Take Back Santa Cruz Uses Anarchist "A" In Video About SC Drug & Social Problems
In advance of an upcoming "Take Back" on Upper Ocean Street "Take Back Santa Cruz" has done a video that prominently displays an Anarchist "A" scrawled on some tree somewhere (close up, no background).
I suspect SOMEBODY who works with TBSC, still hate-mongering on Anarchists, KNOWS who did the 'smash and trash' on Downtown windows last Mayday. I wouldn't go as far as saying they HIRED the people who did it but...
Event PDF attached as well as video.
Let's ignore the easy answer on my point, which would point out that the parade was organized and promoted by local anarchists. Instead, let's delve deeeper into your specific claim and the video you post as "evidence" of your theory:
You say TBSC is focused on an anarchist symbol, and you use that to support your claim that they paid someone to incite a riot at your peaceful Anarchist parade? *I'm biting my lit to both not laugh at your stretch of logic, and not to call you a freaking idiot and paranoid lunatic. Wes? Would LOVE to hear your opinion on this premise???*
But I digress; let's delve into the video. The video in question, in chronological order:
-Shows business owners saying their neighbhorhood is an asshole/mess..with people defecating on their properties. (No mention of anarchy).
-States drug use is prominent on Ocean St., and names specifically where it goes down. (No mention of anarchy).
-Claims the local business owners agree and are fed up. (No mention of anarchy).
-States some businesses have given up on the problem...and pointing at corporate giants like McDonanalds and Ferrells. (No mention of anarchy).
-Shows pecific drug camps. (No mention of anarchy).
-And finally, shows that an Anarchist "A'" is emblazoned on a tree in said drug den in said neighborhood. (Visual image of an anarchist symbol. No use of the political affiliation, no claim that there's a coneection, no cause and effect claim.)
Summation: You're as paranoid as the Dems and Repubs. you claim to be different than.
Question: Do you disagree with or take offense at the claim that this neighborhood is a drug riddled mess?
Final statement: You're taking offense at a situation where your political affiliation is, at best, referenced visually in a tangential way. You've lost your credibility that this reference and scant mention can be attributed to TBSC paying someone to set off the May 1 Riot by Anarchists. Sorry, I have to do it..*ROTFL*
And again, I beg a response from Wes. WES!? You're always ready/willing/able when you think the opposition has wronged Anarchists. Always ready to serve as a defacto spokesperson for local Anarchists. Got the chutzpah to step up and post when it's obvious Anarchists have gone off the deep end and done wrong to others?
TBSC, SCPD, consider this post an affront to authority.
I got into a dialogue with TBSC supporters on a Santa Cruz Sentinel thread as I describe below.
On January 7th, the Sentinel published the following critical letter (http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_17004233#comment-124059367) from Steve Schnaar (who I don't know).
"Take Back Santa Cruz is at best a misguided organization. Rather than representing or reaching out to a broad base in our community, they have rejected numerous offers by myself and others who are on the left to talk or work together. They ignore the root causes of crime and homelessness and merely advocate for more police. As glad as I am for police to respond to a shooting, it takes a lot more to prevent shootings from happening in the first place.
Similarly, what sense is there in cleaning up read: destroying homeless camps without addressing the lack of jobs, housing and mental health services? Like Republicans in Washington, TBSC refuses to collaborate with others, appeals to fear, and all too often uses intentional misinformation. Witness spokeswoman Analisa Cube fretting on the TV news about nonexistent threats made by the DIY parade which, as usual, was a fun family event enjoyed by hundreds."
Someone who signed himself "Jim Levy", apparently a supporter or member of TBSC responded:
"Just the facts:
TBSC collaborates with the Homeless Services Center: http://www.santacruzsentinel.c...
TBSC collaborates with Save Our Shores and Friends of Lighthouse Field:
TBSC collaborates with Spokesman Bikes, Happy Tails and Finishline collecting hundreds of toys for needy families in Santa Cruz: http://www.santacruzsentinel.c...
TBSC collaborates with the Museum of Art and History: They clean up 7,000 pounds of trash, 250 needles, knives and a gun http://www.santacruzsentinel.c...
It's hard to attack a group that time and again has proven to our community who they are. All it does is makes you look like a criminal enabler Steve. TBSC is your community not your government. If you want "jobs, housing and mental services" go talk to your elected leadership. The entire community knows that Anarchist don't like TBSC and try to attack them when ever they can. If your judged by your enemies. I side with Take Back Santa Cruz along with the community. Nice try but in the end the cream rises to the top and TBSC is winning over the community through actions of love for others and toughness toward criminals."
I responded with the question: "Isn't homeless survival gear (from "illegal campers") regularly destroyed in TBSC "clean-up's"?
Said someone who called himself 'The Priory of Scion':
"No Robert. Their possessions and needles are being preserved in a time capsule so that we can all say 10 years from now, there was a time when transient drug abusers and pedophiles roamed Santa Cruz and were led by a knock off Santa Clause looking guy.
Voice of Reason: totally awesome response!! well said!! Bravo!"
I repeated the question: "Isn't homeless survival gear (from "illegal campers") regularly destroyed in TBSC 'clean-up's'? Still waiting for a serious honesty reply. As I have been for the last year."
Replied, The Priory of Scion: "I am not TBSC, but helped out with the Evergreen cleanup. We all can see you are attempting to manipulate this board into the community “trashing useful and vital camping gear”, and are downplaying what we volunteers have done.
I know that notice was given a week prior to the Evergreen cleanup that a community clean- up crew was coming by. I do also know that a permit was also applied for prior to the event. I assist in overseeing Evergreen and we are a staff of 6 that witness illegal camping, trash, vandalism and drug abuse but don’t have the resources to address it. A large portion of the waste/trash/byproduct is outright bio-hazardous in nature.
As you have expressed, these "illegal" campers, are in fact not supposed to be there. What was left was trash, feces, bottles, and hypodermic needles, that you may want to try to spin as "survival gear", but it was in fact trash. I am a Sierra Club member and know the difference between survival gear and trash. It pains me to see such environmental abuse.
As a homeless advocate, have you tried to reach out to Monica Martinez about creating real solutions? I have . You should, too."
Norse: "Repeat Question to the Anonymous and merry Priory, to Jim Levy, and any other TBSC-sympathizers:
Isn't homeless survival gear (from "illegal campers") regularly destroyed in TBSC "clean-up's"?"
Craig, a regular poster, interjected: "Here's a question for you, Robert. I've asked Becky this question in the past and she has never responded. Maybe we'll have better luck with you.
When people are cleaning up trash and refuse along the levee, in a cemetery, in the Pogonip, along our highways, etc., how are they supposed to know what items are personal possessions someone will come back and gather, and what is truly trash. As an example, someone is taking a black plastic bag full of used clothes to Goodwill or a dumpster and runs out of time. They throw it on the side of the road or dump it in a parking lot where they have stopped. 10 feet away a formerly housed individual has deposited a black plastic bag filled with clothes that they want to come back for. How does someone tell the difference between the bag that is refuse and the bag that contains possessions? Should both bags be taken to the police station and held until someone claims them?
Behind the building I work in is a trash dumpster. You would be surprised at some of the things people working in the building throw away. Perfectly good things that have included backpacks, clothes, towels, boxes of nic-nacs from their homes, paperwork, photos, shoes, paper christmas plates and napkins that didn't get used. Now, some of our building neighbors are slobs and will just dump these things next to the dumpster or leave them in a box near the trash bin. I've reported this to the building manager because the tenants should be more respectful of their neighbors. Once in awhile some formerly housed individuals will sleep back there and leave bags of stuff that looks very similar to the trash when going about their day. They come back in the evening and try to get their belongings back. How are people supposed to tell the difference between the stuff that was purposefully thrown away and the items left by someone sleeping there.
There are many examples of things that get discarded by some that could be considered the personal effects of another. But how do people cleaning up tell the difference. It would be ridiculous to say that the police should gather every stray piece of unclaimed property and hold on to it until someone claims it. The city is, after all, not running a coat check service.
So tell us, how does one tell the difference? How do we know that the wine bottle left in the gutter is not really a sentimental memento of a really great night of revelry belonging to Mike The Drunk that he hopes to reclaim at a later date?
I replied: " Craig: The care and the energy you put into your question tends to indicate sincerity.
Yet, the two cases you mention (a bag found by the roadside and stuff left outside a downtown dumpster) don't rely address the TBSC "clean-up's" as I understand them.
TBSC goes into areas where homeless people live. They don't patrol the highways and dumpsters, as I understand it.
The question still stands--and I await an answer--does TBSC regularly destroy belongings in the "illegal homeless camps" they target?
Your question is also a legitimate one. I guess it's a judgment call in every case. Likewise, if a TBSC volunteer finds a bag of what is obviously trash along the riverbank, I'd be glad if they picked it up and threw it away.
However, I'd like them to clearly differentiate between trash and survival gear. If there's any doubt, you'd obviously err on the side of caution since people ar trying to survive in freezing and rainy weather out there.
Full disclosure: I have not been on any TBSC clean-up's (just at one of their other "positive loiter-in's" and one of their political rallies). However, no matter how many times I've asked, I can't seem to get a straight answer, and the rhetoric of their supporters-Vice-Mayor-Don Lane's praise for them notwithstanding--does not reassure me."
Craig: "Thanks for the answer Robert. Becky has refused to attempt an answer in the past.
Okay, so maybe the better example would have been things like bicycles that are halfway submerged in the water near the levee, or mattresses that are hidden in the bushes and covered with filth. There are also many many garbage bags filled with everything from cans, waste and food, to clothing. It's really hard to distinguish what is refuse and what is trash. Then there's always the clothing items that are strewn about in the trees and bushes. Not under them, but up in the branches. Is a coat left up in the branches of a tree "survival gear" or trash?
Oh, and how long should everyone leave these discarded items laying around before they can be considered "abandoned"?
Norse: "Again, these are legitimate questions, which are matters of judgment.
But--and you, Craig, may not be the person to answer, but the unanswered question remains for me:
Isn't homeless survival gear (from "illegal campers") regularly destroyed in TBSC "clean-up's"?
A simple "no, we encourage volunteers not to throw away obviously usable stuff, even if the gear is at "illegal" campsites" would go a distance towards reassuring those of us who look upon TBSC as an anti-homeless group.
Are you a part of those clean-ups, and do they give out those instructions?"
A poster who used the name "Sarah L. Palin" responded. The poster has put up positive statements about the DIY Last Night parade, so her response was interesting:
"Mr. Norse, I'll answer your question.
Yes, homeless survival gear is regularly destroyed in TBSC clean ups.
You see, the areas they are cleaning up are public areas. Our kids tend to wander upon these messy areas and it's not good. The cemetery, right by the kids ball fields, is a fine example. If your child wants to go looking at the grave stones, they couldn't because littered about are bags and trash and beer cans and moldy mattresses with who knows in them. So the public land is cleaned up by removing all M.O.O.P. (matter out of place). If someone has left their personal belonging there, that person made a mistake, because at any time people tend to clean up public areas. And when a bag with stuff in it is found, it's M.O.O.P., and it's tossed in with the rest. No one goes through it to sort through the needles to get to the usable items to leave the usable items on the ground there, that would be ridiculous.
If you have personal items as a homeless person, take them with you, or risk them being tossed if you leave them on the ground in public. Doesn't seem really a had concept to grasp."
Norse: "Thanks for your candor, Sarah.
I appreciate your getting specific (as well, frankly, as some of your comments on other threads re: DIY Last Night stuff).
I have a few more questions.
How many of these TBSC clean-up's have you been involved in?
How many have there been in the last year to your knowledge?
What's the volume of the M.O.O.P.--as you put it--that was eventually discarded (a square yard, a truck full?)
Is M.O.O.P. a classification used by TBSC volunteers and those who advise them?
Would you say that you fairly are describing TBSC policy?
Thanks in advance for answering questions which others have been either reluctant to address or intentionally ignoring."
[ No further responses from Sarah]
Craig: "Well, in order to accuse them of throwing away survival gear they would actually first have to know if it's survival gear or not. Otherwise, they might just think it's trash.
I am not a member of TBSC, but I have asked on a few occasions to offer my assistance with clean-ups if I had the time. As far as I know there have been no instructions to throw things away that might be considered survival gear.
Also, Evergreen Cemetery is private property. If the people managing the property tell volunteers to go in and clear the whole thing out it's their right to do so."
A formerly homeless poster, Devin Biden, responded to Craig: " bull pucky, an abandoned homeless camp looks abandoned, an occupied camp looks occupied. any imbecile can tell the difference. you are throwing away peoples belongings, including bedding and clothing... now they will have to go look for more, taking time away from folks that could be looking for work, or housing, or perhaps treatment for their issues.
