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

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

One Year Moratorium on Camping Ban Ordinances
by MoveOn Petition
Tuesday May 6th, 2014 6:57 PM
To the Santa Cruz City Council and the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors: Since their enactment in the city and county of Santa Cruz, the laws and ordinances that prohibit “camping” and/or “sleeping” have been wholly ineffective in addressing the environmental & social impact of survival sleeping by local homeless people.
They have also been ineffective as a policy aimed at reducing the size and presence of the homeless population. Recent statistics clearly show that the number of people experiencing homelessness in both the city and county has increased despite the continuing enforcement of these laws and ordinances.

Additionally, the Santa Cruz Police Department, Parks and Recreation Department, the City Attorney, the Sheriff’s Office as well as the entire Santa Cruz County Superior Court judicial system continue to expend resources and funds in the enforcement and administration of these laws; resources and funds that could be more productively applied to addressing the very real challenge of ending or significantly reducing homelessness in our community. It is clear from these facts that criminalizing homelessness, and particularly the essential right to sleep, is a failed policy and one that must be revisited if we are to move forward and create truly positive outcomes for our unsheltered residents.

In consideration thereof, we call upon the Santa Cruz City Council and the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors to agendize for consideration a One Year Moratorium on the enforcement within their respective jurisdictions of all camping and sleeping ban laws and ordinances between the hours of 10:00p.m. and 6:00a.m.

We further call upon the Santa Cruz City Council and the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors to instruct their respective staffs, in cooperation with their respective finance departments, to conduct a fiscal review of the cost savings of the proposed Moratorium.

We call upon the Santa Cruz City Council and the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors to instruct their respective staffs, in cooperation with their respective public works departments, to review the feasibility of establishing “safe space” overnight parking areas within the city and county as well as the development of a plan to increase the availability of and access to public restroom facilities at night.

We further call upon the Santa Cruz City Council and the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors to designate ending homelessness as a legislative priority and to authorize the creation of a commission or committee singularly tasked with addressing homelessness within our city and county; such committee or commission to have full advisory authority to do all acts in furtherance of that task as provided by city charter and county code.

Respectfully submitted,
Santa Cruz Homeless Persons Legal Assistance Project

Sign petition: http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/one-year-moratorium-on

Comments  (Hide Comments)

by One man's vote
Tuesday May 6th, 2014 8:00 PM
No way do I support this proposal. The damage to our open spaces from litter, the impact of syringes in our parks and open areas surrounding town, Pogonip, and the River.

I vote no.
by TBSC Hive Mind
Tuesday May 6th, 2014 8:48 PM
Thank you to the previous commenter for the honesty. You cannot hide your own desire to profile and arrest homeless people and to equate them with drug use.

There are plenty of laws against drug use. We don't need to arrest every last homeless person now because of needle hysteria, do we?

Should we also arrest Paul McCartney when he comes to play at Candlestick Park because there were some used needles found near the stadium? If we were to arrest every rock star we can find that would decrease drug use in the world, wouldn't it?

Enacting a sleeping ban is NOT a valid method of reducing drug use. If anything, the sleeping ban has caused an INCREASE in drug use.
by G
Wednesday May 7th, 2014 9:31 AM
It is long past the time to beg for rights. Decades of locals suffering has shown such pleas fall upon willfully deaf ears.

Creating 'investigative committees' is a delaying tactic straight out of Yes, Minister (or was it Yes, Prime Minister?). Every night that passes is another day of City, County, State, and Federal sanctioned torture against the most vulnerable.

Investigate, Prosecute, and Incarcerate those that create and enforce gross violations of fundamental human rights (via things like sleeping bans). Apply 'broken windows theory' to the torturers, don't let them rest! Their crimes against humanity will multiple until such time as there are clear consequences for their abuses.
by TBSC from TBSC
Wednesday May 7th, 2014 12:19 PM
One man's vote said:
"No way do I support this proposal. The damage to our open spaces from litter, the impact of syringes in our parks and open areas surrounding town, Pogonip, and the River."

OMFG! NON-TOURIST TRASH in the woods! MATTRESSES! (which btw are biodegradable) But tearing down large swaths of woods to build houses for people who don't even live here to lease (Graham Hill road) while they transit through town on their crass accumulative career path is just fine right?

