Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Back Again and Stalking the Community in Progressive Garb
"Take Back Santa Cruz" [TBSC]--the local vigilante organization using "security" and "opposition to violence" as its cover--has officially linked up with the City Commission for the Prevention of Violence Against Women [CCPVAW] for another "Take Back Our Streets" march on Friday, February 18th 6:30-7:30 PM at the City Hall Courtyard. TBSC's last accomplishments included getting Valero gas on Ocean and Franklin to take out its payphone, draw right-wing politicians to a mass rally there a few Fridays back to loiter-in against street people, and pressure merchants there to drive away the more unsightly regulars who linger in the area.
The latest ominous news re: TBSC is their infiltration into the City's politically-correct power structure through the CCPVAW. The two organizations are jointly sponsoring a TBSC event under a feminist guise this coming week.
The rhetoric of the announcement is innocent-sounding:
"'Take back our streets' invites everyone who wishes to make our streets safer for all community members to walk freely without the fear of being attacked.
We wish to respond in a peaceful way to the recent acts of violence in our community. By walking together we exercise our solidarity and show our willingness to work towards the safety of everyone. Together we can begin the healing necessary to break the cycle of violence that affects us all.
By walking with our lights through the darkest parts of our streets, we hope to shed light on the issues. Join us and together we will make a difference.
This action will start with a rally and speakers at 6:30 p.m. followed by a lighted walk to "take back" and personally illuminate areas near downtown Santa Cruz.
Bring a flashlight and/or candle, a friend, and dress warmly for the walk."
However TBSC has held "clean-up's" and "loiter-in's" in the past which similarly use the language of safety and community while declining to advise their participants not to destroy homeless property and homeless camps as other groups like Save Our Shores do when they conduct similar activities. [See http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/01/14/18669204.php?show_comments=1#18670694 & the comments that precede it]
In addition TBSC seems to be serving as a platform for right-wing political advancement on the City Council and City agencies.
A Free Radio Santa Cruz correspondent reported that Heather Babcock, Analicia Cube's sister, was recently at the last TBSC "positive loitering" rally (the one that prompted the removal of the payphone). Babcock is reportedly a recent appointee to the CCPVAW. She publicly supported and recruited for TBSC at http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/opinion/ci_15438409 . Analicia and Dexter Cube are the founders of TBSC.
As far as I know, the Cubes and their followers still been discreetly silent on their directives to the 'cleanup squads'. Homeless guitarist Ricardo Lopez reported both police and TBSC (apparently sometimes in conjunction) have torn down homeless camps, and confiscated or destroyed homeless survival gear while driving them away from the river levee.
It will also be interesting to watch of SCPD Chief Vogel's cops ticket "loitering" TBSC/CCPVAW participants who find themselves on the City Hall grounds after 10 PM. Through an illegal edict, Parks and Recreation Director Dannettee Shoemaker, in collusion with Vogel, then-Mayor Rotkin, and City Manager Martin Bernal attacked the homeless protesters in Peace Camp 2010 [PC2010] back in September by declaring the grounds illegal to be in in the late night and early morning hours. Such a decision--an assault on public space and peaceful protesting under any circumstances--legally has to be done after informing the Parks and Recreation Commission--which Shoemaker did not do.
She did something similar with the library benches across the street and the area long the levee at Soquel and River Sts. across from CVS in attacks on PeaceCamp and the Drum Circle respectively.
If TBSC and the CCPVAW are truly concerned about the fate of the most vulnerable--homeless women faced with the Sleeping Ban outside--perhaps they will join in a late-night sleep-in to protect official city police attacks on homeless women like Collette Connolly who faces more than a dozen sleeping ban and bogus trespass charges at night for holding up a sign during the three-month PC2010 protests last summer. When hell freezes over.
After all, in 1998 the CCPVAW officially moved to oppose the Sleeping Ban sections of the Camping Ban as dangerous to women--discouraging their gathering in protective groups and using police services to report threats and assaults. What a difference a decade makes.
The rhetoric of the announcement is innocent-sounding:
"'Take back our streets' invites everyone who wishes to make our streets safer for all community members to walk freely without the fear of being attacked.
We wish to respond in a peaceful way to the recent acts of violence in our community. By walking together we exercise our solidarity and show our willingness to work towards the safety of everyone. Together we can begin the healing necessary to break the cycle of violence that affects us all.
By walking with our lights through the darkest parts of our streets, we hope to shed light on the issues. Join us and together we will make a difference.
This action will start with a rally and speakers at 6:30 p.m. followed by a lighted walk to "take back" and personally illuminate areas near downtown Santa Cruz.
Bring a flashlight and/or candle, a friend, and dress warmly for the walk."
However TBSC has held "clean-up's" and "loiter-in's" in the past which similarly use the language of safety and community while declining to advise their participants not to destroy homeless property and homeless camps as other groups like Save Our Shores do when they conduct similar activities. [See http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/01/14/18669204.php?show_comments=1#18670694 & the comments that precede it]
In addition TBSC seems to be serving as a platform for right-wing political advancement on the City Council and City agencies.
A Free Radio Santa Cruz correspondent reported that Heather Babcock, Analicia Cube's sister, was recently at the last TBSC "positive loitering" rally (the one that prompted the removal of the payphone). Babcock is reportedly a recent appointee to the CCPVAW. She publicly supported and recruited for TBSC at http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/opinion/ci_15438409 . Analicia and Dexter Cube are the founders of TBSC.
As far as I know, the Cubes and their followers still been discreetly silent on their directives to the 'cleanup squads'. Homeless guitarist Ricardo Lopez reported both police and TBSC (apparently sometimes in conjunction) have torn down homeless camps, and confiscated or destroyed homeless survival gear while driving them away from the river levee.
It will also be interesting to watch of SCPD Chief Vogel's cops ticket "loitering" TBSC/CCPVAW participants who find themselves on the City Hall grounds after 10 PM. Through an illegal edict, Parks and Recreation Director Dannettee Shoemaker, in collusion with Vogel, then-Mayor Rotkin, and City Manager Martin Bernal attacked the homeless protesters in Peace Camp 2010 [PC2010] back in September by declaring the grounds illegal to be in in the late night and early morning hours. Such a decision--an assault on public space and peaceful protesting under any circumstances--legally has to be done after informing the Parks and Recreation Commission--which Shoemaker did not do.
She did something similar with the library benches across the street and the area long the levee at Soquel and River Sts. across from CVS in attacks on PeaceCamp and the Drum Circle respectively.
If TBSC and the CCPVAW are truly concerned about the fate of the most vulnerable--homeless women faced with the Sleeping Ban outside--perhaps they will join in a late-night sleep-in to protect official city police attacks on homeless women like Collette Connolly who faces more than a dozen sleeping ban and bogus trespass charges at night for holding up a sign during the three-month PC2010 protests last summer. When hell freezes over.
After all, in 1998 the CCPVAW officially moved to oppose the Sleeping Ban sections of the Camping Ban as dangerous to women--discouraging their gathering in protective groups and using police services to report threats and assaults. What a difference a decade makes.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Has Norse ever attended a TBSC event? No.
Does he have any first hand evidence that they destroy homeless peoples belongings? No.
Can he name a direct source who claims to have had it happen? No.
Did Robert lie when he claimed that his second-hand source Paul had reported that TBSC destroys homeless belongings? Yes (And Paul refuted Robert'
s claim).
Does Robert have a history of "reporting" based on undocumented second hand sources and then later retracting his claims? Yes.
Robert = Not. Very. Credible.
Does he have any first hand evidence that they destroy homeless peoples belongings? No.
Can he name a direct source who claims to have had it happen? No.
Did Robert lie when he claimed that his second-hand source Paul had reported that TBSC destroys homeless belongings? Yes (And Paul refuted Robert'
s claim).
Does Robert have a history of "reporting" based on undocumented second hand sources and then later retracting his claims? Yes.
Robert = Not. Very. Credible.
I have been to at least one TBSC event and gotten direct reports from HUFF members on others. True, I have not personally observed TBSC volunteers or leaders destroying homeless property. However, Ricardo Lopez, a homeless musician, does claim that TBSC has destroyed homeless property in conjunction with police. I have no idea who "Paul" is. Not clear what "retracted claims" our ever-anonymous troll is talking about.
And most important, the basic point is that--Steve Pleich's account of his conversation with TBSC activists from several Fridays ago indicates that there is no evidence that TBSC does advise its volunteers not to destroy homeless property. Rather they "warn" people the day before.
Perhaps homeless people should take the same approach and "warn" TBSC NIMBY's that they will be coming to search and discard property in TBSC homes?
...Folks interested should ask Take Back Santa Cruz leaders either on-line or in-person why they don't instruct their clean-up crews to respect homeless property, or to make it public, if they do so. So far there's been absolutely no indication that they do and some evidence that they don't.
Attacking the messenger doesn't change the message.
There does seem to be lots of defensive hostility when TBSC is criticized or questioned.
Draping TBSC activity in the mantle of the CCPVAW doesn't cover the tangy scent of bigotry.
And most important, the basic point is that--Steve Pleich's account of his conversation with TBSC activists from several Fridays ago indicates that there is no evidence that TBSC does advise its volunteers not to destroy homeless property. Rather they "warn" people the day before.
Perhaps homeless people should take the same approach and "warn" TBSC NIMBY's that they will be coming to search and discard property in TBSC homes?
...Folks interested should ask Take Back Santa Cruz leaders either on-line or in-person why they don't instruct their clean-up crews to respect homeless property, or to make it public, if they do so. So far there's been absolutely no indication that they do and some evidence that they don't.
Attacking the messenger doesn't change the message.
There does seem to be lots of defensive hostility when TBSC is criticized or questioned.