Norse to Craig: "Thanks for getting specific and sharing your personal experience.
Were there ever instructions specifically NOT to discard usable tents, sleeping bags, warm clothing, etc.?
On your clean-up's, did you observe people discarding these items or discard them yourself?
[No further responses from Craig]
Or if you're more into direct action, throw a stink bomb at their stupid little anti-homeless "positive" event.
I cant think of any City that doesn't have someone asking for change at the intersection.
TBSC will take back nothing. Societies problems need to be seen. Cleaning up after people or asking them to take their drug use elsewhere ultimately achieves nothing.
Take a look at this video of the Evergreen cleanup. Use the 28-33 second segment as an example of what Im talking about. This is they type of material and mess I cleaned up; not occupied campsites. Or look at the 55 second mark. Is there foam rubber bedding and a bike frame there? Yes. Do either look usable to you? As they're respectively missing seats and tires or piled under trash bags and lying soaked on a steep slope, I don't think they were.
I've stated as such to you on this issue before Robert, when you've asked ceaseless questions on the Sentinel website. But you seem to want to ignore this type of answer while instead searching for an answer that fits your predisposed opinion. (And I note that you've as usual cherry picked the posts you choose to display here, to bolster your unfounded contentions.).
So, how about you answer some questions for me?
-Where does Steve get his information to claim camps were destroyed?
-Has Steve ever actually attended either of the TBSC cleanups, or is he reporting heresay?
-Have you Robert, had any reports from homeless that you know that a TBSC event caused their belongings to be taken from them?
-Why is it that neither you nor the several other posters on the Sentinel site (BryBry from FreeRadio, for example) have any direct evidence to back up your claims that camps are destroyed? Why do you decline to reply to those repeated question? I've suggested that you're spreading disinformation, and barring evidential answers to my above questions, I'll continue to claim it.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Reached by phone, Steve says he hasn't been on a TBSC clean-up, but may attend the 1-21 "positive loitering" event.
He also invites TBSC volunteers to join the Save Our Shores clean-up on 1-28 along the San Lorenzo River. SOS will be happy to show volunteers their procedures for avoiding destruction of homeless survival gear. Are you--whoever you are--or any other TBSC volunteer interested in doing that?
Sounds like a good idea to me.
Steve says he has heard directly from homeless people and from other SOS volunteers that homeless property has been destroyed in the wake of TBSC clean-up's. However--full disclosure--I got no specifics.
Frankly, I have heard more reports recently of police destroying homeless gear than TBSC volunteers (but then police do so regularly and are paid to patrol). I have heard reports of gear being taken by TBSC in past clean-up's, but nothing specific.
The issue is really whether TBSC, whatever the case in the past, is willing to commit itself to not do this in the future. Cube and the other leaders need to make statements about this, which so far, as I can see, they have refused or failed to make.
It has taken a year of asking questions of TBSC to get any answers whatsoever.
Does TBSC specifically advise its clean-up volunteers NOT to take usable homeless tents and gear? As SOS reportedly does? If so, will it change its policy? If not, will it advise its volunteers (as SOS reportedly does) to takes especial care in future clean-up's to respect the rights of those outside?
I must disagree with your claim that I posted the Sentinel thread selectively. I posted virtually the entire thread relevant to the issue discussing Steve Schnaar on January 4th. Check it out at http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_17004233#comment-124059367 .
I also disagree with indybay.org censoring comments that aren't spam (See "Deleted Comments Thread" at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/18/18473304.php). However I must admit I get real tired of abusive personal attacks that don't address the issues raised.
The implication if not the explicit message of the video is that homeless people should not be allowed to use public spaces, but that "positive loitering" by upper middle class NIMBY's is just fine. There are also suggestions that pressure should be applied against merchants to act as vigilantes to drive away those who hang out.
It kind of reminds me of a German propaganda film I recently saw--Jud Suss--which portrays Jews in a particularly slimy light.
The suggestion that homeless people are disproportionately responsible for "crime" (other than violating absurd laws like the Downtown Ordinances, the Sleeping Ban, the "closed areas" laws, the Permit Parking laws, and other ordinances specifically cooked up to run off homeless people) is unfounded. Bringing in the discredited Drug War (when what we needs is medicalization not criminalization) is another ramp-up-the-repression tactic that discredits other legitimate purposes TBSC says it has.
We're all against violence in the community against individuals. Scapegoating poor people is a cynical and abusive way to use this issue.
Perception management ...a term originated by the US military. The US Department of Defense (DOD) gives this definition:
Actions to convey and/or deny selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning as well as to intelligence systems and leaders at all to influence official estimates, ultimately resulting in foreign behaviors and official actions favorable to the originator's objectives. In various ways, perception management combines truth projection, operations security, cover and deception, and psychological operations.
The phrase "perception management" has often functioned as a "euphemism" for "an aspect of information warfare."A scholar in the field notes a distinction between "perception management" and public diplomacy, which "does not, as a rule, involve falsehood and deception, whereas these are important ingredients of perception management; the purpose is to get the other side to believe what one wishes it to believe, whatever the truth may be."
...and the truth IS the city's OWN development policies regarding jobs and housing has, perhaps not created, but EXACERBATED always-existent problems in Santa Cruz, and has caused the perception of problems parroted by the local media to increase dramatically.
Guess who gets scapegoated (definition)? Guess who stands to gain?
Surfers and swimmers have to beware and warnings are posted on public beaches near the river mouth
Yet the county and city allow the building of McMansions wherever their imported gentry (who make their money elsewhere and don't spend it downtown because there's nothing anyone needs...) like.
Scapegoat THEIR environmental destruction.
Their lifestyle does INCREDIBLE DAMAGE to the environment, and most of the people pictured in the video, despite their medical and psychological problems, don't even use a light bulb, no less the massive amount of COAL GENERATED electricity these energy wasting (despite the 'green' label they are no such thing) architectural monstrosities use.
So with that preamble posted?
-Why are we working against each other? You've now acknowledged, and Steve apparently has as well, that neither of you has attended a TBSC cleanup. Neither of you has evidence that homeless camps or belongings have been destroyed. So, why are you you posting unsubstantiated rumors that TBSC is doing so? Robert, you as much as any other individual in this town has a finger on the pulse of the homeless population and what's going on. If nobody is telling you their gear was stolen, and nobody is complaining, where and why are these unsubstantiated claims that TBSC is destroying camps or taking personal property coming from? And perhaps more importantly; what's the motivation to germinate this kind of disinformation and rumor? Seriously. Is it you? Steve? What is the motivation? We're now apparently agreeing that Steve has no first hand knowledge, you have no first hand knowledge, no homeless person has reported to you that their belongings have been taken or destroyed. What is the motivation to instigate such a report? IMO, it's the same as the old "SO, Do you want to reply to the unsubstantiated claim that you beat your wife"? I feel that this specific case is you trying to find a slight or abuse when in fact none has occurred.
-Similar scenario: the upcoming Positive Loitering event. It seems you've instinctively and in a knee-jerk fashion decided and reported that it's an anti-homeless pogrom. But I don't think that it is. What I think it is is, whether your housed or homeless, residents of the neighborhood (rich or barely getting by.) don't want drug addicts shooting up on their block. Don't want people squatting and defecating in their front yards. That's "anti-homeless"? Hell, IMO, thats a shared desire of anybody living on a block; whether they own the house and make a fat six-figures or whether they rent and barely scrape by month by month. And I see posts here, by your and others, trying to portray the situation as "rich people and Old Money" rule this town and are forcing this down our throats. I disagree. Did you check the first featured in the TBSC video, as an example of my point? Young. Hippie. Probably barely scraping by. Running a business selling used stereo equipment. And HE is calling the area and situation "the asshole of Santa Cruz as we call it". Are you proposing to me that he is a rich person? A police spokesperson? A liar posing for the upper middle class to engender legitimcacy?
Keep it real man. We have a problem. The situtaion sucks. THe homeless are a part of the problem, but not the entirety. The drug culture is a big part of the problem, but not the entirety.
...but your efforts to continue to portray the situation as us-vs-them, angelic-homeless-vs-evil-property owners is unrealistic.
I think your posts which attempt to portray TBSC as anti-homless are biased and unsubstantiated. I've asked you to provide evidence, and you've now acknowledged that you have none. I request that you quit trying to portray a group that is trying to improve a bad situation as evil decist, unless you can factually show that they're doing so at the expense of the homeless.
To date, I state that you can't do that. That it isn't happening. And that you've done so based on your agenda and what is usually the case but isn't this time.
Keep It Real.
Do you not see the hypocrisy wherein you posted (by another S.C. Sentinel poster) that S.O.S. partners with TBSC on cleanup efforts, but you don't acknowledge the irony or contradiction? Care to address it now?
How can you hold up Steve of S.O.S as your evidence or authority that TBSC destroys camps, and then admit that neither you or Steve has has ever attended a TBSC cleanup? You hold him up as your sole evidence that TBSC destroys homeless camps, claim that S.O.S. does a better job and doesn't destroy camps, and then provide a link/post that shows both groups partner in cleanups ....without addressing that duality?
I say again: You're blowing smoke and holding up mirrors. I again challenge you or Steve to provide definitive evidence that TBSC does so. You've so far acknowledged that Steve has never been there. And you've given Steve credibility by pointing out his affiliation with S.O.S., while at the same time posting a link that shows that S.O.S. partners with TBSC. That isn't adding up.
If the organization S.O.S. partners with TBSC in cleanups, as shown in your post.....and if you give Steve credibility because of his affiliation with S.O.S....and if you say S.O.S. does a better job than TBSC...and if you then admit that Steve has never attended a TBSC cleanup nor seen them destroy personal possessions....and you admit neither have you....? It's a shell game.
What's your agenda or complaint? To me, this argument smells like the old cliche of the reporter asking the guy "So, is it true that you beat your wife!?"...with no evidence to back up the question. It's guilt by association with no evidence to back up the complaint.
Let me ask you another question? If TBSC comes upon a homeless camp on public property and the camp is littered with syringes, litter in the form of empty booze bottles, and strewn with feces and wadded toilet paper, do you think that should be left alone? (And this is NOT a worst case theoretical question designed to villify the homeless. This is a real life scenario that I see with regularity as I hike though the deeper woods of De La Veaga, Pogonip, and the banks of the San Lorenzo River.)
From a "Downtown with shopping" and a community that lived and worked there to "Downtown Shopping Mall" with massive police and security apparatus presence as replacement for community-with-a-stake" in 20+- year
NAH... NOTHING FUCKED UP was gonna happen.
Too too bad it spilled over to the rest of Santa Cruz but I'm NOT crying.
Add to that mix a large cohort of transplanted umn... 'residents' who, due to their... umn... 'culture' have lived their lives in socioeconomically homogeneous umn... 'communities'. ie. Vanilla suburbs with a social life revolving around behavior controlled shopping malls, and you have people who are naturally fearful and REACTIVE, and TBSC panders to that reaction, fear-mongering on everyone from anarchists to junkies to homeless to street kids to musicians who are out of tune to...
Well, Fascists MUST HAVE scapegoats...
...and the fearful will follow.
Simple questions. Until I get clear answers from the leaders or the participants, it's reasonable to believe TBSC tolerates this kind of behavior.
The evidence of TBSC's anti-homeless bigotry is evident from its silence. And from its defenders' attempts to attack me instead of give straight answers.
Surely our anonymous TBSC defender can give us a straight answer or get one from the organization he supports. If not, why not?
I can't tell you one way or the other, as I have not gone to any of the events. The one coming up is within walking distance, so I might make it. If I do, I'll fill you in on what happens, but it would be best if you saw with your own eyes.
I've only attacked the fact that you are posting rumor and innuendo and unsubstantiated statements as fact.
And you admitted so in your own words: You've never been to a cleanup. And you only know of one person whose claiming TBSC destroys personal possessions/camps. And you admit that that person has never been to a cleanup. You acknowledged that Steve is reporting what other SOS volunteers told him; and yet SOS continues (apparently happily and voluntariy) with TBSC. DO YOU NOT SEE THE DUALITY of trying to hold up SOS as a better example when in fact they are partnered with TBSC? And yet, despite all this, you continue to assert that TBSC destroys posessions and camps.
I say it again: You're posting second hand rumor with no evidence or fact. That's as weak a reporting style as exists.
I can't and don't speak definitively for TBSC; I'm not sure anyone does. From what I see, they appear just like HUFF; a collective with no voice of singular authority or ruling group. There's a group of Admins. who post on the website and advertise the cleanups and gatherings. I find it hilarious that you and Becky constantly describe Huff in this manner when you don't want to give definitive answers or be held accountable for the action of your members, but are at the same time trying to chide TBSC for operating in the same fashion. Hypocrite.
