Bunny Money - Week 7 Protest for Human/Homeless Rights!

I spoke to the owners at Vallarta, gave them my viewpoint of this protest...which was very different than the story they got from the instigators according to the manager...and they are no longer in support of it. Flyer down.

I encourage all like minded individuals to go to those displaying this flyer and encourage them to take it down or risk losing your business.

Tit for tat time.

Just what part of the pledge does "Doing My Part" disagree with?

The part about not a business not discriminating against anyone?

Or the part that the homeless community should be allowed to sleep "not everywhere and anywhere, but somewhere"?

Or is the anonymous opponent just one who prefers profits to people and an economcially-cleansed community downtown?

Whose "part" is "Doing My Part" doing? And why operate in the shadows? I guess this kind of ugliness doesn't really want to spend much time in the sunlight.

Tacqueria Vallarta has periodically put up and taken down pledges in the last few weeks.

Here's the problem, Robert. It comes across as a deceptive campaign. If you went to every one of those store owners who have posted the pledge and asked them "would you care if Richardson and Deleon bunked out in your entranceway every night?", their response would be different than if you asked them "do you think the homeless should be able to sleep somewhere, not ANYWHERE, but somewhere?"

If, for example, Vallarta has no problem with Richardson/Deleon sleeping in front of their store, then they should offer to do so. I don't have a problem with that. But I don't think the stores appreciate getting enlisted in a stealth campaign that has been presented to them as something other than what it is.

The injunction doesn't ban homeless people from sleeping, say, on the sidewalk near a business. It makes no mention of the fact that there is no legal place anywhere in the city for them to sleep. So the issue isn't "would you care if Richardson and Deleon bunked out in your entranceway every night?" as Terry poses it.

In fact, Bunny's declaration had to do with their sleeping on private property, but was used for a broader purpose by the City Attorney.

The Injunction doesn't ban sleeping on private property; it bans sleeping on all public property downtown and prescribes jail. It is part of a broader crackdown on homeless people under the city-wide Sleeping Ban. The Pledge speaks about "somewhere" not "anywhere and everywhere" and so addresses the Sleeping Ban.

Those spreading other info are uninformed or being deliverately deceptive. Sounds like disguised support for the existing Cityp-wide Sleeping Ban and probably other anti-homeless laws.

The wording of the pledge is pretty clear. No one is asking anyone to support anything else--as other posters falsely suggest.

"In fact, Bunny's declaration had to do with their sleeping on private property, but was used for a broader purpose by the City Attorney.

The Injunction doesn't ban sleeping on private property; it bans sleeping on all public property downtown and prescribes jail. "

That makes no sense. Did these people have permission from the property owner to be sleeping on their "private property"? If not, the owner or the renter has every right to tell someone to leave the premises. My understanding is that these two were sleeping in a hallway within the building. The building is private property even though the hallway provides public access at certain times of the day. At night the hallway is locked up with a gate. The only way to get into the hallway is to figure out a way to get the gate jarred open and go in. I also hear that these two had been asked to leave the hallway on a few occasions but came back anyway.

Are you implying that anyone has the right to be on another person's property without their consent because it is "private property" and not part of the ordinance? That really make no sense and is a stretch.

No, the injunction did not specify "return to Bunny's and go to jail". In fact, there's no such provision in the Injunction.

It simply says, in content, "sleep 11 PM to 8:30 AM anywhere downtown and you go to jail".

So it isn't even a ban against their going on Bunny's property in the breezeway between the Palomar and Front St. after hours (which apparently hasn't happened throughout this year anyway).

It's a ban against sleeping anywhere in the downtown area on pain of jail. Bunny's, the SCPD, and other businesses have made the Sleeping Ban the issue--and in criminalizing all sleeping at night downtown it becomes a community issue. Since there's no legal place in Santa Cruz for the overwhelming majority of homeless people to sleep.

HUFF and other groups asking business to post the pledge have no objection to Bunny's and other businesses demanding their private property be respected. We support establishing sleeping areas in places other than the downtown--which actually would benefit businesses.

But until such sleeping areas are established making sleeping per se a crime on public property is simply unacceptable and unworkable as a law, not to mention unconstitutional and uneconomical.

Stop posting a new thread every time you want to mention something about the sleeping ban. Well over 50 percent of the threads on SCIB are HUFF propaganda. Just add to one of the existing threads, it sucks to have to look through 5 or 6 threads to see what mischief trust fund crybaby Robert Norse is up to every day.

Robert says "HUFF and other groups asking business to post the pledge have no objection to Bunny's and other businesses demanding their private property be respected."