Draping TBSC activity in the mantle of the CCPVAW doesn't cover the tangy scent of bigotry.
I said you have a history of incredible reporting. That you lie. That you change your story when called on your lies. And you just did it again.
Today you post that "-Steve Pleich's account of his conversation with TBSC activists from several Fridays ago indicates that there is no evidence that TBSC does advise its volunteers not to destroy homeless property. Rather they "warn" people the day before.".
But your original post of the incident was "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. Pleich says SOS volunteers report that TBSC regularly destroys camps and camping gear."
Quite a difference in facts, and realities. The first a bold statement of fact and action: TBSC destroys camps. The latter a watered down "There's no proof they tell people not to.".
And isn't it true that Steve denied that he made the first statement you claim he made?
Today you post that "-Steve Pleich's account of his conversation with TBSC activists from several Fridays ago indicates that there is no evidence that TBSC does advise its volunteers not to destroy homeless property. Rather they "warn" people the day before.".
But your original post of the incident was "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. Pleich says SOS volunteers report that TBSC regularly destroys camps and camping gear."
Quite a difference in facts, and realities. The first a bold statement of fact and action: TBSC destroys camps. The latter a watered down "There's no proof they tell people not to.".
And isn't it true that Steve denied that he made the first statement you claim he made?
In a previous post, Robert Norse said:
"There does seem to be lots of defensive hostility when TBSC is criticized or questioned. "
That appears to be equally true when you or HUFF is criticized or questioned. What's up with that?
For the record, I'll ask again: Robert, do you and HUFF advise the unhoused to respect both private and public property? To clean up after themselves? To take their 'survival gear' with them when they leave an area?
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you do not. Using your logic, I could confidently assert then that you encourage your "unsightly regulars" to trespass and litter.
"There does seem to be lots of defensive hostility when TBSC is criticized or questioned. "
That appears to be equally true when you or HUFF is criticized or questioned. What's up with that?
For the record, I'll ask again: Robert, do you and HUFF advise the unhoused to respect both private and public property? To clean up after themselves? To take their 'survival gear' with them when they leave an area?
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you do not. Using your logic, I could confidently assert then that you encourage your "unsightly regulars" to trespass and litter.
Robert is correct on several points here, in my opinion. For example, he says "There does seem to be lots of defensive hostility when TBSC is criticized or questioned." I don't see award-winning Analicia Cube, or anybody else from Take Back Santa Cruz, including go-go sister Heather Babcock, standing up for freedom of speech, the right to assemble, or equal protection under the law. Nary a peep. Au contraire, Ms. Cube claimed the DIY 2011 folks were "Thumbing their noses at authority."
Social life is not squeaky clean. and Pacific Avenue does not need to be subjugated into a sanitized, permit-first, approval-from-above shopper's paradise for "public safety." Furthermore, just because you don't like somebody doesn't mean you get to suspend their civil rights (Steve Argue, Becky Johnson, Robert Norse, and of course, Santa Cruz 2010 fall guy Wes Modes... and many others).
"Cops are never wrong" is wrong. Cops are human beings, and they can be wrong. And it CAN (and does) happen here, not just a thousand miles away. TBSC, by it's incessant, unyielding support of all things Law Enforcement, requires opposition before they morph us further into a Santa Cruz version of North Korea.
TBSC, SCPD, consider this post an affront to authority.
Social life is not squeaky clean. and Pacific Avenue does not need to be subjugated into a sanitized, permit-first, approval-from-above shopper's paradise for "public safety." Furthermore, just because you don't like somebody doesn't mean you get to suspend their civil rights (Steve Argue, Becky Johnson, Robert Norse, and of course, Santa Cruz 2010 fall guy Wes Modes... and many others).
"Cops are never wrong" is wrong. Cops are human beings, and they can be wrong. And it CAN (and does) happen here, not just a thousand miles away. TBSC, by it's incessant, unyielding support of all things Law Enforcement, requires opposition before they morph us further into a Santa Cruz version of North Korea.
TBSC, SCPD, consider this post an affront to authority.
In response to the anonymous factchucker, be advised that Steve Pleich initially did state it was his impression from second-hand reports that TBSC volunteers have destroyed homeless gear.
Subsequently at the Ocean St. TBSC loiter-in, Steve reported (check on FRSC for his verbatim report) that specifically he couldn't get any assurance from TBSC worthies that they advised folks to respect the property of those who don't have a home, only a sleeping bag. Instead, Pleich said he was told, TBSC "warns" people in the days before the "clean-up".
All this, of course, is troll-ish runaround because it's a diversion from the real issue. There's no reply from TBSC or its supporters that their sweeps show any respect for the needs of people on the edge of survival. And that's the issue.
Incidentally to equate the destruction of survival gear with "trespass" and "littering" shows a really misguided set of priorities. Or say, rather an "I've got mine NIMBY' perspective.
HUFF, incidentally, does encourage low-impact camping and packing your stuff (if only to avoid confiscations). It would be nice if there actually were some public bathrooms at night, but shortsighted staffers helped end the program initiated in 1999 to open all-night bathrooms (there were 5 portapotties, gradually removed under DTA pressure).
The new daytime program opening visitor's bathrooms at Asano, Pizza My Heart, and Bookshop Santa Cruz is a good start, but, of course, doesn't help at night. Doug Loisel's move opening the Homeless Service Center's bathrooms at night is another good move---let's hope Monica Martinez doesn't dump it, as she dumped the 'open during the day' reform made by Loisel back in 2009.
An interesting critique of TBSC can be found at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/06/02/18649646.php?show_comments=1#18649878.
Why is CCPVAW teaming up with this group? Perhaps because Heather Babcock is on the Commission and no one is speaking out for the rights of those who face police and vigilante harassment at night--vulnerable women particularly.
Some "End the Sleeping Ban" and "Take Back Santa Cruz from Politically Ambitious Bigots" might be good signs to wave on Friday at 6:30 PM, if anyone shows up along with the torches-and-pitchforks crowd.
And a protest call to the CCPVAW might also be a good idea: 831-420-5363
Subsequently at the Ocean St. TBSC loiter-in, Steve reported (check on FRSC for his verbatim report) that specifically he couldn't get any assurance from TBSC worthies that they advised folks to respect the property of those who don't have a home, only a sleeping bag. Instead, Pleich said he was told, TBSC "warns" people in the days before the "clean-up".
All this, of course, is troll-ish runaround because it's a diversion from the real issue. There's no reply from TBSC or its supporters that their sweeps show any respect for the needs of people on the edge of survival. And that's the issue.
Incidentally to equate the destruction of survival gear with "trespass" and "littering" shows a really misguided set of priorities. Or say, rather an "I've got mine NIMBY' perspective.
HUFF, incidentally, does encourage low-impact camping and packing your stuff (if only to avoid confiscations). It would be nice if there actually were some public bathrooms at night, but shortsighted staffers helped end the program initiated in 1999 to open all-night bathrooms (there were 5 portapotties, gradually removed under DTA pressure).
The new daytime program opening visitor's bathrooms at Asano, Pizza My Heart, and Bookshop Santa Cruz is a good start, but, of course, doesn't help at night. Doug Loisel's move opening the Homeless Service Center's bathrooms at night is another good move---let's hope Monica Martinez doesn't dump it, as she dumped the 'open during the day' reform made by Loisel back in 2009.
An interesting critique of TBSC can be found at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/06/02/18649646.php?show_comments=1#18649878.
Why is CCPVAW teaming up with this group? Perhaps because Heather Babcock is on the Commission and no one is speaking out for the rights of those who face police and vigilante harassment at night--vulnerable women particularly.
Some "End the Sleeping Ban" and "Take Back Santa Cruz from Politically Ambitious Bigots" might be good signs to wave on Friday at 6:30 PM, if anyone shows up along with the torches-and-pitchforks crowd.
And a protest call to the CCPVAW might also be a good idea: 831-420-5363
As per the norm:
-Robert has no evidence or proof that Steve made the initial statement.
-Robert avoids acknowledging the fact that Steve refuted Robert's claim that he ever made the initial statement.
-Robert tries to softsoap his misreporting by claiming that Steve told him he had second hand information.
So there we have it: Robert reported false information, with no substantive evidence or sources.
Say it again Robert: You're a hackjob of a reporter. You have NO actual proof of your lies that TBSC destroys evidence. At best, you have a Bob Lamonica saying that someone told him they do. At worst, you have Steve saying that the don't tell people not to. Seriously, it leaves me incredulous that you can take yourself seriously with these unsubstantiated claims.
Let me reverse your own witch hunt on you and see if you can defend your position:
"Person X told me that Person Y told them that they saw HUFF abusing children. I didn't see it myself, but I have no reason to doubt it 's true, because I want to believe it's true because I dislike HUFF's politics. Later, person X corrected my mis-statement and clarified that they never said they heard Person Y say they saw them abusing children. BUT Person X did say they checked in with HUFF, and HUFF admits that they don't admonish their members not to abuse children. So, clearly, there is something wrong with HUFF and it's pretty obivious they condone child abuse.".
You're throwing out disinformation in the guise of a tarbaby Robert. It's obvious, it's odious, and it's weak. I know I see it, and I suspect most critical thinkers see the same.
What I can't tell is whether you're clever like Brer Fox and design this crap, or if you're actually well intentioned but just so blinded by your indignant self-rightousness that you don't see that you are Brer Fox. In either case though, I'm calling you on it. You're throwing out false facts, second hand news, disinformation...and it stinks of tar.
The real question, while you try to divert from the real issue...in my opinion...is why you're attempting to villify TBSC with no actual evidence of any misdeeds? And your only substantive complaint that they don't tell their volunteers not to engage in an activity which you have no credible evidence they have ever participated in?