You're down to your final mewling demand "They must instruct members not to destroy homeless gear". Why announce that if we're not doing it in the first place? Your demand is the equivelant of "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"; a cheap attempt by you to assign guilt where it doesn't exist.
It's just as valid for me to demand that you and HUFF tell the homeless that they must stop leaving any trash in our public spaces. NO empty bottles. No toilet paper. No heroin rigs. No abandoning their gear when they're done with it. Only clean camping allowed, with nothing left but footprints.
Chop Chop Robert; get out there and do that. And once I've heard you do it. (And I"ll need it recorded on video to prove you did it), I'll do the same for you at a TBSC event. Deal?
SOS does, I'm told. Unless TBSC leaders and volunteers acknowledge they get the same advice or instruction, it's reasonable to believe they don't.
Was the anonymous poster apparently given any such instructions in his/her clean-up's? We don't know.
The issue is not me (which "I Have" wishes to make it), but TBSC and its policies. If it has a policy, then presumably its volunteers would know it too.
Sounds like "I Have" is ducking this issue. The Cubes know I have asked this question before. I suggest you e-mail them for their "administrative" response. "Are specific instructions made to avoid taking or destroying usable gear at homeless encampments?"
Another question for "I Have" and his fellow camp removers, have they ever seen any such gear left behind in the "clean-up"s?
And what actually does "I have" have anyway? Except lots of ways of avoiding the question asked in the first place.
For all you Latin scholars, seems like another case of Ignoratio Elenchi (ignoring the issue by raising other concerns and facts). That's the kind of argument being made here.
First of all, you seem to think it's the City of Santa Cruz's responsibility to provide homeless services. Truth is, it's not. If homeless services suck in the city, go complain to Santa Cruz County. They're the entity charged by the state with providing safety net services.
I would urge the City to cease doing anything. Pass their funding through to the county, and kick the advocates out of City Council with the message: "you're not happy, go see the board of supervisors and quit bothering us."
Secondly, the city has the authority (and the responsililty) to protect its residents. And, I wou;dn't define drug or mentally addled folks as "residents." If the city wants to control how its public space is used, they have the legal right to do that.It's called "reasonable time, place, and manner" regulation.
Does TBSC destroy homeless gear, or do they specifically advise their volunteers to take care not to do so?
"It's my understanding that TBSC does destroy homeless survival gear. This is my information from Steve Pleich, who regularly does clean-up's with Save Our Shores. SOS, in contrast to TBSC, carefully instructs its members not to disturb homeless encampments. Pleich says SOS volunteers report that TBSC regularly destroys camps and camping gear. "
Except on today's show, Steve said that he had said no such thing. That there have been no reports of TBSC tossing camps regularly or otherwise.
So what does this mean for all the wailing and gnashing and frothing? Well, there is no basis in fact for it. Of course Robert will still demand an answer, but I don't know if TBSC even owes him that. His visceral hated of TBSC and all he thinks it stands for is getting in the way of actually finding out the facts.
Offer still stands Robert. Next clean up we'll both go. Then we will both know the truth. It will be my first time as well, difference is that I refuse to damn them before I find out the facts.
"Does TBSC destroy homeless gear?" "Do they specifically advise their volunteers to take care not to do so?" Nothing confusing about those questions.
Volunteering for a clean-up has nothing to do with getting a straight answer.
You still haven't gotten one or given one.
But let me state it unequivocally, so you can understand it: No, in the two cleanups I attended, I never heard that stated. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, AND AS I'VE STATED REPEATEDLY, I'VE SEEN NO HOMELESS BELONGINGS OR CAMPS IN SITE OR DESTROYED OR THEIR BELONGINGS DESTROYED.
I'm not ducking any issue. I AM calling you a hypocritical liar. Is that clear enough for you? I'm calling you a liar who is posting false information with no evidence. ROBERT IS A LIAR. Is that understandable?
-You've posed that TBSC destroys homeless camps. You're only "evidence" was based on a report from Steve,a man who has never been to a TBSC cleanup. And Steve was apparently only repeating what he heard from some unidentified anonymous source. (Note the irony here Robert? You're tring to color me as unreliable because I'm anonymous, but your quite comfortable using STeve's anonymous source as a credible report. Hypocrite.
And now, we have Steve saying he never said such a thing. He's saying your a Liar Robert. You've fabricated a story. Same thing I said.
So folks, who do you want to believe?
Me, who has been to two cleanups and says that no homeless camps are being pillaged nor belongings destroyed?
Or Robert. Who has never been. Who has no first hand knowledge. Whose only basis is a third hand report which he claims Steve made but which STeve has now categorically denied.
Robert, you're a festering polyp....and a liar.
I stand firmly by my claim that he is a liar.
And further, that you are actually posting a name (Ed Natol).
I take it from your failure to state it that there were no instructions given to volunteers to respect the camps and gear. That is, that before folks set out, there was no particular caution to take care NOT to destroy or confiscate usable homeless gear. If I'm wrong about this, please correct me. You haven't so far.
I acknowledge that my fear that TBSC may destroy camps has been based on (a) my conversations with Steve regarding the contrast between his group SOS and TBSC, (b) the anti-homeless rhetoric of TBSC ("illegal camps"), and (c) the failure of any TBSC volunteer or spokesperson--prior to your testimony--to come forward and clarify what has at least been their experience with the group--among other things.
In the thread I reprinted from the Sentinel's discussion of January 4th ("Driving the Homeless Out of Public Spaces--the Real Agenda"), I note "Craig"--who sounds like a TBSC volunteer--seems to equivocate about the clean-ups, hat suggesting it's hard to differentiate between usable and unusable items. That tended to suggest that he and his group, at least, threw away some stuff and were defending their decision to do so. "Sarah L. Palin" actually acknowledged throwing away homeless stuff as well.
Since I don't know if these are real people and if their accounts are accurate (you've suggested they may not be), it's hard to know for sure. Remember that I did write "It's my understanding that TBSC does destroy homeless survival gear." "My understanding" is not "my certain knowledge" That's why I bother to keep asking the questions.
You sound passionate and honest. You sound like you are trying to avoid degenerating into personal attacks (apologizing, for instance, for the polyp comment). It may be your honest experience that TBSC doesn't take homeless stuff and throw it away.
But there seems to be a lot of coded anti-homeless rhetoric around TBSC as well as disinclination to clarify that rhetoric in their leadership.
I still encourage you to get the leadership to be more explicit.
I also repeat the question I asked you before, "did you ever see any homeless camping material left behind (i.e. unmolested) in the two clean-up's you were a part of?"
If TBSC did a thorough sweep of the San Lorenzo riverbanks, it's hard to believe they wouldn't have run across some homeless gear. If that had been left behind, it would tend to support your belief that TBSC does not destroy homeless encampments and property, even if they don't explicitly caution people about not doing so.
Let's try it one last time, okay? (And this will be the last time. One thing that discourse with you has shown me is that I'm essentially talking to a wall. You aren't really looking for information or clarification; instead your looking for loopholes or miniscule gaps in the other persons position so you can continue to indulge in your fantasy construct.). And with that said, I'm not Ed. I'm the one who called you a polyp then apologized...an action which I'm beginning to question.
So let's try it one last time:
-You just posted, again, that I (Poster "I have") won't answer your question. You posted "I take it from your failure to state it that there were no instructions given to volunteers to respect the camps and gear." But in fact I've definitively answered that question. I stated that you were correct. That, in my personal experince, that mandate was never given. BUT I ALSO STATE THAT I NEVER SAW ANY CAMPS, USEABLE ITEMS, OR CAMPS OR ITEMS DESTROYED.
-You say poster "Craig" equivocates and doesn't answer your question as to whether habitable camps or usable items were taken. BUT I HAVE ANSWERED THAT FOR YOU. EVEN SHOWED YOU VIDEO AND INVITED YOU TO REPLY IF YOU SAW ANY USABLE ITEMS. IT'S TELLING THAT YOU AVOID ANSWERING THAT OR VIEWING THE VIDEO. MUCH EASIER TO INSINUATE AND REPORT THIRD HAND INFO FROM A FRIEND OF STEVE? Steve, whose now refuted the claim you placed in his mouth that TBSC destroys camps?
-You ask again "I also repeat the question I asked you before, "did you ever see any homeless camping material left behind (i.e. unmolested) in the two clean-up's you were a part of?"". AND I HAVE ANSWERED THAT. UNEQUIVOCALLY. "In both cleanups that I attended; on the railroad tracks on the Westside and at the Cemetary, I saw no currently occupied homeless camps. And by currently occupied, I don't mean the resident wasn't there at that moment. I mean there were no belongings that appeared to be in current use. The only clothing and bedding seen was wet, stained, leaf covered, appeared abandoned. I saw no backpacks full of items; rather I saw loose strewn items. I saw no dry or stashed sleeping bags or bedding. I saw no tents.". WHAT PART OF THIS ANSWER IS UNCLEAR TO YOU OR EVASIVE?
-And now you continue to insist that a volunteer organization with no defined leadership must be more accountable. You say "I still encourage you to get the leadership to be more explicit. ". YET AT THE SAME TIME YOU IGNORE MY VALID CLAIM THAT WE ARE NO DIFFERENT AND NO LESS ACCOUNTABLE THAN YOUR HUFF, WHO DOESN'T RECORD ITS MEMBERSHIP, MANDATE ITS MEMBERSHIPS ACTIONS, OR TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS MAVERICK MEMBERS.
You're lying when you claim I didn't answer your questions. Your lying when you report third-hand heresay as fact. And you're lying in action when you hold my group accountable at a level that you excuse your own group from even approaching; the lie of double-standard.
I invite you to drag your lazy ass to the next cleanup so you can record the activity. I challenge you to provide one piece of substantive evidence that TBSC has ever destroyed a camp or property. I call you a liar, a hypocrite, and a mook who has been given the answer three times over but refuses to hear it. And finally, I take back my apology; you ARE a festering sore of on the as*hole of this town. A petulant manchild with an agenda who pretends he can't hear the answers clearly given to his answers. A whiny malcontent.
Looks like you have answered my questions, as far as you can. Anonymously but presumably honestly.
You've clarified that in your personal experience, TBSC didn't give out instructions to take any particular care not to destroy homeless gear.
You also state both that you never saw "any camps or usable items destroyed" in the Westside and Cemetery clean-ups, and that you saw no currently occupied homeless camps nor any usable homeless items in those clean-up's.
I shall add this to any discussion I have about TBSC in the future.
You did post this before, and thank you for repeating it. I wasn't intentionally trying to misstate your position. These threads get long and I sometimes don't look back far enough into the thread.
It's not that I'm expecting the leadership to be "accountable", but rather that given some of the rhetoric ("illegal camps"), I think it's telling that S.O.S. instructs its volunteers to take care not to disturb homeless fear, but, by your account, TBSC leadership apparently (at least as far as you heard) does not.
In so far as you and others do take this care, I think homeless people appreciate it--as do I.
HUFF doesn't run "clean-up" operations that potentially threaten the survival gear of people on the margin--so I don't see the analogy. Nor, as I said, am I trying to hold the leaders accountable for "maverick" behavior of some members--but rather for the official position they take. HUFF does take official positions, lots of them.
It is interesting to me that in the areas you cleaned up you found no camps whatsoever (i.e. containing any usable gear). If I were to pursue this further with you, if you were to come out of the shadows and be openly interviewed by name (or even anonymously), I'd ask for more details about the extent of the cleanup, what specific area it covered, when it happened, etc. Then I could do a little more research about whether homeless people in that area had complaints about TBSC.
But I'm not expecting that from you. Particularly since this thread is about the anarchist graffiti at the end of the TBSC video. If you'd like to start a new threat by posting an account of your clean-up, where it started, where it ended, how much ground it covered, when it happened, etc. I'd be happy to do some more research on this.
I doubt you're likely to be interested in this, as we've gone on too long already.
I do understand your frustration over my missing your earlier answer.
And frustrate you though it may, I end with a question similar to the one I began with: "why doesn't TBSC advise its volunteers to take care, as SOS does, not to destroy homeless camps?" This is not intended to provoke you, but rather to encourage the TBSC leadership to encourage their follow SOS's procedure. Unless, of course, they don't mind if homeless camps are destroyed.
No. It would do none of these things. However, because you know that it's the one answer that you can't be given right away, you get to walk away "winning" this argument, even though you were slapped around like a little girl. Nobody in TBSC (or anywhere in all of Santa Cruz, for that matter, including the city council since you aren't a resident) "owes" you ANYthing. Maybe they aren't responding because they don't want to. Maybe they actually do take personal joy at not having to go through piles of needles to try to find the things that *might* be usable personal property. You don't know, so you assume the worst.
