Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Juggling BANNED in Santa Cruz? Pacific Ave. Juggler Ticketed and Detained 12/17/2016
Video documentation of claims by a member of the SCPD that juggling is illegal as he tickets and detains a performer on Pacific Ave. in Santa Cruz on Saturday December 17, 2016.
A deeper look at Santa Cruz Municipal Code 9.50 appears to make an exception for juggling and bubble blowing in subsection (e), below :
----------------
9.50.020 CONDUCT ON PUBLIC PROPERTY, MONUMENTS, AND LAWNS.
No person, after having been notified by a police officer, public officer or downtown host that he or she is in violation of the prohibition in this section, shall:
(a) Walk, stand, sit or lie upon any monument, vase, decorative fountain, drinking fountain, bike rack, trash receptacle, median, fire hydrant, street-tree planter, berm, utility cabinet, railing, fence, planter, or upon any other public property not designed or customarily used for such purposes;
(b) Walk, stand, sit or lie upon any public lawn or planted area which is posted with signs that forbid such conduct; or
(c) Walk, stand or lie upon any public bench.
(d) In the C-C community commercial, C-N neighborhood commercial, C-B commercial beach, CBD central business, and R-T tourist residential zoning districts, intentionally throw, discharge, launch or spill any solid object (including but not limited to footballs, hackysacks, baseballs, beach balls, Frisbees, or other similar devices) or liquid substance or otherwise cause any object or substance to be thrown, discharged, launched, spilled or to become airborne.
(e) Notwithstanding subsection (d), individual bubble street performers and individual jugglers who otherwise comply with all applicable statutes and ordinances are authorized to blow bubbles and juggle in the C-C, C-N, C-B, CBD and R-T zoning districts. When in the judgment of the director of parks and recreation or the police chief, or their respective designees, said bubble-blowing or juggling activity will materially interfere with pedestrian use of the sidewalk or attract crowds which will create such interference, the city may require a bubble street performer or juggler to obtain a noncommercial event permit from the city as a condition to continuing or undertaking a bubble or juggling performance. This subsection shall not be construed to authorize hackysack activity in the referenced zone districts.
(Ord. 2009-05 § 8, 2009: Ord. 2003-20 § 1, 2003: Ord. 2002-34 § 1, 2002: Ord. 94-09 § 5, 1994: Ord. 69-14 § 1 (part), 1969).
This is a developing story...
----------------
9.50.020 CONDUCT ON PUBLIC PROPERTY, MONUMENTS, AND LAWNS.
No person, after having been notified by a police officer, public officer or downtown host that he or she is in violation of the prohibition in this section, shall:
(a) Walk, stand, sit or lie upon any monument, vase, decorative fountain, drinking fountain, bike rack, trash receptacle, median, fire hydrant, street-tree planter, berm, utility cabinet, railing, fence, planter, or upon any other public property not designed or customarily used for such purposes;
(b) Walk, stand, sit or lie upon any public lawn or planted area which is posted with signs that forbid such conduct; or
(c) Walk, stand or lie upon any public bench.
(d) In the C-C community commercial, C-N neighborhood commercial, C-B commercial beach, CBD central business, and R-T tourist residential zoning districts, intentionally throw, discharge, launch or spill any solid object (including but not limited to footballs, hackysacks, baseballs, beach balls, Frisbees, or other similar devices) or liquid substance or otherwise cause any object or substance to be thrown, discharged, launched, spilled or to become airborne.
(e) Notwithstanding subsection (d), individual bubble street performers and individual jugglers who otherwise comply with all applicable statutes and ordinances are authorized to blow bubbles and juggle in the C-C, C-N, C-B, CBD and R-T zoning districts. When in the judgment of the director of parks and recreation or the police chief, or their respective designees, said bubble-blowing or juggling activity will materially interfere with pedestrian use of the sidewalk or attract crowds which will create such interference, the city may require a bubble street performer or juggler to obtain a noncommercial event permit from the city as a condition to continuing or undertaking a bubble or juggling performance. This subsection shall not be construed to authorize hackysack activity in the referenced zone districts.