Methinks it's because you care more for fighting than solutions...and you've found yourself having scant success of late in getting any attention to your protestations.
-Robert has no evidence or proof that Steve made the initial statement.
-Robert avoids acknowledging the fact that Steve refuted Robert's claim that he ever made the initial statement.
-Robert tries to softsoap his misreporting by claiming that Steve told him he had second hand information.
So there we have it: Robert reported false information, with no substantive evidence or sources.
Say it again Robert: You're a hackjob of a reporter. You have NO actual proof of your lies that TBSC destroys evidence. At best, you have a Bob Lamonica saying that someone told him they do. At worst, you have Steve saying that the don't tell people not to. Seriously, it leaves me incredulous that you can take yourself seriously with these unsubstantiated claims.
Let me reverse your own witch hunt on you and see if you can defend your position:
"Person X told me that Person Y told them that they saw HUFF abusing children. I didn't see it myself, but I have no reason to doubt it 's true, because I want to believe it's true because I dislike HUFF's politics. Later, person X corrected my mis-statement and clarified that they never said they heard Person Y say they saw them abusing children. BUT Person X did say they checked in with HUFF, and HUFF admits that they don't admonish their members not to abuse children. So, clearly, there is something wrong with HUFF and it's pretty obivious they condone child abuse.".
You're throwing out disinformation in the guise of a tarbaby Robert. It's obvious, it's odious, and it's weak. I know I see it, and I suspect most critical thinkers see the same.
What I can't tell is whether you're clever like Brer Fox and design this crap, or if you're actually well intentioned but just so blinded by your indignant self-rightousness that you don't see that you are Brer Fox. In either case though, I'm calling you on it. You're throwing out false facts, second hand news, disinformation...and it stinks of tar.
The real question, while you try to divert from the real issue...in my opinion...is why you're attempting to villify TBSC with no actual evidence of any misdeeds? And your only substantive complaint that they don't tell their volunteers not to engage in an activity which you have no credible evidence they have ever participated in?
Methinks it's because you care more for fighting than solutions...and you've found yourself having scant success of late in getting any attention to your protestations.
To get a real sense of what TBSC advocates and does, check out the videos on its own website at http://takebacksantacruz.blogspot.com/ . It's clear the focus of the clean-ups are "illegal camping" (i.e. sleeping), "drug deals", "alcohol use"--behavior that middle-class people can engage in (and properly so) with impunity behind their closed doors, but which they are characterizing as "threats" when poor people do them.
I guess the question is whether the anonymous poster actually believes TBSC volunteers respect homeless camps and possessions. If so, I'd ask her/him, why--independent of any of my postings--she/he believes this to be true? The rhetoric in their videos and public statements indicate otherwise.
Other than simply nitpicking does she/he have any personal experience with TBSC, had any conversations with them, talked to homeless people who have testimony about TBSC one way or the other? If so, be specific.
If not, I think what we're seeing is simply cheerleading for TBSC.
It's probably foolish to repeat the same points:
Since Save Our Shores does take especially care to advise its volunteers to respect homeless camps, why doesn't TBSC do the same? This is a key question because I'm fairly sure the Cubes don't want to alienate their homeless-aphobic backers or confuse their own agenda by actually supporting survival needs of homeless people.
It would be as simple matter for TBSC leadership to deny this happens and to clarify that it does respect the camps and so advise its volunteers. I think they'd fear alienating their membership by expressing any kind of regard for homeless people's rights and property or safety. Because to be concerned about their safety would be to oppose laws like the sleeping ban, and the constriction of public space that make it hard for homeless people to gather and sleep in protective groups.
Also, part of TBSC's rhetoric in the past has been about homeless "illegal behavior" such as camping. Its "positive loitering" also seems to target street people and panhandlers,where panhandling is an essential survival skill for homeless people in this economy.
So the silence of TBSC does speak pretty clearly.
Instead of attacking me, the anonymous poster(s) need to encourage TBSC to simply express some basic respect for those who live outside. And act on that admonition. Or do his own research that indicates TBSC's leaders and volunteers in the absence of such admonitions do respect homeless property. I'm open to such evidence, if it's presented.
Their failure to express (along with their failure to support basic human rights for the poor outside locally) makes it clear what kind of group they are--NIMBY's who want to assure their own "security" by scapegoating those further down the economic ladder. Who feed on the fears generated by economic misery and political incompetence.
It's traditional right-wing organizing behavior that's really very familiar.
And a tip of the hat to Bob Lamonika for his sharp critique.
Perhaps a new name for TBSC: NETAPP: Nimbys Encouraging Terrorism Against Poor People?
I guess the question is whether the anonymous poster actually believes TBSC volunteers respect homeless camps and possessions. If so, I'd ask her/him, why--independent of any of my postings--she/he believes this to be true? The rhetoric in their videos and public statements indicate otherwise.
Other than simply nitpicking does she/he have any personal experience with TBSC, had any conversations with them, talked to homeless people who have testimony about TBSC one way or the other? If so, be specific.
If not, I think what we're seeing is simply cheerleading for TBSC.
It's probably foolish to repeat the same points:
Since Save Our Shores does take especially care to advise its volunteers to respect homeless camps, why doesn't TBSC do the same? This is a key question because I'm fairly sure the Cubes don't want to alienate their homeless-aphobic backers or confuse their own agenda by actually supporting survival needs of homeless people.
It would be as simple matter for TBSC leadership to deny this happens and to clarify that it does respect the camps and so advise its volunteers. I think they'd fear alienating their membership by expressing any kind of regard for homeless people's rights and property or safety. Because to be concerned about their safety would be to oppose laws like the sleeping ban, and the constriction of public space that make it hard for homeless people to gather and sleep in protective groups.
Also, part of TBSC's rhetoric in the past has been about homeless "illegal behavior" such as camping. Its "positive loitering" also seems to target street people and panhandlers,where panhandling is an essential survival skill for homeless people in this economy.
So the silence of TBSC does speak pretty clearly.
Instead of attacking me, the anonymous poster(s) need to encourage TBSC to simply express some basic respect for those who live outside. And act on that admonition. Or do his own research that indicates TBSC's leaders and volunteers in the absence of such admonitions do respect homeless property. I'm open to such evidence, if it's presented.
Their failure to express (along with their failure to support basic human rights for the poor outside locally) makes it clear what kind of group they are--NIMBY's who want to assure their own "security" by scapegoating those further down the economic ladder. Who feed on the fears generated by economic misery and political incompetence.
It's traditional right-wing organizing behavior that's really very familiar.
And a tip of the hat to Bob Lamonika for his sharp critique.
Perhaps a new name for TBSC: NETAPP: Nimbys Encouraging Terrorism Against Poor People?
Robert says: “I have been to at least one TBSC event and gotten direct reports from HUFF members on others. True, I have not personally observed TBSC volunteers or leaders destroying homeless property. However, Ricardo Lopez, a homeless musician, does claim that TBSC has destroyed homeless property in conjunction with police. I have no idea who "Paul" is. Not clear what "retracted claims" our ever-anonymous troll is talking about. “
A couple of points here. First off, why the adjective? Does it really matter to this conversation that Ricardo is a “musician”? You did it with Miguel all the time. In that case it made sense, as “homeless musician” sounds better then “homeless tweaker”.
Secondly, why does Ricardo claim it is TBSC? Robert, you suck as a reporter. I would at least have hoped that after the claim you said that Steve made, you would at least check first, if for no other reason to make sure you don’t look stupid again. Remember it is Who, What, Where, Why, and How. Without that, it’s just a second hand rumor that I disbelieve.
Whoops, there was a third thing. Robert using “troll” or “bigot” or “right wing” to describe some one that disagrees with him – Drink!
Robert again: “And most important, the basic point is that--Steve Pleich's account of his conversation with TBSC activists from several Fridays ago indicates that there is no evidence that TBSC does advise its volunteers not to destroy homeless property. Rather they "warn" people the day before.”
It is worse then that. Not once have I heard the leadership of TBSC instruct people not to kick puppies. Since they refuse to take a stand on it, the only conclusion we can draw is that TBSC kicks puppies regularly and with pleasure.
Robert: “Perhaps homeless people should take the same approach and "warn" TBSC NIMBY's that they will be coming to search and discard property in TBSC homes? “
Since some homeless can’t seem to clean up after themselves, why would they come over to my house to clean up?
Robert: “...Folks interested should ask Take Back Santa Cruz leaders either on-line or in-person why they don't instruct their clean-up crews to respect homeless property, or to make it public, if they do so. So far there's been absolutely no indication that they do and some evidence that they don't. “
And puppies! Don’t forget the cute fuzzy puppies!
“Attacking the messenger doesn't change the message.
There does seem to be lots of defensive hostility when TBSC is criticized or questioned.
Draping TBSC activity in the mantle of the CCPVAW doesn't cover the tangy scent of bigotry. “
Drink!
A couple of points here. First off, why the adjective? Does it really matter to this conversation that Ricardo is a “musician”? You did it with Miguel all the time. In that case it made sense, as “homeless musician” sounds better then “homeless tweaker”.
Secondly, why does Ricardo claim it is TBSC? Robert, you suck as a reporter. I would at least have hoped that after the claim you said that Steve made, you would at least check first, if for no other reason to make sure you don’t look stupid again. Remember it is Who, What, Where, Why, and How. Without that, it’s just a second hand rumor that I disbelieve.
Whoops, there was a third thing. Robert using “troll” or “bigot” or “right wing” to describe some one that disagrees with him – Drink!
Robert again: “And most important, the basic point is that--Steve Pleich's account of his conversation with TBSC activists from several Fridays ago indicates that there is no evidence that TBSC does advise its volunteers not to destroy homeless property. Rather they "warn" people the day before.”