Then I'll restate a question that "I Have" asked: when will HUFF call for the complete ending of all dangerous homeless encampment activities that require cleanup in the first place? Because until HUFF does so, and until that problem stops, then I can only assume that you take delight and pleasure in finding used needles where people hike and children play.
If, on the other hand, we collectively stopped interacting with him, his ego will drive him to other communities or maybe just to retirement. As bright and knowledgeable as he is, his relentless need for an enemy and his ability to draw people into his web of "dialogue" keeps him visible and with the appearance of being important. He is no more or less important than any one of us working on a wide variety of issues in our community. His need to be at the center of all things "homeless" keeps homeless people from developing new leadership who might have the ability to communicate with the institutional "powers that be" and effect change, at least incrementally. Incremental change is generally better than none at all. Small change sometimes adds up to dollar bills.
Activism and leadership require the good faith effort and ability to talk productively with people with whom we don't agree. The idea is to factually and sometimes passionately persuade others to see our point of view. Robert doesn't believe in doing that - he's an all or nothing guy whose ego requires that he be the sole spokesperson for the cause. Strong leaders know they are members of a team of activists.
Take a break Robert and give us all one as you do that.
He disregarded the specific answers and information I gave him in answer to his questions. And at the same time, he declines to answer direct questions made to him.
He is posting that TBSC destroys camps. But he admits he's never been to a cleanup, nor knows when or where they occurred. His only "evidence" was third hand info. purportedly given to him by Steve. When it is subsequently pointed out to Robert that Steve has denied that he ever reported this heresay, Robert again clams up and avoids acknowledging that truth or responding to the direct challenge that he has lied.
Robert is like an indignant 5 year old who doesn't like the answer it gets, so simply keeps repeating "But Whyyyyyy!?". Even though he's been told why.
There were no camps Robert. There were no useable belongings. You have no evidence that any of the same was ever destroyed. Your one unsubstantiated third-hand account has been debunked by the person you claim said it. I've told you directly that there were no camps or usable materials evidenced at either cleanup I attended. I posted you video that clearly shows the location, the terrain, the materials, and the date. And yet, like a petulant child or a lazyass adult, you keep demanding that someone take you by the hand and lead you to the evidence. Even though the evidence was spoon fed to you.
Here's the truth: Robert has lied and been caught doing so. Nobody told him camps were destroyed. No camps were destroyed.
Robert, I'll cut you one last deal: When I hear you lecturing the homeless campers and drug addicts whose abandoned crap I've cleaned up that they must camp clean, leave behind no rigs, bottles, or trash...then I will in turn lecture the TBSC volunteers I"ve participated with.
I challenge you to drag your lazy ass out to Ocean St. for the next event, this Friday. And I report to you in advance, SO YOU DON'T LIE AGAIN: CalTrans cleaned up a homeless camp today at the end of Ocean, where it enters Hwy. 1 South. Not TBSC. It's already done. Big orange caltrans bags with hundreds of pounds of crap and abandoned materials.
Save your time and scant reputation and don't bother lying next week that it was TBSC.
"Looking for a close but affordable getaway for the weekend? Visit Santa Cruz! Spend the day soaking up the sun and sea at one of our many bro n' babe beaches!
Spend spend spend your hard earned cash downtown on necessities like gourmet doggie biscuits and $15 taco plates!
Enjoy our delightfully colorful cultural mix of provincial blue-collar East-siders, propertied liberal green-capitalist West-siders, and poor street performers, college graduates majoring in philosophy, heroin users, and part-time anarchists.
fine print: No smoking, no shoes, no service, some restrictions may apply, for quality assurance, your face may be monitored while visiting SC, see the Police Department or the Chamber of Commerce for details. Commerce is king, long live commerce!"
TBSC seems to be primarily concerned with individual behavior, specifically behavior usually associated with the underclass of a capitalist society. True, much of the behavior that they get their panties in a bunch over revolves around personal safety but just as much of it also revolves around preserving their perceived (i.e. law enforced) "rights" to commerce and property. Anarchists like me, loosely fall into this category of errant people, though I don't believe we are their primary target. This is to say, the A symbol in their propaganda video was probably thrown in to scare people and make them associate homeless drug addicts with anarchy, even though the situation is much more complex.
TBSC's very name implies that the underclass of visibly unemployed and less visible radical people have taken over and that "real" Santa Cruz peeps must "take it back." In a sense, TBSC is a liberal version of the Tea Party - the former promotes "positive loitering" by claiming public space that they usually would avoid while the latter promotes broader issues about freedom and democracy while packing semi-automatic weapons. Both are quasi-populist in rhetoric, police-friendly, indignant, and a tad hysterical.
I used to live by Grant St Park and yes, the area has its seedy moments. But to me, this is as much an symptom of the geography of the area as it is of class inequity. Even the casual observer can see how Ocean St serves as a gateway to the bigger (i.e. more important) enterprises of Santa Cruz - the Boardwalk and downtown. Ferrell's donuts, Mickie Deez, Denny's, and cheap hotels have never suggested classy areas - Ask yourself this, do the propertied classes that make up the bulwark of TBSC spend a lot of time there? Of course not.
The question I'd like to ask TBSC folks is, where exactly were you when the GAP, Borders, Urban Outfitters, American Apparel, or any of the big corporate chains were moving into town? Where were you when the proposed town plaza was shot down? Where were you when a living wage proposal was put on the ballot? Where were you when the SC police department teamed up w/ Homeland Security to streamline deporting or indefinitely detaining undocumented immigrants?
Yes, I know your organization didn't exist then, but what does it say about you and your values? Within the last 15 years, a progressive agenda with en eye towards economic justice has pretty much been abandoned in favor of a "police and commerce come first" model, as epitomized by mayor Ryan Coonerty. Our hollowed out shell of a "local newspaper" works hand in glove to sensationalize almost every police report, thereby increasing the general paranoia, causing people to avoid going out, and thereby only eliminating the "public" in public safety.
Marinate on that TBSC while you "loiter" this Friday.
I'm Auntie Imperial, and I approve of this message
On a sad note, someone we might have found in the neighborhood passed recently due to complications from Diabetes.
You most likely have seen Chris if you ever ventured downtown. Word had it he was US Army Special Forces at one time. and later, one of the Methamphetamine addicts that TBSC would most likely seek to semantically and socio-politically demonize, NOT assist medically or psychologically.
Chris had lived in Santa Cruz for about 15 years.
Personally I like to keep a close eye on the local Fascist News Network... especially the programming that occasionally rears it's PR skank-infested head claiming "good works by good citizens" (Showing the true nature of the 'good citizen' trope, scapegoating the Jews and Roma... taking their jobs and housing while shipping them off to slave labor camps, were 'good works' according to all the "Good Germans" of the 30s.) while, in reality, doing nothing for anyone but them and theirs.
The people I KNOW that follow this group, TBSC (albeit the people I know vaguely 'follow') are typically and utterly apolitical. They only got 'involved' because the city's social, jobs, and housing policies have adversely affected their neighborhoods with 'sociological wreckage' to be victimized.
One of them, a woman who lives on Lower Ocean street, used to work at that 'whorehouse-of-a-bar' (Note the quotes moderator...) called "The Catalyst" and complained about the hookers on her street... But not the ones she served while at work.
That's typical of the social consciousness and analytic ability of most of TBSC's followers.
But NOT the leaders... They HAVE their agenda... and it's NOT in their 'About', because the agenda is intrinsically the same as the DTA and they don't want their true believing followers to know lest the PR 'spell' be broken.
I think that perhaps you, and A-Migo, have let your personal politics obscure your vision.
To Auntie I reply that just because you may not see TBSC members attending the groups or organizations you do doesn't mean we're apolitical. Personally, I belong to TBSC as well as volunteer with annual beach cleanups, park/trail restorations, and make donations to quite a few local programs and charities. Don't confuse my lack of presence at SubRosa or your group-de-jour as being apolitical. Don't confuse having a different set of politics than you as apolitical.
Amigo points out that TBSC didn't exist 15 years ago and chides while asking "Yes, I know your organization didn't exist then, but what does it say about you and your values? Within the last 15 years, a progressive agenda with en eye towards economic justice has pretty much been abandoned in favor of a "police and commerce come first" model,".
He/she may have answered their own question. I wasn't as concerned about SC 15 years ago. I didn't see the proliferation of gangs then, local or international. Or heroin abuse. Or murders. Or methheads. Or what seems weekly stabbings and armed robberies in the downtown areas. Did they exist? Yes. Were they at this level? No. 15 years ago, those issues were far less prevalent or prominent.
So, what's the cause and what's the solution? Those progressive agendas were in place then, yet the problems proliferated. The anarchists grew in number and presence over the past 5-7 years, yet the problems remain and grow worse still. I'm not saying either was responsible; I'm saying that the problems grow despite these presences. And now, TBSC has appeared. As has local police working with FBI/ICE/Gang InterventionTask Forces. Guess wee'll now see if any of those work. Personally, I'm ready to try these techniques.
"I didn't see the proliferation of gangs then, local or international. Or heroin abuse. Or murders. Or methheads. Or what seems weekly stabbings and armed robberies in the downtown areas. Did they exist? Yes. Were they at this level? No."
...is absolute nonsense... although with the advent of the Downtown SHOPPING MALL and all the laws, destruction of housing for workers and their jobs, that forced the more creative, less 'incomed' people out of town, you CAN NOTICE the 'problem children' alot more.
But, unlike what the city hoped for by drving those socially helpful and creative elements away, the addicts, who BY DEFINITION are utter socially conservatives, wanting NOTHING to change in their day-to-day routine and stayed, and WILL ALWAYS BE WITH YOU NOW DESPITE ANY LAW YOU MAY MAKE OR SOCIAL HARASSMENT YOU MIGHT CARE TO APPLY.
In other words, the city's policies and laws exacerbated an already existent situation.
They don't care.
It give closet Fascists like TBSC and the DTA more visible scapegoats, that unlike street performers or 'hippie' travelers are QUITE EASY to scapegoat
But, again, the city CREATED that situation.
It happens EVERYWHERE forced gentrification takes place.
And use the word "progressive" in context if you please... "progressive economics".
That means "progressively" more profits, at the existing community's expense.
They have NEVER exhibited any tendency towards 'progressive' social policies.
Lots of personal anonymous insults.
Hopefully the debate may encourage TBSCers to adopt SOS policies explicitly, if they haven't already and to let the community know they have. Even then, the true test will be what they do and the kind of rhetoric they use.
I find the analysis of the TBSC critics persuasive and interesting. And the responses by TBSC supporters, however sincere and passionate, seems vitriolic and naïve. Not to mention focused on discrediting me rather than addressing the issue.
If anyone has any reports from this Friday's “intimidate the street people” “positive loitering” event, please post them.
Perhaps during the next clean-up, the TBSC defenders can take some video of homeless campsites left undisturbed. You know, those 'illegal campsites" that TBSC so loudly bemoans.
I don't recall any instance of you doing that.
As a matter of fact, your asinine boycott/protest of Bunny's, was in support of trespassing, and illegally entering private property.
But here you are complaining about the desecration of what junkies leave behind.
Why don't you get out your multi-million-dollar trustfund checkbook, and purchase/rent some lockers/storage for all of the "survival" gear you are pretending to be concerned about??? One of those big storage lockers is all of $130 dollars for three months? Surely you can afford it.
But you're not here to help anyone, you're here to bully people into complying with your preposterous demands, so you can justify your otherwise useless existence.
And your "logic" is a joke. You maintain that the problem has gotten worse because "creative"people and "socially helpful and creative elements" were driven away, replaced by yuppies, and as a result the drug addicts and gang bangers were left to run wild? *ROTFL*
Oh, please. I can't stop laughing, albeit sad laughter. What a pipe dream. So the bad elements haven't increased in number and activity; they've simply gone out of control because the mediating forces of groovy creative and socially helpful elements no longer exist? That is such pitiful logic. The bretheren of Brent and Robert and Wes were keeping things in check until an imbalance occurred due to their being driven out by fiscal conditions?
You really need to get out of town more often to get some context. For starters, you deny the fact that gang influence from Salinas has migrated up here. You ignore the fact that South American gangs have moved in to control the heroin trade and profit from it. You ignore the economic near-collapse of our nation and most of the planet and the subsequent poverty, lowered incomes, and unemployment that have resulted. And that's only touching on the most obvious changes. A 30%+ growth rate over the same period in our city has caused similarly impactful changes.
