Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Tolerance Not Bigotry: 6th Saturday Sidewalk Vigil at Bunny's Shoes
Import event into your personal calendar
Date:
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Time:
1:00 PM
-
3:00 PM
Event Type:
Protest
Organizer/Author:
Robert Norse
Email:
rnorse3@hotmail. com
Phone:
831-423-4833
Address:
309 Cedar PMB #14B Santa Cruz 95060
Location Details:
On the sidewalk near Bunny's Shoes in downtown Santa Cruz at 1350 Pacific Ave.and its sister store across the street
6th Saturday of Protest against anti-homeless laws and policies downtown.
Join us on the sidewalk in front of Bunny's Shoes to urge stores to post and support the Pledge for Human Rights and Harmony.
PLEDGE
The pledge reads: "This business does not discriminate. We support Human Rights for the homeless community. In particular, the right to sleep at night--not anywhere and everywhere--but somewhere." [See http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/06/12/18601539.php ]
HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom) and HRO (Human Rights Organization) in concert with independent activists continue our picketing and protest, which we began in early June.
STORES THAT STAND UP FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
Some of the stores that have agreed to post the Pledge, which we urge the community to spend at:
Tacqueria Vallarta 1101A Pacific
Streetlight Records 939 Pacific
Santa Cruz City Soccer 717 Pacific
Starbucks 1335 Pacific
The Perfumer's Apprentice 1319A-B Pacific
Pollo Loco 712 Front St.
More Music 512 Front St.
Alma Manger 521 Front St.
Vasilla 435 Front St.
Bad Ass Coffee 1207 Pacific
Some photos of the posted pledge can be found agt http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/07/03/18605574.php
We received complaints last week from The Hat Company, whose store shares an entrance with Bunny's Shoes, that their business was being significantly impacted. They posted a copy of the pledge along with a denunciation of the protest, which they removed after we left.
We understand the 4 week long boycott and protest has had significant impact on some downtown stores. We hope that the pressure of the public conscience will help change a disgraceful situation and encourage shoppers to buy where the pledge is displayed.
SLEEPING BAN HARASSMENT ONGOING
There has been no movement by the City Attorney or the Downtown Association to rescind the one-act-of-sleeping-downtown-and-you-go-to-jail Injunction secured in May against homeless musicians Anna Richardson and Miguel de Leon.
Santa Cruz has no emergency walk-in shelter for 95% of its homeless population. It also enforces the medieval MC 6.36.010a--a homeless Sleeping Ban). This infraction law will now result in jailing penalties thanks to the February ordinance changes pushed by the Downtown Association and businesses on Pacific Avenue (three unattended infractions is an automatic misdemeanor for which you can be jailed).
REPORT INCIDENTS
Please report such incidents you observe or experience to HUFF at 423-4833. We are also interested in any video or audio of abusive police contacts.
If you are homeless and hassled, ask the officer who demands you move if he has a legal place for you to go specifically then and there. There are attorneys who are considering taking cases to challenge the ordinance once the financial backing is available
Attorney Ed Frey is defending homeless vandweller Sharon Paight in a case that goes to court in mid-August in Dept. 1.
WHY PROTEST BUNNY'S SHOES?
Michelle Chase, the manager of Bunny's Shoes, as well as the property managers at Borders and the Palomar, and Manthri Srinath, owner of Lulu Carpenters) all contributed to a discriminatory court Injunction, granted last month by Judge Paul Burdick against Richardson and deLeon.
We respect the right of Bunny's and the Hat Company to manage their own properties. However, the Bunnys Declaration has been used to back up police action on public property against those that have no choice. The Hat Company apparently supports the Sleeping Ban, since it removed the statement it previous placed in its window.
We would prefer to place our petitioning table directly in front of Bunny's, but the new Downtown Ordinances, passed by the City Council at the urging of the Downtown Association has made that illegal (no tables within 10' of public benches).
THE INJUNCTION
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2009/07/02/richardson_injunction.pdf
This injunction bans Richardson and deLeon from sleeping anywhere in a park or on the sidewalk in the downtown area on pain of jail. City law additionally bans them from sleeping anywhere on public property in Santa Cruz after 11 PM throughout the night.