It is worse then that. Not once have I heard the leadership of TBSC instruct people not to kick puppies. Since they refuse to take a stand on it, the only conclusion we can draw is that TBSC kicks puppies regularly and with pleasure.
Robert: “Perhaps homeless people should take the same approach and "warn" TBSC NIMBY's that they will be coming to search and discard property in TBSC homes? “
Since some homeless can’t seem to clean up after themselves, why would they come over to my house to clean up?
Robert: “...Folks interested should ask Take Back Santa Cruz leaders either on-line or in-person why they don't instruct their clean-up crews to respect homeless property, or to make it public, if they do so. So far there's been absolutely no indication that they do and some evidence that they don't. “
And puppies! Don’t forget the cute fuzzy puppies!
“Attacking the messenger doesn't change the message.
There does seem to be lots of defensive hostility when TBSC is criticized or questioned.
Draping TBSC activity in the mantle of the CCPVAW doesn't cover the tangy scent of bigotry. “
Drink!
I will not respond to anonymous posters. Use your real, verifiable name to reply, and I will respond. That's doubtful, since anonymous punk coward plants who use this service don't care to deal fair and play straight.
TBSC, SCPD, consider this post an affront to authority.
TBSC, SCPD, consider this post an affront to authority.
Oh please Bob...don't withhold your precious comments from us! How in the world can you expect us to assume your bizarre sense of entitlement and paranoia if you don't share it with us?
Do you really think a person would sacrifice their privacy just so that they can get a response from YOU? The phrase "delusions of grandeur" springs to mind.
Do you really think a person would sacrifice their privacy just so that they can get a response from YOU? The phrase "delusions of grandeur" springs to mind.
As for responding to pseudonym posters, as I've said previously on another thread, the playing field is not level. I can understand the apprehension that's been raised in this regard by those who wish to remain anonymous in the name of "privacy." I would argue many use pseudonyms here for deception, and to lie. For treachery, and not for dialog. In any case, outside of such discussions as this about pseudonyms vs. real, verifiable names, I will not respond to anonymous posters.
You are such a frickn' LIAR its amazing, Robert! I've just read where you denounce a group based on rumor and speculation, yet you've repeatedly railed against others for doing the same thing to huff! Your self righteous, entitlement attitude is simply amazing really! How is a group of people who wish to clean up this town NIMBY's?! I am a member, I have been to EVERY event since its inception, and Anna and Dex have NEVER, I repeat NEVER instructed us to destroy homeless peoples possesions! They have gone out of their way to respect and go around things that are obviously not trash (Broken bottles, used condoms, needles, food wrappers etc.). However after reading your previous post's, I don't think you really want TBSC to do or say anything. I believe you clearly just don't like this group, and are nit-picking and looking for excuses to vilify them in public and online. So what because I'm the first to respond to your accusations that makes them true?! Did you ever stop to think that maybe we don't feel we OWE you, or any of HUFF, anything, explanation or otherwise?! Because we don't! In the real world you and BJ and HUFF are looked at with kind of a sad sense of pity. We honestly (most of us anyways) feel rather bad for you guys. You can't seem to grasp what the rest of society does so easily. You are NOT the one all end all judge of what is a good solution to what is wrong with this town, Robert, far from it! We are a positive, soultion based, get out and do it - not just talk about it- kind of group! We do not condone violence, we do not persecute or alienate anyone, we just all share a common bond of being tired of no one doing ANYTHING to make the situation better!! We also sure as all hell DON'T need the approval of YOU, BJ, or any of HUFF to do what we think is right!!
Furthermore, what the hell has HUFF ever done for ANYONE?!?! Besides harassing the poor guard at the Metro Center, annoying the old ladies at Bunny's, making nazi salutes in City Council meetings (then bitching and moaning when they rightfully boot you), protesting BSSC, catterwalling under some poor night-workers window (therfore annoying FAR more than just Mr. Riley, many of his neighbors actually, several of whom I know personally)?! What has your huff accomplished, besides huffing and puffing the SAME tired old crap?!?! Maybe you could use some of your trust fund and put your money where your oversized, diarrhea spewing mouth is!! HaHaHa!! "When hell freezes over", right?!
You and that other idiot whose on here, who is probably just BJ, should "consider this an affront" to your stupidity!!
Furthermore, what the hell has HUFF ever done for ANYONE?!?! Besides harassing the poor guard at the Metro Center, annoying the old ladies at Bunny's, making nazi salutes in City Council meetings (then bitching and moaning when they rightfully boot you), protesting BSSC, catterwalling under some poor night-workers window (therfore annoying FAR more than just Mr. Riley, many of his neighbors actually, several of whom I know personally)?! What has your huff accomplished, besides huffing and puffing the SAME tired old crap?!?! Maybe you could use some of your trust fund and put your money where your oversized, diarrhea spewing mouth is!! HaHaHa!! "When hell freezes over", right?!
You and that other idiot whose on here, who is probably just BJ, should "consider this an affront" to your stupidity!!
Amen! You said it Mike!
I understand Mike Bocatelli is a TBSC leader. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I've never claimed that TBSC instructs its volunteers to destroy homeless property.
The issue was whether they take particular care to advise their volunteers not to do so. And whether homeless people have reported this has happened in the past. The issue arose as well because of the apparent difference in procedure between TBSC and Save Our Shores (which reportedly does issue very careful instructions to respect homeless campsites).
Do I understand Mr. Bocatelli correctly? Is it his experience and testimony that TBSC has not in the past destroyed "illegal" homeless campsites or trashed homeless survival gear in any of its clean-up's? If so, I commend him and TBSC for their precautions.
Perhaps he can forgive me for my concern since there seems to much TBSC denunciation of "illegal camps" in the videos on their website.
It's reassuring to finally hear from a TBSC leader what sounds like a statement of policy--that TBSC takes care NOT to molest or destroy homeless survival gear. If that is what we are hearing.
So now presumably, as responsible citizens, concerned with the safety of everyone--housed and homeless, Bocatelli and his associates will continue to make clear (if they have not already done so) that homeless property is as precious to people outside as personal property is to those in homes (perhaps more so, because homeless people are so much more vulnerable).
If this is so, I commend him and TBSC for finally making this explict and clear.
Hopefully in Friday's "Take Back the Night" march, Mike and his friends will express especial concern for the most vulnerable women--those who must live outside. An SCPD report in 1998 stated that homeless people are at least four times more vulnerable to assault than those indoors. If stopping violence is a primary concern of TBSC, then surely TBSC is especally concerned with the population of people who suffer violence most severely.
Also, MC 6.36.010a, the Sleeping Ban, criminalizes the act of sleeping for these women from 11 PM to 8:30 AM. Hence it makes sleeping in large safer groups more likely to ticketing by police and disinclines women from using the police for fear of sleeping ban warrants. This, of course, makes these women much more vulnerable to crimes of violence.
As I mentioned before in this thread, the CCPVAW, which which TBSC is partnering, has already denounced the Sleeping Ban law as injurious to homeless women and called for its repeal.
It would be particularly gratifying to see TBSC join in this statement.
I've never claimed that TBSC instructs its volunteers to destroy homeless property.
The issue was whether they take particular care to advise their volunteers not to do so. And whether homeless people have reported this has happened in the past. The issue arose as well because of the apparent difference in procedure between TBSC and Save Our Shores (which reportedly does issue very careful instructions to respect homeless campsites).
Do I understand Mr. Bocatelli correctly? Is it his experience and testimony that TBSC has not in the past destroyed "illegal" homeless campsites or trashed homeless survival gear in any of its clean-up's? If so, I commend him and TBSC for their precautions.
Perhaps he can forgive me for my concern since there seems to much TBSC denunciation of "illegal camps" in the videos on their website.
It's reassuring to finally hear from a TBSC leader what sounds like a statement of policy--that TBSC takes care NOT to molest or destroy homeless survival gear. If that is what we are hearing.
So now presumably, as responsible citizens, concerned with the safety of everyone--housed and homeless, Bocatelli and his associates will continue to make clear (if they have not already done so) that homeless property is as precious to people outside as personal property is to those in homes (perhaps more so, because homeless people are so much more vulnerable).
If this is so, I commend him and TBSC for finally making this explict and clear.
Hopefully in Friday's "Take Back the Night" march, Mike and his friends will express especial concern for the most vulnerable women--those who must live outside. An SCPD report in 1998 stated that homeless people are at least four times more vulnerable to assault than those indoors. If stopping violence is a primary concern of TBSC, then surely TBSC is especally concerned with the population of people who suffer violence most severely.
Also, MC 6.36.010a, the Sleeping Ban, criminalizes the act of sleeping for these women from 11 PM to 8:30 AM. Hence it makes sleeping in large safer groups more likely to ticketing by police and disinclines women from using the police for fear of sleeping ban warrants. This, of course, makes these women much more vulnerable to crimes of violence.
As I mentioned before in this thread, the CCPVAW, which which TBSC is partnering, has already denounced the Sleeping Ban law as injurious to homeless women and called for its repeal.
It would be particularly gratifying to see TBSC join in this statement.
Have you noticed that you repeatedly reply to anonymous people so that you can tell them that you aren't going to reply to them? It makes you look dopey.
I'm OK with that, that "It makes you look dopey," as you, an anonymous poster who uses this service, reports. "Punk Coward," above, was in response to a posted accusation, since removed, that I am/was an ecstasy dealer.
I have known Robert Norse eighteen years now. He is one of a handful I have met that has the courage to stand up to Law Enforcement, when civil rights are at stake and truth is in the balance. Most are intimidated, including elected officials and community "leaders," and Law Enforcement knows this, which is how they "get away" with being scoundrels, when they are.