Turning Lighthouse field into "Dogshit Beach - Remote" is such a deal. But the idea of someone "Cold Camping" there asmd leaving (god forbid) A shredded camping ticket behind is Heinous! Heinous I say!

And about those 'needles'... There are some, but the BIG pusher supplies your own pill cabinet. Eventually, when your UNEMPLOYED-and-still-living-at-home-at-30 children run out of alcohol and pills to snitch from you while you're busy at work, they'll go find something down-dirty on the street.

I figured TBSC's morons were totally discredited by their demand for a clean-up and gentrification of Lower Ocean street turning into a hotel project favoring their property owning friends at the expense of the people who actually LIVE on lower ocean, but maybe we're just going to have to hunt the leadership down one fascist at a time.
by scresidenttiredofyourselectivecrap
Wednesday May 7th, 2014 2:23 PM
I can tell by the comments on here (excepting the first) that the posters have strong opinions about this but seem to have failed to read the "camping/sleeping ban" as it pertains to the law (it is available online). In fact, the word homeless is never mentioned in there. I mostly do not like the ordinance myself because it allows religious organization (which already dont pay taxes) to effectively set up mini-KOA camps. This law was necessitated by individuals that have no business or reason to be in Santa Cruz other than they have no where else to be. If camping anywhere were legal, and even worse encouraged, the impact would be unfathomable. Imagine pogonip with dozens of transient camps. Its happened before, thats why the law is in place. This has nothing to do with homeless people. It does affect them, yes ... but it also affects myself. I cant camp in pogonip either, which i find unfortunate but bearable.
by Weak Hive Mind They Have
Wednesday May 7th, 2014 2:45 PM
The sleeping ban wasnt enacted to target wealthy families camping guerrilla style in the Pogonip.

What a TBSC fantasy that is.

It was enacted to target homeless people and others deemed as undesirables as a way of ridding them from Santa Cruz.


by willalwaysbeinsc
Wednesday May 7th, 2014 3:29 PM
Is that the two groups in Santa Cruz? The wealthy land owners and the pitiful homeless? You need to take a better look around. As for myself, and the majority of people I know, I am barely scraping by in SC trying to make the best out of my life and those around me. I don't need your misguided self-righteousness to tell me there are people that lack adequate housing, and further, I dont think anyone has argued that the camping ban will end homelessness. This issue is an effort to secure what so many have worked so hard for. I have to bear with these laws too and I will not abide non-SC wanderers (transients) wandering into and out of here leaving whatever garbage feel like not carrying anymore. This law being, and staying, in place is adequate proof I am not alone in this.
by long time pogonip hiker
Wednesday May 7th, 2014 3:32 PM
sc resident said this: 'Imagine pogonip with dozens of transient camps. Its happened before, thats why the law is in place.'

the camping ban has been in place since the 1970s and no, there has never been 'dozens' of transient camps set up in pogonip at the same time.

pogonip became a park in the late 1980s long after the camping ban was put in place.

there's nothing worse than the false recollections and outright lies of anti-homeless santa cruz people.

by scresidentwalkspogonipdaily
Wednesday May 7th, 2014 3:37 PM
I can name 2 intermittent camps right now:
cul-de-sac near kirby 200 yards up the hill behind the new solar collectors ... every night
150 yards east of bridge over pogonip creek along bank

how many are there now with the camping ban in effect that I dont know about?
by long time pogonip hiker
Wednesday May 7th, 2014 3:39 PM
hey hypocrite, you are lumping travelers in with litterers.

if this is the case, i want all of those garbage wielding wealthy tourists banned from santa cruz too.

i'm tried of them littering when they visit the boardwalk.

the first commenter lumped homeless people together with drug addicts.

if you folks would stop profiling and arresting people for sleeping when you are really looking for people who do drugs and who litter, well that would be a start.
by youpeopleislivinginsantacruz
Wednesday May 7th, 2014 3:49 PM
No one disagrees with littering being unwelcome. Littering is not a class issue. The camping ban also does not address littering ... which, as im sure youre aware, is illegal for people of all incomes. I certainly do hope anyone caught littering is held to it.
I will agree its unfortunate for genuine 'travelers' and those without permanent homes to be caught up in this but the issue is larger than that. To prevent the larger abuses I can live with SC not being traveler friendly until we get to a better solution. There are provisions in the law allowing for such ... ever give up your back yard for these travelers to camp in? You should try it and see how long it takes for non-invested people to change your mind.
by The Commons Are Gone
Wednesday May 7th, 2014 4:47 PM
youpeopleislivinginsantacruz states: "ever give up your back yard for these travelers to camp in? You should try it and see how long it takes for non-invested people to change your mind."