It has nothing to do with any kind of real criminal conduct or nuisance behavior like littering, trespassing, disturbing the peace, urinating, defecating, etc. Simply sleeping outside downtown has become an immediate jailing offense for these two. So far police have not arrested them.
The impact of the decision expands far beyond these two performers, since there are 1500-2000 homeless in Santa Cruz--the overwhelming majority of which have no legal place to sleep at night.
Homeless people face $97 citations, police harassment, theft and destruction of their property, and discrimination.
It is piling absurdity upon cruelty to ban sleeping downtown on pain of jail, yet allow no legal place for homeless people to sleep. MC 6.36.010 makes all nighttime sleeping illegal outside on public property already; the Injunction adds a jail penalty to the downtown area for this homeless couple.
PLEDGE DRIVE CONTINUES
Activists will continue presenting their Pledge on Human Rights and Harmony for merchants to display in their windows or in their stores in soldarity if they choose. So far about about 3/4 of the businesses downtown have been approached.
Mediators have approached Bunny's asking them to post the Pledge and support a policy of non-discrimination. Bunny's is one of four stores signing Declarations used by the City Attorney to secure the Injunction against Richardson and deLeon.
Businesses downtown need to hear from the community on this issue.
More discussion of this issue at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/06/27/18604210.php?show_comments=1#18605109
SUPPORT HUMAN RIGHTS LOCALLY WITH YOUR DOLLARS
In essence we ask downtown businesses to advise the community and their customers that they no longer favor--whatever position they may have taken in the past--turning homeless people into criminals for sleeping--something over which they have no control.
Businesses that have the clarity and courage to do this should be rewarded and those that don't should be questioned.
FLYERS
More flyers should shortly be available. We encourage folks to download them and distribute them widely as well as posting them on other websites.
Past flyers:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/06/12/18601539.php
More info on this situation at
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/07/02/18605293.php
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/06/15/18601786.php
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/06/09/18601111.php
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/06/02/18599901.php
and
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/05/28/18598906.php
Join us on the sidewalk in front of Bunny's Shoes to urge stores to post and support the Pledge for Human Rights and Harmony.
PLEDGE
The pledge reads: "This business does not discriminate. We support Human Rights for the homeless community. In particular, the right to sleep at night--not anywhere and everywhere--but somewhere." [See http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/06/12/18601539.php ]
HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom) and HRO (Human Rights Organization) in concert with independent activists continue our picketing and protest, which we began in early June.
STORES THAT STAND UP FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
Some of the stores that have agreed to post the Pledge, which we urge the community to spend at:
Tacqueria Vallarta 1101A Pacific
Streetlight Records 939 Pacific
Santa Cruz City Soccer 717 Pacific
Starbucks 1335 Pacific
The Perfumer's Apprentice 1319A-B Pacific
Pollo Loco 712 Front St.
More Music 512 Front St.
Alma Manger 521 Front St.
Vasilla 435 Front St.
Bad Ass Coffee 1207 Pacific
Some photos of the posted pledge can be found agt http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/07/03/18605574.php
We received complaints last week from The Hat Company, whose store shares an entrance with Bunny's Shoes, that their business was being significantly impacted. They posted a copy of the pledge along with a denunciation of the protest, which they removed after we left.
We understand the 4 week long boycott and protest has had significant impact on some downtown stores. We hope that the pressure of the public conscience will help change a disgraceful situation and encourage shoppers to buy where the pledge is displayed.
SLEEPING BAN HARASSMENT ONGOING
There has been no movement by the City Attorney or the Downtown Association to rescind the one-act-of-sleeping-downtown-and-you-go-to-jail Injunction secured in May against homeless musicians Anna Richardson and Miguel de Leon.
Santa Cruz has no emergency walk-in shelter for 95% of its homeless population. It also enforces the medieval MC 6.36.010a--a homeless Sleeping Ban). This infraction law will now result in jailing penalties thanks to the February ordinance changes pushed by the Downtown Association and businesses on Pacific Avenue (three unattended infractions is an automatic misdemeanor for which you can be jailed).