I am not "anti-cop," far from it, and I don't believe Robert is when it gets right down to it. Norse stands up for what he believes. Take the Nazi salute episode. It may have been callous, crude and incendiary, and alright, downright stupid, but it falls under freedom of speech, and Norse knew it. He has taken the time to follow through (going on 9 years now), and in all likelihood, he will win. Yes, folks, you do have the right to give a Nazi salute at Santa Cruz city council meetings.
The city has spent ~$150K by now to defeat Norse, but in this case, justice appears to prevail.
One day the political history of Santa Cruz will be documented by someone besides a UCSC "progressive" groupie, and Norse will shine. He has taken the the high road and the long haul, like him or not.
I am not "anti-cop," far from it, and I don't believe Robert is when it gets right down to it. Norse stands up for what he believes. Take the Nazi salute episode. It may have been callous, crude and incendiary, and alright, downright stupid, but it falls under freedom of speech, and Norse knew it. He has taken the time to follow through (going on 9 years now), and in all likelihood, he will win. Yes, folks, you do have the right to give a Nazi salute at Santa Cruz city council meetings.
The city has spent ~$150K by now to defeat Norse, but in this case, justice appears to prevail.
One day the political history of Santa Cruz will be documented by someone besides a UCSC "progressive" groupie, and Norse will shine. He has taken the the high road and the long haul, like him or not.
What do you think that Norse has accomplished in terms of improving conditions for local homeless people? (Accomplished <>talking or getting himself arrested or suing someone). Does standing up to the police result in better conditions for those without shelter? What SPECIFICALLY has improved for them due to his activism?
Once again Robert's incredible reporting skills have utterly failed. How can anyone that can think critically take him seriously? First off, you reply using the wrong name to Mr. Locatelli. Then (as per Norse standard procedure) you mis-state that he is aTBSC leader. I didn't read that in his comment...he simply stated he's a member that has been to all of their functions. And I think he's correct in stating that they owe you nothing.
Bottom line for me? Santa Cruz is and has been a liberal town. Voters here have a long history of backing socially progressive programs for kids, women and, yes, the homeless. How did that grant money come about Robert? Did you help in that process?
Conflating larger, global issues with the issues TBSC is attempting to tackle locally is apples and oranges in my opinion. Imagining TBSC members as right wing thugs is equally ill-informed.
Bottom line for me? Santa Cruz is and has been a liberal town. Voters here have a long history of backing socially progressive programs for kids, women and, yes, the homeless. How did that grant money come about Robert? Did you help in that process?
Conflating larger, global issues with the issues TBSC is attempting to tackle locally is apples and oranges in my opinion. Imagining TBSC members as right wing thugs is equally ill-informed.
The weather outside lately really sucks. It's been cold and raining. This has forced some people to camp out overnight in places that they usually might not. Yesterday when I went to work there was evidence that people had spent the night sleeping in a service area of the building I work in. Things that were not there the night before. There were large cardboard boxes that had been taken out of the recycling dumpsters and flattened out to sleep on. I don't think anyone disputes that this is done by campers. There were about 10 of these boxes flattened out to sleep on. In addition there were clothing items strewn about, beer cans and a wine bottle, cigarette butts, and food wrappers. One of the cans had been flattened out with holes poked in it and some kind of residue on it. I saw these things for myself. The super also said there were two syringes found. The place was a total mess.
I don't begrudge these people trying to find a place to sleep out of the rain. What I do have issue with is the mess they left behind. It took the super quite awhile to clean it all up and took away from his other duties. So I want to ask Robert do you ask these homeless folks to make sure that when they leave a campsite they leave it as they found it? If you're going to blast people for cleaning up these kind of sites, isn't it just as reasonable for you to demand that the campers clean up their own mess? Isn't it possible that people wouldn't complain so much about the camping as long as there was nothing left behind that causes them to take time out of their own day to clean up? If no mess is left behind then no one has to come and throw things away.
I don't begrudge these people trying to find a place to sleep out of the rain. What I do have issue with is the mess they left behind. It took the super quite awhile to clean it all up and took away from his other duties. So I want to ask Robert do you ask these homeless folks to make sure that when they leave a campsite they leave it as they found it? If you're going to blast people for cleaning up these kind of sites, isn't it just as reasonable for you to demand that the campers clean up their own mess? Isn't it possible that people wouldn't complain so much about the camping as long as there was nothing left behind that causes them to take time out of their own day to clean up? If no mess is left behind then no one has to come and throw things away.
Robert Norse wrote:
"Incidentally to equate the destruction of survival gear with "trespass" and "littering" shows a really misguided set of priorities. Or say, rather an "I've got mine NIMBY' perspective.
HUFF, incidentally, does encourage low-impact camping and packing your stuff (if only to avoid confiscations). It would be nice if there actually were some public bathrooms at night, but shortsighted staffers helped end the program initiated in 1999 to open all-night bathrooms (there were 5 portapotties, gradually removed under DTA pressure). "
To which I reply:
To equate "low-impact camping" with criminal behavior like breaking and entering into private property and discarding used condoms and needles on our public lands shows a similar misguided set of priorities. And while we're on the topic of low-impact camping, I'd like to get your definition of what that exactly entails. Do you provide your "unsighlty regulars" with information equivalent to what the Center for Outdoor Ethics' Leave No Trace Program? (http://www.lnt.org/programs/principles.php). In case you're too lazy to actually visit that site, here are some of their more salient principles:
Travel and Camp on Durable Surfaces
* Durable surfaces include established trails and campsites, rock, gravel, dry grasses or snow.
* Protect riparian areas by camping at least 200 feet from lakes and streams.
* Good campsites are found, not made. Altering a site is not necessary.
o In popular areas: Concentrate use on existing trails and campsites.
o Walk single file in the middle of the trail, even when wet or muddy.
o Keep campsites small. Focus activity in areas where vegetation is absent.
o In pristine areas:
o Disperse use to prevent the creation of campsites and trails.
o Avoid places where impacts are just beginning.
Dispose of Waste Properly
* Pack it in, pack it out. Inspect your campsite and rest areas for trash or spilled foods. Pack out all trash, leftover food, and litter.
* Deposit solid human waste in catholes dug 6 to 8 inches deep at least 200 feet from water, camp, and trails. Cover and disguise the cathole when finished.
* Pack out toilet paper and hygiene products.
* To wash yourself or your dishes, carry water 200 feet away from streams or lakes and use small amounts of biodegradable soap. Scatter strained dishwater.
Leave What You Find
* Preserve the past: examine, but do not touch, cultural or historic structures and artifacts.
* Leave rocks, plants and other natural objects as you find them.
* Avoid introducing or transporting non-native species.
* Do not build structures, furniture, or dig trenches.
Be Considerate of Other Visitors
* Respect other visitors and protect the quality of their experience.
* Be courteous. Yield to other users on the trail.
* Step to the downhill side of the trail when encountering pack stock.
* Take breaks and camp away from trails and other visitors.
* Let nature's sounds prevail. Avoid loud voices and noises
Do you have a published policy or statement encouraging responsible behavior? I haven't seen it. I doubt you would accept a statement from TBSC leaders that said they "encourage" their members not to disturb what they find in their cleanups. Why should we accept your word? Until and unless you can provide concrete proof that you provide these guidelines to each and every one of your constituents, I will continue to hold the position that you do not.
Just as you have demanded of TBSC, I demand that you produce verifiable proof that you instruct your low impact campers on how to properly conduct themselves in our public parks and lands.
"Incidentally to equate the destruction of survival gear with "trespass" and "littering" shows a really misguided set of priorities. Or say, rather an "I've got mine NIMBY' perspective.
HUFF, incidentally, does encourage low-impact camping and packing your stuff (if only to avoid confiscations). It would be nice if there actually were some public bathrooms at night, but shortsighted staffers helped end the program initiated in 1999 to open all-night bathrooms (there were 5 portapotties, gradually removed under DTA pressure). "
To which I reply:
To equate "low-impact camping" with criminal behavior like breaking and entering into private property and discarding used condoms and needles on our public lands shows a similar misguided set of priorities. And while we're on the topic of low-impact camping, I'd like to get your definition of what that exactly entails. Do you provide your "unsighlty regulars" with information equivalent to what the Center for Outdoor Ethics' Leave No Trace Program? (http://www.lnt.org/programs/principles.php). In case you're too lazy to actually visit that site, here are some of their more salient principles:
Travel and Camp on Durable Surfaces
* Durable surfaces include established trails and campsites, rock, gravel, dry grasses or snow.
* Protect riparian areas by camping at least 200 feet from lakes and streams.
* Good campsites are found, not made. Altering a site is not necessary.
o In popular areas: Concentrate use on existing trails and campsites.
o Walk single file in the middle of the trail, even when wet or muddy.
o Keep campsites small. Focus activity in areas where vegetation is absent.
o In pristine areas:
o Disperse use to prevent the creation of campsites and trails.
o Avoid places where impacts are just beginning.
Dispose of Waste Properly
* Pack it in, pack it out. Inspect your campsite and rest areas for trash or spilled foods. Pack out all trash, leftover food, and litter.
* Deposit solid human waste in catholes dug 6 to 8 inches deep at least 200 feet from water, camp, and trails. Cover and disguise the cathole when finished.
* Pack out toilet paper and hygiene products.
* To wash yourself or your dishes, carry water 200 feet away from streams or lakes and use small amounts of biodegradable soap. Scatter strained dishwater.
Leave What You Find
* Preserve the past: examine, but do not touch, cultural or historic structures and artifacts.
* Leave rocks, plants and other natural objects as you find them.
* Avoid introducing or transporting non-native species.
* Do not build structures, furniture, or dig trenches.
Be Considerate of Other Visitors
* Respect other visitors and protect the quality of their experience.
