Santa Cruz Indymedia : http://santacruz.indymedia.org
Home
Santa Cruz Indymedia

LOCAL Commentary :: Civil & Human Rights

New Year's Roust for the Homeless--Another SCPD attack on Public Spaces

Santa Cruz City Council is preparing to ram through another half baked repressive Downtown Ordinance at its 3 PM session on December 10th. Below is the item, a Santa Cruz Sentinel story on it, and some commentary by Becky Johnson and Thomas Leavitt
ITEM 19 ON THE 3 PM SESSION OF THE SANTA CRUZ CITY COUNCIL: (Go to www.ci.santa-cruz.ca.us/ then to the current agenda then to item 19)

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: December 14, 2005
AGENDA OF: January 10, 2006

DEPARTMENT:Public Works and Police Department
SUBJECT: City Parking Lots and Garages - Ordinance Regarding Use and Trespass

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council introduce for first reading an ordinance adding Chapter 9.64 to the City Municipal Code defining the proper use and purpose of downtown parking lots and garages.

BACKGROUND: Over the last year, City parking services personnel (including parking lot maintenance workers, parking office representatives and parking attendants) and police personnel have had increasing problems with groups congregating in the downtown parking lots and garages. These groups leave trash in the facilities and have been associated with car vandalisms and thefts. They have been a continuing problem for the facilities maintenance personnel, especially in the early morning and evening when individuals are working alone to maintain the facilities. Staff has also had complaints from lot users about groups and individuals hanging out in facilities and making them feel unsafe. This ordinance will help address these concerns.

DISCUSSION: In discussing this problem with the police department, staff concluded that a clearer definition of the proper use of parking lots and a clear definition of trespass would make managing these facilities much easer for both parking services personnel and parking lots and garages. It sets a limit of 10 minutes for parking a vehicle, while allowing exceptions for special events and personnel engaged in maintenance or operation of the facility.

FISCAL IMPACT: This ordinance will have no financial impact on the City budget. It will make it easier to maintain our lots and garages and make them more attractive for the general public.

Report prepared by Matt Farrell, Parking Program Manager.



Submitted by: Mark R. Dittle
Director of Public Works Howard Skerry Chief of Police

Approved by: Richard C. Wilson City Manager

SENTINEL STORY:
(www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2006/January/07/local/stories/01local.htm)

January 7, 2006

Santa Cruz officials seek to expand trespassing laws to deal with parking garages woes
by Shanna mccord
Sentinel staff writer
SANTA CRUZ — Public urination, drug use, car burglaries, trash, graffiti and assaults in downtown parking garages have city leaders seeking to tighten trespassing laws, making it easier for police to arrest offenders.

"I've had my staff and my wife approached in the garage, and I've walked upon situations like that," said John Lisher, owner of Artisan's Gallery on Pacific Avenue. "Something needs to be done."

Problems inside city garages have increased during the past year, with complaints rolling in from people who work or shop downtown on a regular basis, said Matt Farrell, city parking manager.

Police say they are hamstrung, however, often unable to force those found hanging out in the garages to leave because of public property rights. The garages are a magnet for the area's homeless, especially during the rainy winter months.

"If they're just hanging out and we're not catching them shooting up or other stuff," police Sgt. Dan Flippo said, "then it's public property and they have a right to be there."

There are public restrooms in the Locust and Soquel garages, which are difficult to keep clean, city officials say. They are looking into installing self-cleaning restrooms in the garages as alternatives.

A proposed ordinance — drafted by the city Public Works and police departments with input from the Downtown Task Force, a group that includes business owners and city officials — sets a 10-minute limit for those parking a vehicle or bicycle in a public garage to leave the structure. Anyone hanging out in the garages without a bike or car will be asked to leave or police will be called.

Advertisement




"We had constant problems over the holidays with people being in the facilities," Farrell said. "The primary purpose of the ordinance is to clarify that this is public space for a specific use. We need a clear policy about that."

Keeping parking garages safe and clean has been a constant struggle for police, Flippo said. Previously, two community service officers were assigned to patrol the city's four downtown garages — on Cedar Street, Soquel Avenue and Locust and River streets — but the positions were cut more than a year ago because of a lack of money. Now, officers include the garages in their regular rounds, Flippo said.