REPORT INCIDENTS
Please report such incidents you observe or experience to HUFF at 423-4833. We are also interested in any video or audio of abusive police contacts.
If you are homeless and hassled, ask the officer who demands you move if he has a legal place for you to go specifically then and there. There are attorneys who are considering taking cases to challenge the ordinance once the financial backing is available
Attorney Ed Frey is defending homeless vandweller Sharon Paight in a case that goes to court in mid-August in Dept. 1.
WHY PROTEST BUNNY'S SHOES?
Michelle Chase, the manager of Bunny's Shoes, as well as the property managers at Borders and the Palomar, and Manthri Srinath, owner of Lulu Carpenters) all contributed to a discriminatory court Injunction, granted last month by Judge Paul Burdick against Richardson and deLeon.
We respect the right of Bunny's and the Hat Company to manage their own properties. However, the Bunnys Declaration has been used to back up police action on public property against those that have no choice. The Hat Company apparently supports the Sleeping Ban, since it removed the statement it previous placed in its window.
We would prefer to place our petitioning table directly in front of Bunny's, but the new Downtown Ordinances, passed by the City Council at the urging of the Downtown Association has made that illegal (no tables within 10' of public benches).
THE INJUNCTION
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2009/07/02/richardson_injunction.pdf
This injunction bans Richardson and deLeon from sleeping anywhere in a park or on the sidewalk in the downtown area on pain of jail. City law additionally bans them from sleeping anywhere on public property in Santa Cruz after 11 PM throughout the night.
It has nothing to do with any kind of real criminal conduct or nuisance behavior like littering, trespassing, disturbing the peace, urinating, defecating, etc. Simply sleeping outside downtown has become an immediate jailing offense for these two. So far police have not arrested them.
The impact of the decision expands far beyond these two performers, since there are 1500-2000 homeless in Santa Cruz--the overwhelming majority of which have no legal place to sleep at night.
Homeless people face $97 citations, police harassment, theft and destruction of their property, and discrimination.
It is piling absurdity upon cruelty to ban sleeping downtown on pain of jail, yet allow no legal place for homeless people to sleep. MC 6.36.010 makes all nighttime sleeping illegal outside on public property already; the Injunction adds a jail penalty to the downtown area for this homeless couple.
PLEDGE DRIVE CONTINUES
Activists will continue presenting their Pledge on Human Rights and Harmony for merchants to display in their windows or in their stores in soldarity if they choose. So far about about 3/4 of the businesses downtown have been approached.
Mediators have approached Bunny's asking them to post the Pledge and support a policy of non-discrimination. Bunny's is one of four stores signing Declarations used by the City Attorney to secure the Injunction against Richardson and deLeon.
Businesses downtown need to hear from the community on this issue.
More discussion of this issue at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/06/27/18604210.php?show_comments=1#18605109
SUPPORT HUMAN RIGHTS LOCALLY WITH YOUR DOLLARS
In essence we ask downtown businesses to advise the community and their customers that they no longer favor--whatever position they may have taken in the past--turning homeless people into criminals for sleeping--something over which they have no control.
Businesses that have the clarity and courage to do this should be rewarded and those that don't should be questioned.
FLYERS
More flyers should shortly be available. We encourage folks to download them and distribute them widely as well as posting them on other websites.
Past flyers:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/06/12/18601539.php
More info on this situation at
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/07/02/18605293.php
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/06/15/18601786.php
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/06/09/18601111.php
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/06/02/18599901.php
and
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/05/28/18598906.php
Added to the calendar on Fri, Jul 10, 2009 9:04AM
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Firefly Cafe 131 Front St.
Godmoma's Forge, LLC 916B Soquel Ave.
I posted the 1 PM protest announcement as a Calendar event. Thanks to the indymedia monitors for taking the initiative to post it as a story as well.
Godmoma's Forge, LLC 916B Soquel Ave.
I posted the 1 PM protest announcement as a Calendar event. Thanks to the indymedia monitors for taking the initiative to post it as a story as well.
Today's small tabling and flyering continued outside Bunny's Shoes (actually in front of the Hat Company--because the The Downtown Association's Downtown Ordinances don't allow us to be directly in front of Bunny's).
