Community Sleepout #29

"participants say the location continues to be the only safe place for people to sleep outdoors in downtown Santa Cruz on Tuesday nights"

Goes to show what 'participants' know. Since shortly after the DOJ filed that 8th Amedndment brief in Bell v. Boise the SCPD is no longer issuing tickets for camping on 'uncontrolled' public property (ie. no 'park hours' rules etc.) or private property that doesn't have a 'no-tresspassing letter' on file with the SCPD... which means it's less of a problem sleeping in groups. Previous to this many slept alone because it kept the 'profile' low and you were less likely to get cited (and took the risks of sleeping alone in urban areas), but that's not the case anymore.

I want the 'participants' to know that they're literally wasting time ... until such a time as they realize that there is no more 'camping ban' and it's time to start frying the BIG 'fish'. The city's failure to provide not only adequate shelter facilities (according to that DOJ brief their facilities are SURELY inadequate) and JOB development ,.. NOT "Broadband Internet Infrastructure Development" as the city is currently doing, with that HUD money they're ILLEGALLY SPENDING that was intended for Brick and Mortar job development allocated to the city, and HOUSING to match those lower income jobs.

As it stands, the current goals of the 'participants' is moot. It's easy protesting something that isn't existent... If you don't mind looking like fools.

How many weeks did you sleep at City Hall during these sleepouts, RR? You participated for a long time.

RR knows that the Freedom Sleepers are also protesting the closure of public parks to people looking for a safe place to sleep, that's why they chose City Hall, because it and the park space around it is closed at night. They are protesting a lot of different things.

They sound allike because they both onced supported the campouts but now are the only ones talking bad about the Freedom Sleepers. Except for the cops and the city, of course, and Don Lane, etc...

There's lots of politics in the opinions of these poverty profiteers.

Really? That's about the dumbest thing I've heard in a while here. And there's plenty of dumb here!

I didn't mean to imply RR is literally a poverty profiteer in the same way that Brent Adams and Don Lane are, though on some levels RR does seem to derive some sort of emotional stimulus from trolling people in the same way Brent and Don do.

RR does have an unhealthy relationship with the truth, however, and sometimes the comments he makes like the first one on this post make me wonder if he is paid by some nefarious force to create discord among local protestors.

Why else would RR now call the Freedom Sleepers fools when he was a Freedom Sleeper himself for so long?

I have no evidence RR is paid to do this, but sometimes his positions are hard to reconcile and he is the only one attacking peeps here.

"MeMeMe Whine" "...the Freedom Sleepers are also protesting the closure of public parks"

Really? That wasn't ever brought up at any of the few PUBLIC GAs the Freedom Sleepers had. Besides, the 'right to sleep in a park' is WHAT kind of right in Santa Cruz without jobs and housing? The right to be homeless without hope. Also, the parks aren't closed. They're 'hour limited'. The feds and state give cities HUGE amounts of leeway deciding hours for parks and other details of their operation. You won't change shit about it. Ps. the blanket ban is also made moot by the DOJ brief.

"Just Sayin": "RR reminds me of Brent Adams"

That's because you 'can't tell shit from shinola...' right?

This absolutely proves my assumption:

"RR does have an unhealthy relationship with the truth, however, and sometimes the comments he makes like the first one on this post make me wonder if he is paid by some nefarious force to create discord among local protestors."

Truth is unhealthy in an empire of lies, and people who protest just to get their names and faces in the media. All opinions are absolutely my own, are longstanding, ESPECIALLY the JOBS and HOUSING pitch, and I state them in public as my own opinion as well... No one pays me to do or say anything. I get no 'creds' I receive no 'bennies'. Those ARE my opinions based on facts.

But this isn't about me. This is about a protest whose goals have become irrelevant, and instead of anyone speaking to the reality of the situation I get 'trolled'. I suspect the people trolling, "MeMeMe Whine", "Just Sayin", and that other idiot above who had nothing to say whatsoever, have a problem with developing jobs and housing in Santa Cruz as an answer to homelessness. Their solution seems to be "Normalize Homelessness". OBVIOUSLY middle class, and almost assuredly (unlike myself) housed.