* Be courteous. Yield to other users on the trail.
* Step to the downhill side of the trail when encountering pack stock.
* Take breaks and camp away from trails and other visitors.
* Let nature's sounds prevail. Avoid loud voices and noises
Do you have a published policy or statement encouraging responsible behavior? I haven't seen it. I doubt you would accept a statement from TBSC leaders that said they "encourage" their members not to disturb what they find in their cleanups. Why should we accept your word? Until and unless you can provide concrete proof that you provide these guidelines to each and every one of your constituents, I will continue to hold the position that you do not.
Just as you have demanded of TBSC, I demand that you produce verifiable proof that you instruct your low impact campers on how to properly conduct themselves in our public parks and lands.
Not having heard back from Mike Bocatelli or other TBSC spokespeople, I'm assuming that I properly interpreted his statement that TBSC doesn't aim at destroying homeless campsites and survival gear, and so will presumably so advise their volunteers--particularly after all this fuss. If they've so been advising their volunteers previously, it would have saved us all a lot of time and trouble if they'd told us long ago. The question was raised months ago and all we got was silence and vituperation.
And so, my thanks. If the policy is the same caring policy as Save Our Shores. Perhaps folks can send in reports or contact me on my twice weekly Free Radio Show (Thursdays 6-8 PM and Sundays 9:30 AM to 1 PM) at 427-3772 to let me know how this is going. Or leave a message on the HUFF line at 423-HUFF.
Still waiting for TBSC's acknowledgment that the Homeless Nighttime Sleeping Ban menaces the safety of homeless women who have no choices (what with the waiting lists year round, and the Armory open only half the year). That would be nice to hear. Perhaps a public statement at tomorrow's rally?
Popcorn's "tidy camping" suggestions are good ones. I'll pass them on (on my radio show, no less). I'd remind Passing Popcorn however, that what's possible for middle-class people on the occasional camping trip is a harder row to hoe for those who live outside
24-7.
Frank's concerns about cardboard left-behinds and such is also a legitimate concern. It would be easier, I think, if campers didn't face criminal charges and so have to avoid being seen to avoid $95 citations (which, when they pile up attended, can lead to a year in jail and $1000 fine). Perhaps a quick cal to the city attorney's office, urging an amnesty for old camping tickets and warrants might be helpful here. The number there is 423-6200.
And so, my thanks. If the policy is the same caring policy as Save Our Shores. Perhaps folks can send in reports or contact me on my twice weekly Free Radio Show (Thursdays 6-8 PM and Sundays 9:30 AM to 1 PM) at 427-3772 to let me know how this is going. Or leave a message on the HUFF line at 423-HUFF.
Still waiting for TBSC's acknowledgment that the Homeless Nighttime Sleeping Ban menaces the safety of homeless women who have no choices (what with the waiting lists year round, and the Armory open only half the year). That would be nice to hear. Perhaps a public statement at tomorrow's rally?
Popcorn's "tidy camping" suggestions are good ones. I'll pass them on (on my radio show, no less). I'd remind Passing Popcorn however, that what's possible for middle-class people on the occasional camping trip is a harder row to hoe for those who live outside
24-7.
Frank's concerns about cardboard left-behinds and such is also a legitimate concern. It would be easier, I think, if campers didn't face criminal charges and so have to avoid being seen to avoid $95 citations (which, when they pile up attended, can lead to a year in jail and $1000 fine). Perhaps a quick cal to the city attorney's office, urging an amnesty for old camping tickets and warrants might be helpful here. The number there is 423-6200.
Folks might also contact Mayor Coonerty and the Council at 420-5020 to direct Public Works (or whatever is the relevant agency) to make dumpsters and garbage bags available for camper clean-up plus some kind of police understanding that campers hauling out their own trash won't be hassled and ticketed. They do that in Fresno with some of the homeless campsites there.
"Conservative" Fresno may have something to teach "progressive" Santa Cruz here.
Of course, it's true that Fresno's city was successfully sued for $2.3 million for destroying homeless property. Fresno's pre-lawsuit policy was remarkably similar to Santa Cruz's policy now.
Budget-balances might want to keep an eye on that.
"Conservative" Fresno may have something to teach "progressive" Santa Cruz here.
Of course, it's true that Fresno's city was successfully sued for $2.3 million for destroying homeless property. Fresno's pre-lawsuit policy was remarkably similar to Santa Cruz's policy now.
Budget-balances might want to keep an eye on that.
There's no excuse or difference for housed or unhoused person: If you can pack it in, you can pack it out. It's a matter of choosing to care enough to do so.
I see thousands of empty bottles at illegal camps throughout our community. You telling me it's harder to carry out an empty liter of vodka than it was to carry it in at full weight? B.S.
Same goes for bikes, sleeping bags, food containers, flashlights...the list is endless. There are thousands of pounds of discarded posessoins being left in our parks and open spaces by homeless campers. Some clean up after themselves; no question. Many don't; no question their either.
For Norse to be chiding people who volunteer their time to go and clean up the crap left behind by the latter group of slobs is a farce. (And again, I note that he's avoided acknowledging his blatant lie vis a vis Steve. Steve never made the statement Norse claims he did that TBSC destroys property. He only said he heard second hand that they don't tell people not to. Big Difference.. Robert lied, and got busted on his lie.)
I see thousands of empty bottles at illegal camps throughout our community. You telling me it's harder to carry out an empty liter of vodka than it was to carry it in at full weight? B.S.
Same goes for bikes, sleeping bags, food containers, flashlights...the list is endless. There are thousands of pounds of discarded posessoins being left in our parks and open spaces by homeless campers. Some clean up after themselves; no question. Many don't; no question their either.
For Norse to be chiding people who volunteer their time to go and clean up the crap left behind by the latter group of slobs is a farce. (And again, I note that he's avoided acknowledging his blatant lie vis a vis Steve. Steve never made the statement Norse claims he did that TBSC destroys property. He only said he heard second hand that they don't tell people not to. Big Difference.. Robert lied, and got busted on his lie.)
While I appreciate Mr. Norse's commitment to passing along the Center for Outdoor Ethics guidelines via his radio show, that will only be effective insofar as his "unsightly regulars" have the ability to hear his show the one time he mentions the guidelines on-air. In other words, if he read the principles (they are far more than "suggestions") on his show tomorrow, how would a camper who arrives in town on Saturday know about them? Would he be placated if TBSC rented billboard space for two or three hours on some lightly traveled roadway to remind its members to be mindful of homeless campsites? I kinda doubt it.
He also claims it is harder for those on the street to follow these principles than it is a middle class family on vacation. Even if one accepts that assertion, that does not excuse the campers. For example, my driveway is long and steep, but my neighbor's is short and flat. Each week I have drag my garbage and recycling containers all the way out to the street, whereas my neighbor has just a short, flat walk to the curb. Does that mean I can just leave garbage strewn about my yard because it's more difficult for me to get it to the curb? Of course not.
You seem to have a double standard, Mr. Norse. If you demand a formal, published policy statement from TBSC, you should be prepared to issue an in-kind policy statement from HUFF.
He also claims it is harder for those on the street to follow these principles than it is a middle class family on vacation. Even if one accepts that assertion, that does not excuse the campers. For example, my driveway is long and steep, but my neighbor's is short and flat. Each week I have drag my garbage and recycling containers all the way out to the street, whereas my neighbor has just a short, flat walk to the curb. Does that mean I can just leave garbage strewn about my yard because it's more difficult for me to get it to the curb? Of course not.
You seem to have a double standard, Mr. Norse. If you demand a formal, published policy statement from TBSC, you should be prepared to issue an in-kind policy statement from HUFF.
On Free Radio tonight 6-8 PM. Pick up the phone, make a call, it's up to you.
Or Sunday 9:30 AM to 1 PM.
And a second thanks to Mike Locatelli for clarifying TBSC's policy. My apologies for misspelling the name in a previous post.
Or Sunday 9:30 AM to 1 PM.
And a second thanks to Mike Locatelli for clarifying TBSC's policy. My apologies for misspelling the name in a previous post.
Thank you for the invitation to listen to our radio program, Mr. Norse, but I would prefer to see the answers here...in the original thread and context. While I don't know for certain, I believe this web site has a larger audience than your radio program. You do want to make sure that everyone is well aware of the ongoing outreach you are doing to educate the unhoused on how to conduct themselves on public property and lands, don't you?
So I shall ask it again. What evidence does homeless "musician" Ricardo Lopez have to claim that TBSC is teaming up with the SCPD to remove camps?
You have brought it up a few times now, but at this point it is still just a rumor. One that without any proof, I find very hard to believe.
You have brought it up a few times now, but at this point it is still just a rumor. One that without any proof, I find very hard to believe.
Yeah it must suck to get paid, have a job, a place to stay dry and then have to clean up ten cardboard boxes, a few beer cans and bottles on the clock.
You ask why people can't ask all the homeless to cleanup after themselves? Its a ridicules question. You try sleeping for a week in the rain and see where your priorities lie at 6am.
Should he stand on the street corner " Attention all homeless! Keep your campsites spotless! This is my message." Give me a break. My sister can't keep her house clean and I can ask all I want, it doesn't change a thing.
It's been pouring and freezing for a week. Your talking about a very diverse group, some mentally ill, and yes, some are alcoholics and drug addicts, just like housed people who can hide behind their walls. Some are ill, some are just poor. They often have to scramble out of a place for fear of running into , well you, or your boss or the police. You can't ask something of "all homeless people" You can encourage clean camping, that's a good thing and Robert has done that in the past; I have to give him that. We will never enforce our way out of the problem of homelessness. Poverty needs to be seen. We need to encourage people to have more compassion and understanding, not less. TBSC is a reflection of people having less compassion for the poor, it is right in a pamphlet I saw. " Always call the police on panhandlers" etc. etc. etc. etc.