OFFICER WARREN ARRIVES
Officer Warren showed up and began timing our tabling (using the Rotkin-Mathews "Move Along" law MC 5.43(2) which unconstitutionally prohibits having a political table at a spot on the sidewalk for more than an hour). He explained a "citizen" had called to complain and was reluctant to sign a complaint, so, obliging cop that he was, Warren came down to do it for him.
But if the "citizen" wasn't willing to sign a complaint, there was no probable cause for the cop to show up at all. Ah, but can't the cop himself see a table there for more than an hour and issue a citation. Certainly, but if he spends time there, takes photos from all angles, and interrogates people prior to "the violation" he is selectively choosing one particular table to focus on--even before there's any crime.
Warren didn't observe us doing anything criminal. If the anonymous "citizen" wanted to make a citizen's arrest by signing a citation, he could have--but he didn't. No, our gutless informant, hiding in the shadows didn't want to do so. Then what was the police officer doing there at all? Officer Warren glibly explained, he was going to start timing us and make the arrest himself. Apparently to cover for his bashful merchant boss.
A NEW STRATEGY?
Ah, but there are plenty of people with display devices on the street. Will Officer Warren begin timing and photographing every one on complaint? I doubt it, but it will be interesting to document.
Will he interrogate tourists sitting in their vehicles in downtown public parking lots under Coonerty's 15-minute Trespass Law (See http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaCruz/ and go to MC 9.64)? Ticket nursing moms in their vehicles--that's illegal now. Or folks chatting next to their cars?
Let's start file complaints and find out. Then video the cops as they speed by and refuse to take our citizen arrests.
That way, this kind of selective enforcement can be used to show a pattern of harassment. Merchants can get cops to file complaints; the rest of us will likely be ignored. That's the only way these kinds of law really works--given their true intention.
SECRET INFORMANT
I'm not aware that Warren was timing anyone else on the street. If you have a "display device" (political table, sparechanging cup, open guitar case), you are committing a crime if after an hour you haven't moved, if warned after that hour is up.
Warren took a complaint from a secret informant--these bigots like to hide behind anonymity on line and in person. And refused to reveal who the person was who wanted to remove the political table. He did suggest I could go through the 911 service and order some kind of public record transcript in 10 days. Which would take time and money. But it's public record. Why is Warren concealing this information? Because these laws are designed to empower merchants to get rid of activists, sparechangers, performers they don't like. Because we aren't requiring the SCPD to be fair and evenhanded here. Because he can.
The person who called the cops was possibly the Palomar lurker who raged at us several weeks ago for "championing the right to shit" (See video at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/06/15/18601786.php ). He may have been the same man who signed a Declaration against Richardson and deLeon some months back that started our protest at Bunny's. He reportedly was eyeballing us throughout the entire interaction with Warren.
Because we were committing no crime, Warren had no probable cause to show up at the scene and begin interrogating us. (We declined to give names and information) If he were there to take a complaint from the person who claimed we'd been there for an hour, that was fine, but since there was no citizen's arrest, what was he doing talking to us instead? Who's paying him to be this informant's private cop?
Officer Warren's involvement and my vocal dissection of the issue to folks around did spark some interest. I'll be playing this tomorrow around 9:30 AM on Free Radio Santa Cruz at 101.1 FM (http://www.freakradio.org).
HAT COMPANY WANTS MORE TIME TO CONSIDER
Maria, the Hat Company owner, whose store we were in front of, made several appearances on the sidewalk, insisting that she hadn't said "an explicit no" to posting the Pledge, as claimed in our latest flyer. She did post again in her window her printed denunciation of "being forced" by "Robert Norse". In spite of some heated words with her, we continued to focus on Bunny's Shoes. Maria again asked us to give her more time to read our literature and hear opposing arguments. The Wednesday HUFF meeting (9:30 AM at Sub Rosa Cafe, Wednesday) will consider the proposal.
Maria is concerned that her shared entranceway with Bunny's has affected her business significantly, but has so far not put up the requested pledge in the window. Some of us simply don't understand why it should take 5 weeks (this is our 6th Saturday protest) to either agree or disagree with the simple statement on the pledge.
