Thanks to the folks who called in to my radio show last Thursday on all sides.

There are still some basic unanswered questions.

Where is the list of complaints re: the infoshop from April to July? What were they specifically?

Is there a chronology of specific complaints and when they were made that leaseholder Joe King received?

Is there any indication that King did not communicate these concerns to the collective or that, once communicated, the concerns were ignored?

What was the process by which the "lease termination" or--bluntly--the eviction was arrived at?

How long did this process take?

Was the leaseholder or any of the infoshop collective invited to discuss concerns with Bob Fitch and/or others involved in the property management chain?

I've tried to contact Lex La Fortune, who has a role in all this on the RCNV's side, but haven't heard back from him.

Has anyone from the collective sat down with leaseholder Joe King and discussed concerns, raised by Joe Williams on Thursday night's show, that he got complaints from Bob Fitch that were never addressed or communicated to the broader collective?

Has anyone from the collective approached Bob Fitch with suggested alternatives and a new lease arrangement suggestion?

On the radio Thursday night, Joe Williams suggested that Bob Fitch could not legally go public with the details of any his complaints because that would violate a confidentiality arrangement with Joe King. Does anyone have any more actual legal information on this claim?

My instinct in landlord-tenant disputes, unless I see abusive tenant behavior--particularly in Santa Cruz--is to side with tenants.

But it behooves the infoshop collective to get a statement from Joe King as to when and in what form he received complaints from Bob Fitch or any other RCNV agent there.

The main defense of the RCNV consists in the claim that Fitch communicated timely complaints to King which King both did not act on and did not communicate to the collective. The problem with investigating this claim is that there's no documentation--on either side.

What there is is the reality that Bob Fitch has given the infoshop a one month termination notice in a situation that will essentially spell the end of their project.

I commend Joe Williams for his willingness to act as a go-between. I second his suggestion that the collective find someone else to send forward as a lease seeker.

Still I wonder where all the documentation is for Joe's unrestrained defense of Bob Fitch--other than his personal respect for Fitch.

Since this is a matter of community interest, we need to see the documents. Since a community resource is being dismantled here, I think it's appropriate that the community respond.

If the RCNV's silence continues (with the steel threat of early August eviction behind it), perhaps the tenants might consider an educational table set up outside the RCNV on the sidewalk, a petition drive, to make the community aware of the issue and get public discussion going. It might also encourage others to come forward as leaseholders.

Peaceful protests and pickets are squarely in the democratic tradition. It would be nice to see a little democracy in action locally--not just rhetorically re: Haiti, Nicaragua, the arms race, and Iraq.

"Why the vengeance" seems super-sensitive to criticism of the Resource Center here and quick to demonize the info shop folks. YET HE REVEALS NO SPECIFIC FACTS. As for "badmouthing the RCNV"--to make fair commentary on what appears to be an unjustified eviction is a positive service to the community. If the RCNV is such a principled group, it can exercise its principles a bit and talk about this issue instead of hiding behind a cloak of "confidentiality".

"Get real" suggests the info shop folks couldn't get along with their neighbors, but there ARE NO SPECIFICS. "Get real" gets extremely irate at what is actually a rather low-key regretful description of events by the info shop. Someone is criticizing his sacred cow. Unless Bob Fitch (or Joe King or someone else) elucidates the facts, we are stuck with the obvious: a group of activists is being evicted without clear justification. And we're asked to take it on faith that this is okay because the RCNV would never act like an intolerant, impatient, and arrogant landlord.

Groups (like the ACLU and the RCNV) which have made commendable public statements on human rights abuses elsewhere, have been blind or silent to local abuses for quite a long time.

Liberals overseas can be fascists at home, I'm afraid. To make an informed judgment, what we need to see here are the details of what actually went down. Does anyone have these details?

I'll be taking up the issue gain at 11 AM tomorrow morning on Free Radio for those interested in calling in (the whole show runs from 9:30 AM to 1 PM) on 101.1 FM or www.santacruz.indymedia.org. Call in at 427-3772.