More Public Chained Off in Front of New Leaf Market at Night

I went by the parking lot (the area in question is a parking lot not a public area) today to check out the situation. Here is what I saw. An sign (which had obviously been there for some time) stating the area was for customer parking only and there was a 1 hour limit. There were old stantions across each each entrance with a chain and padlock hanging from them. When extended the chain would not intrude on the sidewalk at all. In fact it would extend across the entrance about 6 inches back from the sidewalk. If the property is leased from the city, and I have no idea if it is, then the property manager would have the right to control access and limit access after hours. So I guess I want to know what is the deal? Why is Robert making trouble over this? Obviously the property manager has been experiencing some problems and felt they needed to restrict access at night. Not everything is some big conspiracy aimed at restricting peoples rights.

Another thing to note is that the owner of any property is in possession of the land out to the curb. In some instances, mostly residential areas, the property owner is responsible for the land out to the middle of the street. Although someone may own the land out to the curb they have to allow for a reasonable amount of public access. That does not mean, however, that all the sidewalk is public space. They just have to guarantee "public access". As part of the owners use permit it can state that they have the right to use a certain amount of space on that access area for their own needs. If that use permit is granted then that owner can do with that space as they please. And that includes keeping it for private use and admitting certain people... at any time.
There are many places downtown that are used by the public but are not public property. You have to check the use permit.

It is the public sidewalk in front of New Leaf Market between the two kiosks (Cafe Campesino and Alfresco's) that is being chained off at night, not the parking lot in back of New Leaf.

The lot is New Leaf's private property; the sidewalk is public, though leased from the City under an agreement that I have asked to see a copy of.

This latest scheme apparently comes out of the Redevelopment Agency (if the word from one of the merchants involved is correct). It is similar to similar public-space-stealing maneuvers to place change-making machines to ban sitting on the sidewalk within 50', or piping music out of the Metro to drive away the undesireables, or removing benches near Tampico's and the Metro to make the are unhospitable to "loiterers".

The original move to build the green fence on the sidewalk in front of New Leaf market in 2002 was done without public hearing or input. When we circulated petitions opposing it, the police colluded in a false arrest--for which the city later shelled out $5000.

The rationale was to get rid of "hackeysackers", homeless folks, hippies, Goths, grungies, and other trolls and bums--similar to moves taken a year later, spending $6000 of SCPD money to move the railing 3'' forward so the waist-high planter in front of the Pacific Trading Company would be unsittable and not usable by street musicians or their audience. This was in response to PTC pressure. Again no public hearings or input, or alternate space was made available.

Some stories on these past events:

Fighting Back Against the Classical Music Blitz at New Leaf
http://hpn.asu.edu/archives/2002-January/005472.html\

Sushi Now! [the previous kiosk owner] Arrests Boycott Now! Protesters
http://hpn.asu.edu/archives/2002-January/005488.html

$5000 Settlement in False Arrest of Activist Downtown
http://santacruz.indymedia.org/newswire/display/11547/index.php


Gentrification and the transfer of public space to private business use is my concern. The whole matrix of anti-homeless Downtown Ordinances gives the police selective enforcement powers to harass those they or their merchant bosses find unsightly. No sitting or peaceful sparechanging on 95% of the sidewalk, no political tabling for more than an hour at the same table, no street performing with an open guitar case on 75% of the sidewalk (and on no sidewalks outside Pacific Avenue).

In the last several weeks, police have unloosed a slew of tickets against homeless people and street performers for such "crimes" as sleeping, playing music not to the taste of anonymous complainants, sitting on the concrete lip of a planter, and sitting in a "forbidden zone". Long-time performers like Cosmic Chris, Tamorac, Bam-Bam, Crow, Jay, and others have gotten tickets they can't afford for playing their instruments on the public sidewalk.

A special tip of the hat to Officer Forbus for giving out $100-200 tickets to six people for sitting in the shade around the corner from the change-making machine at Tampico's--5 of them with no warning. A number of these people reported police gave them orders to "move on" previously, without specifying any criminal offenses.