THANKS
Thanks to Gunilla and Whitney for the great flyers we were able to distribute today--to be posted soon. They put them together on VERY short notice.
NEW BUSINESSES DISPLAYING THE PLEDGE
Cafe Bene 1101 Cedar St.
Thrift Center 521 Front St.
Removed from the "definite NO" list:
The Hat Company 1346 Pacific Ave.
OFFICER WARREN ARRIVES
Officer Warren showed up and began timing our tabling (using the Rotkin-Mathews "Move Along" law MC 5.43(2) which unconstitutionally prohibits having a political table at a spot on the sidewalk for more than an hour). He explained a "citizen" had called to complain and was reluctant to sign a complaint, so, obliging cop that he was, Warren came down to do it for him.
But if the "citizen" wasn't willing to sign a complaint, there was no probable cause for the cop to show up at all. Ah, but can't the cop himself see a table there for more than an hour and issue a citation. Certainly, but if he spends time there, takes photos from all angles, and interrogates people prior to "the violation" he is selectively choosing one particular table to focus on--even before there's any crime.
Warren didn't observe us doing anything criminal. If the anonymous "citizen" wanted to make a citizen's arrest by signing a citation, he could have--but he didn't. No, our gutless informant, hiding in the shadows didn't want to do so. Then what was the police officer doing there at all? Officer Warren glibly explained, he was going to start timing us and make the arrest himself. Apparently to cover for his bashful merchant boss.
A NEW STRATEGY?
Ah, but there are plenty of people with display devices on the street. Will Officer Warren begin timing and photographing every one on complaint? I doubt it, but it will be interesting to document.
Will he interrogate tourists sitting in their vehicles in downtown public parking lots under Coonerty's 15-minute Trespass Law (See http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaCruz/ and go to MC 9.64)? Ticket nursing moms in their vehicles--that's illegal now. Or folks chatting next to their cars?
Let's start file complaints and find out. Then video the cops as they speed by and refuse to take our citizen arrests.
That way, this kind of selective enforcement can be used to show a pattern of harassment. Merchants can get cops to file complaints; the rest of us will likely be ignored. That's the only way these kinds of law really works--given their true intention.
SECRET INFORMANT
I'm not aware that Warren was timing anyone else on the street. If you have a "display device" (political table, sparechanging cup, open guitar case), you are committing a crime if after an hour you haven't moved, if warned after that hour is up.
Warren took a complaint from a secret informant--these bigots like to hide behind anonymity on line and in person. And refused to reveal who the person was who wanted to remove the political table. He did suggest I could go through the 911 service and order some kind of public record transcript in 10 days. Which would take time and money. But it's public record. Why is Warren concealing this information? Because these laws are designed to empower merchants to get rid of activists, sparechangers, performers they don't like. Because we aren't requiring the SCPD to be fair and evenhanded here. Because he can.
The person who called the cops was possibly the Palomar lurker who raged at us several weeks ago for "championing the right to shit" (See video at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/06/15/18601786.php ). He may have been the same man who signed a Declaration against Richardson and deLeon some months back that started our protest at Bunny's. He reportedly was eyeballing us throughout the entire interaction with Warren.
Because we were committing no crime, Warren had no probable cause to show up at the scene and begin interrogating us. (We declined to give names and information) If he were there to take a complaint from the person who claimed we'd been there for an hour, that was fine, but since there was no citizen's arrest, what was he doing talking to us instead? Who's paying him to be this informant's private cop?
Officer Warren's involvement and my vocal dissection of the issue to folks around did spark some interest. I'll be playing this tomorrow around 9:30 AM on Free Radio Santa Cruz at 101.1 FM (http://www.freakradio.org).
HAT COMPANY WANTS MORE TIME TO CONSIDER
Maria, the Hat Company owner, whose store we were in front of, made several appearances on the sidewalk, insisting that she hadn't said "an explicit no" to posting the Pledge, as claimed in our latest flyer. She did post again in her window her printed denunciation of "being forced" by "Robert Norse". In spite of some heated words with her, we continued to focus on Bunny's Shoes. Maria again asked us to give her more time to read our literature and hear opposing arguments. The Wednesday HUFF meeting (9:30 AM at Sub Rosa Cafe, Wednesday) will consider the proposal.
