Post Office Uses Leaf Blowers to Harrass Homeless at 6AM

Six am. Time to wake UP!
You think you can sleep all fucking day and look stoopid for people who use the post office for post office reasons?
Personally I wake up at 5:30 and am packed up by 6 where I sleep when I lodge in the downtown area for the night.

You MIGHT also note the HUGE Federal No Trespassing Sign at the Post Office. Someone should thank them for letting people sleep there at all considering property is inviolate and no trespassing charges are with us as long as crapitalism is the economic shitstem... instead of bitching at them for keeping the place tidy. 6am is only unreasonable if you've been on a drunk or speed run all night you know?

Ps. I don't know who wrote this post, but if you're one of the people sleeping there you're a fucking ingrate and deserve to get bounced.

I agree with Razer Ray, in that the post office opens at 6am and that seems like a fair time to run the leaf blower.

I disagree with the general attitude that drug users have no rights, though.

I don't see why a drug user shouldn't be able to sleep any time they want and pretty much anywhere they want downtown as long as it isn't directly across the doorway to a building.

I don't think the fact that a person is using drugs use is a valid reason to discriminate against them for sleeping and or being homeless.

> "I don't see why a drug user shouldn't be able to sleep any time they want and pretty much anywhere they want downtown as long as it isn't directly across the doorway to a building."

Or obviously blocking sidewalks where the rest of us need to walk. I agree with that entirely and it's not necessary to be a 'drug addict'. The post office is an ALMOST dry spot of last resort for quite a few people when there's no shelter available (as is the norm). As far as I've been able to discern the police are also quite mild in their response to any problems that might occur there. Unlike SCPD responses before the DOJ's 'statement of intent' in re Bell v Boise, they only 'deal' with 'the problem' and don't chase everyone off.

That will most likely change as the weather gets warmer and drier... But for now.... I'm not seeing a problem except the ONE BIG PROBLEM that no "Homeless Activist" or city orifice-al cares to approach.

The 'right' to sleep in a doorway is no right worth having.

... and the ONLY push towards resolving that problem seems to be housing the institutionaliz-able and fuck everyone else including workers and those willing to work, because those 'activists', and the people who run the city they collaborate with, can't think their way out of the "Federal Funding" 'box' and work on the RE-Development of a livable community with jobs available for workers that pay enough to pay rent.

For instance, I watched the city ILLEGALLY spend FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS of HUD job development money intended, as one city worker said "for brick and mortar business development" (quote) to expand their Internet infrastructure, because their idea of "Job Development" is to bring high-wage earners WHO ALREADY HAVE JOBS to the city to pay massively inflated rents in the interest of the people the city has PROSTITUTED ITSELF TO ... Land 'developers' who work in the interest of Real Estate Investment groups with no interest in the city whatsoever except increasing their Return on Investment. At the expense of people who actually live here.

Where ARE the lawsuits. Where ARE the people with the wherewithal to contact HUD and ask them if they know the city illegally used those funds in such a manner?

Where are they? Getting salaries to institutionalize people. Because, as far as they're concerned if you're houseless and jobless there MUST BE something wrong with you.. .and they can make a paycheck, or garner publicity, for 'helping'.

There's blame to go around in Santa Cruz. But the Post Office isn't and shouldn't be the focus of that blame.

The sleepers I've seen at the post office weren't blocking the entrances. Nor is anyone using them at 6 AM. Nor is wet leaf blowing sound particularly necessary or helpful.

The Freedom Sleeper activists at City Hall have been rousted into the rain in the wee hours from City Hall the last two weeks. They were bothering no one but anal and abusive city officials at home in their beds had apparently given orders to clear them off, Bell v. Boise notwithstanding. And they're still seizing property, including survival gear of homeless people in wet weather.

Re: the HUD misexpenditures and real estate profiteering: Perhaps Razor can provide some links and documentation? That might help prompt some of the lawsuits we'd all be happy to see.