Waiting for intelligent life-forms now.

Please answer these two simple questions.

How many weeks did you sleep at City Hall during these protests?

AND

Why did you participate?

This isn't about me dude, and you aren't going to make it about me, so fuck off and get an analysis of your own.

This is about you, RR, because you are a Freedom Sleeper, aren't you?

You have called these fine protestors in the picture fools. You dispute their claim this is the only place they feel safe to sleep, yet you don't appear to know why they think that.

And lastly you won't explain why you participated in the sleepouts.

You don't have analysis, RR, you have a story that doesn't add up.

You are also assuming the protestors are all protesting the sleep ban. As a Freedom Sleeper were you protesting the sleep ban, RR? Where you protesting what someone else decided for you at a GA? Seems unlikely.

(There's a lesson for activists at the bottom)

MeMeMeMoi: "You have called these fine protestors in the picture fools."

No I didn't. My exact words were:

"As it stands, the current goals of the 'participants' is moot. It's easy protesting something that isn't existent... If you don't mind looking like fools."

"...LOOKING LIKE FOOLS."

There's a difference, I've critiqued the outcome of the Freedom Sleepers elsewhere on IndyBay. Go search it yourself. illiterate ass.

(adds out-of-context mis-quoter who appear to intend to sow mistrust (iow, a snitch) to DNR (do not respond) list.)

someone can go verify if what RR is saying is true or not.

And especially if true, then that's even more reason for SC City Council to remove the various laws against camping, blankets, stay away orders from the books.

Either way the Freedom Sleepers point is to remove an unused dangerous law or a still active dangerous law.

My understanding is that Bell lost (even though that decision highlighted the targeted nature of the hate laws) and Bell v. Boise might be heard by a higher appellate (or maybe not, given the cheese chewing indications, we'll see). While nice, the DoJ Statement Of Interest is not law nor case law. It's a warning that future clarification might go against the hopes and dreams of the persecutors, and it encouraged HUD et al to twist the financial screws as a proxy (a common Federal power play).

If it's heard and decided for Bell, the jurisdiction might be the 9th Circuit (I'm pretty sure but it might be a different Federal Circuit). The 9th Circuit includes California. The next stop would be the Supreme Court, which has national jurisdiction. Maybe the other states would prefer things stop at the 9th, so they could develop competing case law in other Federal Appellates, or maybe they would be good with a national roll of the dice, especially if the fix was in.

Given a Bell win, legal harassment might backfire on the City, County, and State. So non-enforcement for now is a cheap and easy hedge against potential future loses.

If it's heard and decided against Bell, then the risk of enforcement is reduced and the persecution can recommence. So leaving the hate law on the books for now is a cheap and easy hedge against the procedural tedium of removing and reinserting the hate laws.

Meanwhile, they have time to cook up more abusive legislation. Just like that 'time, place, and manner' ruse used to abuse the 1st Amendment. And Rahm is still Mayor of Chicago, in charge of an out of control LEO, on the national scene, facing a lot of resistance and benefiting from a distinct lack of accountability, so be careful out there.

For the record; I opposed this protest before it started, because of the pending nature of Bell v. Boise and the possibility of life altering yet pointless legal hassles for the 'cannon fodder', and now I admire those that persist in their resistance, even after the hype has receded (and the klieg lights and the 'in it for the naughty kicks' crowd have retreated, just like last time).

Nevertheless federal courts consistently rule that prosecutions occur because of behavior, not status, and if your status is such that a law is violated, that's simply too bad for the 'law'. The brief also asserts the Jones Decision in SoCal as the correct one and is VERY specific about what DOESN'T qualify as 'adequate shelter'. That description must have been created using Santa Cruz as model of everything wrong.

Bell v. Boise was thrown out on the bogus grounds that the complainants, 6 year into the suit, were now housed, and because of that were no longer able to sue. But until a federal court rules on a case that the brief is brought into play in or rules in some contradictory manner, that DOJ statement of intent IS the US government's opinion of what the 8th Amendment means in re sleeping in public.