Public sidewalks will not remain public unless we ensure that they remain so.

City Council's last meeting of the summer is at 3 PM and 7 PM tomorrow (Tuesday). The Coonerty-Mathews Council supports all this removal of public space, but the community watching on tv may have a different idea. Come and register your outrage.

More important, do so on the streets.

That type of change would be processed through the planning department and not redevelopment. Use permits are submitted to the planning commission after an assessment and proposal from the planning and zoning dept. The planning commission would then act on whether to approve or deny. Unless it was denied and resubmitted to the city council the council would not be involved.

Have you bothered to ask why the area is being chained off before charging in with both barrels blazing? I know that is your style but perhaps just asking those involved would be just as effective. Had you ever considered that perhaps the area was being damaged or that the folks who gathered there left a mess for the New Leaf folks to clean up every day? I have walked by this area when there were so many kids’ hanging out it was hard to get through the area. A sidewalk is pedestrian thoroughfare not a gathering place. There are still plenty of places to gather in the general area. What some decry as gentrification others call cleaning up and improvement. With out business' cleaning up an area and attracting customers the core of Santa Cruz would wither up and die leaving behind wreckage and decay. While that may be ok for a homeless street kid gathering place it is not so good for a town. Prehaps instead of attacking the city for percieved injustices you could also work with the people who are gathering to police themselves so the city won't have to.

Glenn: It's true use permits and such come out of the Planning Dept. However the gentrification activity involving bench removal, ATM placement, classical music blasting, Host harassment, rookie homeless rousting, and other anti-homeless architectual activity (making the planter in front of the Pacific Trading Company unsittable by spending $6000 to move the grating forward) comes from a variety of places including SCPD, RDA, P & R, and City Council's secretive Downtown Working Group.

Confused: While there are real problems of litter, congestion, smoking, and--as one store owner has put it--domination of the area during the day at times, there are also real problems of conversion and privatization of public space targeting the poor and homeless. If these questions were considered with all parties present and with options for opening up other space, we might find some legitimate solutions.

That doesn't happen with the total merchant/SCPD/conservative resident domination of City Council. Public process there is repeatedly cut back and non-existent around the issue of the anti-homeless changes downtown.

Consider these facts: All the parks are closed at night, security guards harass even at open spaces like city hall and the library, Sleeping Ban enforcement has stepped up, sweeps around the beaches and beachfronts have increased. Old-time musicians have been receiving citations for traditional musical activity.

We need new creative solutions, not closure of public space and more police enforcement.

HUFF will probably begin tabling to demand the reopening of the spaces, restoration of benches, and initiation of a new public process to deal with these problems. Join us.

That little presentation last night went over like a lead balloon. I thought the idea for a speech like that was to get people rallied behind you. Not turn them off.

It really is great to see the City reclaim the public lands for the public. They have been co-opted for far too long by a small band of extremists who insist on conflating their narrow worldview with that of the broader populace. I must also congratulate Robert for coming around to the realization that we must all do everything we can to protect the rights of the public to enjoy their sidewalks in peace, free from harassment and intimidation. Thanks Robert, for bringing this to our attention.

Hopefully this petition, which I've circulated over the weekend at a table in front of New Leaf Market on the sidewalk will soon be available on line.

Petition to Unchain the Public Sidewalk !

We, the undersigned, believe public sidewalks, need to be restored to the public.
Chaining off public sidewalk space as at New Leaf Market at night without public discussion & without opening alternate public space is wrong.(NC)

Prosecute real crimes like vandalism, littering, public drunkenness, etc.
Post a voluntary code of conduct looking for input from different groups in the community, not just imposition of a merchant and redevelopment agency agenda.

Please initial if you support other concerns to expand not reduce public space. In particular, we favor a Downtown Plaza (DP), no Sale of Scope Park (SSP), more benches downtown (MB), parks opened at night (PON), and an end to laws and selective enforcement of laws that target poor and homeless people (PHP).

NAME (please print) PHONE OR E-MAIL CONCERNS (write NC, DP, SSP, MB, PON,
PHP or other comments)

................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................
Petition by HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom) 423-4833 309 Cedar #14B S.C. http://www.huffsantacruz.org 7-26-08

How many signatures did you get?