More intellectual dishonesty here. You have never given up your yard to travelers and you don't know what the outcome would be.

Also, travelers are not invested or non-invested by definition. Wealthy tourists and poor 'travelers' alike can and do arrive here and make positive contributions to the community.

I would be happy to let people camp in my backyard, but that too is illegal.

Just try and let a group of people camp in your yard and see how much trouble you get in with your neighbors and the authorities.

It sounds like you support a Sanctuary Camp if you propose that I allow people to camp in my yard.

Will you be at their next meeting?

http://www.facebook.com/santacruzsanctuary
by scresidentuseslogicalfallacies
Wednesday May 7th, 2014 5:00 PM
As a fact, the house in which I now reside was empty for some years. The backyard that was abused by transients and unwelcome campers will take years for full remediation.
It is NOT illegal to camp or allow people to camp in your backyard. If your neighbors are complaining perhaps you should find better company or a new neighborhood?
by The Commons Are Gone
Wednesday May 7th, 2014 5:10 PM
Yes, camping is illegal in your backyard. Try allowing any large group to camp in it. Then come back to me.

scresidentuseslogicalfallacies states "If your neighbors are complaining perhaps you should find better company or a new neighborhood?"

So if my neighbors hate homeless people and call the cops when they camp in my yard I should move away?

I'm sure this is exactly what TBSC wants.

I have upgraded your status to liar.

You don't know anything about the people who lived in the backyard next to yours.

I'm tired of your TBSC style pseudo science and exaggerated anecdotes.
by Observer
Wednesday May 7th, 2014 6:59 PM
SC is not alone in having an anti camping ordinance. Clovis in the Central Valley has an essentially identical ordinance. It too bans camping on private property, even with the landowner's permission. Technically backyard slumber parties and Girl Scout campouts are illegal although city fathers have assured residents that would never be enforced. It should be noted Clovis has zoned homeless services out-there are no homeless service providers within the city limits. Clovis is proud of their mantra, " we're not Fresno, we don't allow things like Fresno does."
by James Brown
Wednesday May 7th, 2014 9:39 PM
It's fascinating to hear about Clovis's anti-camping ordinance, but camping is permitted in Santa Cruz. According to Municipal Code 6.36.020(d)(i), camping is permitted in the yard of a residence. Also 6.36.020(d)(iv) says car camping is legal in a driveway for up to three days a month. Those require consent of the owner or occupant.

The more egregious anti-camping provisions are in Municipal Code 6.36.010(a) and 6.36.010(b) which make it illegal to sleep or cover up with a blanket between 11 p.m. and 8:30 a.m. "except as hereinafter expressly permitted."
by Just The Facts Jack
Wednesday May 7th, 2014 9:53 PM
The municipal code clearly states camping is prohibited on private property unless certain conditions are followed.

From the municipal code: "No person shall camp anywhere in the city of Santa Cruz, whether on public or private property except as hereinafter expressly permitted"

There are two pertinent paragraphs from the code that show how limited the exceptions are:

Camping is permitted "In the yard of a residence with the consent of the owner or occupant of the residence, where the camping is in the rear yard, or in an area of a side yard or front yard that is separated from view from the street by a fence, hedge or other obstruction"

and

"Camping shall not be permitted under this subsection where it is conducted in such a manner as to create noise, inadequate sanitation, or other matters offensive to persons of ordinary sensibility; nor where the camping is of such frequency, intensity or duration as to constitute a use of land prohibited by any provision of Title 24 of this code; nor where the camping activity would be prohibited under any other provision of this code concerning use of mobilehomes; nor where any fee, charge or other monetary consideration is collected for the privilege of camping or for any services or the use of any facilities related thereto; nor where the covenants, conditions and restrictions of a duly organized homeowners association would prohibit the activity in the residential area subject to the covenants, conditions and restrictions."