(Ord. 2009-05 § 8, 2009: Ord. 2003-20 § 1, 2003: Ord. 2002-34 § 1, 2002: Ord. 94-09 § 5, 1994: Ord. 69-14 § 1 (part), 1969).
This is a developing story...
For more information:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCx1ykfZ0M...
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
who picks on weaker people? coward bullies
For more information:
http://talltalk.info
I was at the council meeting where they made that law years ago, and tried outlawing juggling entirely, but public pressure cause them to back down albeit they never actually wrote the exemption for juggling into the law until a certain well known bubble blower helped jugglers who were actually cited get copies of the council's statement they would exempt juggling.
Bur you still can't block the sidewalk. Sorry.
Btw, how's you other civil rights thingie going? Or do you just do this sort of constitutional crap as a marketing tactic?
Bur you still can't block the sidewalk. Sorry.
Btw, how's you other civil rights thingie going? Or do you just do this sort of constitutional crap as a marketing tactic?
I saw this guy before this happened. He is very talented. He was throwing 3 pins up and none fell, but he was kind of in the flow of foot traffic ...so I suppose someone could have gotten hit (unlikely). That particular corner has other performers and folks just walk around. Anyway... I do feel bad for the old timer...should have been a warning.
HARASSMENT UNDER (CONFUSED OR FALSE) COLOR OF LAW
Officer Eveleth is the cop involved (though he may have risen higher in the food chain since I knew him) is, of course, in error. Juggling is not banned, but explicitly permitted (as you can read from section 9.50.020e above).
If the performer was accused of blocking the sidewalk, my understanding is that this has to be intentional (i.e. the cop has to ask him to move aside and s/he has to refuse).
Also the sidewalk is pretty broad at that point with public passage permitted over a 30' area, so claiming sidewalk blockage, even unintentional is not very persuasive.
Add to that the fact that large crowds frequently gather there for the marimba band.
Mark Eveleth is either ignorant of the law or acting capriciously or maliciously disregarding it. He used to spend time going after food server Sean Alemi in the 90's also on Pacific Avenue for feeding the poor. I understand he's been promoted to higher office in the SCPD--a not unusual occurence for bad cops.
Bubble-blower Tom Noddy did go to jail for juggling (an intentional act of civil disobedience on his part) in the summer of 2003
HISTORY
http://buskersadvocates.org/saalegalSantaCruz.html contains some of the history:
July, 24, 2002 -- City Council passes new regulations. City Attorney states at the meeting the regulations will not ban juggling. See City Codes below click here
2003 -- City threatens to arrest jugglers and other perfomers. Tom Noddy begins letter writing campaign. The city attorney reverses opinion and now states new regulations bans juggling.
June 26, 2003, Tom Noddy is arrested for juggling and spends 13 hours in jail.
June 27, 2003, Tom Noddy writes Flying Karamazov Brothers and other artists who started on the streets of Santa Cruz and begins plans for a protest and benefit concert for protracted legal battle scheduled for September 5th and 6th. Click here
July 9, 2003 City Council pass Emergency Resolution clarifying juggling is legal.
THANKS
to Alex and whoever did the video (Joff perhaps?) for documenting, posting, and--most of all-speaking out and acting out (juggling!) in a way that drove away police bullying.
It may be time to activate the Street Performers Guild again.
Officer Eveleth is the cop involved (though he may have risen higher in the food chain since I knew him) is, of course, in error. Juggling is not banned, but explicitly permitted (as you can read from section 9.50.020e above).
If the performer was accused of blocking the sidewalk, my understanding is that this has to be intentional (i.e. the cop has to ask him to move aside and s/he has to refuse).
Also the sidewalk is pretty broad at that point with public passage permitted over a 30' area, so claiming sidewalk blockage, even unintentional is not very persuasive.
Add to that the fact that large crowds frequently gather there for the marimba band.
Mark Eveleth is either ignorant of the law or acting capriciously or maliciously disregarding it. He used to spend time going after food server Sean Alemi in the 90's also on Pacific Avenue for feeding the poor. I understand he's been promoted to higher office in the SCPD--a not unusual occurence for bad cops.