But nooo...none of that played a role, eh Auntie? It's just the damn business owners and TBSC, who drove out the those socially helpful and creative elements away?
If I ever needed to be convinced that there's a power struggle for this town and that I've joined the correct side for me, this thread has convinced me I made the right choice.
See you out there. I'll be the one cleaning up. Who will you be? The one shooting up, or the one chiding me for throwing out the rig of the passed out addict next to me..or maybe the one banging a trash can and calling it social rebellion?
See, I take a different viewpoint.
Does TBSC actually owe you an answer?
"Hopefully the debate may encourage TBSCers to adopt SOS policies explicitly, if they haven't already and to let the community know they have. Even then, the true test will be what they do and the kind of rhetoric they use."
Still guilty until proven innocent then. Your axe has been ground quite sharp. As shown with your calling critics "persuasive and interesting' while supporters are "vitriolic and naïve". But you were the one that heard what you wanted to hear about TBSC, even though it wasn't even said. But it fit nicely with your prior prejudgment (correct or not) and you latched right on. At least you haven't called anybody a bigot yet, so we are making progress.
"If anyone has any reports from this Friday's “intimidate the street people” “positive loitering” event, please post them.
Perhaps during the next clean-up, the TBSC defenders can take some video of homeless campsites left undisturbed. You know, those 'illegal campsites" that TBSC so loudly bemoans."
why do you go and see for yourself? You're the reporter after all. If you go and actually see what happens, you won't get third hand info that's wrong. Or is going to the event "action" instead of "activism". Can't have anybody from huff actually do anything.
Have you ever been to the pogonip? Evergreen or the river bottom? Have you seen a camp or an abandoned one to see if you could tell the difference? Two days in a row now the large group of "hanger outers" at San Lorenzo park have been leaving piles of garbage behind when they leave, even though there's a trash can within 10 yards.
I still haven't made it to an event myself, so I'll with hold my judgment until I do. Might be able to make this one. hope to see you there Robert.
People who are surviving for the most part leave their camp all day. They leave things of as little of value as possible. This is living in the streets 101. It marks your spot but you don't have to panic if things are riffled through etc. Its great to do clean up work. You do need some rules, and like SOS, whom I have volunteered , they have very clear rules. These rules should be known by all who do cleanup work. I do not think TBSC has these rules. I don't think they care much. And who is TBSC? Since nobody actively seems to answer public questions asked of TBSC and members do not seem to know anything, I have to assume whomever puts together the flyers has a larger agenda than the average TBSC tool, ahem, I mean Member.
I have seen other TBSC flyers that ask people to call the cops on everything a homeless person does. Spare changing, call the cops, sitting on the side walk, call the cops, smoking, call the cops. Playing a drum, call the cops, etc. etc. That alone told me where they are on issues surrounding` homelessness. Many of the things on that flyer were not even illegal under the many SC laws used for such things.
Cleanups are wonderful if done right and there is PLENTY to clean without getting directly into active homeless camps. TBSC seems to only clean such areas known for being places where the homeless live, with little regard or care about their lives. This also gives me pause and suspicion of of their motives.
Put bluntly, it was just some boards, a couch, and served as a place for people to shoot up and get drunk. Period.
TBSC did the neighborhood a favor by cleaning up that eyesore. If they are taking away people's backpacks, sleeping bags, etc. I think that is messed up. But taking away the "infrastructure" for shooting galleries is totally acceptable in my book.
If TBSC wants to answer here, they should. But they shouldn't feel pressured by Norse. His credibility in this town is zero at this point, even among his former supporters. Answer someone else if they ask these questions, but don't answer Norse. He doesn't deserve it.
You see, unlike the uneducated hate-mongering that "I have" spewed: "Who will you be? The one shooting up" http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/01/14/18669204.php?show_comments=1#18669546 I'm not exactly a drug user, no less a methhead, and they're sort of paranoid and fussy about who they hang out with.. usually other meth users.
Regarding "I Have's" quip that: (I) deny the fact that gang influence from Salinas has migrated up here. You ignore the fact that South American gangs have moved in to control the heroin trade and profit from it.
The same rules apply. I was driving taxi in Watsonville as the housing there got pricier in the wake of the computer boom and NAFTA driven packing house shut-downs and ya know... The Chicano community was leaving en masse for places like Salinas and points elsewhere where the rents were more affordable.
But like the economic wreckage of Downtown Santa Cruz, crime increases when community DIES.
...and: "...the economic near-collapse of our nation and most of the planet and the subsequent poverty, lowered incomes, and unemployment that have resulted."
has meant that the Chicano workers have now fled to their countries of origin (reverse emigration) but AMERICANS LIKE THEIR DRUGS, so the drug gangs stay, but those gangs have near nothing to do with WHY that Junkie on the street corner is what he/she is.
But THIS "...the economic near-collapse of our nation and most of the planet and the subsequent poverty, lowered incomes, and unemployment that have resulted." has A LOT to do with why drug users use...
..SO, back to the lack of jobs, and housing one can afford with those jobs.
You know... alleviating what "I Have" is complaining about... instead of scapegoating the victims.
Auntie? You Punked Out on this reply. You danced away to NAFTA, immigration patterns, etc. Yet you studiously avoided the challenge.
I say you cut and run when faced with specific refutation of your cause-and-effect construct. Went right back to New World Order and rhetoric. Weak job Auntie.
doesn't that drain away police resources that could be better deployed
against heroin pushers in the Pogonip?
I see you have filmed the heroin pushers there yourselves.
Good work. Now what? Are the police making any arrests?
Why the delay?
People hide and sleep at night, and leave in the day and hope to come back.
As for the cemetery, what the hell gives ANYBODY the right to camp in a cemetery? Like I said, tear down the encampments, toss the syringes, politely place backpacks, personal items outside the fence. That's how I would handle it if I was in charge of TBSC.
There are so many people in SC that truly have given up on themselves. The burgeoning homeless community migrates to and from SC because it's a spectacularly beautiful area, full of magic and light and love. The people who want to claim proprietary rights over the sidewalks and street corners are simply afraid of the duality of life. If you have people with homes, you invariably have people without homes. If there are people with jobs, then there will undoubtably be people without jobs. And for every citizen without an obvious drug habit, there are three or more with one.
(notice I said "obvious" -- most "straights" take more drugs on average but fail to recognize these substances as drugs due to lack of regulation)
The anarchist symbol spraypainted on that tree was not done by a true anarchist. The propaganda against the anarchist movement is driven by the fear that people will suddenly become animals if there is no governmental policies in place. I learned a lot from the streets of Santa Cruz. Mostly I learned what a society driven by fear can do to a community governed by love and mutual respect. To claim that one among us has an agenda that isn't heading for the same mutually beneficial outcome is ridiculous. (unless you're implying the gentrification turn to genocide) It'd be a strange and difficult world if the rich were to eradicate the poor.
Who would clean your houses?
Who would wash your cars?
Who would run your drive-thru windows?
Who would teach your children?
Who would do these things, except those who have ALWAYS had to struggle and ALWAYS needed more?
Most importantly, who I ask, WHO would police your streets?
Your lack of trust and distaste for change will be your own ruin. You've brought it on yourselves and the end is on its way for your delineated view of a beautiful and wonderfully diverse world culture we live in today.
A note of appreciation from the rich
Let's be honest: you'll never win the lottery.
On the other hand, the chances are pretty good that you'll slave away at some miserable job the rest of your life. That's because you were in all likelihood born into the wrong social class. Let's face it -- you're a member of the working caste. Sorry!
As a result, you don't have the education, upbringing, connections, manners, appearance, and good taste to ever become one of us. In fact, you'd probably need a book the size of the yellow pages to list all the unfair advantages we have over you. That's why we're so relieved to know that you still continue to believe all those silly fairy tales about "justice" and "equal opportunity" in America.
Of course, in a hierarchical social system like ours, there's never been much room at the top to begin with. Besides, it's already occupied by us -- and we like it up here so much that we intend to keep it that way. But at least there's usually someone lower in the social hierarchy you can feel superior to and kick in the teeth once in a while. Even a lowly dishwasher can easily find some poor slob further down in the pecking order to sneer and spit at. So be thankful for migrant workers, prostitutes, and homeless street people.
Always remember that if everyone like you were economically secure and socially privileged like us, there would be no one left to fill all those boring, dangerous, low-paid jobs in our economy. And no one to fight our wars for us, or blindly follow orders in our totalitarian corporate institutions. And certainly no one to meekly go to their grave without having lived a full and creative life. So please, keep up the good work!
You also probably don't have the same greedy, compulsive drive to possess wealth, power, and prestige that we have. And even though you may sincerely want to change the way you live, you're also afraid of the very change you desire, thus keeping you and others like you in a nervous state of limbo. So you go through life mechanically playing your assigned social role, terrified what others would think should you ever dare to "break out of the mold."
Naturally, we try to play you off against each other whenever it suits our purposes: high-waged workers against low-waged, unionized against non-unionized, Black against White, male against female, American workers against Japanese against Mexican against.... We continually push your wages down by invoking "foreign competition," "the law of supply and demand," "national security," or "the bloated federal deficit." We throw you on the unemployed scrap heap if you step out of line or jeopardize our profits. And to give you an occasional break from the monotony of our daily economic blackmail, we allow you to participate in our stage-managed electoral shell games, better known to you ordinary folks as "elections." Happily, you haven't a clue as to what's really happening -- instead, you blame "Aliens," "Tree-hugging Environmentalists," "Niggers," "Jews," Welfare Queens," and countless others for your troubled situation.
We're also very pleased that many of you still embrace the "work ethic," even though most jobs in our economy degrade the environment, undermine your physical and emotional health, and basically suck your one and only life right out of you. We obviously don't know much about work, but we're sure glad you do!
Of course, life could be different. Society could be intelligently organized to meet the real needs of the general population. You and others like you could collectively fight to free yourselves from our domination. But you don't know that. In fact, you can't even imagine that another way of life is possible. And that's probably the greatest, most significant achievement of our system -- robbing you of your imagination, your creativity, your ability to think and act for yourself.
So we'd truly like to thank you from the bottom of our heartless hearts. Your loyal sacrifice makes possible our corrupt luxury; your work makes our system work. Thanks so much for "knowing your place" -- without even knowing it!
Rich $cum of AmericaHe who hath the gold makes all the rules.
Please make copies and share with other members of your caste!
It requires pandering to fear and reaction. That's where TBSC comes in... with the same SUBROSA (sic...k) agenda as the DTA and the Santa Cruz Chamber of Commerce.
Oh yeah, and those SCCC and DTA related elements use fear and reaction to advertise at you and sell stuff you really don't need.
Problem... Reaction... Solution... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1SRqR49_Fg
They walked up to someone who looked like an addict sitting by the Duck pond and proceeded to film the guy, who was doing nothing but sitting there.
I recognized the guy operating the camera from other places and times as a TV crew cameraman and asked him if he was working for the SCPD.
STONE SILENCE. I asked again... He turned his back on me to avoid further identification (I had a camera in hand) and wandered away with me asking him loudly if he was working for the SCPD.
Eventually he and the officer wandered off together, leaving the 'person-of-interest without so much as the officer ever pulling out his note pad or ticket book. As far as I could tell from the distance, the officer never called in either.
Never did get a response, but I suspect incidents like that... The PD giving 'tours' of their favorite people, whom I term "The USUAL Suspects" along with FILE FOOTAGE from local TV stations anxious to pander to the city, hoping for their (reportage) good graces, get mashed-up into these sorts of videos.
They are, by definition, propaganda... of the "Grey" persuasion.
Although the "A" on that tree looked really fresh... like it just got painted... by guess who?
Make that "Black" Propaganda... When it comes to Anarchists, and fear-pandering.
Conspiracies are everywhere.
Indoors OR outdoors though, give 'em a few dollars and they'll show you how they shoot up.
For a few more dollars they MIGHT even let you film it outdoors. Wherever you want, if the price is right.
But that's not what I'm saying has happened.
That's what YOU'RE IMPLYING I had said was happening.
Again... Reading comprehension problems.
BTW, I was wrong about that in this post: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/01/14/18669204.php?show_comments=1#18669613
The post above it I was responding to shows "PROVINCIALISM".
Small minds visualize small worlds, and anyone who can't make the connection between lack of jobs and an increase in gang activity no matter the ethnic background, is a mental midget in a small universe.
To which I ask Auntie: If he was doing nothing but sitting there..what causes YOU to LABEL him as an LOOKING LIKE AN ADDICT?
Sublime irony, to watch someone who likes to chide others for profiling and assuming outing themselves as just the same as those they routinely blame for the same.
What do I look like? A Cop!? A Republican? I know you to look like a hypcritical fool who spews dogma but avoids answering real and specific questions that challenge your dogma and generalities.