Frequency of the stay is a limiting factor, so all the folks are full of BS who suggest people house the homeless in their backyard. It's illegal.


The city code:

6.36.010 CAMPING PROHIBITED.
No person shall camp anywhere in the city of Santa Cruz, whether on public or private property, except as hereinafter expressly permitted. “To camp” means to do any of the following:

(a) Sleeping – 11 p.m. to 8:30 a.m. To sleep at any time between the hours of 11 p.m. to 8:30 a.m. in any of the following places:

(1) Outdoors with or without bedding, tent, hammock or other similar protection or equipment;

(2) In, on or under any structure not intended for human occupancy, whether with or without bedding, tent, hammock or other similar protection or equipment;

(3) In, on or under any parked vehicle, including an automobile, bus, truck, camper, trailer or recreational vehicle.

(b) Setting-up Bedding – 11 p.m. to 8:30 a.m. To establish or maintain outdoors or in, on or under any structure not intended for human occupancy, at any time between the hours of 11 p.m. to 8:30 a.m., a temporary or permanent place for sleeping, by setting up any bedding, sleeping bag, blanket, mattress, tent, hammock or other sleeping equipment in such a manner as to be immediately usable for sleeping purposes.

(c) Setting-up Campsite – Anytime. To establish or maintain outdoors or in, on, or under any structure not intended for human occupancy, at any time during the day or night, a temporary or permanent place for cooking or sleeping, by setting up any bedding, sleeping bag, blanket, mattress, tent, hammock or other sleeping equipment or by setting up any cooking equipment, with the intent to remain in that location overnight.

(Ord. 99-01 § 1, 1999: Ord. 78-29, § 2, 1978).

6.36.020 CAMPING PERMITTED.
Camping may be permitted in the city of Santa Cruz only under the following circumstances:

(a) Camping in public areas specifically set aside and clearly marked for public camping purposes;

(b) Camping events authorized and permitted by the Santa Cruz City parks and recreation department;

(c) Camping events authorized by the city council pursuant to Section 6.36.030;

(d) Camping:

(i) In the yard of a residence with the consent of the owner or occupant of the residence, where the camping is in the rear yard, or in an area of a side yard or front yard that is separated from view from the street by a fence, hedge or other obstruction; or

(ii) Inside of a licensed and registered motor vehicle in the parking lot on the site of a religious institution with the written consent of such institution, where the driver/occupant of such vehicle is in possession of a valid driver’s license, provided that no more than three vehicles shall be permitted at any one location; or

(iii) Inside of a licensed and registered motor vehicle in the parking lot on the site of a business institution in a non-residential district with the written consent of both the business institution and property owner, where the driver/occupant of such vehicle is in possession of a valid driver’s license, provided that no more than two vehicles shall be permitted at any one location;

(iv) Inside a licensed and registered vehicle in a residential off-street driveway with the written consent of the owner and occupant of the residence, where the driver/occupant of such vehicle is in possession of a valid driver’s license, provided that no more than one vehicle shall be permitted at any one location. No particular location shall be used for camping under this provision for more than three days during any one calendar month.

Camping shall not be permitted under this subsection where it is conducted in such a manner as to create noise, inadequate sanitation, or other matters offensive to persons of ordinary sensibility; nor where the camping is of such frequency, intensity or duration as to constitute a use of land prohibited by any provision of Title 24 of this code; nor where the camping activity would be prohibited under any other provision of this code concerning use of mobilehomes; nor where any fee, charge or other monetary consideration is collected for the privilege of camping or for any services or the use of any facilities related thereto; nor where the covenants, conditions and restrictions of a duly organized homeowners association would prohibit the activity in the residential area subject to the covenants, conditions and restrictions.

(Ord. 2002-12 § 1, 2002: Ord. 2002-05 § 1, 2002: Ord. 99-01 § 2, 1999: Ord. 95-22, § 1, 1995: Ord. 78-29, § 2, 1978).

6.36.030 PERMIT FOR CAMPING IN CITY PARKS.
(a) The director of parks and recreation may issue a permit authorizing persons or groups to camp in the improved areas of Harvey West Park, the improved area known as lower De Laveaga Park adjacent to Branciforte Drive and San Lorenzo Park bench lands upon finding that the applicant has met the city’s requirements for:

(1) Parking and traffic control;

(2) Toilet and other sanitary facilities;

(3) Security;

(4) Liability insurance;

(5) Garbage collection and cleanup;

(6) Security and cleanup deposits;

(7) Such other public health, safety and general welfare matters as may be raised by the camping application; and

(8) Environmental compliance according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the city’s CEQA Guidelines.