Then why target Bunny's? The reason you are targeting Bunny's is because they were part of the group who signed the complaint against these two for trespassing and not respecting their private property.

Can't you see? Bunny's would never have called the police, or signed a complaint, if these two had not broken into the breezeway, made a mess, or left when asked to do so.

So in effect you ARE objecting to Bunny's demanding that their property be respected.

And why are you not protesting any of the other three locations? Could it be because Bunny's is the only one staffed entirely by women? Does that make it an easier target? Why not protest the other three businesses where men work?

Critics are either extremely thick or deliberately disingenuous here.

Bunny's is not being protested because of its initial complaint against Richardson and deLeon last year.

Rather four months ago in April it signed a Declaration that was part of the general crackdown on homeless and street people downtown. The Declarations signed resulted in an Injunction against Richardson and de Leon for any and all sleeping downtown on all public property (the breezeway outside Bunny's is not public property, incidentally) between 11 AM and 8:30 AM.

One act of falling asleep during the Forbidden Time Period is now the basis for 5 days in jail for contempt of court.

I think this had been repeated too many times not to be clear to critics. See posts above titled "Clarification", "No the Pledge is About the Right to Sleep", plus numerous other repetitions in prior posts.

It's also telling that the officer who took the complaint spoke to me about the specifics he got when taking the complaint from the Bunny's employee. He noted that neither Richardson nor de Leon were accused of blocking the doorway (though they had gotten into the passageway between the Palomar and Front St. and were sleeping there). It was rather that the employee felt "uncomfortable" seeing them through the window at 6 AM in the morning.

It seems rather short-sighted of merchants and their supporters to expect homeless people to respect an absurd law like the Sleeping Ban, which literally can't be obeyed. When there is no legal place to go, we get the cries "but not on my property!" and then the city's absurd response "not on any property, public or private!"

But, of course, none of the posters ever talk about the Sleeping Ban.

We do, however, and encourage you to join us in front of Bunny's July 18th to ask shoppers to use the language that merchants actually understand: Money.

If anyone's being thick or disingenuous here, it's you, Robert.

You're misrepresenting the case of de Leon and Richardson. In the Sentinel article posted back in May, (http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_12483386) it became clear that this wasn't an issue of inadequate resources for de Leon and Richardson, but that they refused to use existing services because doing so would impede their desire to play music at night. The injunction wasn't issued merely for sleeping, but for failure to respond to 60 citations. This means there likely wouldn't have been an injunction issued had they availed themselves to existing services. It sucks that they can't play music at night in the shelter, but were I in their position, I'd be thankful for the chance to sleep, safe and legally, instead of putting myself in a situation where I could be cited, and failing that, arrested.

You're leaving something out about why these businesses would sign onto the injunction. Surely there's some documents or clarifying statements you could provide instead of trumping this up as evil merchants or limousine liberals.

You're very quick to criticize those who disagree with you as either "trolls" or closeted supporters of the Sleeping Ban. Here's the thing, Robert- I'm against the sleeping ban too. I think it's a shit law. I'd wager a pretty penny that Shadow wants to see an end to homelessness in Santa Cruz as well. However, you seem resoundingly against of working with the people who possess the (financial) means and who'd otherwise be willing to help- city politicians and businesses- and instead, it's just one big confrontation where jack shit gets done- to the detriment of your professed constituents.

Your continued obfuscation of issues, ad hominem attacks, and your politically theatrical demonstrations continue to make anyone who would otherwise support your cause to turn tail and run like hell away from you and your organization. You denounced the owner of the Hat Company's donations to homeless services and shelters as token support, yet how many people has HUFF ever housed or helped out of homelessness? You claim a desire to help the homeless, but your actions are showing something else: it's the Robert Norse show, and it's either his way or a boycott.

The post office is on the list of entities that signed the complaint. Why not go after them? Why not hold them accountable? Why aren't you boycotting the postal system? On that line of thinking, have you been sending any letters via the male? Have you been receiving mail? Are you telling the people sending you letters to boycott the postal system? Why do you think it is ok to support the postal system while telling people to boycott the other entities?

You did not answer why you are boycotting one business and not them all.

You did not answer why the only business you are boycotting is the only one entirely staffed entirely by women.

Do you have a copy of this "declaration"?

Sorry, I should have used the word "mail" and not "male". Typing too fast. But it is a funny mistake.

"And why are you not protesting any of the other three locations? Could it be because Bunny's is the only one staffed entirely by women? Does that make it an easier target? Why not protest the other three businesses where men work?"

