Bobby writes: "I shouldn't have been so soft on 'No-Guild' Noddy and shouldn't have let him get away with his constant denials about street performer problems"

But there may be people who read this who don't know the context. Some might think that I would oppose the formation of a street performers' guild or union. I was one of the primary organizers of the Santa Cruz Street Performers' Guild when it came into being back in '79, '80. I am not opposed to the formation of one now. What I did discourage was structuring an agreement that relied on the ongoing active existence of such a group. Back when we did it then and again when we formed the Drum Council, and again now people were talking about these groups as a kind of enforcement group that would hold individual performers accountable for their abiding by the guidelines. Even if the group was very careful to avoid that role in the first place, that is exactly what they would be called upon to do over and over through the years and any failure to accomplish that task would be used to invalidate the concept of the guidelines themselves.

If a legitimate inclusive group of performers formed, I would defer to their judgements and decisions in all street performer matters ... period. If Bobby was party to the discussions that went on then he knows that that was/is my position. If he is similarly aware of the context of the discussion then he probably knows that there was talk of having a group that was only made up of those who were willing to sign on to the Porter/Reilly rules in exchange for some promised "perks". Those who refused to sign would not be "members" of the "Guild". I think that any such effort to isolate performers who, for whatever reason, decline to give their ID and their signature to an agreement made by some group back in 2003 would cause more trouble among the performers than it would solve between the performers and the government.

As for my continual call for naming the alleged "street performer problems" that called forth such dramatic changes in police approach downtown ... I would still like to hear about it. I know of two such problems in recent times. I intervened in one and the other involves a performer who comes into town so seldom that I have not been able to track him down. I am also aware of several "merchant problems" that performers have reported. None of the problems that I am aware of will be solved by the legal response that the Council has proposed.

Yeah, I know that there have been some few problems but I know a bit more about those problems than do the Councilmembers who were addressing them by calling for "rigorous enforcement" and new legal restrictions. I publicly called on them to name the problems so that we could get down to the details and agree that they are not the one-sided thing that they believe them to be. They have resisted responding. Despite the fact that the only public declarations from merchants had been support for the performers and a denial that the summer of '02 call for new laws was intended to effect street performers, Councilmembers insisted that there were problems and they had solutions. I still call on them to tell us what the problems are.

There is one musician who went door to door soliciting comments from merchants about the street performer problems. He says that he received some. I believe him. If he goes door to door soliciting complaints about the Aptos Little League team I believe that he will also gather some complaints about those blameless boys. But if he were to name the complaints in a public forum I think that we could put the complaints in perspective and see if there is a need for legislation to address them.

Listen, the merchants are confused. They have been specifically informed by the Downtown Hosts that there is an agreement that says that the performers will "move along" whenever they are asked to do so by any merchant. When I showed the Hosts that the agreement says no such thing, they stopped telling people that but, except in a few cases, they declined to correct this error with the merchants who thought that a performer insisting on his right to play for an hour was a jerk who was violating the agreement. The next thing we knew ... there was legislation proposed to enforce the "move along" policy that the merchants thought that they always had. Since the courts have ruled that the merchants may not have such power over First Amendment protected activity they have had to proceed with some caution and try to accomplish this without declaring that this is their intent. They will now try to make a law that will pass Constitutional muster and then apply the law through merchant "complaint only" and thereby accomplish this unconstitutional purpose through selective enforcement. I would rather have them name the specific complaints and thereby expose the central issue that has launched them on this path.

Bobby ... if you know of complaints that have led to this government effort, please name them ... I will tell you and the others paying attention to this conversation what I know about it if anything. Together we may find that the guidelines or legislation is a better approach to solving the issues involved, if not the specific merchant's preferences. We may even, who knows, end up in a dialogue that shows the merchants why the Hosts' office is not a reliable source of legal advice.