"We do need a tool to help us deal with them," he said. Surveillance cameras operate in the Soquel Avenue and Locust Street garages.

Flippo said he sees a lot of fast-food wrappers wind up in the garages, and recently a bunch of trash was dumped in a handicap parking spot. "No one could have parked there," he said.

Lisher said he's particularly disturbed by the public urination, often occurring after the downtown bars close at night and patrons seek quick relief.

"There seems to be a hell of a lot of smells," he said. "It's terrible in there."

Steve Manousos, who has worked downtown for four years, parks in the River Street garage every day. He's confronted by homeless panhandlers nearly every morning, but says he's never been bothered.

"It's no different than anywhere else in town," Manousos said. "They just sit around all day. They know I'm not going to give them any money."

The proposal will be reviewed by the Downtown Commission at its Jan. 26 meeting. The City Council is expected to consider the ordinance in February.

Contact Shanna McCord at smccord (at) santacruzsentinel.com

BECKY JOHNSON'S NOTES ON THE HUFF EMAIL LIST:

Public urination, drug use, burglary, littering,
graffiti , and assault are already illegal in Santa Cruz. This law seeks to prevent ALL people from being in a public parking garage for longer than ten minutes, but the purpose of the ordinance is clear: "magnet for the area's homeless" which will undoubtedly be those person's cited if this law is to pass. Rather than find homes, jobs, and substance abuse treatment for homeless people, who are driven onto the streets primarily by the high costs of housing, City officials are conspiring with the police to make a dry place out of the rain off limits to homeless people on threat of arrest.

(Johnson is currently banned from posting her comments on santacruz indymedia directly. More of her support for the rights of the homeless can be found at www.huffsantacruz.org)

THOMAS LEAVITT'S COMMENTS:

How this is going to prevent any of these problems, other than the "problem" of homeless people being visible and panhandling, is beyond
me... this is another "tool" for selective enforcement against homeless people, designed to sanitize by erasing. You can bet that the only
people this will be used against are the homeless people who sit at the perimeter of the parking garages and panhandle or solicit donations for artwork, used books, etc. or scruffy looking folk seeking shelter from
the rain.

It is amazing how the Sentinel can blithely and uncritically let them conflate separate issues - how is a loitering ordinance (and that is
what this is) going to have any effect on a public urination problem which originates with late night bar patrons?!? How is this ordinance
going to prevent graffiti? ... so far as I know, gang members and taggers don't hang around the scene of the crime.
 
 


New Comments are disabled, please visit Indybay.org/SantaCruz

Comments

A Letter to the Santa Cruz City Council

Santa Cruz City Council
809 Center St.
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

Dear Mayor Mathews & Council:

Item Number 19 on the January 10th agenda is bad in and of itself. You are rushing it forward prior to Downtown Commission examination on January 26th. This haste simply mirrors the “put it on the afternoon agenda when no one is looking¨ process used last month for La Bahia, the Coast Santa Cruz Hotel, and, of course, the notorious Downtown Ordinances which have already cost the city time and money in its losing lawsuit with John Maurer (also on your afternoon agenda).

All this is being done without any clear police stats that show any real problem. We are asked to take Chief Skerry’s views ¨�on faith�. After the disgraceful performance of the SCPD in our own ¨�spying on the public� scandal, we deserve better.

This is being proposerd without any prior public meetings with homeless people and homeless service providers.

We´ve already seen the spectacle of homeless people being ticketed for "trespass" for huddling under the Borders eves in the rain. Now the police are being given the power to run off the public after ten minutes.

So when a homeless vet takes refuge in a parking garage, the SCPD and their friendly helpers,the Hosts, will give them ten minutes to leave (to non-existent emergency shelter) in winter weather? How low are we going to bend in Santa Cruz to gentrification schemes, hatched in dark places and set loose on the population?

The staff report is mistaken in supposing there will be no additional financial impact. Clearly there will need to be more money for increased police enforcement. This will be particularly true if the public asserts its right to use publicly-funded space for more than ten (!)minutes or to show solidarity with the poor. You may remember the cost of enforcing the Mathews-Rotkin “no sitting� law in 1994.

