Note: Mayor Kennedy five times either canceled or ducked out of interviews with Robert Norse on Bathrobespierre's Broadsides. Some suggest he is afraid of a fair forum where he cannot intimidate and/or arrest his critics and that he prefers forums where the hosts don't have much specific knowledge of his anti-homeless record at City Council. Norse has renewed the invitation for Kennedy to discuss issues on his show even after the election.

Reilly and Primack have likewise declined to come on the show. (Primack has refused to return calls for four years)

Madrigal was gracious enough to meet with HUFF members for several hours, but was apparently unable to come on the air for a public discussion.

The following are some questions for the candidates which Emily might ask them.

HUFF urges the defeat of all the incumbents (everyone but Madrigal). Unfortunately we're likely to be saddled with them for four more years.
Questions for Kennedy, Primack, Madrigal, and Reilly

from HUFF
October 31, 2004

Questions for Kennedy:

1. Last year you eliminated "rent control in perpetuity" for the De Anza Tenants in order to avoid a lawsuit with the rapacious MHC--even though other cities had gone into court and won against MHC. You then similarly removed "rent control" from the Clear View Court tenants, making it likely that these previously affordable housing units will be gone in several decades and the property used by developers for other purposes. You have never proposed any form of rent control in your three terms on City Council in spite of a crying need for it. Why should renters even consider voting for you?

2. You and Vice-Mayor Mike Rotkin were instumental in the destruction of the Homeless Garden Project on Pelton St. in 1998. Over huge community objection you sold the land out from under the garden only to have it replaced by 7 luxury homes. Why did you go against such a large tide of public support for keeping the land as a community garden, and instead chose to auction it off to yet another bunch of rich people?

3. You take credit for building the Nueva Vista housing in Beach Flats using redevelopment money. This involved destroying 63 units of what was then, modest, but affordable housing. You then rebuilt 48 units, a community center, and a childcare facility with $17 million of public money--most of the affordable housing money for the next two decades. Do you say this was a good investment of city money given that no increase in affordable housing was created by the project?


Questions for Primack:

1. In the past four years you have declined to answer phone calls from activists like Robert Norse, whose positions you disagreed with. Do you intend to continue insulating yourself from those whose opinions may not agree with yours when they come to you with questions or problems?

2. You voted for permit parking citywide which will sell residents back the parking spaces in front of their homes which they previously enjoyed for free. Furthermore, City Manager Dick Wilson says that the program will require so much staff time to manage it, that we shouldn't expect any revenue into the general fund from this program. In addition this program includes a ban on overnight parking which is explicitly directed at homeless people. What will you do to alleviate the housing/survival crisis in a city where affordable housing for many poor people is a car? Should they just get out of town?

3. You claim on your website that you are a longtime supporter of the Homeless Garden Project. Yet you continue to support the laws which make it illegal for a homeless person to sleep at night (MC 6.36.010a) or to stay warm with a blanket (MC 6.36.010b) at night. At one time you publicly expressed support for Camp Paradise and the Santa Cruz Service Corps, but then presented no other options for the homeless at that self-run encampment when it was flooded out. 1500-2000 homeless currently seek shelter at night within the city of Santa Cruz; only 160 will be served by the ISSP and another hundred by the family shelter when it opens. Will you continue to support criminalizing the remaining 80% of the homeless population each night for survival sleeping?

Questions for Tony Madrigal:

1. On your website you cite that as an appointed official for the SEIU local 415, IHSS chapter you negotiated on behalf of the In Home Support Service workers. Yet SEIU members who you represented claim that you never asked for an increase in pay or even a cost of living increase in pay. Furthermore, the $9.50/ hr. you negotiated is well under the $12.71/hr that the Santa Cruz Living Wage Task force determined to be a living wage in Santa Cruz. Did you faithfully negotiate for the IHSS workers?

2. You have stated your past support for Mercy Charities Housing, INc. the non-profit affordable housing developer the City has used in the past as a sole-source housing developer. Do you also support many, seemingly petty, rules which are imposed on the tenants such as no tricycles on the sidewalk, no curtains which are not white or beige, no overnight guests without first getting them cleared with the administration, and no changing tires in the parking lots of the facility which can result in the tentant being evicted?

Questions for Emily Reilly:

1. How many vehicularly housed people did you displace when you ordered "NO Parking 5 AM to 7AM" signs in the Harvey West industrial zone?

2. You held several meetings with parties in the downtown area to address their concerns about drug dealing, sexual harassment, shoplifting, graffiti, and not enough bathrooms downtown. From these meetings you led the council to ban hacky-sacking, frisbees, bubble-blowing, sitting on a sidewalk less than 14 feet from a building, and to make political tables move after only one hour at any location. How did any of these ordinances affect any of the five problems originally identified?
How many tickets have been issued under your Downtown Ordinances in the last two years?

3. In the last two years many street performers have moved out of Santa Cruz, given the increased amount of police harassment downtown. Some suggest that this repression which drives away the creative mobile cream of alternative life-leaves behind a much more visible hard-core of folks with alcohol, drug, and behavior problems and so exacerates the "visible poverty" "bad for business" situation that prompted your expansion of the Downtown Ordinances in the first place in the summer of 2002. What kind of evidence does the community need to bring to you to persuade you that your support of the laws that have forced out street performers need to be replaced with mediation, dialogues, and voluntary codes?

Questions for all four.

1. In the summer of 2002 you passed the repressive Downtown Ordinances through using an unprecedented 4 meetings in 2 weeks (when normally such meetings would take 4 months), effectively denying the students any input into the laws. How can we be assured you will not use such a tactic again to rush through laws when a key part of the electorate is gone?

2. SAFE (the Society for Artistic Freedom and Expression), the street performers union, has condemned the "Move Along Every Hour" law, which has negatively impacted Democratic Party registrars, HUFF tablers, and street musicians. In an increasingly repressive era, will you continue to allow this repressive law to remain on the books with its blank check to police to selectively "move along" folks with "display devices" they (or local businesses) don't like?

3. In 2002/3, when Councilmember Reilly and Councilmember Porter presided over the dismantling of the successful Voluntary Street Performers Guidelines, neither presented any evidence of specific complaints against musicians in terms of police reports, arrests, etc. that required a new law. Did any Councilmembers ever see such evidence and will they make it available to the public? If not, will they act to restore the Guidelines as well as activate former Councilmember Celia Scott's Downtown Santa Cruz Public Policy Mediation Project proposals--which substitute mediation for police surveillance and force?

7. In 2004, Robert Norse won a settlement from the City for false arrest and false imprisonment when he and his table were removed from the sidewalk in front of New Leaf Market, in retaliation for his calling for a boycott of businesses like the Pacific Trading Company that have been making public space inhospitable to "non-shoppers". Musician Mike True won $15,000 from the City when the same police officer (Sgt. Butchie Baker) false arrested him for "displaying musical CDs" on the sidewalk. Do you plan any legislation to protect musicians and artists against such police operations when they are displaying their own artwork? When are you going to take some action to rein in abusive police officers, other than eliminate the Board (the CPRB) that was struggling by fits and starts to come to grips with this problem?

8. Benches have been removed from in front of the Vet's Hall in the last month and from Borders a month before without a public hearing--in violation of the Parks and Recreation Commission's recommendations of last year. Will you act to restore public seating, as well as take significant action to cut through the red tape and get a Downtown Plaza back on the Council agenda?