Gil: Thank-you for your thoughtful response. Don't you think "moron" and "jerk" and "loiterers" are codewords for the undesirable elements the merchants would rather be gone from near their stores? The people they want gone are are young people, poor people, homeless people, people who are too counter-culture, handicapped people, people of color, but mostly they want the non-shoppers out. You will find the myriad of ordinances forbidding sitting on the sidewalk, begging, lying down, hacky-sacking, sleeping, the "move-along" law, and the blanket-ban to name a few are selectively enforced against people in one of the above groups. The people most cited and arrested are homeless people. But you instead think that the merchants are trying to prevent "jerks" and "morons" from being near the stores. You have simply accepted the City/Merchant/police propaganda re: these ordinances and how the police enforce them.

Perhaps you have observed a wealthy tourist walk their dog on Pacific Ave. They are ignored by the police, or at most, politely told they may not have a dog on the mall. The sign SHOULD say "no homeless kids puppies" on the mall, for the police swoop down and ticket immediately if the owner looks a little scruffy. A homeless person cannot even walk their dog ACROSS Pacific Ave. without being ticketed.

When Mayor Reilly held those community meetings about problems downtown, the merchants said the problems they were most concerned about were vandalism, shoplifting, sexual harrassment of women, drug sales, and not enough bathrooms downtown. What came of those meetings?

No sitting on the sidewalk 14' from a building. No asking for food with a sign after dark. No balls on Pacific Ave. No blowing bubbles unless you are a Bubble performance artist. Oh, and the removal of benches and seating area at two of the four sittable planters downtown despite a Parks and Rec Commission resolution calling for just the opposite.

And I can show you the stats on how much the City spends on services for the homeless and how much it spends on prosecuting homeless people for dropping a toothpick on a sidewalk or crossing a street while homeless.

Borders Books is a HUGE store with hundreds of customers daily. They also serve food, coffee, and soft drinks. For the public to defend them for not opening a bathroom to their customers (not necessarily the general public as Bookshop Santa Cruz does) seems odd to me. Providing a bathroom is just part of a businesses regular operating expenses. Period.

If you want to see loud and abrasive jerks, show up around the time the bars close and see how the UCSC students behave!

Also, what exactly is "the problem" as you see it? Do we have too many street musicians? Too many panhandlers? Too many people with tatoos, piercings and spikey hair? I'm sorry, but I don't see this big problem that requires making it illegal to sit on a sidewalk less than 14' from a building. What you are missing is how merchant-driven this effort to cleanse the streets of non-shoppers is. What you are missing is how our rights disappear at the same time the homeless panhandler's rights disappear.

You still think what is happening is about "jerks" and "morons"?

Well, maybe it is. But they are the jerks and morons who have no problem social-cleansing Pacific Ave. of the poor.