Maria is concerned that her shared entranceway with Bunny's has affected her business significantly, but has so far not put up the requested pledge in the window. Some of us simply don't understand why it should take 5 weeks (this is our 6th Saturday protest) to either agree or disagree with the simple statement on the pledge.
THANKS
Thanks to Gunilla and Whitney for the great flyers we were able to distribute today--to be posted soon. They put them together on VERY short notice.
NEW BUSINESSES DISPLAYING THE PLEDGE
Cafe Bene 1101 Cedar St.
Thrift Center 521 Front St.
Removed from the "definite NO" list:
The Hat Company 1346 Pacific Ave.
The article "Hat Company Posts the Pledge" at http://beckyjohnsononewomantalking.blogspot.com/2009/07/hat-company-posts-pledge.html gives a photo of Maria, the Hat Company owner,'s response to our Pledge. It's a picture of the pledge with a somewhat angry disclaimer:
"According to Robert Norse, my business won't be targeted if I put this sign in the window.
[a reduced black and white reproduction of the Pledge follows]. Apparently it is not enough
to support homeless causes with my money and my time. It is my opinion that causes I
support or not are no one else's business than my own and shouldn't be used in an attempt
to extort my business."
HUFF, as Becky explains in her story above, voted to agree to move the table, based on the fact that the above statement did include a picture of the pledge and didn't specifically repudiate it (in spite of her being highly critical of me personally). Maria posted this statement on July 4th about an hour into our protest. Soon after we left, she took down the pledge. Accordingly at our next HUFF meeting we concluded that she had decided not to post the pledge, and that we would continue to take the nearest spot to Bunny's Shoes--which happens to be in front of her place.
Actually, as I've mentioned elsewhere, we weren't targeting her at all. In urging people to Boycott Bunny's, I've said nothing about The Hat Company (though both busineses have so far declined to post the pledge). The reason we chose Bunny's is described in the main article. Michelle Chase has let herself be used by the City Attorney in the anti-homeless campaign against two homeless musicians Anita Richardson and Miguel de Leon.
Plenty of downtown businesses pride themselves on donating to charities like the Homeless Services Center or the Rebele Family Shelter. The issue is not whether stores are individually charitable to the token homeless services that provide shelter for less than 10% of the homeless population. The issue is whether they support the criminalization of homeless people under the Sleeping Ban and other anti-homeless laws and police practices being pushed by their reps at City Council and on the Downtown Association. Throwing scraps at homeless people is not enough when they are denied elementary justice.
We did include The Hat Company in our latest flyer as a store that has said "no" to the Pledge, based on Maria's "put it up, take it down" behavior. However, after some discussion today, we've removed her name from the "no" list, as described in the comment above. Maria's real concern, however, is our table's proximity to her store which is "bad for business".
Of course, the point of these protests is to raise awareness broadly and to encourage people to vote with their dollars--so I don't think any business should be surprised if they're losing business because they choose to remain silent in the face of the bigotry of the Downtown Association, the City Council, the City Attorney, and the SCPD.
Thanks to Becky for her photo and story.
Folks interested in supporting the protest or in helping contact businesses to post the pledge can give us a call at 423-4833 or e-mail me at rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com If you have had particularly positive or negative experiences with certain businesses or seen such as it relates to folks who look homeless, please let us know.
"According to Robert Norse, my business won't be targeted if I put this sign in the window.
[a reduced black and white reproduction of the Pledge follows]. Apparently it is not enough
to support homeless causes with my money and my time. It is my opinion that causes I
support or not are no one else's business than my own and shouldn't be used in an attempt
to extort my business."
HUFF, as Becky explains in her story above, voted to agree to move the table, based on the fact that the above statement did include a picture of the pledge and didn't specifically repudiate it (in spite of her being highly critical of me personally). Maria posted this statement on July 4th about an hour into our protest. Soon after we left, she took down the pledge. Accordingly at our next HUFF meeting we concluded that she had decided not to post the pledge, and that we would continue to take the nearest spot to Bunny's Shoes--which happens to be in front of her place.
