Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Santa Cruz Indymedia
Government & Elections
Health, Housing & Public Services
Police State & Prisons
Real Sidewalk Clutter--Illegal Merchant Signage on Pacific Avenue
Last September the City Council cut back already severely-limited public space on the sidewalk to even less. I estimate less than 2% of the original Pacific Avenue sidewalk is now available for sitting, sparechanging, performing with a cup, vending, and/or political tabling. In an attempt to justify this strangulation of space, Councilmember Pamela Comstock made a comment characterizing what she saw on the downtown sidewalks as "sidewalk clutter". In response to this and to show the extent of selective enforcement of the sidewalk laws--favoring merchants and penalizing street people--Pat Colby created a video showing what she considered real clutter--commercial sidewalk sandwich board signs--all of which are illegal under the Municipal code (zoning ordinance section 24.12.320.3). Pat played her power point presentation last Tuesday (6-24) at City Council.
COLBY'S SAGA OF ILLEGAL SIGNS
Colby's presentation speaks for itself and can be found on line at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHPpOLOG0-k .
City Council's own "imbedded" video groupie Community TV also documented the presentation at http://sire.cityofsantacruz.com/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=561&doctype=AGENDA , where it can be found 2 hours 28 minutes and 20 seconds into video accompanying the on-line archive.
I contacted Eric Marlatt, Principal City Planner, the week before the Council meeting. He advised me that ALL free-standing commercial signs (such as you find at regular intervals on Pacific Avenue and its sidestreets) are illegal--at least on Pacific Avenue. He also advised me that there had been no complaints or enforcement against these illegal signs for the last year.
In her presentation and at other points Pat has expressed concerns that the signs as well as the numerous sidewalk cafes that encroach upon the public sidewalk may burden disabled people and could be in violation of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act.
SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT THE REALITY,
I share with her another major concern that selective enforcement of the Downtown Ordinances against sitting, tabling, etc. downtown has been repeatedly used with a political impact (if not a political agenda) of driving away a class of people from the downtown area. Police harassment of poor people, performers, political activists, low-income travelers, and homeless folk downtown under the Downtown Ordinances escalated last year, though the departure of The Great Morgani, the colorful accordion performer, presaged a lengthy period ignoring people in "illegal spots".
Such spots are any part of the 'public' sidewalk that is within 14' of any building, street corner or intersection. kiosk, drinking fountain, public telephone, public bench,
public trash compactor, public trash can, information or directory/map sign, sculpture or artwork displayed on public property, ATM machine or other cash disbursal
machines, vending cart; or fence [See MC 5.43 at http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaCruz/ ]. This amounts to 98% of the sidewalk if you include the for-profit only sidewalk cafe encroachments and the space taken by the illegal sidewalk signs.
Whether this "benign neglect" was done to forestall protests, coax back performers, save tax payer money, or simply wait until the heat could be turned up later--is anyone's guess. However virtually every performer, panhandler, tabler, etc. is situated "illegally" given the grandiose restrictions intended to give the police a blank check to "move along" anyone they want.
WENZELL CASE SHOWS HOW QUICKLY THE HAMMER CAN FALL
The amiable tolerance can and has been quickly withdrawn--as in the case of Kate Wenzell [See "Downtown Ordinances -- A License to Harass Scarf Lady Kate Wenzell" at https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/02/21/18751387.php] I hope to be writing updates on Kate's case soon.
The obvious double standard being used, allowing illegal sidewalk signs that stand there all day while human beings are required to move every hour is glaring and undeniable. She has done a significant public service in bringing this issue to public attention.
For the full "Deadly Downtown Ordinances" with scattered updates go to https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/08/29/18657087.php?show_comments=1#18752784 )--however to be complete you've got to download the more recent 1st Amendment-choking additions mentioned in the Comments sections.
POSITIVE CHANGE WITH PAINTED CAGES?
For those hopeful of a "positive change" with the proposed "painted boxes" being prepared by Assistant to the Assistant City Manager Scott Collins, get ready for disappointment. Collins' latest e-mail to me suggests there will be same amount of space as is currently "legal". His exact words in the e-mail were: "Council’s intention is to have a similar amount of space available for performance and tabling as currently exists, simplifying the matter with clearly delineated space."
This, of course amounts to 2% or less of the total sidewalk space. The 2% is an approximation that comes from having measured the spaces actually legal under the current law.
BOGUS MAP, BEMUSED COUNCILMEMBERS
Scott Collins "map" of these spaces, which he presented to City Council last year is wildly inaccurate where he claims there are double the number of spaces that actually exist.
So far City Council member Posner and Vice-Mayor Lane have taken no public interest in the situation. Collins has also indicated he will not be soliciting or accepting public input on the location, number, and extent of the new "performance cages" as some fondly call the proposed painted boxes on the sidewalk--outside of which it will be illegal to busque, table, or vend (perhaps sit or sparechange).