TBSC needs to define exactly what they are taking back and from whom.
You ask why people can't ask all the homeless to cleanup after themselves? Its a ridicules question. You try sleeping for a week in the rain and see where your priorities lie at 6am.
Should he stand on the street corner " Attention all homeless! Keep your campsites spotless! This is my message." Give me a break. My sister can't keep her house clean and I can ask all I want, it doesn't change a thing.
It's been pouring and freezing for a week. Your talking about a very diverse group, some mentally ill, and yes, some are alcoholics and drug addicts, just like housed people who can hide behind their walls. Some are ill, some are just poor. They often have to scramble out of a place for fear of running into , well you, or your boss or the police. You can't ask something of "all homeless people" You can encourage clean camping, that's a good thing and Robert has done that in the past; I have to give him that. We will never enforce our way out of the problem of homelessness. Poverty needs to be seen. We need to encourage people to have more compassion and understanding, not less. TBSC is a reflection of people having less compassion for the poor, it is right in a pamphlet I saw. " Always call the police on panhandlers" etc. etc. etc. etc.
TBSC needs to define exactly what they are taking back and from whom.
You excuse the homeless as diverse in mental accuity, capability, and level of ability or interest in engaging in society. But then you turn around and suggest that all housed people need to be of the same mindset: being caring of and concerned about the homeless, and being forgiving of all their shortcomings when it comes to engaging in a society.
Double standard; it doesn't work that way. Some housed are going to say "I don't care about them"...same as some homeless are by their actions saying about the housed.
Double standard; it doesn't work that way. Some housed are going to say "I don't care about them"...same as some homeless are by their actions saying about the housed.
The question is whether the community wants to support vigilante scapegoating of homeless people as the big economic and criminal problem in our society--as some DTAers and some TBSCers seem to suggest.
In this case, if folks have a bigoted mindset, that's certainly their right. But if they want to take action on their bigotry and attack innocent people. That's another matter entirely.
They need to be exposed, held accountable, and deterred.
My radio discussion/interviews of the TBSC/CCPVAW walk can be found at
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/02/18/18672408.php?show_comments=1#18672628 .
Any new word on whether those brave violence-fighters at TBSC are advising their volunteers to take special care re: homeless camps?
Any word at all?
In this case, if folks have a bigoted mindset, that's certainly their right. But if they want to take action on their bigotry and attack innocent people. That's another matter entirely.
They need to be exposed, held accountable, and deterred.
My radio discussion/interviews of the TBSC/CCPVAW walk can be found at
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/02/18/18672408.php?show_comments=1#18672628 .
Any new word on whether those brave violence-fighters at TBSC are advising their volunteers to take special care re: homeless camps?
Any word at all?
finally got a chance to listen to the last (thursday) show. Turns out that Ricardo Lopez, in an interview, says that TBSC _doesn't_ work with the police to clear camps. That it's actually a city employee and a crew. In fact, Ricardo said that he assists TBSC during clean ups.
In the same interview, Ricardo criticized TBSC as misguided in its opinions. Let's tell the full story, Ed.
A much larger march protesting violence against women took place yesterday: See http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/02/26/18673151.php and http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/02/22/18672798.php / Admittedly the weather was much better and the focus was more national.
A much larger march protesting violence against women took place yesterday: See http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/02/26/18673151.php and http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/02/22/18672798.php / Admittedly the weather was much better and the focus was more national.
Tim writes: "You ask why people can't ask all the homeless to cleanup after themselves? Its a ridicules question. You try sleeping for a week in the rain and see where your priorities lie at 6am. "
If the issue were weather based, then we would expect things to be cleaner when 'campers' don't have to sleep in the rain, right? If failure to clean up was due to the need to exit populated areas early or in a hurry, then we would expect camps in the woods to be clean, right?
Yet we don't see this. There is just as much trash left in the temperate summer months and in remote camps.
It doesn't matter if one is an alcoholic or mentally ill. Neither issue prevents one from taking the stuff they hauled in and hauling it out.
If the issue were weather based, then we would expect things to be cleaner when 'campers' don't have to sleep in the rain, right? If failure to clean up was due to the need to exit populated areas early or in a hurry, then we would expect camps in the woods to be clean, right?
Yet we don't see this. There is just as much trash left in the temperate summer months and in remote camps.
It doesn't matter if one is an alcoholic or mentally ill. Neither issue prevents one from taking the stuff they hauled in and hauling it out.
Norse has been flat out busted lying on two of his "sources" that he tries to use to discredit TBSC. Both of his "sources" have come out and contradicted Robert; both have clarified that they never said what he claims they told him.
Robert said "Ricardo Lopez, a homeless musician, does claim that TBSC has destroyed homeless property in conjunction with police.". But on Robert's own Radio show, Ricardo contradicts this lie. Ricardo says "No, these are not TBSC people". And in fact, Ricardo Lopez says he helps TBSC clean up. He says other homeless people are the ones taking his stuff.
Robert claimed Steve Pleich told him that TBSC regularly destroys camps and camping gear. But that was also a lie. Pleich never said it. What Pleich said was that TBSC doesn't advise their cleanup people not to tak camp gear. Huge difference.
Robert? Why do you keep lying about this issue? You aren't making mistakes; you're blatantly lying. You appear to be leading a disinformation campaign. Why?
Robert said "Ricardo Lopez, a homeless musician, does claim that TBSC has destroyed homeless property in conjunction with police.". But on Robert's own Radio show, Ricardo contradicts this lie. Ricardo says "No, these are not TBSC people". And in fact, Ricardo Lopez says he helps TBSC clean up. He says other homeless people are the ones taking his stuff.
Robert claimed Steve Pleich told him that TBSC regularly destroys camps and camping gear. But that was also a lie. Pleich never said it. What Pleich said was that TBSC doesn't advise their cleanup people not to tak camp gear. Huge difference.
Robert? Why do you keep lying about this issue? You aren't making mistakes; you're blatantly lying. You appear to be leading a disinformation campaign. Why?
Still no answer from TBSC and its pals.
I corrected what Ricardo said about his specific experience in that it was Park and Rec "clean-up" crews that did the dirty deeds, however this ignores the issue that has been constantly asked but never really answered.
Methinks those attacking me are trying to avoid that question:
"Does TBSC currently advise its volunteers to take special care not to destroy usable homeless property, and if not, why not? Other agencies do. If they don't, doesn't this show a certain hostility and prejudice, perhaps a hidden agenda?"
But I'm getting tired of asking it, so just judge TBSC by the videos on You-Tube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8bTGviRpLQ
and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HadLUNNmcQE&feature=related and other videos at the same site.
Methinks I scent the telltale odor of right-wing NIMBY bigotry mixed with police paranoia, the Drug Prohibition War fundamentalism, and other discredited power-seeking scaretactics. The problem in this situation is that homeless people are the victims if not the intentional targets.
Why don't TBSC leaders move to dispel this shadow? Perhaps because homeless people are a convenient scapegoat; or perhaps because the delusion that homeless people are a major violent crime problem is a TBSC core belief.
I corrected what Ricardo said about his specific experience in that it was Park and Rec "clean-up" crews that did the dirty deeds, however this ignores the issue that has been constantly asked but never really answered.
Methinks those attacking me are trying to avoid that question:
"Does TBSC currently advise its volunteers to take special care not to destroy usable homeless property, and if not, why not? Other agencies do. If they don't, doesn't this show a certain hostility and prejudice, perhaps a hidden agenda?"
But I'm getting tired of asking it, so just judge TBSC by the videos on You-Tube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8bTGviRpLQ
and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HadLUNNmcQE&feature=related and other videos at the same site.
Methinks I scent the telltale odor of right-wing NIMBY bigotry mixed with police paranoia, the Drug Prohibition War fundamentalism, and other discredited power-seeking scaretactics. The problem in this situation is that homeless people are the victims if not the intentional targets.
Why don't TBSC leaders move to dispel this shadow? Perhaps because homeless people are a convenient scapegoat; or perhaps because the delusion that homeless people are a major violent crime problem is a TBSC core belief.
Robert has been been caught lying again, and now he's trying to change the argument.
This crap is all so typical of you and so repetitive that it's made you a laughingstock.
He really believes we're so dumb as to buy this crap? "Methinks those attacking me are trying to avoid that question. "Does TBSC currently advise its volunteers to take special care not to destroy usable homeless property, and if not, why not?"
Okay, Let's play that crap.
THAT WASN'T THE QUESTION. THEN, or NOW.
The question is: why do you lie?
-The conversation and question , started by you and based on two supposed statements to you that have both now been refuted, was that TBSC was actively engaged in destroying and taking homeless belongings.
- You started this whole conversation by LYING and misquoting Steve. YOU LIED by saying that he stated they were destroying stuff. THIS LIE WAS CONTRADICTED BY STEVE.
-You attempted to buttress your lie, when you were outted on it, by using Ricardo as a second source. But once again, you lied and misquoted Ricardo. YOU LIED by saying that he stated they were destroying stuff. THIS LIE WAS CONTRADICTED BY RICARDO.
You're now trying to reshape the conversation by claiming that it's about whether TBSC asks its volunteers to avoid collecting homeless belongings. But that's a lie.
(And now you try to excuse one by saying you "corrected what Ricardo said"?! You're lying again Robert, cause Ricardo never said it. What you're correcting is your own lie about his words. (And you pretend to be a journalist?!.)
What pisses me off is that he thinks were stupid enough to not see through his lies. He "corrected" what Ricardo said? He "misunderstood" what Steve said? To me, it simply shows how clever Robert thinks he is and how ignorant the rest of us are, that we'll repeatedly fall for his innocent misreporting errors. Not me.