...and you are most likely of a similar culture to the Neighborhood Watch putz who works as a manger for Slater Construction. He accused me of being an addict when I confronted him about tampering with a friend's vehicle on "HIS" street one day.
Because he's a coward he tried to drive away after calling the police.
That didn't happen for potentially violent reasons I won't get into here, and when the police showed up, the spotlight was on him, and his tampering.
He can't tell the difference between someone who has long hair and a drug addict, and neither can you.
Oh, and I KNOW where he lives...
I COULD BE YOUR WORST NIGHTMARE TOO... if you if I ever see you touch anyone's property that doesn't belong to you.
That's a promise.
I'll be all around in the dark - I'll be everywhere. Wherever you can look - wherever there's a fight, so hungry people can eat, I'll be there. Wherever there's a cop beatin' up a guy, I'll be there.
If my speculation is correct, this site: http://www.stabsantacruz.com/ is one of your 'masterpieces' and you think violence is funny... when it happens to others.
Nevertheless, this thread is pretty much spent and troll-infested now.
See you (I can identify you instantly) and your TBSC 'friends' on the streets.
I've lived in Santa Cruz for but 10 of my 52 years. I'm not a downtown merchant, a member of law enforcement, or involved in politics (save for voting) in any way.
So much for your ability to instantly identify me....
Go sell crazy somewhere else.
We're talkin about A REAL RACIST FREAK when we discuss the owner of Cafe Bene.
Do you buy the ObamaIsANigger Kenyan blend for your morning brew "Cafe Bene Reg"?
(That's not exactly what it's called but it's absolutely the semantic...)
Ken Bothello the owner, went and bought a shotgun and some 'door clearing' ammo a few years ago because (GASP!) some Chicano renters moved into his lily-white mortgage holder neighborhood up on Keystone who "had lots of visitors" and "left kids toys scattered around".
Those are quotes are in context.
He was SURE they were a Mexican Drug Gang.
Potentially, Ken is a very dangerous person, a verbal abuser of every female college employee who ever worked for him, and Republican Libertarian "TeaTard"
One day, a guy came into the shop... a construction worker on break. Ken started discussing his ideas about 'things' with him. The guy came outside after while, stopped to talk to me (a long hair and a crew cut construction worker) , and said "That guy's NUTS! I was a Marine and I NEVER talked crazy shit like that about weapons"
Needess to say, he never came back depite a constriction project right around the corner.
Ken alienates most of his customers eventually because he hasn't figured out after all these years that service workers OR their employers are not supposed espouse their opinions to customers unless they want to lose them, and he does, and he doesn't care because it's HIS business, which was 'bootstrapped' by mommy for him.
Vamping on former ambassador John Bolton's statement about the UN's top five floors, If something happened to his business, no one would miss it... except a few nepotic petit bourgeois freaks and ex-coksters who remember Ken fondly from the early 80s, when, like many of the other business owners downtown, the Canepa boys... The crew at the Cat, Bunny, he was engaged in a whole 'nother business.
That's a good thing.
TBSC already consists mostly of Xenophobic fear freaks...
Moronic because all they'd have to do is look for "Auntie" on Facebook... I hide from NO ONE.
As if I give a fuck if someone knows my name, or even who I am, but it's notable, and chilling, that the Teatard leader in Arizona said of the injured congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords:
"...if she lived under this constant fear of this rhetoric and hatred that was seething, why would she attend an event in full view of the public..."
As some erudite blogger in Colorado put it, the operative rationalization for the semantic-of-fear embedded in that statement is:
“Hey, we TOLD the Bitch to shut up”
Set 'em up for the hatred by your words and public actions, and then shoot' 'em down (literally and figuratively) when they don't cower.
Some jackass thinks I'm going to hide because they know my first name!
"A proto-fascist is someone who advocates political ideas that could become fascism...
...IS alive and well in America, and it's represented well by the underlying attitudes of people who would blindly follow fear-pandering cretins like the 'leadership' of TBSC.
They are, by their underlying philosophy based on scapegoating-by-threat of vigilantism, driving a fearful citizenry towards "Hate Group" status, and victimizing people who are essentially already victims.
Too bad their followers don't know (or care, as long as they're 'safe') they are party to Fascism and Blackshirt behavior.
Good Germans, each and every one... No matter what THEY THINK they're doing.
YOU ARE a first class dick (slang for detective) considering all one has to do is a simple search on FaceBook.
Now... If you know what I look like, you're most likely a friend. But you're attempting to SCARE ME (shaking-in-boots), so I'd assume you really know squat about me or you'd know I live "No Fear"... It's not just a brand slogan come-and-gone.
If you know what I look like and you aren't a friend it's even easier, because I can count the number of people in that category on one hand...
You're VERY alone...
But speculation aside, apparently I'm hitting on something that causes you to fear for your own delusions of doing something useful for Santa Cruz by pandering to Fascists and Blackshirts.
That's good, first "Problem" (I have an opinion you don't like), then "Reaction" (where you are right now... attempting to 'shut me up'), and then "Solution".
The solution, for me, is simple...
What you know about me doesn't matter, nor do you.
The solution for you?
Type one-liners to someone else.
See you soon...
Auch die genannten "Problem, Reaction, Solution" bekannt.
Ich kam zurück von den Toten, um Ihnen diese musikalische Grundierung auf, wie Faschisten arbeiten die Menschen zu überzeugen, daß der Faschismus die Lösung für ihre Ängste ist.
Translation: Also known as the aforementioned "Problem, Reaction, Solution"
I came back from the dead to bring you this musical primer on how Fascists operate to convince people that Fascism is the solution to their fears.
This goes out to all those folks duped by TBSC into thinking they're doing the right thing, by doing TBSC's "Right" (snicker) thing.
Neither my wife and I have been to a TBSC event, but this one was within walking distance, so we figured we should go see what the fuss is all about (on both sides). As we walked up Ocean St., we wanted to find a place to grab a bite on the way. We ended up at Rocko's on Water St. It was good, and we'll try it again.
We got to Franklin St. around 6:40. A large group of people were on both sides of the donut place. My first guess was around 100 and it trailed off from that point. Almost immediately I spotted a coworker who came up from lower Ocean to be there. We spent maybe the next hour and 15 talking to people. That was pretty cool, aside from my coworker, I ran into a person that I had taken a class with. She'd been in England for the last couple years and recently returned. My wife ran into a number of people that she had gone to school with and hadn't seen in as many as 25 years. Lots of introductions for me. I also met quite a few people that I didn't know. Some interesting stories. And interesting people. I think that where the win was at the event. When I lived up in the mountains, everybody knew who their neighbors were. Moving down, I lost that, so it was great to make the personal connections again. At 7:30 I went in for a maple bar and a milk. Wife wanted decaf, but they didn't have any. We were there til about 8 and then walked back home.
After we were at the event for about 10 minutes, the counter protest showed up. Maybe 10 to 15. Young, looked like a mix of street kids and UC students. Two looked pretty strung out. All in all, looked a lot like the Laroucheies that get bussed to conventions. My wife played count the nose rings with me. I spotted 4, but she claimed 5. From what I saw, most people ignored them, but the was one lady trying to engage, which wasn't cool. She was in a Tyler memorial shirt, and trying to stand in front of the signs. Becky showed up later to take photos.
At no point during the evening did I hear anybody saying that other people needed to be "gotten". I heard no anti-homeless talk. The only two anti homeless/poor signs I saw were actually held by the counter protesters, which seems kind of dumb. One woman walked up to me and asked for a quarter. I was out, after my donut, but I pointed her to the two holding the "free all prisoners" sign and said that I was sure that they'd be happy to help.
All in all I thought it went great. I had fun meeting new people ad running into old friends. Regrets - not going to an earlier one and having the donut. As we were walking home my wife and I passed Maryanne's and I found I really wanted ice cream more then a donut. I'll remember that for next time.
How many people got 'home' to find themselves without bedding for the night.
How many pounds of whatever left by whomever did you cart out of wherever?
and WHO's making "veiled" threats against who, " While complaining about the same."?
My 'threats' are NOT veiled. They're quite out in the open when I DO make them.
Usually, they're face-to-face. It ALL gets out in the open that way.
Get the implication "While complaining about the same."? You're so paranoid you think I'm making threats when I say "See you soon...".
Fearful mommy's closet-dwelling hate-mongering freaks-of-nature... I rest my case.
"How many people got 'home' to find themselves without bedding for the night." - zero
"How many pounds of whatever left by whomever did you cart out of wherever?' - also zero
"and WHO's making "veiled" threats against who, " While complaining about the same."?" - not me
"My 'threats' are NOT veiled. They're quite out in the open when I DO make them." - I don't find you threatening. I don't even find you interesting. But you asked, and I wanted to make sure the facts are out there.
The last part wasn't targeted(sic) at you.
I heard from sources it was just a booster and recruitment event...
Speaking of "targeted"
Incoming mail regarding how minds are managed...
The Right’s Deadly Demonizing DeviceAlso See:
The human brain is wired to give preference to negative information. It’s better to run from the lion that isn’t there than be caught by the lion that is there. So mentally accustomed are we to this that Bush’s old Weapons of Destruction routine was a lay-down. Not there after all? Who cares, at least we weren’t eaten by any WMDs.
The rise of mass communications, however, turned a one-time evolutionary advantage on its head. The ability to instantly produce fear among millions of humans endangers our very survival.
We’ve come to the point where a crackpot with a TV platform can generate threats of violence against a 78-year-old college professor simply by calling her an “enemy” and citing a few decades-old papers in which she advocated for the poor.
Frances Fox Piven, Van Jones and ACORN are not real threats to, well, anything. But the Deadly Demonizing Machine works best on the innocent. Guilty people are prepared for attacks. The innocent are caught off guard, their worlds are turned upside down. Evidence of their innocence is everywhere. How is it so easily overlooked?
Maybe we need a massive, anti-fear campaign on the level of anti-smoking campaigns, or anti-litter campaigns. We’re going to have to fill the media sphere with daily reminders that others are trying to poison us with hatred, provoking fear when there’s nothing to fear but fear itself." [In Full]
The Art Of Institutional Slander - Are You A 'Person Of Interest'? "...the 'person of interest' is someone against whom there is no real evidence but someone who can be, at least for a time, used, vilified, scapegoated. It's time our law enforcement politicians learn to say 'No comment' and for them to educate the public that very often, especially at the beginning of a case, police have no idea who the perpetrator was, or at least no real evidence."
By William Fisher,EX-State Department
...and last but not least... How America's perception will be 'managed' in the not-too-distant future through the "miracle" of Neuropsychology (with corporate campaign $$$ funding it):
Think of it however you like... in awe or abject terror.
A nation of sheep being led to the socio-cultural slaughter willingly.
The next time someone asks you why you believe something
political, or why you think Coke is better than Pepsi... consider:
The Real Deal... Neuro-Advertising:
It's NOT The Money... It's What They Do With It - Neuropsychology, 'BlipVertising', And The USSC Ruling On Corporate Electioneering
After all, the city of Santa Cruz is a corporatist entity attached at the wrist and ankles to the DTA and certain development interests such as the commercial property interests and more lately, due to the avowed intent to develop, AT THE EXPENSE OF THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE, a 'telecommuting city' that will STILL leave the average worker in Santa Cruz praying that IN-n-Out comes to town and not Watsonville so they can fight for a minimum wage job that won't pay the rent no less the commute to Watsonville.
My take is TBSC is a proto-fascist organization with a hidden agenda that directly correlates to the wishes of the DTA, the Santa Cruz Chamber of Commerce, and, through Ryan Coonerty's friend @ NExtSpace (cruzio is in this mix too... Their motto... 'Buy local, buy crap for an internet provider' hasn't panned out so they're going in the the cubie-leasing market too), the telecommuting transients who have no problem paying $2,000 plus a month for rent because they come from far away and can write it off on their taxes.
TBSC is party to ALL OF THAT because the underlying premise, as it is with ALL right wing vigilante organizations is: "I got mine, and you can just get out of the fucking way"
The people they're attempting to push out of the way are the city's disenfranchised. low level workers who don't fit the 'facework' labor demands of the DTA's SHOPPING MALL.. A FAILING SHOPPING MALL, using junkies speedfreaks anarchist whatever as the "threat" that the disenfranchised are alleged to represent.
So... There's your demonization and Institutional slander.
Any fucking questions?
Bullshit someone else. If you don't understand how an article about demonization, scapegoating people and institutional slander relate to the scumbags that founded and set the overall agenda for the direction of a Santa Cruz vigilante organization called Take Back Santa Cruz, you're either ignorant (my guess), lying, or a 'true believer' (Eric Hoffer's usage representing a potential Blackshirt).