Again, a tip of the hat to Pat Colby and the others who helped create the graphic presentation illustrating the City's dirty double standard.
Colby's presentation speaks for itself and can be found on line at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHPpOLOG0-k .
City Council's own "imbedded" video groupie Community TV also documented the presentation at http://sire.cityofsantacruz.com/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=561&doctype=AGENDA , where it can be found 2 hours 28 minutes and 20 seconds into video accompanying the on-line archive.
I contacted Eric Marlatt, Principal City Planner, the week before the Council meeting. He advised me that ALL free-standing commercial signs (such as you find at regular intervals on Pacific Avenue and its sidestreets) are illegal--at least on Pacific Avenue. He also advised me that there had been no complaints or enforcement against these illegal signs for the last year.
In her presentation and at other points Pat has expressed concerns that the signs as well as the numerous sidewalk cafes that encroach upon the public sidewalk may burden disabled people and could be in violation of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act.
SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT THE REALITY,
I share with her another major concern that selective enforcement of the Downtown Ordinances against sitting, tabling, etc. downtown has been repeatedly used with a political impact (if not a political agenda) of driving away a class of people from the downtown area. Police harassment of poor people, performers, political activists, low-income travelers, and homeless folk downtown under the Downtown Ordinances escalated last year, though the departure of The Great Morgani, the colorful accordion performer, presaged a lengthy period ignoring people in "illegal spots".
Such spots are any part of the 'public' sidewalk that is within 14' of any building, street corner or intersection. kiosk, drinking fountain, public telephone, public bench,
public trash compactor, public trash can, information or directory/map sign, sculpture or artwork displayed on public property, ATM machine or other cash disbursal
machines, vending cart; or fence [See MC 5.43 at http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaCruz/ ]. This amounts to 98% of the sidewalk if you include the for-profit only sidewalk cafe encroachments and the space taken by the illegal sidewalk signs.
Whether this "benign neglect" was done to forestall protests, coax back performers, save tax payer money, or simply wait until the heat could be turned up later--is anyone's guess. However virtually every performer, panhandler, tabler, etc. is situated "illegally" given the grandiose restrictions intended to give the police a blank check to "move along" anyone they want.
WENZELL CASE SHOWS HOW QUICKLY THE HAMMER CAN FALL
The amiable tolerance can and has been quickly withdrawn--as in the case of Kate Wenzell [See "Downtown Ordinances -- A License to Harass Scarf Lady Kate Wenzell" at https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/02/21/18751387.php] I hope to be writing updates on Kate's case soon.
The obvious double standard being used, allowing illegal sidewalk signs that stand there all day while human beings are required to move every hour is glaring and undeniable. She has done a significant public service in bringing this issue to public attention.
For the full "Deadly Downtown Ordinances" with scattered updates go to https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/08/29/18657087.php?show_comments=1#18752784 )--however to be complete you've got to download the more recent 1st Amendment-choking additions mentioned in the Comments sections.
POSITIVE CHANGE WITH PAINTED CAGES?
For those hopeful of a "positive change" with the proposed "painted boxes" being prepared by Assistant to the Assistant City Manager Scott Collins, get ready for disappointment. Collins' latest e-mail to me suggests there will be same amount of space as is currently "legal". His exact words in the e-mail were: "Council’s intention is to have a similar amount of space available for performance and tabling as currently exists, simplifying the matter with clearly delineated space."
This, of course amounts to 2% or less of the total sidewalk space. The 2% is an approximation that comes from having measured the spaces actually legal under the current law.
BOGUS MAP, BEMUSED COUNCILMEMBERS
Scott Collins "map" of these spaces, which he presented to City Council last year is wildly inaccurate where he claims there are double the number of spaces that actually exist.
So far City Council member Posner and Vice-Mayor Lane have taken no public interest in the situation. Collins has also indicated he will not be soliciting or accepting public input on the location, number, and extent of the new "performance cages" as some fondly call the proposed painted boxes on the sidewalk--outside of which it will be illegal to busque, table, or vend (perhaps sit or sparechange).
Again, a tip of the hat to Pat Colby and the others who helped create the graphic presentation illustrating the City's dirty double standard.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
I've been harping on this FOR AT LEAST ONE YEAR, and it might be noted that when I pointed it out with an offending sign nearby to RN during the performance space 'festivities' as a potential talking point to the people he was addressing, all RN was capable of doing was to shout "Arrest that sign!" because he's a CLOWN... NOT an "activist".
Further, my discussion with police "brass' on the street one day indicates they've deferred to the planning commission about it, reneging on THEIR DUTY to keep our streets safe... albeit I've noticed (since someone got run over by a metro bus at the very narrow, formerly sign-cluttered SW corner of cathcart/pacific) SOME sort of signage control...but it's lax, and not uniform.