PETITIONING REPORT

After petitioning for a few hours Saturday afternoon and an hour or so Saturday evening, then several hours on Sunday afternoon, I got 60 signatures, give or take a few.

Also some interesting interviews (mostly positive, a few negative) which I will be playing next Thursday evening on Free Radio Santa Cruz or Sunday morning.

We're likely to continue tabling particularly if police continue to harass people gathering there at night. Right now, there's no clarity on what the actual wording of the lease is regarding the use of the area at night.

Several housed and previously homeless moms with their children in hand signed the petition, remembering how they were driven out of public spaces while homeless.


LEGAL ISSUES AND THE SLIMEY HAND OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

It was one activist's recollection that in the original lease discussion at City Council in January 2002, there was agreement that the area would remain open to the public at night when the businesses were closed. Sgt. Michael Harms, on the other hand, claims City Attorney Barisone's office has advised him it's legal for the businesses to obstruct the sidewalk by chaining off half of it.

It is my impression that some of the business owners believe there are various problems associated--DURING THE DAY--with people who gather there (because of their numbers, the lack of public seating space, their poverty, and their non-commercial behavior). But that does not translate to believing that chaining off half the sidewalk is a good solution or a solution at all.

In fact, this decision was apparently taken at the initiative of the Redevelopment Agency, which has traditionally led the charge in shutting down public space (e.g. making the planter area near Rosie McCann's unsittable to discourage street musicians in 2003 at the behest of the adjacent Pacific Trading Company at a cost of $6000 out of the police dpeartment budget--as mentioned in my prior comment).

The RDA is currently refusing to grant Cafe Campesino a new lease--so it's important to find a creative way of pressuring and picketing this agency rather than the merchants who are dependent on its largess.


ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY AND POWER IS STILL WITH THE MERCHANTS

Still, Cafe Campesino, Alfresco's, and New Leaf (any one of them) has the power to simply post the following sign:

"We have no objection to anyone using the public sidewalk space after business hours. Provided such uses are legal and respectful. We ask those who sue the space to clean up any litter they leave as we have to conduct business in the morning."

In 2002 when the fence was built along the sidewalk to privatize it and drive away street and homeless people gathering there, we called for a boycott of the three business involved (New Leaf, Sushi Now!, and Ali Baba's Cafe). At the very least, the three businesses should post disclaimers, suggesting that they would be willing to keep the sidewalk open if they didn't fear consequences from the Redevelopment Agency (and perhaps the Downtown Association).


STANDARD SENTINEL SMEARS

There's an inflammatory and inaccurate "banish the bums" Sentinel article that came out on Saturday written by Genevieve Bookwalter, that reflects SCPD and RDA hostility to street culture, dismissing the scene there as criminal and violent at http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_10005290

Some of the commentary that follows Bookwalter's "badges-are-my-bread-and-butter" b.s. is actually interesting (though most of it is the usual NIMBY activist-bashing bigotry) at:
http://www.topix.net/forum/source/santa-cruz-sentinel/TNH2TAL9CIDHONU8K .

Bookwalter has not corrected a serious misquote which falsifies statements by Marilyn Strayer, owner of the Alfresco Healthy Fast Food kiosk.

Bookwalter writes: "Not only did Strayer step over needles, broken glass and trash to begin work in the morning, but people with open alcohol containers had started gathering as early as 4 p.m. to claim a seat on which to wile the night away, she said."

I interviewed Marilyn the day the article claimed out and she says she said nothing about needles. I also got the impression the claim about people sitting in the area with "open alcohol containers...gathering as early as 4 pm" was another fearmonger canard, which Bookwalter probably got from the cops and conflated into Marilyn's account.


POLICE PARANOIA POLKA

The police stats Bookwalter presents, if considered seriously, do not suggest any spike in criminal activity in front of New Leaf.