The apparently removed comment preceding mine read:
"Now what does any of THAT manure got to do with the TBSC event?"
I hope that answers the question for the poster, and the poster's 'friends'.
Word from Steve Pleich at Friday's "loiter in" was that TBSC organizers told him they simply wander through the day before and "warn" people to move their stuff or risk having it taken.
I'll be playing his interview on Thursday night's Free Radio show 6-8 PM.
I also received a report from Ricardo the guitarist that vigilantes, who he claims are TBSC, were operating in tandem with police to destroy homeless property as he watched. They'd approach homeless people to take their stuff and use police back-up with threats of tickets if the homeless people resisted the seizure.
It's strange that leaders don't simply say "we tell our people not to do that" or "we encourage extreme care"--if they want to respect the property of the poor.
But then their rhetoric about "illegal campers" and "panhandlers" as well as the inflated politically-handy scare stories about "violence", drunks, and druggies suggests what their mindset is.
Why can't i go downtown without being accosted for money, my takeout food,cigarettes,dope(I don't smoke anything), and why do I get cursed out, spit at, and harassed for going out in public?
What about MY rights to peacefully enjoy public spaces?
And HUFF does advise businesses who discriminate against homeless people or push anti-homeless laws of their concerns before picketing outside, incidentally.
But do you ever instruct formerly housed people not to trash, vandalize, spoil, or create problems on business owner's property? Or on private property? And if they do, do you think someone has a right to call the police or ban them from that property? It's pretty much the same question in reverse. Don't you think respect should be a two way street.
Nobody would care if your flyers did not target homeless and poor people. In the late Eighties we had Take Back the Night. It was successful in helping women, gay and straight feel empowered and safer downtown by walking large groups etc. There were no permits and nobody ranted on that it was evil.
The first people to go during the beginning of Hitlers rise from Chancellor to full on dictator in 52 days were the poor and sick. The economy was bad, people went along, they cheered. When we see people acting in similar ways, albeit far from Hitler, yes I am concerned. I know my history and I see the parallels. I hope TBSC will act as a collective, vote, have meetings and decide what you really are. Why not fight for better mental health rather than bother the cops by asking everyone to call every time they see a panhandler or someone violating a sit on a planter law? This is the type of things I read and wonder what the fuck is this group really about and do the members even know, or are they just being led like puppets? Somebody makes decisions and yet everyone who says they are part of TBSC says, they have no leaders.
I think TBSC could end up being a positive if they simply changed a bit.
No Robert, it’s not about them, it’s all about you. Always has been hasn’t it? When my wife found out that I was posting in this thread, she asked why I bother. The description she gave of you was a small dog that sits in a window and barks all day as the world goes past. The dog feels important about itself, but the world goes on its business without much notice.
I can’t answer that one question that you have fixated on. As I have said, I have never gone to a clean up, so I have no first hand info. After my first meet up, I do intend to go to the next one. So I’ll let you know. But I’m not sure why you think TBSC owes you an answer. My bet is that they realize (as has Don Lane) that you have no real power or influence. I also don’t understand why you keep asking people here the same question over and over again even if they have told you that they don’t know the answer.
Now we have a second report (maybe) about TBSC (maybe) removing camps (maybe). I don’t believe it. It you were half the reporter you claim to be you would have checked before posting that. It was your blind hatred for TBSC that caused you to jump in and hijack this story with something that turned out not to be true. Now you’re posting basically the same thing. On what is Ricardo basing his “claim” that this is TBSC? Could it have been parks?
@Beast From The East. I don’t that’s how the trust works. There might be a metric shitload of money there, but that doesn’t mean he has access to it. Robert might not be rolling in the dough, but it does seem to be enough to save him from wage slavery.
This is unlike S.O.S. (boy--how many times have I had to repeat this?), which did a clean-up today, I understand.
Going through areas a day before and "warning" people--if that's what TBSC does--is not good enough. It has a clear "get out" or "hide out" implication.
If TBSC is serious and honest about only wanting to ensure safety in an area, then they should have no problem doing what S.O.S. does--advising volunteers to respect homeless people and their property. They apparently don't. And their rhetoric about "illegal camps" and "panhandlers" gives one the impression that they are targeting visibly homeless people who don't move along fast enough.
Time for TBSC apologists to acknowledge this and to advise TBSC to change their policy, and to show some respect to those who live outdoors through choice or necessity. Advise volunteers that homeless people aren't second-class citizens to be used in a political game
to drum up a false hysteria.
Attacking me personally (and anonymously--Ed N. excepted) doesn't address the argument. Is what TBSC doing okay? Those who think so are part of the problem.
I'll hope to play the Pleich interview from Friday a week ago tomorrow morning at 10 AM on Free Radio Santa Cruz at 101.1 FM (call-in number is 831-427-3772). If any of the trolls on line (and those who attack me personally rather than addressing the concerns I raise are that--trolls, seeking to derail the discussion) have more courage than Mayor Coonerty apparently can muster, call in. You'll get your chance to speak.
I will not respond to anonymous posters who will not fully identify themselves, ever. Robert Norse. Becky Johnson, Steve Argue, Brent Adams and others who have the courage to use their real names take a lot of abuse from anonymous cowards here. That's their privilege, of course, but consider not responding to anonymous posters. They don't warrant that degree of respect.
The reason many of us prefer to remain anonymous is because we have seen instances where individuals from HUFF have called for people to boycott specific businesses based on comments online. In one particular instance, a HUFF member tried to discourage people from patronizing a business she *thought* was associated with a particularly ardent detractor. I've even heard stories about HUFF members harassing people over the phone once their identity was revealed. Granted, that's hearsay at best, but why would anyone take that chance?
One only need look at your most recent post; you obviously have tried to do some "research" to see who Ed Natol is. The point is...if I'm not personally attacking anyone, if I'm keeping to the topic of the original post, and generally comporting myself as an adult, what difference does it make under which name I post?
Every primer on Internet use recommends that people do not give out personally identifying information online. Just because someone else ignores that advice does not make everyone who heeds it a "plant".
But, I would not deny your privilege to post here (even if I had the authority). Consider a financial contribution to Indymedia. Easy to do from the site.
And just because someone does not agree with you does not make them a “plant”. Ratchet down the paranoia a little bit. Yes, I did work for the city once. I was a library clerk 15 years ago. Sadly, they never let me into any of the secret meetings. Robert used to do the same thing. If you disagreed with him you were a “bigot”, “troll” and/or “fascist”. He’s gotten away from that, and it makes the conversations better. If you have something to add to the thread, please post it. Otherwise I don’t care if you read this or not.
I'd be interested, then, to hear your assessment of Robert Norse, whose real name is Robert Kahn. In your book, I guess that makes him a coward too? And, as someone else pointed out, what about those anonymous posters who's opinion is more closely aligned with yours? Are they also cowards?
I expect now to be about the time you stop responding to me....since I'm such a coward.
where are all the arrests?
if junkies are the problem why all the whining about norse and the poor?
just like the police.
if the merchants downtown weren't wasting police time on harassing the poor, maybe the police could patrol your neighborhood and make it safer.
your real enemy is the downtown merchants. as long as heroin sales don't
hurt the downtown merchants, nothing will be done about.
auntie is right, tbsc is clueless about politics.
Clearly, many of you who utilize this service value your anonymity. Go ahead. I value playing fair and dealing straight. Surely anonymous posters understand the difference between standing up, using your real name, and pseudonym posting. If you read my prior comments on this issue, I said "There is a high probability many of these anonymous posters are "plants, ..." I stand by that assertion.
Some anonymous posts are interesting. Auntie Imperial is interesting, at least to me. Most anonymous posts are garbage, in my opinion. In regards to being rude, some people consider it rude to disagree with them. With a verifiable name attached, you can call to account someone for a perceived conduct transgression.
Everybody knows Robert Norse is Robert Norse Khan. So what. And again, I would not deny your privilege to post here, even if I had the authority.
Since you do not know me, you do not know the status of my neck, or my background, or the online culture I grew up with. True story - back before the web, back even before the net went public, there was a largish thriving online community on the dial up BBSes. Those were fun times - there was The Fault Line, Stuart II, The Village, Sir Lamorak's Castle and others that have been lost to memory in soft middle age. One thing there that would drive you crazy, is that nobody used their real name. That wasn't important. What was important was being able to be understood and if you were in an argument to make sure that you had your facts straight and be able to present them well. an unwritten motto was "welcome, but don't suck, or you'll get run".
Case in point. You're more concerned about the name at the top of the post then the content. doing it that way will make it very hard for you to learn. If that is so important to you, you are at the wrong web page. Most of the user names here are faked. I'm going to keep mine, as a few posters here (all of them anonymous BTW) have a thing for throwing bricks through the windows of people they disagree with. I like my windows.
Maybe you won't be reading this. I don't care. If that's the case it's your loss. Other people will read it and with a little luck we'll start to understand each other.
Robert - I heard both Steve's and Beck's report about the event. One little correction. Many doughnuts were consumed. There was quite the line when I went in for mine.
-Exactly. That is the point. Not to lump all anarchists together, but there is definitely an element within that has taken to attacking the homes of those they have a political problem with. This is scary behavior. It is intimidating. It is meant to intimidate. It works.
Perhaps you should call out those folks and their violent behavior before jumping to conclusions as to why people post here anonymously.
Oh, you must be talking about the city council, police, park rangers and TBSC destroying peoples' tents and the like, right?
We all know that Becky Johnson is notorious on the Topix comment pages. Some peoples comments to her are respectful. Some comments are really horrible. And let's be honest, she brings on some very heated debate on her own. She's said some pretty out there things. Unfortunately, some people attack her by making comments about her age, weight, and appearance. That's uncalled for. There's one person in particular that calls her all kinds of unflattering things. This person posted under the initials DBS. Definitely causing trouble under a pseudonym. Then I think he started posting under Dan. Then under DanBS. One day he posted the comment under the name Dan B Smith. The IP address showed a city other than Santa Cruz. Well Becky did a google search for a Dan B Smith in Santa Cruz and found a construction business owned by that person. She started posting in her Topix comments that people should boycott the business. Said that the owner hated homeless people. Said that the owner of the business made horrible comments about women's weight issues. She was kind of relentless. She was determined to cause him trouble at his business. The big problem with all this is that the Dan B Smith she started attacking online was not the guy making comments to her online. It was a totally different person. So she thought she had someone's identity and smeared an very innocent person who had nothing to do with it. I don't think she ever contacted the guy to say she was sorry for telling people to boycott his business. She honestly owed him that. But she was probably afraid he would sue her. And he would have had reason to.
While I'll post using my first name and last initial I will never post using my full name. What Becky did is real proof that some people will use that information to try and harm someone. Whether the person did anything or not. And lots of people read these comments. You never know who will get a fly up their ass and try to harm someone. It's just not safe. Kudos to you for doing it.
BECKY: First, DBS is DAN B SULLIVAN
DAN B SULLIVAN WRITES: "I outed myself you FAT fool"--April 12 2009
DBS DOES hate homeless people. I can link to hundreds of bigoted posts.
DBS also ridicules fat people. For a little while, DAN posted under
DAN B SULLIVAN. So I looked up Dan B Sullivan , looking for someone who owned a business
in Santa Cruz as DAN has claimed.
I came up with this: http://www.dansullivanconstruction.com/
So I ASKED DBS online ONE TIME if THIS was him.
I ASKED him to confirm or deny whether it was him.
He stonewalled me which led me to believe I probably had/have the right guy.
Then I ASKED if he was worried that people who are overweight would boycott his business when they found out how badly he ridiculed people for being fat.
The ONE post where I did this, has been deleted by TOPIX monitors, so I can't link to it.
RANDY Q claims I "outed" DAN mulitiple times. He is incorrect. And I never claimed that I knew for sure that it was him. There was never more than ONE post which ASKED if DBS is Dan. B. Sullivan of Santa Cruz and living on Baymount St. in Santa Cruz. He declined to confirm or deny.
Since I could not be sure it was him, I made no further posts.
And I didn't harm Dan B. Sullivan in any way since all I did was provide him with more advertising.
RANDY Q CLAIMS that I claimed that DBS is DAN B. SMITH. He is wrong. Dan B. Smith is NOT DBS as far as I know.
Finally, DAN has repeatedly attempted to get ME fired from MY job. If anyone can prove damages in court, it will be me against DAN rather than DAN against me.
"...So I ASKED DBS online ONE TIME if THIS was him.
I ASKED him to confirm or deny whether it was him.
He stonewalled me which led me to believe I probably had/have the right guy."