Ps. It looks like the Rittenhouse building is being wired and outfitted for Google Bus Locust (unverified but obvious with every major cabling company including ATT putting in optical cable and cubie/AC ducting currently being installed). Kiss your barely livable city goodbye as it's soon to become TOTALLY UNLIVABLE for anyone earning less than 100k a year.
Further, my discussion with police "brass' on the street one day indicates they've deferred to the planning commission about it, reneging on THEIR DUTY to keep our streets safe... albeit I've noticed (since someone got run over by a metro bus at the very narrow, formerly sign-cluttered SW corner of cathcart/pacific) SOME sort of signage control...but it's lax, and not uniform.
Ps. It looks like the Rittenhouse building is being wired and outfitted for Google Bus Locust (unverified but obvious with every major cabling company including ATT putting in optical cable and cubie/AC ducting currently being installed). Kiss your barely livable city goodbye as it's soon to become TOTALLY UNLIVABLE for anyone earning less than 100k a year.
The police brass said the planning commission APPROVED the signage which is why they took no action. As Edward Snowden so eloquently pointed out "Policy trumps law"
The many commercial sidewalk signs also arguably violate two more ordinances:
15.32.010 PLACEMENT OF OBSTRUCTIONS ON STREETS AND SIDEWALKS15.32.010 PLACEMENT OF OBSTRUCTIONS ON STREETS AND SIDEWALKS.
(a) No person shall place or park any vehicle or object on any public street, sidewalk, roadway, pedestrian way, or bicycle path in the city of Santa Cruz, where placement of such vehicle or object constitutes a hazard to traffic or pedestrians or an obstruction to the free movement of traffic for pedestrians under either of the following circumstances:
(1) When such person does so with the intent that such vehicle or object remain in such a place for an unreasonable or substantial period of time; or
(2) When such person thereafter knowingly permits such vehicle or object to remain in such place for an unreasonable or substantial period of time.
(b) Any period of time which is likely to result in, or which does result in, more than a trivial hazard or obstruction shall constitute an unreasonable or substantial period of time.
15.32.040 SIDEWALK OBSTRUCTIONS – AFTER DARK.
No person, without a permit, shall place on the public sidewalks of the city between sunset and sunrise any structure or object which may potentially represent a hazard or obstruction to any able-bodied or disabled person traversing any portion of such public sidewalk. This section shall not apply to items left on public sidewalks for refuse or recycling collection. (Ord. 2004-07 § 2 (part), 2004).
15.32.010 PLACEMENT OF OBSTRUCTIONS ON STREETS AND SIDEWALKS15.32.010 PLACEMENT OF OBSTRUCTIONS ON STREETS AND SIDEWALKS.
(a) No person shall place or park any vehicle or object on any public street, sidewalk, roadway, pedestrian way, or bicycle path in the city of Santa Cruz, where placement of such vehicle or object constitutes a hazard to traffic or pedestrians or an obstruction to the free movement of traffic for pedestrians under either of the following circumstances:
(1) When such person does so with the intent that such vehicle or object remain in such a place for an unreasonable or substantial period of time; or
(2) When such person thereafter knowingly permits such vehicle or object to remain in such place for an unreasonable or substantial period of time.
(b) Any period of time which is likely to result in, or which does result in, more than a trivial hazard or obstruction shall constitute an unreasonable or substantial period of time.
15.32.040 SIDEWALK OBSTRUCTIONS – AFTER DARK.
No person, without a permit, shall place on the public sidewalks of the city between sunset and sunrise any structure or object which may potentially represent a hazard or obstruction to any able-bodied or disabled person traversing any portion of such public sidewalk. This section shall not apply to items left on public sidewalks for refuse or recycling collection. (Ord. 2004-07 § 2 (part), 2004).
They MAKE THE LAWS, and they GET TO MAKE THE EXCEPTIONS.
It's REALLY that simple Robert. Their exceptions are ABSOLUTELY VALID AND LEGAL (except for issues regulated by the state like blocked crosswalks).
Why don't you find out what corner that guy lost his legs to a bus at. MAYBE it was the one I was describing... Then you've got some media leverage, or else you simply have nothing but a whine.
When I described Robin, the blind man who used to sing with the choir in front of Borders on Thursday's Xtian feed tripping over one of those signs (the one in front of the ugly steel-gated-when-closed Verizon store) because his cane tip went UNDER the sign, to a patrol officer while bitching at him one day, he winced... Because he knew it was true.
You have to apply the pressure WHERE IT MATTERS AND WHERE THERE IS SOME EFFECT.