Bubble-blower Tom Noddy did go to jail for juggling (an intentional act of civil disobedience on his part) in the summer of 2003
HISTORY
http://buskersadvocates.org/saalegalSantaCruz.html contains some of the history:
July, 24, 2002 -- City Council passes new regulations. City Attorney states at the meeting the regulations will not ban juggling. See City Codes below click here
2003 -- City threatens to arrest jugglers and other perfomers. Tom Noddy begins letter writing campaign. The city attorney reverses opinion and now states new regulations bans juggling.
June 26, 2003, Tom Noddy is arrested for juggling and spends 13 hours in jail.
June 27, 2003, Tom Noddy writes Flying Karamazov Brothers and other artists who started on the streets of Santa Cruz and begins plans for a protest and benefit concert for protracted legal battle scheduled for September 5th and 6th. Click here
July 9, 2003 City Council pass Emergency Resolution clarifying juggling is legal.
THANKS
to Alex and whoever did the video (Joff perhaps?) for documenting, posting, and--most of all-speaking out and acting out (juggling!) in a way that drove away police bullying.
It may be time to activate the Street Performers Guild again.
Well done!
I have to say, the officer was well informed ... one would think that 9.50.020 subsection (d) would be somewhat obscure and I do agree that a commonsense reading of its wording would suggest that juggling on Pacific Avenue in Santa Cruz is illegal. In fact, I DID suggest that to the councilmembers considering the passage of that change to the law in 2002.
I wasn't naive enough to believe that everyone would drop their agenda and see the light but I did hope that the realization that they were about to outlaw juggling in the home of the world famous Flying Karamazov Brothers might give them pause as they were on the verge of putting through a large package of proposed "Downtown Ordinances" that were almost entirely aimed at making life more difficult for homeless people and panhandlers downtown. This was to be the quick culmination of a fever-driven set of demands set off by a downtown merchant who went shop-to-shop asking for signatures on a petition she had devised to address what she perceived as the reasons why her longtime downtown shoe business was failing (they sold nice shoes but the backbone of the business had been the sale of dance shoes and those had recently become much less expensive when sold online ... other businesses were dealing with similar changes to the brick-and-mortar shops in dealing with internet competition). Outside observers saw it as a rather clear example of scapegoating but the hurried rush from petition to legislation while excluding or sidetracking contrary input was astounding, even in an arena where this had become the occasional norm (this was not the first set of "Downtown Ordinances" to come through the Council).
Until this time, the Santa Cruz Street Performers' Guild had worked with downtown businesses to minimize the numbers of times that the police or government needed to address free entertainment offered on the sidewalks as one of the "downtown problems". But the deal had been that we would work in that way to help performers to see the benefits of cooperation with the businesses if they would refrain from using their advantage with gaining government and police enforcement of their changing whims when dealing with performers. With the passage of those ordinances, we tore up the written agreement and waited to see if the new "unambiguous laws" that the merchants had forced through would result in their being happier. Of course it didn't. The cops did respond to their every call and complaint and when no one complained they and the Downtown Hosts acted to solicit or provide complaints of their own but ... well ... in the end, it seems like the police are normally a bit busy in their other assigned task of addressing real crimes and this experiment in having them try to hop to the call of any and all merchant complaints didn't even work out well for the merchants themselves. Nonsense provisions written into law have not solved their problems ... who would have guessed?
To be honest, I don't think that this anti-juggling move will last. After being alerted to this posted video by a juggler friend (Richard Hartnell) I have written to the City Council and specifically to new Councilmember Chris Krohn. He immediately called it to the attention the City Manager's office and they are looking into it. As you and I have noted, subsection (e) negates the effect of the foolish wording of (d) when applied to jugglers and bubble blowing street performers. This amended provision was the direct result of my response to the 2002 ordinance when it was enforced against a juggler. In June of 2003, I went downtown with the express purpose of juggling in defiance to the law and spent 13 hours in jail for that juggling crime. In July of 2003 they changed the law specifically to prevent what happened to me then and to the gentleman who juggled on December 17, 2016.
I believe that the juggler part of this is about to be corrected. The greater problem of how city government sees performing and how they think that they can effectively address behavior on Pacific Avenue will continue. I am so pleased to see the relatively polite behavior of the police officer in this case and the equally polite and courageous reaction by the man who juggled and the wonderfully useful response by Alex and the person who filmed this. Bravo!
