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

Santa Cruz Indymedia | Government & Elections

New Public Assembly Restrictions Up For Initial Vote Tuesday 11-26 at City Council
by Robert Norse
Monday Nov 25th, 2013 10:47 PM
I've not had time to look at it carefully, but agenda item #12 rewrites the entire sections on public demonstrations for commercial and non-commercial events. The staff report can be found at http://sire.cityofsantacruz.com/sirepub/cache/2/gm3nxoa24g4uqu55k4gs1zrb/382360111252013053508496.PDF . I hope to take a longer look later, but the one thing I do notice is that the permit requirement has now tightened apparently so that 50 rather than 100 people require a permit. Additionally marching in the street is no longer provided for except through costly street closures, and permit now have to be applied for 5 days rather than 36 hours in advance. --Not that anyone seeks permits for Santa Cruz protests.
I encourage indybay readers to examine this ordinance themselves. Like the Sidewalk Shrinkage ordinance severely reducing space for public performance, political tabling, panhandling, vending, and art display, this ordinance has come with no advance notice and is likely to be rubberstamped at tomorrow's afternoon session. For the texts of the old and new laws, go to http://sire.cityofsantacruz.com/sirepub/cache/2/gm3nxoa24g4uqu55k4gs1zrb/382360111252013053508496.PDF and look up agenda item #12.

If you value your right to publicly assemble and march in any cause, this ordinance should have a big red warning light attached to it, considering the make-up of the Council, the likely next mayor (Lynn Robinson), and the past record of this Council and the City Manager in cutting back public space, public assembly, and public accessibility.

It also may be overshadowed by the evening's Water Solutions hearing and next City Council meeting's Task Force Report consideration as well as the dreaded appointment of Lynn Robinson as Mayor.

The ordinance also needs to be contrasted with the Commercial Events permit.

The parallel with the recent ordinance changes throttling of street performance and art is instructive. The hypocrisy and special interest nature of the "display device" ordinance was obvious then and has become more obvious since. Obstructive commercial signs now litter the Pacific Avenue sidewalks in spite of the alleged "trip and fall" hazard. This "danger" as well as the Robinson-Comstock-Mathews "upscale aesthetics' concerns prompted the banning of blankets on the sidewalk, the constriction of tabling, vending, and performance space, and the expansion of "forbidden zones" now encroaching on 95% of the sidewalks downtown for non-merchant activity.

But probably many have noticed that almost every performer, vendor, even political tabler down there is in violation of the letter of the law as passed on September 24th. Hosts and police have given out few if any citations. When I visited Pacific Avenue tonight there was a group of 12 traveling musicians and young folks sitting in a circle next to the Cafe Capesino kiosk playing music for donation, taking up 5 to 10 times the amount of allowed space (but, of course, blocking no one).

So may it be with this "Parade Permit" ordinance--last hauled out notoriously to ticket Whitney Wilde, Curtis Reliford, and Wes Modes for "walking in a parade without a permit" on a DIY New Years event 3-4 years ago. I have been in at least several dozen marches down Pacific Avenue in the last few decades, probably more, and none of them had a permit.

However mischievous laws in the hands of Mayor Robionson's police instructed to be "tough" may take a different course. Police and politicians may move to punish those exercising the traditional freedoms Santa Cruz peaceful protesters have enjoyed.

The ordinance coming up tomorrow on the afternoon agenda empowers them to do so and makes spontaneous protest significantly more difficult.
§Additionally...
by Robert Norse Monday Nov 25th, 2013 10:49 PM
The item is on the afternoon agenda which begins at 3 PM. It is likely to come up between 3 and 4 PM.
§Unusual Time Again--It's 2 PM not 3 PM
by Robert Norse Tuesday Nov 26th, 2013 4:43 AM
Sorry for my confusion. Thanks to Becky for her correction. The normal Council time for their afternoon rubberstamp-the-staff-report sessions is 3 PM, but on several occasions in the last year they've shifted to 2 PM. Always read the fine print.

Comments  (Hide Comments)

by Becky Johnson
Tuesday Nov 26th, 2013 12:59 AM
Looks like this meeting starts at 2PM with the Consent Agenda http://sire.cityofsantacruz.com/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=479&doctype=AGENDA
by John E. Colby
Tuesday Nov 26th, 2013 1:23 AM
I think Santa Cruz activists should be reading Naomi Wolf's book "The End of America: Letters to a Young Patriot". What is happening in Santa Cruz seems to be just part of a larger national movement. Wolf describes how small fringe groups takeover open societies. All would be despots follow the 10 step blueprint taught by the American military–security apparatus at Quantico and the Naval Postgraduate School.

Item #1 is invoking a public safety threat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW9PulYpjGs&feature=share&list=PL2D167075F8AA90D9
....we need a William Kunstler constitutionalist or someone like him to turn this latest waste of trees by the city council into teepee...I'm okay with that.
by Razer Ray
Tuesday Nov 26th, 2013 10:55 AM
Both linked items have been removed or moved.