On the OTHER HAND, the city administrators SIMPLY DO NOT CARE unless they get sued,and then they STILL DON'T CARE because they can simply pass the bill on, to the taxpayers... Like they pass the huge bill for law enforcement on... because the city administration is also incapable of planning a community that has housing, and jobs for the people who are PERMANENT RESIDENTS no less truly safe streets, which to them means people are only present during shopping hours, and even then, only present when they're shopping.
Link to "Politico Special Report: The Pitchforks Are Coming… For Us Plutocrats"
It's REALLY that simple Robert. Their exceptions are ABSOLUTELY VALID AND LEGAL (except for issues regulated by the state like blocked crosswalks).
Why don't you find out what corner that guy lost his legs to a bus at. MAYBE it was the one I was describing... Then you've got some media leverage, or else you simply have nothing but a whine.
When I described Robin, the blind man who used to sing with the choir in front of Borders on Thursday's Xtian feed tripping over one of those signs (the one in front of the ugly steel-gated-when-closed Verizon store) because his cane tip went UNDER the sign, to a patrol officer while bitching at him one day, he winced... Because he knew it was true.
You have to apply the pressure WHERE IT MATTERS AND WHERE THERE IS SOME EFFECT.
On the OTHER HAND, the city administrators SIMPLY DO NOT CARE unless they get sued,and then they STILL DON'T CARE because they can simply pass the bill on, to the taxpayers... Like they pass the huge bill for law enforcement on... because the city administration is also incapable of planning a community that has housing, and jobs for the people who are PERMANENT RESIDENTS no less truly safe streets, which to them means people are only present during shopping hours, and even then, only present when they're shopping.
Link to "Politico Special Report: The Pitchforks Are Coming… For Us Plutocrats"
For more information:
http://auntieimperial.tumblr.com/post/9026...
i remember leigh posting some pics of offending signs some time back. of course city pigs don't protect the public from illegal sign obstruction by capitalism, any more than county pigs protected homeowners from pge cutouts engaging in smart meter trespass.
my first thought is that city council will just make it legal for the merchants, but on further thought, that would also permit activist to have unattended free standing signs too.
can't have that.
aren't these signs also "abandoned property" that anyone can legally claim?
my first thought is that city council will just make it legal for the merchants, but on further thought, that would also permit activist to have unattended free standing signs too.
can't have that.
aren't these signs also "abandoned property" that anyone can legally claim?
[Image caption from download site: "In They Live, the ruling class within the moneyed elite are in fact aliens managing human social affairs..." Yours truly needs those special OBEY sunglasses to STOP seeing them.]
Technically, and you can ask any houseless person, abandoned property 'belongs' to the city until claimed, and anyway the sign owners have taken to chaining the signs to any municipal facility available (such as traffic control signs and lamp posts). Which I DO BELIEVE is ALSO a violation of city law. It seems that advertising on public streets is going safety and content unregulated AND UN-LEVIED in the form of payment to the city for use of municipal space... as is done with newsboxes.
Billboards will be next to appear when people become immune to, or annoyed at the sandwichboards. MAYBE they can put billboards on top of the Rittenhouse building where the new Google offices (guessing) are currently being installed. The Drywall workers are there today.
Technically, and you can ask any houseless person, abandoned property 'belongs' to the city until claimed, and anyway the sign owners have taken to chaining the signs to any municipal facility available (such as traffic control signs and lamp posts). Which I DO BELIEVE is ALSO a violation of city law. It seems that advertising on public streets is going safety and content unregulated AND UN-LEVIED in the form of payment to the city for use of municipal space... as is done with newsboxes.
Billboards will be next to appear when people become immune to, or annoyed at the sandwichboards. MAYBE they can put billboards on top of the Rittenhouse building where the new Google offices (guessing) are currently being installed. The Drywall workers are there today.
Next time I see a sign well I wouldn't be suprized if I somehow tripped and fell onto it. Then I just might have to sue the city. Sounds like more fun than busking for tickets..
Santa Cruz Records Custodian Nydia Patino lied to me, writing that the City had no maps of exclusion/inclusion zones for first amendment protected activities. She probably did this to hide that the only map the City has -- later given to Robert Norse -- for these exclusion/inclusion zones is so inaccurate that the SCPD cannot use it for (selectively) enforcing the outrageous Downtown ordinances.
Essentially Downtown SCPD officers are making up the laws in their heads and and on the back of their hands. These outrageous ordinances should be struck down. They are an embarrassment to our city: they are an instrument for cleansing the Downtown of those deemed undesirable by Downtown merchants. Outgoing City Attorney John Barisone can confirm this.
Essentially Downtown SCPD officers are making up the laws in their heads and and on the back of their hands. These outrageous ordinances should be struck down. They are an embarrassment to our city: they are an instrument for cleansing the Downtown of those deemed undesirable by Downtown merchants. Outgoing City Attorney John Barisone can confirm this.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$260.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network