I have to say, the officer was well informed ... one would think that 9.50.020 subsection (d) would be somewhat obscure and I do agree that a commonsense reading of its wording would suggest that juggling on Pacific Avenue in Santa Cruz is illegal. In fact, I DID suggest that to the councilmembers considering the passage of that change to the law in 2002.
I wasn't naive enough to believe that everyone would drop their agenda and see the light but I did hope that the realization that they were about to outlaw juggling in the home of the world famous Flying Karamazov Brothers might give them pause as they were on the verge of putting through a large package of proposed "Downtown Ordinances" that were almost entirely aimed at making life more difficult for homeless people and panhandlers downtown. This was to be the quick culmination of a fever-driven set of demands set off by a downtown merchant who went shop-to-shop asking for signatures on a petition she had devised to address what she perceived as the reasons why her longtime downtown shoe business was failing (they sold nice shoes but the backbone of the business had been the sale of dance shoes and those had recently become much less expensive when sold online ... other businesses were dealing with similar changes to the brick-and-mortar shops in dealing with internet competition). Outside observers saw it as a rather clear example of scapegoating but the hurried rush from petition to legislation while excluding or sidetracking contrary input was astounding, even in an arena where this had become the occasional norm (this was not the first set of "Downtown Ordinances" to come through the Council).
Until this time, the Santa Cruz Street Performers' Guild had worked with downtown businesses to minimize the numbers of times that the police or government needed to address free entertainment offered on the sidewalks as one of the "downtown problems". But the deal had been that we would work in that way to help performers to see the benefits of cooperation with the businesses if they would refrain from using their advantage with gaining government and police enforcement of their changing whims when dealing with performers. With the passage of those ordinances, we tore up the written agreement and waited to see if the new "unambiguous laws" that the merchants had forced through would result in their being happier. Of course it didn't. The cops did respond to their every call and complaint and when no one complained they and the Downtown Hosts acted to solicit or provide complaints of their own but ... well ... in the end, it seems like the police are normally a bit busy in their other assigned task of addressing real crimes and this experiment in having them try to hop to the call of any and all merchant complaints didn't even work out well for the merchants themselves. Nonsense provisions written into law have not solved their problems ... who would have guessed?
To be honest, I don't think that this anti-juggling move will last. After being alerted to this posted video by a juggler friend (Richard Hartnell) I have written to the City Council and specifically to new Councilmember Chris Krohn. He immediately called it to the attention the City Manager's office and they are looking into it. As you and I have noted, subsection (e) negates the effect of the foolish wording of (d) when applied to jugglers and bubble blowing street performers. This amended provision was the direct result of my response to the 2002 ordinance when it was enforced against a juggler. In June of 2003, I went downtown with the express purpose of juggling in defiance to the law and spent 13 hours in jail for that juggling crime. In July of 2003 they changed the law specifically to prevent what happened to me then and to the gentleman who juggled on December 17, 2016.
I believe that the juggler part of this is about to be corrected. The greater problem of how city government sees performing and how they think that they can effectively address behavior on Pacific Avenue will continue. I am so pleased to see the relatively polite behavior of the police officer in this case and the equally polite and courageous reaction by the man who juggled and the wonderfully useful response by Alex and the person who filmed this. Bravo!
For more information:
http://www.bubblemagic.com
As stated above, I wrote to the City Council and specifically to Councilmember Chris Krohn after seeing Alex's video here. Chris sent me a copy of the email that he quickly wrote in order to bring this matter to the attention of the City Manager's office. Now I have just received an email from Deputy Police Chief Rick Martinez (he addressed it to me and to Tim Furst, one of the Flying Karamazov Brothers juggling team ... Tim responded to my email to him this morning by writing to the City Council as well). Deputy Martinez tells us specifically that he has reviewed the matter and has come to the conclusion that "it is clear the citation issued by our officer is not valid." He said further that. "The citation will be dismissed and the involved officer [and "all of our staff specifically assigned to the Downtown corridor"] will be given additional training regarding this activity."
Thank you everyone.
Tom Noddy
Thank you everyone.
Tom Noddy
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$210.00 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