(b) Except as set forth in subsection (c) no person or group may camp in a city park under authority of this section for more than three nights in any twelve months. No permit shall be required for security guards who camp in city parks incident to a lawful event.

(c) Where the camping activity is taking place in conjunction with an authorized and permitted restoration or conservation project being performed by campers at or near the campsite, the director of parks and recreation may permit an individual or group to camp in one of the afore-referenced city parks for a period of time in excess of that prescribed in subsection (b).

(d) To ensure the fair and consistent application of this section, the director of parks and recreation shall promulgate regulations defining the criteria for permit issuance contained in this section.

(Ord. 2002-05 § 2, 2002: Ord. 89-33 § 1, 1989).

http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaCruz/
by Observer
Thursday May 8th, 2014 6:08 AM
Camping on private property is allowed if it's not visible to the neighbors or passerby; if the number of people is limited (in other words, a large sanctuary camp would not fly); it can't create problems for the neighbors (noise, trash, feces, ect). It doesn't appear to have a time limit per se, unlike staying in a vehicle.

Clovis, which is part of the Fresno metro area, is a city of 102,000. It does not allow homeless service providers, camping on public or private property, large group homes (residents would like them banned altogether but State and Federal law bars that), has a street median and aggressive panhandling ordinances, and the cops will show troublesome homeless to the city line.
by Just The Facts
Thursday May 8th, 2014 7:25 AM
The ordinance states camping is prohibited on private property.

As the ordinance is written, camping would never be permitted in my back yard.

As the ordinance is written, camping would NEVER be permitted in the vast majority of people's yards.

For example, camping would never be permitted next to a multi-story house or structure.

by James Brown
Thursday May 8th, 2014 7:43 AM
Unlike the example given by the poster from Clovis, it does appear that slumber parties or Girl Scout campouts are lawful in Santa Cruz. Back yards are always ok, front and side yards are ok with a fence or hedge. There doesn't seem to be any different rule for a two-story house. On the other hand, if neighbors complain there could be a problem, same as with a barking dog or loud party.
by Not Pitiful... Displaced By Design
Thursday May 8th, 2014 7:46 AM
thehipsterlocustarecoming.jpg
thehipsterlocustarecoming...

Wednesday May 7th, 2014 3:29 PM "willalwaysbeinsc" said

> Is that the two groups in Santa Cruz? The wealthy land owners and the pitiful homeless?

For a start the question asked indicated the person hasn't 'alwaysbeeninsc' and the 'wealthy landowners' don't live here nor do most of the people who own storefront businesses.

There USED TO be a working class around here

Replaced with UCSC college students as the light industrial jobs the city drove away, and I MEAN 'drove away', were replaced with part-time facework jobs DESIGNED for college students.

There used to be a long-resident middle class here.

They often rented their granny units the city is constantly attempting to legislate into illegality to the now-homeless-if-they-stayed working class and lower working class while the city NEVER required or zoned, or planned for the replacing that sort of lower income available housing with rental units in a price range people who live and work locally can afford

The Sentinel mentioned smog over the SLV (without mentioning the ever-present 'smogrise over crapitola' due to the hwy 17 grade above them). The lack of "live and work locally" people and the the local economics that would support that is a MAJOR reason why. Ask anyone how bad the traffic on Zayante Road → Summit Road → Bear Creek road is any weekday morning. It endangers what few children still live in Zayante and have to walk to the bus to get to school, and we get to breath that smog thanks to city and county DESIGN.

That middle class Replaced with psuedo-affluent transient cubicle workers and people who come here with money they made elsewhere, which the city attempts to clip from them before those hapless people realize they'll never be able of afford to raise a family here, or they leave when their Bay area contract job goes away.

Then there are the SLINKYS Single Large Income No Kids Yuppies.

Every day there is one more "Google Bus" departing the (soon to have google bus housing nearby at the Habers site) Metro bus station for the Bay Area than there was the day before. THOSE ARE the people all the housing is being built for, despite the fact they aren't even here in any number yet.