As with the police gobbldegook and stonewalling on crime stat around the Parking Lot Panic Law "review" at the Downtown Commission (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/07/20/18518034.php), there are no meaningful comparative statistics that would allow us to draw any useful conclusions. Bookwalter, typically, didn't ask for them. Or if she did, she makes no mention of the police failure to provide them.

If Robert took the time to interview Marilyn and got a definitive statement from her that she did not make any reference to needles, then I suspect he would have been equally diligent about asking if she made the other statements as well.

But I expect she did make that statement. Just as she clearly made the quoted statement that ""The situation out in that area had just gotten way out of hand,".

So as a result, I find Roberts allusion to his sense that he "got an impression" that she didn't make the other statements misleading at best.

The fact that hours of petitioning the thousands of people on the mall this weekend was only able to gather less than 60 signatures speaks volumes about what the avg. citizen of Santa Cruz thinks about this issue, or rather, non-issue.

And suggesting that the business owners should post cute little signs saying that its okay with them if people continue to use the space "as long as they clean up after themselves" is hilarious. If people were picking up after themselves and comporting themselves in a similar manner, this closure wouldn't have been enacted in the first place. Just like the parking lot ban. Just like the sleeping ban. Etc, etc.

The reality is that a certain sector of people aren't behaving responsibly, are having a negative impact on the community, and the majority of people are tired of that and thus are going along with the enforcements.

Marilyn neither made the needles statement nor the "The situation out in that area had just gotten way out of hand," comment. (The "way" was added for emphasis, apparently, by the writer.) Don't believe me? Ask her. She's there every day and quite approachable.

She doesn't think the chain is such a hot idea either, though she is concerned about one group dominating the space.

The "forbidden zone" plan didn't come from the merchants but from bigoted bowels of the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) that has been trying for years to run homeless and poor people out of sight if not out of town.

Their absurd and embarrassing schemes have run the gamut from planting flowers along fences to stop people from sitting down to handing out little ostracize-the-poor cards urging people to "give a hand not a handout" (just say no to poor panhandlers, but ante up to the city's parking lot/meter assessments and tax schemes).

Julie Hendee of the RDA declined to allow me to copy a few pages from the lease which shows whose slimey fingers are behind this latest closure of public space in search of "social cleansing".
However Marilyn graciously provided me with copies of the relevant pages of her lease.

The nighttime chaining of half the sidewalk is the brainchild of the gentrification golems who slipped it past the public without a hearing in March (according to Hende). In 2002, Hende agreed, City Council promised the public sidewalk and the associated seating area of the waist-high planter would be available for public use. Only during business hours would there be "privatization".

Apparently Marilyn of Alfesco's and David of Cafe Campesino weren't militant enough in running off the lower classes. David's being denied his lease--which many of us urged be changed at the last Council meeting. It's not clear if Marilyn's consent to chaining-off-the-sidewalk was obtained. Of course, the public-space-snatchers at RDA don't need the consent of the businesses. They just do it and send in the police.

That doesn't always work. People successfully resisted the conversion of public space to a sterile zone at Parking Lot #4 last spring when cops and their cronies attempted to run off the drum circle, Food Not Bombs, the Trash Orchestra, and HUFF. (See "Taking Back the Tarmac--Santa Cruz Reclaims People's Parking Lot #4" at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/23/18474460.php )

I still think it's appropriate to ask the three businesses adjacent to publicly request RDA to return the area to public use at night. And to consider a refusal essentially a statement of acceptance of the RDA's latest crackdown. It's unfortunate that the merchants have been put in this position, but they are the means the RDA is using to "beautify" the area.

Where that means getting rid of the ugly-looking folks at night and crushing any street culture that clusters there. Not acceptable. Sidewalks are for strolling, socializing, sitting, and shmoozing. Not for chaining.

I accept your statement that Marilyn didn't include "way" in her alleged statement of ""The situation out in that area had just gotten way out of hand," .


...but what's the real difference? Little if any, in my opinion.

The reality is that a minority group is having a significant impact, and one that is considered to be a negative impact by the majority. Attempting to focus on minutia as to whether someone said "way out of control" vs. "out of control" is delving into hair splitting. And trying to use that as a reference point to assert that the entire premise/point is fabricated by an evil group of business owners is wishful thinking on your part.

