Anti-Homeless "No Smoking" Measure on 3-28 Council Agenda

From: Sherry Conable <meadowwolf [at] baymoon.com>
Date: Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:38:17 AM US/Pacific
To: mike rotkin <mrotkin [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us>, cynthia mathews <cmathews [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us>, tim fitzmaurice <tfitzmaurice [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us>, ryan coonerty <rcoonerty [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us>, tony madrigal <tmadrigal [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us>, ed porter <eporter [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us>, emily reilly <ereilly [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us>, Emily <ereilly [at] cruzio.com>, Mike Rotkin <openup [at] ucsc.edu>, Tony Madrigal <tonymadrigal [at] gmail.com>
Cc: citycouncil [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us
Subject: Re: March 28th agenda - item #20

Dear Mayor and Council Members:

I wanted to share some thoughts about item #20 on the Council agenda tomorrow, the 'no smoking in Grant Street and San Lorenzo Parks proposal.'

I am a person who really hates smoking and its second hand effects, and even attempted to get my limited equity cooperative Mobile Home Park to become a 'non smoking MHP' over time, which got promptly squashed! I did manage to get a 'no smoking provision' at the children's playground though, and am glad to see that that same provision is already in force in SC parks within 100 feet of playground areas.

However, the recommendation in front of you disturbs me for two reasons - because of its genesis, and because of the piece it represents in a much larger puzzle that I see being put together in Santa Cruz, and find quite disturbing.

The way I came to know about this recommendation is that I crossed paths with a Parks and Recreation Commissioner the day after their vote, and he told me about it, because he knew I would be concerned. He was the dissenting voice in a 3-1 vote.

He said that, when he asked what the reason for this recommendation from staff, who had put it on the agenda, was, they were frank in saying that it was to control people in those two parks, folks who hang out there and whom they were having difficulty in getting to move on. His impression was that it was not being presented to protect children or the health and well being of others, but as a form of people control.

On that basis, I am asking you to reject it.

To me, it fits into a pattern of continued assault, on many different fronts, against what some people perceive as 'the unwanted element' in Santa Cruz, many of whom are homeless, but not all. I believe it is time to stop that assault.

We have had:

1) the Downtown Ordinances, x2, which are used very selectively against folks who are poor, homeless, young, alternatively oriented, and/or of color

2) all of the new parking regulations targeting folks living in vehicles, including on the far west side, the Harvey West area, and most recently downtown - the streets in the downtown neighborhoods, where I work, are now at least 50% empty during the daytime, and what reason is there for "no parking between midnight and 6AM without a permit" except to exclude the vehicularly housed?

3) a new recommendation, coming your way via the Downtown Commission, to limit the time of stay in any downtown parking garage or surface lot to 15 minutes, is yet another open minefield for selective enforcement

4) need I mention the sleeping ban and the enforcement of it without any record of a citizen complaint?; or the sweeps through city parks and along the river levee that often clean out camps that people are currently living in (in the past, done with dogs), removing and discarding all of their belongings, including blankets and sleeping bags? (in fact, the Parks Department has at times hired Labor Ready to carry out this task)


I do want to say that when I speak of selective enforcement of the law, I do not mean to be just pointing a finger at those doing the enforcement. I think the roots of that phenomenon lie firmly buried in our culture and its history, and it is a reflection of what I believe is a deeply learned misunderstanding and prejudice.

The other thing I want to say is more difficult, because there are many people here in Santa Cruz whom I like and appreciate as people, but differ with strongly on matters of public policy, particularly where the needs, rights, and reality of the disenfranchised are concerned.

I see that there are some very influential folks in Santa Cruz who really want certain kinds of people kept out of sight and away from their lives. I also see that we have certain staff people, placed in very high positions in the city, who feel the same way. And piece by piece, on every possible front, they are putting together harsher and harsher restrictions to move these people away, and perhaps to make them so uncomfortable in Santa Cruz that they just move on. I have to be honest that I even see some staff members repeatedly and intentionally mislead and manipulate both the Council and the public in order to accomplish these goals.

You have been elected to direct policies and procedures, and their implementation, in Santa Cruz. I am asking you to reexamine that role and how it manifests in your decision making, particularly with regard to the matters above. I, for one, am increasingly ashamed of the direction our city is taking.

On Friday, March 10th over 500 people marched in Santa Cruz, from the County Building down through Beach Flats, calling for fair and equal treatment of immigrants. On Saturday, March 25h, 2000 did the same in Watsonville, and 1 million in LA!! They were saying 'do not make us your whipping post!'

Please do not make the poor, the houseless, the punked out, the rainbow tribe, the young and frustrated, people of color, or.......... our whipping post here in Santa Cruz either. It is time for this concerted and well orchestrated assault to be stopped.

sincerely
sherry conable