It might have been pulled and replaced with agenda item 12.

"Public Special Events – Update, Streamline and Clarify Permitting Processes (CM)

Introduce for publication an ordinance repealing Santa Cruz Municipal Code Chapter 10.64 and adopting a new Chapter 10.64 pertaining to Commercial Events; and

Introduce for publication an ordinance repealing Santa Cruz Municipal Code Chapter 10.65 and adopting a new Chapter 10.65 pertaining to Non-Commercial Events; and

Motion to direct staff to develop administrative policies, such as parameters and guidelines for event saturation and scheduling in popular areas, for City Council review at a future study session.
"
Publish the PDF of the ordinance you have Robert. It's PROBABLY the dox they'll work from or simply introduce later.
by G
Tuesday Nov 26th, 2013 12:20 PM
There ought to be enforced laws preventing bureaucratic takings.

Perhaps some disbarment is called for...

Has anyone reviewed the contractual obligations of the City and County attorney firms?

#FireBobLee
by John E. Colby
Tuesday Nov 26th, 2013 8:25 PM
Mr. Colby,

The Santa Cruz County District Attorney’s Office received your latest Public Records Act request by e-mail on November 21, 2013. We have obtained copies of District Attorney Bob Lee’s oaths of office from the County Clerk and can provide them to you free of charge. You may pick them up at our reception desk on the second floor of the County Government Center, Room 200. If you do not wish to pick them up, please advise me today or tomorrow and I will mail them to your address at 849 Almar Avenue, Suite C-242 in Santa Cruz.

Joyce Angell, Assistant District Attorney
by Robert Norse
Tuesday Nov 26th, 2013 9:32 PM
http://sire.cityofsantacruz.com/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=479&doctype=AGENDA will lead you to item #12, hopefully a video of the lengthy and not particularly helpful discussion of the item ending in its passing 6-1.

I'll hope to give a fuller description after churning out the HUFF agenda where we'll be discussing responses tomorrow 11 AM at the Sub Rosa.
by Razer Ray
Wednesday Nov 27th, 2013 9:46 AM
weird_shit_trim.jpg
weird_shit_trim.jpg

The Staff report mentioned in the "Public Correspondence"
http://sire.cityofsantacruz.com/sirepub/cache/2/gm3nxoa24g4uqu55k4gslzrb/382360111252013053508496.PDF is not at the link anymore.

The link was broken in the doc (Word wrap) but even when repaired still get a 404 from the site.

Post a copy?
by Razer Ray
Wednesday Nov 27th, 2013 9:53 AM
Clarifying: It was a motion to SEND to staff that passed 6-1 and not the ordinance itself.


12. Public Special Events – Update, Streamline and Clarify Permitting Processes (CM)

Introduce for publication an ordinance repealing Santa Cruz Municipal Code Chapter 10.64 and adopting a new Chapter 10.64 pertaining to Commercial Events; and

Introduce for publication an ordinance repealing Santa Cruz Municipal Code Chapter 10.65 and adopting a new Chapter 10.65 pertaining to Non-Commercial Events; and

Motion to direct staff to develop administrative policies, such as parameters and guidelines for event saturation and scheduling in popular areas, for City Council review at a future study session."

by John E. Colby
Wednesday Nov 27th, 2013 8:57 PM
RR: I'm not quite understanding your post because you didn't quote the actual changes in language. Are you saying this is no big deal or rather that it is something to worry about?

Thanx for clarifying your posts.
by John E. Colby
Thursday Nov 28th, 2013 4:15 AM
You forgot to mention this: we are all concerned with Take Back Santa Cruz (TBSC) taking over our community by subverting the rule of law. Doesn't that bother you too? Or do you support that agenda?
by Razer Ray
Thursday Nov 28th, 2013 9:37 AM
Copy the following to embed the movie into another web page:
download video: your_state_superheros.mp4 (27.3MB)

[Video: Your State Superheros Discuss nuisance ordinances and their purpose. To serve commercial property interests and the law enforcement industrial complex. The discussion uses prostitution control laws as example but the conceptual reality is applicable to any and all nuisance ordinances.]

John,
The vote was to introduce the docs and a motion to send it to staff for review. That's what the agenda was calling for.

Worry? Why should *I* worry about the authoritarian underpinning of a seemingly over-broad public assembly law? It's not like it calls for the breaking up of any congregation of three people or more in the interest of <strike>state</strike> city security.

(Extracts tongue from cheek and spits in the general direction of city hall)

This is a heads up... A harbinger of the future 'shopping mall' city the Santa Cruz city council thinks it's citizens WANTS our town to become. Complete with Disneyland-like musicians who are hired/permitted (ie. "Concessions" NOT Street Performers) to play on their pseudo-privatized streets downtown.