Because Robert is a pussy, that's why. He's probably afraid of some of the men who work at Borders and the Palomar. He knows that the Lulu's guy will kick his ass if he gets out of line in front of him. He'll probably throw coffee at Robert!! He picks what he thinks is the easiest target with the most visible impact. Face it, Robert chose a women's shoe store because at a men's store they would walk right past and disregard him. At a women's store he's more likely to get noticed. And not for the right reason if you know what I mean. It's really not about the cause more then it is about getting noticed.

Ex resident: Call Doug Loisel, Executive Director of the Homeless Services Center. Ask him if there is ANY walk-in emergency shelter beds tonight for anyone who isn't already on a waiting list. I spoke with him yesterday at some length and he confirmed there isn't. I'd optimistically suggested that with Paul Lee Loft and a few church groups operating, there'd be 40-60 beds. According to him that's not the case anymore. So "existing services" don't have any shelter for people walking in.

There is a criminal law (MC 4.04.015) that allows prosecution for failure to attend to three infraction citations, passed by City Council in February, in effect in March. The penalty is up to $1000 and 6 months or 1 year jail time max.

The plain wording of the Injunction (http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2009/07/02/richardson_injunction.pdf) is quite specific. It ONLY bans violations of the Sleeping Ban, Blanket Ban, and Camping Ban.

Businesses have a right to enforce whatever rules they want on their private property. However, Bunny's has allowed--without protest--the City Attorney to use these concerns to secure a broader injunction that has to do with sleeping on public property downtown.

I'm glad to hear Ex-Resident is against the Sleeping Ban. No one is asking you to work "with me". Obviously you disagree with my approach, as you have a right to.

Take your own approach in opposing a stupid, cruel, and costly law. I'll be the first to sing your praises if you're successful. But simply badmouthing me as we expose the issue publicly and ask the public to weigh in against it seems counterproductive if you're real interest is in changing the laws.

It doesn't feel very credible to hear lots of criticism and no constructive action on the your part (and Shadow's part). Show activists another road. Take the lead. Then your criticisms won't seem like an attempt to divide and divert activists.

We began this protest in response to demands from people on the street, not from me or HUFF.

I haven't denounced Maria of the Hat Company for donating to homeless services. Reread http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/07/10/18606739.php?show_comments=1#18607187 . Do downtown business support the principle that homeless people have a need and right to sleep not anywhere and everywhere but somewhere? Do you? What are you going to do about it rather than badmouth me and other activists?

It seems to me unwise to go to those that don't for advice, or take their critiques seriously.

You might want to help out Maria by going to City Council and asking them to modify the law that bans political tables 10' from a bench and 10' from a building. Once that public space is restored, we could move directly in front of Bunny's where we'd prefer to be.

While the phrase is overused, it's still true that if you're not a part of the solution, you end up being seen as part of the problem. City Council, the Downtown Association, the SCPD, Robinson's Santa Cruz Neighbors, and many other NIMBYs in our community on this issue are the problem Businesses who aren't need to speak up. This pledge seems a pretty gentle and positive way of doing so. This will give folks in the community a chance to vote daily with their wallets.

Shadow: the Declarations assembled by the City Attorney at a cost of thousands of dollars to taxpayers during a budget crisis are available at the Superior Court Clerk. Feel free to post and comment.
If you'd like to set up a boycott table in front of the post office or the other businesses that contributed Declarations resulting in the Jail-for-Sleep-on-Public-Property-Downtown Injunction, let me know and I'll help out.
Meantime we'll keep working on informing the public from in front of Bunny's entrance. Remember you can kick the ass of the ruling class, but it's such a big ass that it takes a real long time to kick.
Please make sure that your Post Office boycott table is staffed with an equal number of men and women--sexism is as bad as homelessaphobia.

Robert asks "What part I think I'm doing".

For one, I'm doing my part to support an ordinance that I agree with.

For two, I'm doing my part by using my voice and wallet to influence business support, just like he is.

For three, I'm asking for the 258th time WHERE would Huff propopse to put their sleeping zone? IMO, it's a utopian dream. I've heard them spout it for years, and I've asked dozens and dozens and dozens of times "WHERE WOULD YOU PUT IT"?.

So far, no answer. Imo, huffs sleeping zone is akin to the cities desire to have UC put in another access road. Easy to say do it, not easy to say how to do it.

So Robert, where does your proposed sleeping zone go?

(And let's not forget that there was available sleeping optoins for the busted Bunny's couple. In their own words that Becky linked, they Chose not to use those sights because they were Inconvenient to their lifestyle. . IMO, they chose, they deal with the results.)

See http://www.indybay.org/comment.php?top_id=18612318