But the city WISHES they were, works incessantly on their little shopping-mall-cum-cutureless-disneyland downtown for them (Assembly, and The Pop-Up in the El Centro building. Doomed to fail when the HipsterLocust leave... and they WILL leave). Truth be told the city has more of a chance attracting TRULY "Home-less" (transient... never live in one place more than a few years) Urban Hipster Locust than a 'legitimate' middle class with families

The city doesn't want THOSE middle class people either. In debt. The rest spent on raising children The children are a "nuisance" requiring security guards to do what the parents are too busy to do because they work all the time, and what money the parents give them is spent on (relative to buying Rolexes and art glass) low-ticket items etc.

This town is so socioeconomically crooked, by intent and design, that the people in it's government, anyone who could possibly work for them without needing a stench mask, don't pull their pants on in the morning, they SCREW THEM on. (ht: hst)
by Just The Facts
Thursday May 8th, 2014 7:54 AM
We are not talking about slumber parties.

Notice how the anti-homeless folks are doing anything they can to direct this discussion off course.
by Robert Norse
Thursday May 8th, 2014 10:47 AM
Their first recommendation was repeal of the camping ordinance.

See http://sccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/bds/Govstream/BDSvData/non_legacy/agendas/2000/20000502/PDF/020.pdf (p. 0064)

Things have gotten only worse and more costly since that recommendation was ignored. Instead of $20, the cost to "attend" to a camping ticket out of court is $157 (as of a few months ago according to the Superior Court clerks--and it may have gone up since).

Worse and more costly for the city, the courts, and--most pertinently--the poor. Or to put it more bluntly, the unhoused.

In addition MC 4.04.010 and 4.04.015 now have increased penalties for "unattended citations" from a fine to a jail term of up to 6 months or a year.

The majority of the "crimes" cited by Deputy Chief Clark last spring in his report to the Homeless Study Session (used at the basis for the toxic Public Safety Task Farce) were camping or sleeping offenses.
by G
Thursday May 8th, 2014 11:32 AM
"All it takes it being the 'wrong race'. No, just kidding. All it takes is being the 'wrong religion'. No, just kidding. All it takes is being the 'wrong gender'. No, just kidding. All it takes is being the 'wrong sexual preference'. No, just kidding. All it takes is being the 'wrong political party'. No, just kidding. All it takes it being homeless. No kidding."
by Razer Ray
Thursday May 8th, 2014 11:44 AM
Because the city collects a percentage from the state-mandated collection agency and even IF it's a break even proposition just paying the cost-of-the-contact, it's still a harassment/dissuasion tactic that the state Attorney General really needs to investigate. Most tickets of ANY type in Santa Cruz are written for people who HAVE NO MONEY, and it's (as a previous commenter said) "by design"... eg. the type of ordinances made, the way they're enforced (Any tickets for sandwichboard sign 'trip hazards' yet? The planning commission approved them but they ARE NOT the arbiter of 'public safety, the SCPD is). The city is OBVIOUSLY running a scam. A ticket-mill scam fattening their law enforcement budget in a way that eventually ends up with the STATE'S taxpayers paying the cost.

Again, quoting the 'previous commenter':

> This town is so socioeconomically crooked, by intent and design, that the people in it's government, anyone who could possibly work for them without needing a stench mask, don't pull their pants on in the morning, they SCREW THEM on.

by scresidentstillaintagreeingtosquatterscamp
Thursday May 8th, 2014 11:46 AM
so at least RNorse is bringing information germane to the conversation. I also recognize the document presented specifically mentions easing restriction to aid Santa Cruz residents (A PDF, by the way, provided by another company that employs SC residents). It doesnt mention travelers, wanderers and otherwise erstwhile business owners priced out of the market but full of spiteful acronyms. Should SC residents also shoulder the burdens of business owners that lose money downtown due to a complete lack of interest? While I, of course, support local businesses I am not going patronize stores with nothing to offer me.
So, keeping on point, the camping ban does make life more difficult for a small group of SC residents that need help. The fact that pogonip and downtown are not colonized by non-resident squatters shows the ban is having a helpful impact for the average SC resident.
If you want to argue gentrification you need to contact your former neighbors and complain to them about selling out at high prices to buy a cheap place in Colorado (the displaced residents there want you to take them back).
by Gentrified By Design
Thursday May 8th, 2014 12:06 PM
> So, keeping on point, the camping ban does make life more difficult for a small group of SC residents that need help. The fact that pogonip and downtown are not colonized by non-resident squatters shows the ban is having a helpful impact for the average SC resident.