His concerns about institutionalizing the homeless as a "solution" are definitely valid and timely.

Folks would be advised to keep an eye on the Board of Supervisors, under pressure from Take Back Santa Cruz to implement the "needles on wheels" Laura's Law.. See http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/health/20161031/take-back-santa-cruz-urges-supervisors-to-implement-lauras-law .

That law facilitates court-ordered Involuntary Outpatient Medicating. http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2005-08-19/article/22130?headline=Commentary-Medication-Risks-Ignored-by-Media-By-Kathie-Zatkin&status=301

Robert Norse, who happens to be housed says:

" Nor is anyone using them at 6 AM"

Absolutely irrelevant. It is the POST OFFICE'S property and the sleepers are there by the POST OFFICE'S good graces OR oversight in enforcing their own signage.

Maybe you want them to start enforcing the signage so you have something to bitch about while the people you claim to represent (not me motherf*cker not me) end up with one less place to sleep?

If the people sleeping there have to get up at 6am to keep the spot from blowing up you simply get the fuck up at 6am or YOU ARE A PROBLEM to the rest of the homeless community, that you, Robert. don't have to take responsibility for, if a blown up spot is the end results.

And as seen historically in so many places at so many times, not complying with a wakeup time for a given squat DOES result in an 'end-of-squat'.

Best dox you're gonna get from me is an observation of an exchange that occurred in council a year or so ago when a city worker was giving a presentation about HUD money and mentioned how 'HUD isn't just about housing there's job development money... $50 million dollars for job development in the package'.

I'd be surprised if you wen;t there to witness this Robert.

The little scumbucket who sits over in the corner with the greased back hair and cheap suit immediately chimed in:

"Could we use that money for broadband Internet infrastructure development?"

The city worker looked taken aback and responded (I REMEMBER this quote exactly): "No. I think it's intended for brick and mortar business development"

Apparently the city's lawyers thought otherwise and within 6 months or so they were merrily digging up the streets installing optical cabling. Notably around the Rittenhouse building but I saw other work in progress too.

You can do the legwork from there.

I understand Ray is talking about strategy (i.e. avoiding spots being "blown up" because of bigots complaining later).

The idea that everyone has to be as experienced, fleet-footed, street-savvy, and elusive as Ray is perhaps a nice ideal, but has little to do with the reality of newbies and disabled folks trying to plop down somewhere out of the rain.

Accordingly, showering abuse and blame on folks who have the crazy idea that they somehow deserve the right to sleep at night without being Master Eluders is offensive to me and, I would imagine to them.

I'm assuming here that Ray regards the Camping Ban---given the lack of housing and the wretchedness of shelters--as a form of vicious class warfare against the poor.

Not quite sure where to go based on the comments Ray notes he's overheard from a city worker a year ago. If anyone has any ideas, I'd be interested as well in chasing down the $50 million to show if it was misspent.

Thanks to the DOJ's statement of intent in re Bell v Boise There is no camping ban in city as far as anyone I know can tell at this point in history ... Apparently the SCPD's legal department has briefed the operational staff (albeit I haven't asked). There's a 'ban' on trespassing (with appropriate signage), being in parks after hours, blocking the sidewalk per municipal or state laws, and a number of other pretty much inviolate property laws that are almost universally recognized..

Newbies who want to make enemies with locals can blow spots up if they like. They'll probably be down the road soon and no one will miss them. Most know how to communicate with other local street people and figure it out. As a matter of fact, we really don't need 'homeless activists' at all for the most part to communicate with each other about issues relating to surviving... We organize ourselves pretty well. Thanks.

Ps: I didn't hear ANYONE complaining about getting woken up by leaf-blowers that morning, or any time after, and I know most of the people who stay there well enough I guarantee I'd hear SOMEONE say something. As I said at the first in this series of comments, it's unlikely the person who posted this bitch is either homeless, or sleeping at the Post Office.