Actually, as I've mentioned elsewhere, we weren't targeting her at all. In urging people to Boycott Bunny's, I've said nothing about The Hat Company (though both busineses have so far declined to post the pledge). The reason we chose Bunny's is described in the main article. Michelle Chase has let herself be used by the City Attorney in the anti-homeless campaign against two homeless musicians Anita Richardson and Miguel de Leon.
Plenty of downtown businesses pride themselves on donating to charities like the Homeless Services Center or the Rebele Family Shelter. The issue is not whether stores are individually charitable to the token homeless services that provide shelter for less than 10% of the homeless population. The issue is whether they support the criminalization of homeless people under the Sleeping Ban and other anti-homeless laws and police practices being pushed by their reps at City Council and on the Downtown Association. Throwing scraps at homeless people is not enough when they are denied elementary justice.
We did include The Hat Company in our latest flyer as a store that has said "no" to the Pledge, based on Maria's "put it up, take it down" behavior. However, after some discussion today, we've removed her name from the "no" list, as described in the comment above. Maria's real concern, however, is our table's proximity to her store which is "bad for business".
Of course, the point of these protests is to raise awareness broadly and to encourage people to vote with their dollars--so I don't think any business should be surprised if they're losing business because they choose to remain silent in the face of the bigotry of the Downtown Association, the City Council, the City Attorney, and the SCPD.
Thanks to Becky for her photo and story.
Folks interested in supporting the protest or in helping contact businesses to post the pledge can give us a call at 423-4833 or e-mail me at rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com If you have had particularly positive or negative experiences with certain businesses or seen such as it relates to folks who look homeless, please let us know.
"Early on July 4th, the owner of the Hat Company came out and spoke to Robert Norse of HUFF. She told him that while our table has been there, her business has been off 75%. Robert Norse urged her to put our small pledge in her window saying that he could then bring it up as an item on the HUFF agenda at our next meeting to discuss removing our protest from near her business. At our July 1st HUFF meeting, we voted that if the Hat Company put up our pledge in her window, that then we would move our protest table to in front of Borders Books--another business that had filed a declaration in the civil injunction against a homeless couple for sleeping around downtown too much."
You're tipping your hand way too much here. This isn't about "rewarding" businesses that post your "pledge," it's about punishing the ones that don't. As you concede, the owner donates money to homeless shelters and services in Santa Cruz. Instead of denouncing that as "token support" or "throwing scraps," you should be supportive of her efforts. After all, in an era of shrinking budgets, homeless shelters and outreach services are going to depend more and more on the charity of people and businesses instead of official funding from the city and state.
You make it clear that the Hat Company's only "offense" is that they haven't posted your pledge. And, you come out and say that if they were to post the pledge, you'd move the site of your protest. This seems extremely close to extortion and a "protection" racket- do what we say, and we'll "protect" you and your business by moving our protest somewhere else.
I also have to ask- the others who signed on to the injunction include your old pal Manthri Srinath and Border's books. You've argued time and time again that Srinath has demonstrated contempt for the homeless- so why not go after him again? Or after Border's, a symbol of gentrification and the privatization of public space?
I could go on, but I'll conclude by saying that this pledge campaign is showing a new and ugly side to you and your organization, Robert and Becky. You will continue to alienate the public and the businesses they patronize, and in doing so, you're doing more harm to your laudable cause and the homeless population of Santa Cruz than any concerted effort by the businesses, cops, or Coonerty.
You're tipping your hand way too much here. This isn't about "rewarding" businesses that post your "pledge," it's about punishing the ones that don't. As you concede, the owner donates money to homeless shelters and services in Santa Cruz. Instead of denouncing that as "token support" or "throwing scraps," you should be supportive of her efforts. After all, in an era of shrinking budgets, homeless shelters and outreach services are going to depend more and more on the charity of people and businesses instead of official funding from the city and state.
You make it clear that the Hat Company's only "offense" is that they haven't posted your pledge. And, you come out and say that if they were to post the pledge, you'd move the site of your protest. This seems extremely close to extortion and a "protection" racket- do what we say, and we'll "protect" you and your business by moving our protest somewhere else.