You don't get downtown very much. The end result of the city's ordinance, job, and housing policies has been the driving away of street performers, artists, and working class 'hippies', only to be replaced with hordes of alcoholics from the Bay area, junkies, crackheads, pillpoppers (a national pastime for the housed as well), and speedfreaks, who typically CAN afford to survive here on their disability checks and sleep in the woods.

This city made NO PLAN WHATSOEVER for their working class to be employed and housed. Destroyed BY DESIGN POLICY AND INTENT what little work and housing for them there was, and it shows in the end result. The 'unruly street scene'... which is then criminalized for the benefit of the city's burgeoning 'law enforcement' (quotes intentional... most of what SCPD does is Behavior enforcement) budget.
by scresidentlivesandworkshere
Thursday May 8th, 2014 12:31 PM
Youre correct I dont go downtown. Horrible culture either way ... I can tolerate neither the street 'performers' / junk peddlers nor the packed bars of wasted adolescents. I prefer a clean pogonip / beach and a quiet pub. There are many kinds in SC ... those that run and are involved with downtown dont want people sleeping there. I dont want transients and travelers squatting in pogonip or on the beach. I am Santa Cruz' working class. I live and work here ... i havent been over the hill in weeks nor do I own my own car. Im getting the impression the groups of displaced malcontents feel fit to place their burdens on those replacing them rather than facing their own short-comings. Stop holding others responsible ... and, further, the city is doing quite a bit to push for jobs. Just not in your field it seems.
As for the police ... there are less than 100 officers for ~60K residents. These police have to respond to genuine threats daily yet are themselves wrapped in this because people's behavior needs to be controlled. They even have a website too. If you check it out they'll give you a pretty good approximation of daily arrests. How many of those offenses include sleeping in town ... I realize these arent on there (theyre tickets not arrests) but I do see repeat offenders that frequently are. Theyre not being arrested for homelessness ... its DUI, its possession (and we aint talking weed here), its disorderly conduct, theft. Laws and governances exist for a reason. I wish we didnt need them either but we also didnt invent them. Even further, I think SCPD is doing as fine as they can given their load.
The camping ban isnt harming SC.
by Oh REALLY!
Thursday May 8th, 2014 12:56 PM
You got YOURS. How unique! How Narcissistic! How banal and contemptuous of other workers-not-so-fortunate can one worker be?

What is it you do for a living? Does it pay enough for you to own a car that's fully paid for AND have a place to live when you aren't busy at the pub getting drunk?

Does the business you work for hire more than one or two people? Lipton's did. Wrigley's did. Intel did. Seagate did... Plantronics did. The list of light industrial jobs driven away by Santa Cruz city policy and regulations is extensive. Those are just a few of the better known names of employers that went away for a variety of reasons the city failed to seek to replace. INTENTIONALLY. Now the ones that remain are all temp agency jobs with 90 day contracts and then you're scrambling to make the rent again because almost none of them hire permanent employees, and the contract the next time goes to ANOTHER agency because the second time a temp contract is written the agency wants more to seal the deal, even though the temp worker never sees more in their pay envelope.

But I ESPECIALLY want to know what your definition of "Working Class" is? Do your hands get dirty digging ditches or harvesting crops, or do you get paper cuts that require disability time off like city and county office workers do?

by scresidentrollswiththetimes
Thursday May 8th, 2014 1:07 PM
ive had positions at more than one SC based company and while i can afford a car i opted for a house. I dont know what you call your profession but there is more to economies than light industry. The city didnt change industry, the demand and economy did.
I do have mine ... and i worked very hard for it. Im not going to let naive pedants diminish the hard work myself and my neighbors have put into making this a safer community. Again, I'll iterate that the fact the camping ban exists (since the 1970's as someone pointed out ... and ill point out BEFORE gentrification) and still stands shows there is a larger support in the community for it than you would care to believe.
by scresidentnottheoneyouthink
Thursday May 8th, 2014 1:17 PM
Trying to profile who I am other than a concerned citizens brings nothing to the conversation. I still stand with and evidence supports that the camping ban is not hurting SC.
by Not A Civinomics Fan
Thursday May 8th, 2014 2:09 PM
Look at what Robert Singleton of Civinomics posted in Citizens for a Better Santa Cruz:

"You can vote on Steve Pleich's one year moratorium on camping and outdoor sleeping here (in case you don't want to sign the petition)"

Then he links to a page on the Civinomics website where people can vote on the petition idea instead of signing it.