Robert says "Methinks I scent the telltale odor of right-wing NIMBY bigotry mixed with police paranoia, the Drug Prohibition War fundamentalism, and other discredited power-seeking scaretactics."
Me? Ithinks I smell the stank of a lying, trust-fund teat-suckling narcissist wearing a smelly bathrobe he uses as a sheep skin to pretend he's one of the people.
Whose streets? Our streets! Whose trust fund? Robert's trust fund. Whose lies? Roberts lies.
This crap is all so typical of you and so repetitive that it's made you a laughingstock.
He really believes we're so dumb as to buy this crap? "Methinks those attacking me are trying to avoid that question. "Does TBSC currently advise its volunteers to take special care not to destroy usable homeless property, and if not, why not?"
Okay, Let's play that crap.
THAT WASN'T THE QUESTION. THEN, or NOW.
The question is: why do you lie?
-The conversation and question , started by you and based on two supposed statements to you that have both now been refuted, was that TBSC was actively engaged in destroying and taking homeless belongings.
- You started this whole conversation by LYING and misquoting Steve. YOU LIED by saying that he stated they were destroying stuff. THIS LIE WAS CONTRADICTED BY STEVE.
-You attempted to buttress your lie, when you were outted on it, by using Ricardo as a second source. But once again, you lied and misquoted Ricardo. YOU LIED by saying that he stated they were destroying stuff. THIS LIE WAS CONTRADICTED BY RICARDO.
You're now trying to reshape the conversation by claiming that it's about whether TBSC asks its volunteers to avoid collecting homeless belongings. But that's a lie.
(And now you try to excuse one by saying you "corrected what Ricardo said"?! You're lying again Robert, cause Ricardo never said it. What you're correcting is your own lie about his words. (And you pretend to be a journalist?!.)
What pisses me off is that he thinks were stupid enough to not see through his lies. He "corrected" what Ricardo said? He "misunderstood" what Steve said? To me, it simply shows how clever Robert thinks he is and how ignorant the rest of us are, that we'll repeatedly fall for his innocent misreporting errors. Not me.
Robert says "Methinks I scent the telltale odor of right-wing NIMBY bigotry mixed with police paranoia, the Drug Prohibition War fundamentalism, and other discredited power-seeking scaretactics."
Me? Ithinks I smell the stank of a lying, trust-fund teat-suckling narcissist wearing a smelly bathrobe he uses as a sheep skin to pretend he's one of the people.
Whose streets? Our streets! Whose trust fund? Robert's trust fund. Whose lies? Roberts lies.
Mr. Norse, no one is attacking you any more than you are attacking TBSC. Why is it okay for you to be critical, but it's not okay for anyone to be critical of you?
While we're at it, where is HUFF's formal, published policy statement admonishing the homeless to pack their trash, respect private property, and protect public land from abuse? Unless I see one on HUFF's web site, and in every communication you have with the homeless, I'll continue to believe you encourage the homeless to litter, to break into and enter private property without permission, and to destroy public land.
Why don't HUFF leaders move to dispel this shadow?
While we're at it, where is HUFF's formal, published policy statement admonishing the homeless to pack their trash, respect private property, and protect public land from abuse? Unless I see one on HUFF's web site, and in every communication you have with the homeless, I'll continue to believe you encourage the homeless to litter, to break into and enter private property without permission, and to destroy public land.
Why don't HUFF leaders move to dispel this shadow?
I don't know what TBSC does or doesn't advise its people to do or not do but I have been to two SOS clean-ups and NOBODY has ever told me not to "destroy, touch or to preserve" homeless camp sites. I just thought you should know this too is another fact that is not entirely accurate.
Original comment at the top of this article: "However TBSC has held "clean-up's" and "loiter-in's" in the past which similarly use the language of safety and community while declining to advise their participants not to destroy homeless property and homeless camps as other groups like Save Our Shores do when they conduct similar activities. [See http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/01/14/18669204.php?show_comments=1#18670694 & the comments that precede it]"
TBSC supporter response: Anonymous attacks. Denunciation of HUFF Personal abuse. But, most tellingly, silence on the specific question.
"What kind of advisory does or doesn't TBSC give its volunteers?"
Why this pregnant silence if TBSC and its bushbeaters have nothing to hide?
TBSC supporter response: Anonymous attacks. Denunciation of HUFF Personal abuse. But, most tellingly, silence on the specific question.
"What kind of advisory does or doesn't TBSC give its volunteers?"
Why this pregnant silence if TBSC and its bushbeaters have nothing to hide?
Mr. Norse wrote:
"TBSC supporter response: Anonymous attacks. Denunciation of HUFF Personal abuse. But, most tellingly, silence on the specific question.
"What kind of advisory does or doesn't TBSC give its volunteers?"
Why this pregnant silence if TBSC and its bushbeaters have nothing to hide?"
HUFF response: Lying. Attempting to deflect. Name calling.
What kind of advisory does or doesn't HUFF give its constituents about cleaning up after themselves?
Why the pregnant silence if HUFF and its bushbreakers have nothing to hide?
"TBSC supporter response: Anonymous attacks. Denunciation of HUFF Personal abuse. But, most tellingly, silence on the specific question.
"What kind of advisory does or doesn't TBSC give its volunteers?"
Why this pregnant silence if TBSC and its bushbeaters have nothing to hide?"
HUFF response: Lying. Attempting to deflect. Name calling.
What kind of advisory does or doesn't HUFF give its constituents about cleaning up after themselves?
Why the pregnant silence if HUFF and its bushbreakers have nothing to hide?
"Homeless guitarist Ricardo Lopez reported both police and TBSC (apparently sometimes in conjunction) have torn down homeless camps, and confiscated or destroyed homeless survival gear while driving them away from the river levee.".
This is awfully specific claim and quote from someone whose now trying to pass it off as an innocent mistake. An innocent mistake he's made twice on the same issue with two different..mistaken quotes....most would call them lies.
Robert continues to avoid answering the question of why he blatantly lies, fabricates quotes, and falsified information. That is the real stink and coverup going on here.
This is awfully specific claim and quote from someone whose now trying to pass it off as an innocent mistake. An innocent mistake he's made twice on the same issue with two different..mistaken quotes....most would call them lies.
Robert continues to avoid answering the question of why he blatantly lies, fabricates quotes, and falsified information. That is the real stink and coverup going on here.
As anyone reading the two-year old thread can see, TBSC advocates have not clarified that they give warnings to their "clean-up" crews. At least, not here.
Unfortunately the issue has become irrelevant since police allies last summer that intensified this dirty work instead--partially as a response to the militant Occupy Santa Cruz movement, which successfully established the first mass homeless campground here in a decade.
In the repressive year that followed, TBSC certainly expressed no objection to the destruction of homeless survival camps and survival gear. So, for the purposes of this thread's basic question, the answer has remained pretty clear.
They have ruthlessly and callously moved to eliminate the only Needle Exchange in Santa Cruz as part of their shallow prohibitionist War on Drugs hysteria agenda.
They've defeated an attempt to open a second Medical Marijuana dispensary in the Harvey West neighborhood.
Their City Council allies are attacking the Homeless (Lack of) Services Center--not so that it may provide the rights and services homeless people should be receiving, but so that it can be elminated entirely so as not to "enable" the homeless.
That is, to make Santa Cruz homeless-hostile. Using Needle Hysteria, "illegal camping", and a phony "crime wave" scare to mobilize the fears of conservative residents, TBSC has gained heightened political power with its co-founder Pamela Comstock now on the City Council.
They've gained "respectability" by being voted "Best Activists" by Good Times this year. (Hitler was named Time's Man of the Year in the late 30's---so that shouldn't come as too much of a shock).
All this toxicity thrives in part because the community continues to allow the SCPD to continue to criminalize homeless people in this City with curfews, bans, and intensified discrimination. The Council "enables" this institutionalized human rights abuse by deifying dead police officers and ramping up the SCPD budget and job roster. And by denying the basic rights outlined in Assemblyman Ammiano's Homeless Bill of Rights (AB 5).
Unfortunately the issue has become irrelevant since police allies last summer that intensified this dirty work instead--partially as a response to the militant Occupy Santa Cruz movement, which successfully established the first mass homeless campground here in a decade.
In the repressive year that followed, TBSC certainly expressed no objection to the destruction of homeless survival camps and survival gear. So, for the purposes of this thread's basic question, the answer has remained pretty clear.
They have ruthlessly and callously moved to eliminate the only Needle Exchange in Santa Cruz as part of their shallow prohibitionist War on Drugs hysteria agenda.
They've defeated an attempt to open a second Medical Marijuana dispensary in the Harvey West neighborhood.
Their City Council allies are attacking the Homeless (Lack of) Services Center--not so that it may provide the rights and services homeless people should be receiving, but so that it can be elminated entirely so as not to "enable" the homeless.
That is, to make Santa Cruz homeless-hostile. Using Needle Hysteria, "illegal camping", and a phony "crime wave" scare to mobilize the fears of conservative residents, TBSC has gained heightened political power with its co-founder Pamela Comstock now on the City Council.
They've gained "respectability" by being voted "Best Activists" by Good Times this year. (Hitler was named Time's Man of the Year in the late 30's---so that shouldn't come as too much of a shock).
All this toxicity thrives in part because the community continues to allow the SCPD to continue to criminalize homeless people in this City with curfews, bans, and intensified discrimination. The Council "enables" this institutionalized human rights abuse by deifying dead police officers and ramping up the SCPD budget and job roster. And by denying the basic rights outlined in Assemblyman Ammiano's Homeless Bill of Rights (AB 5).
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$170.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network