I also have to ask- the others who signed on to the injunction include your old pal Manthri Srinath and Border's books. You've argued time and time again that Srinath has demonstrated contempt for the homeless- so why not go after him again? Or after Border's, a symbol of gentrification and the privatization of public space?
I could go on, but I'll conclude by saying that this pledge campaign is showing a new and ugly side to you and your organization, Robert and Becky. You will continue to alienate the public and the businesses they patronize, and in doing so, you're doing more harm to your laudable cause and the homeless population of Santa Cruz than any concerted effort by the businesses, cops, or Coonerty.
"You make it clear that the Hat Company's only "offense" is that they haven't posted your pledge. And, you come out and say that if they were to post the pledge, you'd move the site of your protest. This seems extremely close to extortion and a "protection" racket- do what we say, and we'll "protect" you and your business by moving our protest somewhere else.'
-Yes, that is what is so offensive about this effort, it is like a protection or extortion racket aimed at hurting LOCALLY-owned businesses. Why not go after Borders first, Robert?
-Yes, that is what is so offensive about this effort, it is like a protection or extortion racket aimed at hurting LOCALLY-owned businesses. Why not go after Borders first, Robert?
Thanks for posting the lists of businesses who have posted your pledge. Godmoma's Forge does work for my company. I am calling my contact, GL, this afternoon to let her know I will be looking for a new company to work on my website. I had no idea HUFF and HRO use her services. If I had known I would have stopped our association before now.
Thanks for the info.
Thanks for the info.
You're welcome, Sylvia. We all have free will.
Do you support harassment and arrests of homeless people at night? If not, it's unclear why you don't support something as innocuous as the pledge.
But you go further. Not only do you oppose posting the pledge but you are boycotting Gunilla. What's your rationale? Simply support for the existing Sleeping Ban?
Hopefully at some point you'll change your mind
Perhaps you'll come out of the closet and let us know what your business--you know, show the courage of your convictions.
I hope others will continue to ask businesses to post the pledge---because it's right, because it's common sense, because it will actually help business as well as homeless people, and because the gentrification gang downtown that thinks they can sweep poverty out of sight and out of mind needs a financial kick in the ass from folks of conscience. Bigotry should have its cost.
I guess you're pointing out that conscience has its cost too. Too true.
Do you support harassment and arrests of homeless people at night? If not, it's unclear why you don't support something as innocuous as the pledge.
But you go further. Not only do you oppose posting the pledge but you are boycotting Gunilla. What's your rationale? Simply support for the existing Sleeping Ban?
Hopefully at some point you'll change your mind
Perhaps you'll come out of the closet and let us know what your business--you know, show the courage of your convictions.
I hope others will continue to ask businesses to post the pledge---because it's right, because it's common sense, because it will actually help business as well as homeless people, and because the gentrification gang downtown that thinks they can sweep poverty out of sight and out of mind needs a financial kick in the ass from folks of conscience. Bigotry should have its cost.
I guess you're pointing out that conscience has its cost too. Too true.
I find it hysterical that you chide those who suggest boycotting businesses that don't agree with their politics, when you are doing the very same thing, and in fact its you who started this pissing match.
Throwing stones in glass houses and all that.
Oh, and by the way? WHERE do you propose to put these sleeping bans? At this point in the game, I am willing to propose that Huff either doesn't have credible suggestions, as weeks of inquiring WHERE THE SLEEPING ZONES SHOULD BE have resulted in zero posts by Huff answering that question.
Throwing stones in glass houses and all that.
Oh, and by the way? WHERE do you propose to put these sleeping bans? At this point in the game, I am willing to propose that Huff either doesn't have credible suggestions, as weeks of inquiring WHERE THE SLEEPING ZONES SHOULD BE have resulted in zero posts by Huff answering that question.
For the shocking answers to "where the sleeping zones should be" go to http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/08/06/18614270.php?show_comments=1#18617492 "In Response"
Meanwhile troll trashtalkers on this thread need to answer: "do homeless people have a right to sleep not anywhere and everywhere, but somewhere?" come on, guys and gals...
Meanwhile troll trashtalkers on this thread need to answer: "do homeless people have a right to sleep not anywhere and everywhere, but somewhere?" come on, guys and gals...
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