I say the battle's been 'won by other means' and OFC it might come to pass that some federal court does undo that DOJ statement, but until then I say it's time to 'shift gears' and work on something the city's really gonna hate. Being forced to develop adequate ultra-low-cost housing, and jobs that pay enough to afford that housing because the right to sleep in a doorway is no right worth having. The money from HUD for that sort of job development is being redirected to Broadband Internet Infrastructure development, to pander to people coming here from elsewhere with jobs predestined instead of creating jobs for locals... Doesn't that piss anyone off?

During the recent climate conference the powers that be fought hard over legally significant wording: should (what those fighting for the planet wanted) and would (the legally binding stuff the polluters wanted). Once troublesome woulds became ignorable shoulds, the polluters were ready to sign. This is a common pattern.

The DoJ Statement Of Interest is not legally binding. Sure, it has influence, but EVEN IN BELL v. BOISE IT WAS NOT LEGALLY BINDING. Bell v. Boise was tossed on a technicality that blatantly abused the 8th and 14th Amendments, that alone SCREAMS farce. If the NLCHP surrenders Bell v. Boise, the farce stands for at least another decade. The (in)effectiveness of citing Jones v. Los Angeles (2006), and the common arguments used against it, can be read in more than one Santa Cruz Court decision.

The DoJ Statement Of Interest does NOT have jurisdiction over rulings of the Judiciary, nor does it strike down Legislative hate. It merely expresses the public opinion of the CURRENT Executive branch, and indicates which arguments the CURRENT Executive might bring to any Supreme Court case that could establish precedent, IF SUCH A CASE IS EVER HEARD.

The battle has not been won. Reserve forces (the CURRENT Executive, and the UNHRC, and even the Supreme Court of India) have publicly chosen a side, which has encouraged local tyranny to pause and regroup. The opinion of the Judiciary was made very clear in Papachristou v. City Of Jacksonville (1972) (as well as in Desertrain v. Los Angeles (2014)), which hasn't stopped local tyranny, anywhere in the USA, because the Legislative branch regrouped and deployed new 'time, place, and manner'-esque legal ruses, reinforcing the ugly truth: rule of law is a farce.

Shifting gears seems like a reasonable course of action to me, while we wait for the battle to resume.

The discussion about the legality of the situation for sleeping in public spaces is still playing it's self out. Recently as he wrapped up his stint in the Mayor's position, one reflection Don Lane had was "maybe sleeping in public spaces being a crime needs to be addressed" -- a monologue on his FB page.

It will be interesting to see how public sleeping plays out.

What I find more interesting is the discussion around "poverty pimps". Robert Norse, for years, has used others (even travelers from out of town -- sleeping at the post office) to make his point. Don Lane, and others, make money off of numbers needing services. Some of the largest "Freedom Sleeper" proponents have beds to go to.

I also find Brent getting traction for Warming Centers (which are a great idea) and some backing from the city despite Brent being involved (personally, he should step aside -- this isn't about a cause, it's about Brent) interesting. The blow back from those involved with the Freedom Sleepers, etc. has been spot on. Brent is Brent's interests first (public spotlight); just like Robert is.

Hopefully the courts and country will find a path through this mess. The stench of local personalities hoping to get theirs out of this fight is getting a bit rancid.

Steve Pleich posted an update about the group that is working to amend the sleeping ban law in the City of Santa Cruz to take out the sleep references. Pleich uploaded the groups talking points memo and said this today: "Hope to have it on council agenda in February. A small group, including Don Lane and Micah Posner have been quietly working on this amendment. Feel free to share as we are now going community wide for support.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QwwA58hpUKPQow9n0BpqZZ0nfhberF7n9wvir_yivXA/edit

The threat of losing free fed money is driving the proposal to remove the words 'blanket' and 'sleep' from local ordinances. Perhaps because that $2M would help fund the fiber scam? Note that the cost of enforcement, prosecution, and incarceration for sleep 'crimes' hasn't been a concern (win or lose in court); it has been an incentive (because it butters police state bread (see also: license plate spying program)).

Tactics and strategy.