top
Santa Cruz IMC
Santa Cruz IMC
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

A Simple Question of Right and Wrong

by Steve Pleich (spleich [at] gmail.com)
Stay Away Ordinance Simply Wrong in Any Form
The recent amendment to the stay-away ordinance presently before the Santa Cruz City Council significantly enhances the police and park ranger powers to selectively bar those they deem undesirable from our parks and beaches. As a practical matter, this is nothing more than the latest iteration of a continuing policy to criminalize the homeless population in our community. And although there are serious questions about whether this ordinance meets a minimum standard of constitutional sufficiency, the real question is not one of civil rights or civil liberties. Rather it is simply a question of right and wrong.

We as a community are collectively wrong about how we treat people experiencing homelessness and in this political climate that policy is not likely to change. Because rather than addressing the poverty or the lack of adequate shelter or the hopelessness that is the public face of people experiencing homelessness, we have thrown up our hands and decided and that if we make the homeless stay away from their only refuge in our parks and open spaces, they will eventually go away. Perhaps a time will come when an enlightened approach to how we treat the unsheltered will become public policy. But sadly, it will not be today.
Add Your Comments

Comments (Hide Comments)
by G
"bar those they deem undesirable"

Such lofty words from someone that has a reputation for doing that very thing!

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/09/14/18761632.php?show_comments=1#18761947

Why does Pleich remain silent on such bans when it is he himself doing the banning?! Why does Pleich covet the company of TBSC?!
It seems like there are an unending parade of laws against the homeless.

Will the local ACLU challenge any of them or are local members also looking to toss the homeless out of Santa Cruz?
by Steve Pleich (spleich [at] gmail.com)
FROM THE STAFF REPORT SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL:

The City Council previously adopted a version of this ordinance for publication at its October
14th meeting. Instead of finally adopting the ordinance at its October 28th meeting, at the
recommendation of the City Attorney, it deferred final adoption so the City Attorney could take
into consideration concerns raised by the local ACLU chapter in a letter received by the City
Attorney on October 27th. The City Attorney recommended that the proposed ordinance be
revised to include an administrative appeal procedure by which individuals could receive an
expedited hearing to contest their stay away order should they wish to do so. Subsection (b) was
added to the ordinance accordingly.
Helping the City Attorney 'craft' a better defense of an unjust law isn't very helpful.

Strike it down or STFU.
by howie
The aclu achievement for the decade is to declare a success that the SC City Attorney added a kangaroo court for "due process."
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$330.00 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.

IMC Network