Or perhaps the city is simply shoving the non-local commercial property owner's wishes down their few permanent resident's throats AS WELL AS any local business that isn't a BIG box store. The folks who USED TO OWN "Yellowbird" casual clothes, where Kianti's now sits, can inform us what happened the last time the city got bright ideas about increased revenues from 'cultural cleansing'. The store's lease tripled. Effectively shutting them down.

They left a sign in their window telling passerbys and former customers what had happened.

A whole generation of artisans and craftspeople with stores downtown fled Santa Cruz around that time. Many to Oregon.

Nevertheless The shitheads who think they run this town WILL bring the public assembly ordinance to a vote. Probably after the "Staff" (Anyone know these people's names... Robert? They need a visit.) decides to pass it to the "Public Safety" people so the council can do what they did with the performance space/trip hazard "ordinance" and simply vote it WITHOUT A PUBLIC HEARING.

The Cabal who broached this idea need to be strung from City Hall's lamp posts, but the posts are so fucking cheezy they tip and rattle if you simply lean on them and wouldn't support a hung body.

Maybe that cheezyness was intentional, as I can only imagine the opportunistic freaks in charge MUST know most residents of their city DESPISE them, in the same way America despises it's elected congressional officials, yet they elect them.

On the day that cognitively dissonant mindset collapses, whoever is in power in this town will thank their predecessors for their foresight even as the citizens of Santa Cruz rally to tar and feather them.

Then run them out of town on a rail.

After all, as that sweet grey haired lady said at the public performance space hearing:

"If you don't like it why don't YOU leave?"

On a rail if needs be.
by Razer Ray
Thursday Nov 28th, 2013 10:06 AM
quote_morgan_freeman_-_black_history_month.jpg
quote_morgan_freeman_-_bl...

They need to be marginalized and eventually disenfranchised.

They CERTAINLY DON'T need to be 'promoted' by publicizing their friend's self-made fictional homeless bashing porn vids so they can used those 'bad bad people' as a foil to 'distance themselves' from such things.

As Morgan Freeman implies above: DO NOT do their publicity for them.

NOTE: I DID NOT SAY "Don't do anything ABOUT THEM"

Ridicule them. Don't "Oppose" them. They're VAMPIRES. They feed on the energy.

See the first line. Figure out how to do that WITHOUT promoting their agenda unintentionally, and that's all that needs to be done because the organization will self-destruct or implode without a regular transfusion of "Rubes" unaware of their commercial property interest agenda


Clearly, the vitriolic 'values' of TBSC are counter to those of religions (as well as secular moral philosophies), but (oddly) it is often difficult to find religious leaders making clear and emphatic statements, until now...

The Pope urges care for the weakest members of society: “the homeless, the addicted, refugees, indigenous peoples, the elderly who are increasingly isolated and abandoned” and migrants, for whom the Pope exhorts “a generous openness”.

“As long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved … no solution will be found for this world’s problems”.

He adds an admonition: “Any Church community”, if it believes it can forget about the poor, runs the risk of “breaking down”.

http://www.news.va/en/news/synthesis-of-the-apostolic-exhortation-the-joy-of

Repent, TBSC, repent.

by John E. Colby
Friday Nov 29th, 2013 4:32 AM
you have to call people on their shit. you have to hold them accountable.
by Razer Ray
Friday Nov 29th, 2013 8:28 AM
That I care what you think about it.

I don't care what you think. I'm not a 'politician' trying to convince anyone of my position.

I just watched you and your half-politically-educated friends promote a fraudulent homeless bashing video to TBSC's benefit so I have reason to believe you're not capable of confronting them about anything because you can't even note to yourself the difference between Promoting & Confronting, and how to do the latter without being fooled into doing the former.

As I said earlier, "Figure out how to do that WITHOUT promoting their agenda unintentionally..." and you have half a chance of reshaping public opinion.

Their OWN actions are blatant enough to hang them. If anyone had made a recording of their little soiree at city hall last year then juxtaposed Lynn Robinson's speech with Adolph Hitler's speeches, one could have done a near perfect semantic match.

Let them hang themselves with their OWN perverse petard. They aren't ALL sexual perverts, but the leadership IS perverted, in many ways that can be more effectively noted to the general public than using the aberrant behavior of individual members that can be disavowed by the group.

by John E. Colby
Friday Nov 29th, 2013 4:34 PM
RR: I agree that the Dylan Greiner stuff is beating a dead horse. but it needed to be said because Kristen Long, attorney at Baskin & Grant run by Ryan Coonerty's business partner Caleb Baskin, is the Secretary of the Diversity Center and is on the so called Public Safety Commission.

That she has made no mention of sexual violence against women and children as a serious public safety concern in Santa Cruz is rank hypocrisy. I thought it needed to be pointed out to those who don't know all this.

That said, I agree with you. I'm not bringing up Dylan Greiner anymore. But I think it's important to keep warning people that TBSC is executing a coup by trying to takeover our community by subverting the rule of law.

Thanx for your comments RR. I always appreciate them.