The reality, in my opinion, appears to be that the situation has sunk to a low point where most are frustrated with the reality and want a change. To complain that it wasn't put up for public comment first might have some relevance were it not for the fact that, now that people are aware of it, they still seem unconcerned about the move. In support of my opinion:

-Marilyn, whether she said "way" or not, thinks the situation is out of control.

-Your weekend of effort to garner signatures in support gathered less than 60 signatures.

Can't you consider the possibility that the folks hanging out at night HAVE screwed up the scene and made it an untenable situation that most don't want to see continued? I can.

Announced in advance or not, the fact that you only a few want to sign their names and have it ended speaks volumes, IMO. And I'll again suggest that the idea of having the night crew promise to clean up after themselves is a laughable joke.
Why not suggest to that crew that they do so pro-actively, to show that their on-board with the idea? The reality is, this wouldn't have gone down if there wasn't a visible and credible problem in the first place.

...just as there was a problem before the camping ban was enacted.

...just as their was before the parking lot loitering ban was enacted.

...just as there is in this case.


If the majority think that any of the above are inappropriate, I believe that the majority would vote with their signature, voice, and vote to have the rulings overturned. The fact that the majority continue to tacitly support these rulings suggests to me that the majority think there is a problem, whereas you in comparison continue to contend that it's a fascist minority that are forcing the rules upon all of us.

I don't think the numbers lie. I continue to wonder if you do.

First of all, what makes you so sure that the majority is supportive of thse rules?
Many times I have asked different people of the community what they think of the laws like the sleeping ban. Many people have said that chaining up the dining area is not a solution but that there IS a problem.
Many have said they want to be able to stay in their cars longer than 15 min. in a parking lot.
Very few speak out or petition against bad laws even if they disagree with them.
There are problems with homeless sleeping in bushes.
There is a problem with people breaking into cars. And with youth being out on the street, abandoned by their parents and society.
But bad laws that make people criminals for hanging out and being upset about their plight
or people sleeping where they can to survive is BULLSHIT!
There has got to be more kinder, more humane ways of dealing with the problems with living together.

What makes me sure is what I already mentioned: people vote with their actions, or lack of.

With thousands of people passing the petition table this weekend, but less than 60 signing? That tells me the majority either doesn't care enough to overturn it or else supports the sidewalk closure.

And the no-camping ban; it's been in effect for years now, but other than a few activists, the majority of the citizenry seem willing to let it stand.

Same goes for the parking lot decree.

If the majority was against these rulings, then I think that in a politically active town like Santa Cruz, they would be overturning these rules. But they aren't. So I think that while a vocal minority opposes them, the majority support them.

Changing a City Council action by Initiative takes more than 3500 signatures and then a subsequent election. That takes thousands of dollars and dozens of volunteers. Accordingly it's very rarely used.

The best way to thwart the SCPD agenda (funneled through the Redevelopment Agency's gentrification gang) is by direct action--as at Parking Lot #4 adjacent to the Farmer's Market and Logos. There, as is well chronicled on indybay, people massively resisting backed off the police and restored the public space.

There's nothing more reassuring and invigorating to see the people successfully taking back their rights and their space. It's beginning to happen in front of New Leaf as well.

And, of course, it happens every night with the Sleeping Ban where hundreds of people sleep illegally of necessity.

\Credulous. bigoted. or misguided posters, perhaps slipovers from Sentinel's Slimemasters Central forums, aren't really the problem (and it looks like some of their comments have been unnecessarily censored).

The real problems are:

False police propaganda about "stepping over needles"; secret police pressure that cooks up the closing of the sidewalk via the Redevelopment Agency; police stonewalling that keeps the real crime states from the community (such as the stats they're denying the Downtown Commission would show no crime wave); police censorship which keeps the minor crime results off the police website (concealing police waste of public moneys harassing people with minor infractions and selective enforcement).

To respond we need real information (from Public Record Act requests) and real action (from the community).