Then a few sentences later writes:
"...RANDY Q CLAIMS that I claimed that DBS is DAN B. SMITH. He is wrong. Dan B. Smith is NOT DBS as far as I know... "
So which is it? Is it 'probably him', or is it not him as far as you know?
BJ have you been called on the carpet by school officials because of DBS? Or have you been chastised because of the content of your own posts? Most of what you write is deeply disturbing and certainly would alarm any parent of school aged children, especially girls.
That's only IF you are correct that Dan B. Sullivan is the construction company owner. If it turns out that it's a different person then you're in a lot of trouble. And other than getting Dan's last name wrong, what exactly did Randy Q. get wrong? By your own admission you did hunt down information about him and then posted it online with the intention of getting him in trouble. In reality you've rather confirmed the previous post.
REALITY CHECK WRITES: "So which is it? Is it 'probably him', or is it not him as far as you know?
BECKY: Dan B. Smith is NOT DBS as far as I know. Dan B. SULLIVAN IS DBS as far as I know.
And there aren't THAT many Dan Sullivans who live in Santa Cruz and have owned a business for several decades. THAT would be YOU, DAN.
BECKY: First. Do NOT call me "BJ". It is rude and offensive. Your are not my buddy, so stop calling by a nickname that you KNOW I don't like. Doesn't that make you purposefully rude?
As to your OPINION that "comments on TOPIX don't count" I beg to differ. It is against the law to libel or slander anyone --even in a TOPIX forum. Even if you were somehow able to claim that I am a public figure, it is STILL illegal to libel or slander me provided I can prove malice.
Believe me. For DAN, I have several hundred examples of malice. Finally, for a suit to proceed, I need to show damages. Losing a job specifically because of libelous or slanderous statements made about me online IS actionable. All I have to prove is that I lost the job BECAUSE of the comments.
So comment at your own risk.
Finally, have I been "called on the carpet" about my postings? No. There is a very specific format for filing a complaint against people in my job description. No one has gone through with the paperwork for some reason. Just lots of people crying "wolf!" How about you, MARTHA? Have you ever filed a complaint against me in a formal process? Or do you just prefer to slander me online from behind a pseudonym?
MARTHA NO LAST NAME WRITES: "You attacked an innocent business person based on your best guess. You never even apologized. That says a whole lot about you as a person, none of it good."
BECKY: First, I didn't "attack" this person. I POSTED the website of his business in the forum and ASKED if he was DBS. How is that an attack? Second, how can you be so sure DBS is NOT him? Third, DBS is far from "innocent." He is an online cyberstalker for starters, an anti-homeless bigot, and is a verbally abusive bully.
BECKY: Okay. You ADMIT he got DAN's last name wrong. ONE for me.
RANDY Q claimed I repeatedly posted his name address, etc. --I posted ONCE.
RANDY Q claimed I called for a boycott of his business. I did not. I ASKED him
if he was worried that overweight customers might boycott his business considering his incredible bias against fat people. That is NOT "calling for a boycott"
FINALLY RANDY Q made a very unreliable statement when he claimed that I "got the wrong person". RANDY Q has no idea if I got the right person or the wrong person.
And MORRIS, I did NOT post the business address with the "intention of getting him in trouble." I posted it so I could ASK DAN if that was his business. He declined to state.
NOTE that RANDY Q has NO LINKS to any of these comments I supposedly made. The ONLY comment where I did post the business owners website has been deleted---though it was not offensive nor libelous.
BECKY: Calling someone "fat" is intended to humiliate, but it doesn't refute my points, does it?
DW WRITES: Becky. What is libel or slander is accusing you of committing a crime or having a loathsome disease when that's not true."
BECKY: RANDY Q said that I had called for a boycott of DBS business. I did not.
RANDY Q said that I was intending to harm his business. I wasn't and I didn't. RANDY Q said that I had repeatedly posted the name and address of the business. I only posted in ONCE. Libel and slander are not limited to your list of two items.
DW WRITES: And, since you're a "limited public figure" the rules change dramatically."
BECKY: Even so, I'm still protected by law from MALICIOUS libel.
DW WRITES: And, if it's said in comments at a City Council meeting, it's not actionable at all--there's an exemption under California law for anything said during a judicial or government proceeding--City Council meetings fall under this exemption. Translation--anyone can say anything they want to about you during public comment."
BECKY: You got so many things wrong, I'm not sure where to start. Libel is libel regardless of the forum. If spoken at a city council meeting, it would be slander. Slander is also actionable. Usually, the courts are only interested in damages. Unless you can prove damages, you don't have much of a case. At best, you can get the court to order the person to stop the slandering.
There is no immunity for comments made during public comment. In fact, since those meetings are broadcast, slanderous comments made there can cause even more damage.
Today, being named Martha in Santa Cruz just got a little less safe.
Over here in the Central Valley, she'd be laughed out of court by our superior court judges if she tried to sue. None of the stuff she claims is libelous is actionable. Let's put it this way, a bunch of college basketball players tried suing the LA Times and our local paper for alleging they were pointshaving games some years ago. Their case went absolutely nowhere. Which is where Becky's headed.
BECKY: A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation would not apply to a slander suit against a person making false and malicious statements about another party from the microphone during oral communications at City Council.
Perhaps you are confusing the victory ROBERT NORSE's team experienced recently with an 11 - 0 9th Circuit Court of Appeals with some kind of ruling allowing an anything-goes attitude towards oral communications. That victory showed that a person does not give up their rights to freedom of speech just because they are attending a limited public forum. As long as they don't disrupt the proceedings, they can't be charged with disrupting a public meeting.
GEORGE KOVACEVICH, one of our bevy of City Attorneys, said that "anything goes" at oral communications. He was wrong specifically AND generally. Specifically, because in the past NORSE had been censored at the mike by FITZMAURICE and later REILLY. He had said the word "flunky" and the word "fuerer" in his speech and his mike was cut.
Likewise a person committing slander during oral communications can be sued for slander.
I double checked California Civil Code section 47. It says that anything that is said in the course of a legislative session (which according to California case law includes local government bodies such as City Councils) or a judicial proceeding is absolutely privileged. That translates into: the apeaker (and anyone who fairly reports on the comments) can not be successfully sued for slander or libel. In other words, privilege as truth is also, is a defense to any libel or slander suit.
That's why I made the suggestion that you talk to a real attorney instead of that loser who's been beaten in court over homeless issues so many times in your community.
Now, go away....
BECKY: That is said by LEGISLATORS as they enact legislation. Public comment is not enacting legislation, and a person committing slander during oral communications CAN be sued for slander. In NORSE's case, KOVACEVICH tried to pull that "immunity" defense too. He got his ass handed to him on a plate. They said that the council was acting administratively when they ejected NORSE, and hence do not qualify for immunity. Public comment is not "acting legislatively" either. Likewise, during a judicial proceeding, where the court can rule on admissibility or not, a witness can be protected from slander but not from perjury, which is what it would be if the allegation was not true.
Again, Civil Code section 47 says "47. A privileged publication or broadcast is one made: ....(b) In any (1) legislative proceeding, (2) judicial proceeding, (3) in any other official proceeding authorized by law, or (4) in the initiation or course of any other proceeding authorized by law and reviewable pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 1084) of Title 1 of Part 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure...." Hopefully you noticed there is no statement limiting the privilege to "legislators" as you claim.
California courts as recently as last year have ruled that an "accurate reporting" of a public meeting is privileged. The First Amendment Coalition reports:
"A California appeals court upheld a decision to dismiss a libel suit against the San Francisco Chronicle, finding that a column by Chip Johnson was a “fair and true report of a public proceeding” and protected under California law. -db
September 21, 2010
By Kenneth Ofgang
A libel suit by an Oakland City Council member against the San Francisco Chronicle was correctly stricken under the anti-SLAPP statute, the First District Court of Appeal has ruled.
Div. Four, in an unpublished opinion by Presiding Justice Ignacio Ruvolo, said an Alameda Superior Court judge correctly ruled that the allegedly libelous column by the Chronicle’s Chip Johnson was a “fair and true report of a public proceeding” and thus absolutely privileged under Civil Code Sec. 47(d)(1). The opinion was filed last Thursday.
Desley Brooks claimed, in her 2008 complaint, that Johnson defamed her in a June 2008 column that centered on Deborah Edgerly, who wasOakland’s city administrator before resigning in the wake of an incident in which she allegedly interfered with police officers who arrested her nephew.
While Johnson has written a number of columns critical of Brooks as well, the libel suit centered on a sentence in the column about Edgerly, in which Johnson urged an independent investigation of Oakland City Hall. Recounting a number of misdeeds, he insisted that “nothing was done when allegations of illegal kickbacks were raised against District Six Councilwoman Desley Brooks, another of Edgerly’s allies, after police investigators linked bank deposits made by the mother of one of Brooks’[s] employees to several personal checks for $1,200 written to Brooks (exactly half the employee’s paycheck).”
In support of its anti-SLAPP motion, the Chronicle presented evidence that both the city’s Public Ethics Commission and the county’s district attorney had investigated allegations that Brooks had employed her boyfriend’s daughter, Christen Tucker, in a salaried position, even though the woman was attending Syracuse University fulltime, and that the council member had received a portion of the woman’s salary as a kickback.
No action was publicly taken as a result of those investigations, but the trial judge said the Johnson column “was not provably false” and was thus absolutely privileged. “An ordinary reader, learning that Councilwoman Brooks was being officially investigated for kickbacks in connection with the employment of a staff member, would have the same opinion of Councilwoman Brooks whether or not the challenged phrases were part of Mr. Johnson’s column,” the judge wrote.
Ruvolo, writing for the Court of Appeal, agreed.
He explained that Brooks did not dispute that the suit implicated the newspaper’s free speech rights, so the plaintiff had the burden of proving that she was likely to prevail on the merits. She failed to do so, the presiding justice wrote, because the “gist or sting” of the sentence referring to Brooks was that she had been investigated for certain improprieties, which was generally true.
Ruvolo rejected the contention that the report was “an outright lie or falsehood” because it included an erroneous implication that Tucker’s mother had written checks to Brooks while she was in office, when in fact the woman had died before Brooks was elected. Brooks insisted that she had reviewed her bank records and that no employee or person acting on behalf of an employee had deposited any funds into her account.
The presiding justice noted that California courts have held the “fair and true report” privilege applicable to reports that included some errors. He cited, among other cases, Jennings v. Telegram-Tribune Co. (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 119, which applied the privilege to an article reporting that the plaintiff had been convicted of tax fraud and tax evasion, where the plaintiff actually pled no contest to two counts of failing to file tax returns, which were misdemeanors.
While the descriptions of the offenses were “perhaps overblown or exaggerated,” the court said, they did not materially alter the gist or sting of the news reports that plaintiff had been convicted of “several serious tax crimes.”
The case is Brooks v. San Francisco Chronicle, A125046."
Your reference to public officials applies to subsection (a) of section 47. However, subsection (b) applies to anyone participating in the legislative process. You might be interested to know that your employer can say negative things about an employee, regardless of whether the statements are true or not, and not be exposed to a libel or slander lawsuit. An employer's statements are protected by privilege.
You really should consult an attorney familar with California libel and slander law, or at least do a Google search before inserting foot in keyboard.
Its what makes sc famous,,,PLEASE dont think you will try to make s.c. like palo alto, or redwood city,,, IT WONT HAPPEN! and I say to all these tbsc CLOWNS,,, stand down NOW, before PEOPLE LOCALS like myself take Action AGAINST YOU!!,, I mean LEGAL ACTION,,, pickets, and ANTI TBSC propoganda.. If you dont like it here,, LEAVE!!!! where were you when ALL the box stores started moving in,,, Iknow,,,, you were applauding them, Because you shop at GAP, or BOARDERS,,, well,,, We dont WANT YOU, or the box stores,,,,, If you were a REAL LOCAL, you would spend your time TRYING to help the homeless, not destroy THEM.. I KNOW more drug addicts that own homes and property than you can imagine,, So the big issue to you is,, THEY DONT LOOK LIKE I DO,, Or THEY dont sit at home and get drunk LIKE I DO,,,, Well,,,, MAybe The homeless are not the problem,, But You are,,, And you need to come clean with yourself about your own life, and maybe try to help , or understand the homeless people,, OR,,, JUST LEAVE SANTA CRUZ, move to fresno,,, where if you start these issues, and PRETEND to do ANYTHINH helpfull, you get SHOT, PERIOD,,,, I think that would be your best bet,,, to be put out of your misserable life you are leading, with USELESS ganter! FRESNO would love to have you,,, and by the way,,,,The homeless, are the most understanding, giving people in our local society,
AND I VOTE!
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.