Santa Cruz IMC
Santa Cruz IMC
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

Silence from the City Manager on the Eve of the 11th Freedom Sleepers Protest

by Robert Norse (rnorse3 [at]
On 9-22, I received a brief e-mail from City Manager Martin Bernal regarding the recent escalation of police force and First Alarm security guard violence against the Freedom Sleepers--a group protesting the City's criminalization of homeless people. I present the following correspondence for public review so the community can decide what needs to be done next around this cruel repression of the most basic of human rights--the Right to Sleep at night without harassment. In a city which has essentially closed all accessible emergency shelter. Recent tallying of citations by police and rangers reveals nearly 1000 citations have been issued under MC 6.36 (Camping, Blanket, and Sleeping Bans) in the last three months. Nearly an equal number have been issued for MC 13.04.011 ("being in a closed area"--meaning being in a park, greenbelt, or at City Hall after dark). Fines for these offenses range from $157 to $198. The River St. Shelter refuses to voluntarily provide information to the courts documenting that their shelters were full on nights when people got citations.
Nearly 1000 tickets have been issued from June through August by rangers and cops together. The number of MC 13.04.011's issued was 57 compared to 119 for those months. It is unclear how many MC 13.04.011's were issued by the SCPD during the same period. I'll be putting in a Public Records Act request for those figures today.

Every single P & R citation included a stay-away-for-24-hours (though the victim hadn't been convicted or even reached court. It's unclear whether SCPD did the same. (I'll hope to find out.) As far as I know Santa Cruz is unique in this procedure.

Santa Cruz leads the way in innovative anti-homeless measures including sonic nuisance devices to drive homeless folks away from various areas ("mosquitos"--see ).

I will be hoping to record citations and harassment accounts tonight at the protest.
by G

After arguing last month that local ordinances criminalizing people for being homeless are unconstitutional, the Obama administration will now tie federal funding to whether municipalities are cracking down on criminalization measures.

Every year, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) gives out $1.9 billion in grants to local Continuums of Care, public-private partnerships that tackle homelessness in a specific area. These grants are doled out in a competitive process whereby applicants must fill out a lengthy questionnaire about how they plan to use the money, as well as their current policies.

Last week, though, HUD announced that it would begin asking applicants to describe the steps they are taking to reduce the criminalization of homelessness. Ordinances that criminalize homelessness, also known as “anti-vagrancy” or “quality of life” laws, include making it illegal to sit down on a sidewalk, ask passersby for spare change, or sleep in a public place. Applicants for the federal money will have to show they are engaging with local policymakers or law enforcement about criminalization policies, as well as implementing new community plans to ensure homelessness is not criminalized. Failing to combat such ordinances will hurt a Continuum of Care’s chances of winning new funds.

The change comes after the administration filed a brief in federal court arguing that criminalization violates the Eighth Amendment’s protections against cruel and unusual punishment.

Maria Foscarinis, Executive Director of the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, hailed the latest move. “We welcome the federal government’s direction of tax limited dollars to the places that will most effectively use that money to address homelessness,” Foscarinis said in a statement. She also noted that HUD is giving sufficient weight to criminalization policies that the question “in many cases could be the difference between receiving funding and not.”


It would come at a time that these policies have been popping up at an alarming rate. A study this year from the UC Berkeley law school identified over 500 anti-homeless laws on the books in just 58 California cities, while researchers at the Seattle University School of Law found criminalization ordinances in Washington had risen over 50 percent since 2000.

Criminalization policies are problematic not only from a human rights perspective, but also because they’re costly and counterproductive. A new report from the California Homeless Youth Project argued that “saddling a young person with a criminal history impedes their efforts to obtain a job, housing, safety net resources, and education, including both secondary and post-secondary education.” Criminalizing homelessness also hurts taxpayers. When accounting for law enforcement and emergency health care costs, numerous studies have found that leaving homeless people on the streets winds up costing taxpayers more than three times as much as simply giving them housing and supportive services.

This HUD move may cost poverty pimps their NAEH16 'vacation funds'!

We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!


$190.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.


Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network