Not only is Singleton hijacking the petition drive, he is rigging his own poll, which is already not statistically valid because of the methods they use.
by G
Thursday May 8th, 2014 4:49 PM
The skim in action?

https://twitter.com/Civinomics/status/464510451246587904

Another data point showing 'local' (D) are just as full of misguided, morally challenged hate as (R)? How shocking.
by Steve Pleich
Thursday May 8th, 2014 5:24 PM
The comments about the "colonization" of the Pogonip and Harvey West ignore the conditions of the proposal. Enforcement would only be suspended between the hours of 10 pm and 6 am. Park Rangers and/or CalTran workers or Sheriff's Deputies of SCPD officers would be free to disperse camps during the other 16 hours of the day and most certainly would. Tough to "colonize" during the nighttime hours only.
by The Pleichinator
Thursday May 8th, 2014 6:38 PM
After two critical comments were left in his Citizens for a Better Santa Cruz facebook group, Steve Pleich has already caved and has reduced the amount of time for the sleeping ban moratorium proposal to six months on the Civinomics page. Here is how the conversation went:

Ed Natol How about a 60 day moritorium? If it works, great, we can extend it. If it doesn't then we don't have to put up with another 10 months of it, I think 60 days is long enough to know which way it's going.
3 hrs · Like · 1

Robert Singleton I would suggest that amendment to Steve's proposal. I totally agree with you, a year is perhaps too long
3 hrs · Edited · Like

Steve Pleich I am certainly open to duration.
3 hrs · Like

Steve Pleich The Civinomic initiative now calls for a shortened duration of six months. Please weigh in with your vote and comment.

http://www.facebook.com/groups/CFABSC/permalink/694523150604838/

Again, I don't see how Singleton is facilitating Democracy here.
by G
Thursday May 8th, 2014 6:52 PM
How would 'citizens' react if the minutia of their lives were subject to the whims of 'homeless' people, enforced by arms?

Like rancher Bundy, I suppose.
"Actually, Steve posted the Camping Ban Moratorium initiative to http://Civinomics.com himself."

https://twitter.com/cneklason/status/464868661862625280

If that is the case, asserting 'Civinomics hijacked the petition' is a false claim.
by Razer Ray
Saturday May 10th, 2014 7:35 AM
anarcho-econ_mrk.jpg
anarcho-econ_mrk.jpg

Civinomics... Because standard economic practices simply make too much sense.

Just like treating your displaced workers with respect simply makes too much sense so they're disenfranchised, and criminalized... Policies proven over and over again to be

A) Ineffective
B) Costs the taxpayers A LOT more than attempting to develop jobs and housing to re-enfranchise the displaced...

Policies, I might add, enacted over the years despite ALL federally standard studies of the homeless in the US tro the contrary, by the same people who tout 'civinomics'.

Your "next big thing" in economics is no substitute for a community with allowance for a working/lower working class that can afford to live in the community. Instead we get policies that allow for fixed income federal check receiving disability clients that the feds will further throw money at for housing etc via various programs, but do NOTHING for people willing to work.

Because "Lack of vision/intellect". Because there are no federal funds for displaced workers the city can suck on like an diseased tick.
by Rager Ray
Saturday May 10th, 2014 7:40 AM
chart_-_service_economy_101.jpg
chart_-_service_economy_1...

Because "mothballing" homeless people by allowing them to do what they HAVE TO DO (camp) without further re-integration into their community is meaningless. A chart.
by Steve Pleich
Saturday May 10th, 2014 11:34 AM
I revised the moratorium duration to give people an addition option to express their preference. I did could not consider the suggestion that the moratorium be of a 60 day duration because six months is the shortest possible period to obtain an accurate fiscal read on the costs savings.