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

Santa Cruz Indymedia | Health, Housing, and Public Services | Police State and Prisons

City Council Retires to Winter Quarters Leaving Those Without Without
by Robert Norse ( rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com )
Tuesday Dec 10th, 2013 7:14 PM
City Council unanimously passed the Public Assembly Constriction Law requiring permits for peaceful protests of more than 50, requiring street closure, security, and liability payments and requiring permit applications be made 5 days in advance. Kathy Agnon, the permit person pushing this law, also acknowledged to me that she'd had no complaints from police about either permitted or unpermitted protests. Micah Posner made a fine speech or two, then voted with the entire City Council to pass the law. I was unable to get City Council to release the specific claims of two suing the city for violation of civil rights. The Council voted more bucks for the Boardwalk. In-coming Mayor Robinson apparently will try to cut off my audio recording meetings unless I am next to the machine the whole time.

Here's the speech I (mostly) gave, though I had to skip a few portions. I ended by presenting outgoing mayor Bryant and incoming Robinson with a scorpion sucker (a lollypop I bought at the 7-11 with a real scorpion in the middle.

Comments  (Hide Comments)

by Robert Norse
Tuesday Dec 10th, 2013 7:31 PM
These thoughts not mine and he's recently been raging against me, but Razor Ray has made some good suggestions for those wanting to help in the freezing weather at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/12/06/18747373.php?show_comments=1#18747549 .

More suggestions for winter warming help can be found at Steve Pleich's Citizens for a Better Santa Cruz facebook page. I've been unbanned, but have declined to post until Steve reinstated John Colby and clarifies his rules.

A more outspoken page is the facebook page at Citizens for a Positive Santa Cruz.
by Well
Tuesday Dec 10th, 2013 10:08 PM
"The Santa Cruz City Council on Tuesday reversed an earlier decision to reduce the limit of public gatherings to 50 people before a city permit is required."

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/santacruz/ci_24697865/santa-cruz-council-reverses-public-gathering-permit-limit

What is up with your report, Robert?
by Robert Norse
Monday Dec 16th, 2013 8:45 AM


I e-mailed City Clerk Bren Lehr "Did the Public Assembly ordinance changes (in both sections) pass as written last night or were there actual amendments to the language?"

She responded (and this is probably quoted from the Action Agenda probably now on line).


"Below is an excerpt from the actions taken on December 11, 2013 pertaining to your question: Public Hearing 14. Ordinance 2013-23 Repealing Santa Cruz Municipal Code Chapter 10.64 and adopting a New Chapter 10.64 Pertaining to Commercial Events (CM) Ordinance No. 2013-23 was adopted. 15. Ordinance 2013-24 Repealing Santa Cruz Municipal Code Chapter 10.65 and Adopting a New Chapter 10.65 Pertaining to Non-Commercial Events (CM)

Ordinance No. 2013-24 was adopted as is and a motion carried to bring back another first reading of the ordinance to revise the participant requirement threshold from 50 to 100 people at a future City Council meeting."


So there's a motion to bring it back for another first reading, but that does not change the current wording. The current law is exactly what was proposed and passed by the Council majority (and then unanimously). This was against the recommendation of the ACLU, Mike Rotkin's deceptive additional comments notwithstanding. No change in the "thou shall not go into the streets" provision. No change in the application requirement shift from 36 hours in advance to 5 days in advance. I believe there are also other sections that impact small assemblies as well.

I'm still not convinced this didn't come out of Mayor Robinson's lair. Why such a rush at the end of the year to change this without real public or committee/commission hearings?

DIY Last Night is coming again. Of course, the older ordinance could have been used (and was used selectively in 2010) to attack parade organizers and a very few participants. This provoked some public outrage and perhaps deterred similar repression in the last two years.