM
Some valuable information is contained in this business plan. Yhose who are working on the Sanctuary Camp proposal need to be commended for their determination and energy in the face of a hijacked and hostile political climate. I've given the plan a reading, but it needs more careful analysis. Brent's style of presentation, his repeated hostility to some of us who haven't jumped on the bandwagon (alternating with New Age hugs), and his direct attacks on me personally and protesters generally has made objectivity difficult.

They also need to be aware that many concerned with the rights of homeless people--some homeless and some housed--have "concentration camp" and other concerns with the model.

Fresno activists have been funding homeless-created encampments with trash pick-up's, portapotties, fresh water, and other services since they won A $2.3 million lawsuit in 2007 (because city authorities, like Santa Cruz's SCPD and Rangers) were stealing and destroying homeless property.

There's extensive history on this homeless civil rights struggle at http://fresnoalliance.com/wordpress/?p=1313 . (Scroll to bottom for the most recent story)

More recent encampment coverage:

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/10/10/18744664.php (Grain Silo Homeless Encampment Posted for Demolition)
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/10/09/18744608.php (City of Fresno Finds New Ways to Harass the Homeless)

While Fresno activists have tried repeatedly to appeal to the city to be reasonable, recognize how cost productive it would be to stop harassing homeless encampments and/or supply services to them (or perhaps establish Sanctuary type campsites), authorities have repeatedly hoarded or ignored funding specifically intended for homeless relief and continued its campaign of harassment.

The relief that Fresno activists were able to give was through documentary videoing, lawsuits, and then direct services as described above.

Ed Frey and Occupy Santa Cruz supplied toilet facilities here in Santa Cruz when the City would not. In both cases PeaceCamp2010 and the Occupy Santa Cruz San Lorenzo campground were destroyed by authorities (not by internal problems).

Direct support to campsites currently in existence is another avenue to consider here in Santa Cruz, while Sanctuary seekers struggle to persuade right-wing staff, frightened liberals, and an apathetic community to allow a very limited Sanctuary campground.

Another informative document from Fresno is this documentation of The Cost of Destruction in Fresno: http://helpfresnoshomeless.org/ . The business plan references local costs generally, but getting such documentation more specifically is important.

While it feels endless and overwhelming, it's important to support homeless folks--their rights, their property, their dignity now as it is seized from them, legislated away by law, and snarled away by a rightwing riptide undertow. If they choose to protest, it's wrong to ignore or--worse--denounce them as "alienating the community."

It seems both cruel and delusional to suggest they wait for the toxic political establishment to be persuaded that a sanctuary camp is a good idea as they shiver in the shadows through the winter, facing an ever nastier set of "recommendations" from Bryant's Citizens Task Force on Public Safety. See http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=34557 (meeting again 6 PM 10-23 in the Tony Hill Community Room of the Civic Auditorium).

There's also the concern that pushing a plan for a select number of homeless to be allowed a special sanitized segregated area where they will not be allowed the rights that anyone indoors takes for granted (drinking alcohol for instance) is both paternalistic and unrealistic. It also goes against the wisdom of the Housing First model which seeks to provide the most basic housing before imposing sobriety.

No one doubts the need for campgrounds. But we must support those who are struggling now. Not turn aside and censor our efforts and websites in the hope of teasing out a smile on Pamela Comstock's face. Waiting for Don Lane to find a backbone and other progressives scuttling to find protective cover from the phony Public Safety scare is self-defeating. (See, however, http://santacruz.patch.com/groups/don-lanes-blog/p/why-are-they-here-or-is-it-why-are-we-here for Lane's defense of social services to the Task Force, as he remains silent--as he has for decades--on the vital need for safe places to sleep)
by Privately...
Thursday Oct 24th, 2013 2:21 PM
on the content of the community proposal. I know someone working on a close reading of it. And when can we expect a 2nd draft?

I appreciate the passionate nature of the persons involved. Sometimes our harshest critics are our closest allies. Will we be able to seek consensus after the emotions have cooled? What kinds of criticism will be heard and what won't?

All the best to all.
by FREE THE BLANKETS
Saturday Nov 9th, 2013 1:56 PM
this Sanctuary Camp sounds like a better solution at a fraction of the cost of the HSC.

the problem is that HUD and other federal programs fund the local gov. and shelter providers rather than issuing vouchers directly to the homeless themselves like food stamps or section 8.

so you end up with the lockers and tables removed, and poor mail service. there is no incentive for the HSC to do the homeless right.

but put that same federal money into a voucher instead, and the homeless could just spend that voucher at a Sanctuary Camp, and get treated better, instead of enduring abuse at a shelter.

cities would lose voucher income if they harassed the homeless out of town. so you would see less of that abuse as well.
by Santa Cruz Sanctuary Camp
Thursday Mar 6th, 2014 9:58 PM

On Feb. 19, Sanctuary Camp gave a presentation to SSH.
This is the info packet that accompanied that presentation.
by Santa Cruz Sanctuary Camp
Wednesday Apr 16th, 2014 11:55 PM

Thanks to Ted Altenberg for the helpful edits and reformatting
by Santa Cruz Sanctuary Camp
Friday Apr 18th, 2014 4:23 PM

This was a packet including answers to clarifying questions.
by Santa Cruz Sanctuary Village
Saturday Jul 12th, 2014 2:21 PM

We have been making presentations to various faith communities and property owners in the Santa Cruz area.
Here is the printed version of that presentation.
by Santa Cruz Sanctuary Village
Saturday Jul 19th, 2014 5:34 PM

We've boiled down the 49 page Presentation to Smart Solutions to 2 pages.
by Santa Cruz Sanctuary Village
Monday Jul 21st, 2014 12:12 AM

We've compiled our top ten countown.
by Santa Cruz Sanctuary Village
Monday Jul 21st, 2014 4:14 PM

10 Frequently Asked Questions