The police department is a poor judge of public policy if it acts without meaningful public input.
It is also little short of outrageous to use staff “fears� as justification for

Why was this report written on December 14th and only released several days before the Council meeting´s first reading of the law? Where is a copy of the ordinance for the public to read? (Only the staff report is on line).

Was Sentinel watchpoodle Shanna McCord intentionally misinformed that this issue was coming up in February, as she writes in her February 7th article?

Why aren´t you waiting at least until the Downtown Commission investigates the matter on January 26th? As it now stands, the Council´s second and final reading of the ordinance (whatever it says), ONE DAY LATER.

It seems clear again the Police Chief and City Manager have the inside track on ramming what is pretty clearly special-interest legislation through the Council in record time at an afternoon session.

Clearly citizens need to speak out against this gentrification-socialcleansing ordinance, deafened as you seem to be by the highpaid highhanded staff. And if this is passed, we need to resist it.

Please save us all time and trouble by (1) requiring real statistics and real problems rather than vague SCPD and staff fears, (2) holding real public hearings that involve consultation with the people affected (i.e. the homeless, staff, merchants), (3) after doing so,allow the Downtown Commission to investigate the matter,and finally (4) not slipping the matter onto an afternoon agenda after misleading the public through the Sentinel when it will be coming up for discussion.

May the public make you responsible, if you refuse to be so yourselves.

Sincerely,

Robert Norse
rnorse3 (at) hotmail.com
423-4833
 

Re: New Year's Roust for the Homeless--Another SCPD attack on Public Spaces

I'm all for this new law. Why would any normal person want to hang out in a parking garage for more than 10 minutes? I met the girls downtown for movie night and we park in the bottom of the triple decker at Front and River st. I don't always feel safe there and I'm afraid my vehicle will be vandalized or broken into. I know SCPD is busy and short staffed, but this new muni-code would really help.
Thanks Much
Nedra
 

HRO letter to the Santa Cruz City Council

Human Rights Organization
Santa Cruz
HRO
P.O. Box 332
Santa Cruz, CA 95061
(831) 425-4467
_www.humanrightsorg.org
January, 9 2006
On behalf of the Human Rights Organization members and supporters I wish to speak out against the proposed law subject titled, City Parking Lots and Garages – Ordinance Regarding Use and Trespass, that is to be added as Chapter 9.64 to the City Municipal Code.
This proposal is an outlandish capitulation to bleating cries from business interests that is already over fed and pampered at the public feeding trough of power called the City Council. This proposed law is yet another in a series of ordinances that have favored profits over people in a big give-away of public spaces. When one leaves the privacy on their own home and journeys into the public realm one should be prepared to face the myriad of persons and situations that are common to public life in this country of free men and not expect to impose their morals and personal standards as if right and good without due considerations of these freedoms.
It is these same bleating voices that complain of stinky homeless and unclean poor that also resist placement of any additional toilet facilities and than decry the conditions of the over used few there are. Neither are we aware of their support for any programs to improve the situation of this economic underclass that displease them so, other than the usual jack-booted, overkill police actions. Many consider downtown Santa Cruz a mini-Police State with its mean spirited laws controlling the time, space, and manner which one may be in this town and on our streets and sidewalks.
This proposed law, as with the others currently on the books, will be used by police to harass, ticket, arrest and otherwise render unseen those deemed undesirables by greedy, self serving business interests and elitist property owners. We feel that this law is in violation of the Bill of Rights and if made into law will do damage to the constitution.
The lack of any positive response from this and past city councils to our concerns of civil rights of all who reside here leads us to fear the very core of our civil society is under attack. Please do not add this callous law to the books in Santa Cruz.
Compiled and written by Bob Patton HRO member
 

Re: New Year's Roust for the Homeless--Another SCPD attack on Public Spaces

. . . how it came to be that santa cruz, with it's majority of progessives in the voting population, has consistently elected a city council which so consistently commits outrages on the progressive community. Is it possible -- could it be remotely possible -- that the city council is actually representing the wishes of the majority voting population? Could it be -- oh heaven help us -- that it truth the progressive agenda does not reflect the democratically expressed views of the good citizens of this city? But, you say, that's IMPOSSIBLE! How could it BE?
 

Re: New Year's Roust for the Homeless--Another SCPD attack on Public Spaces

Homeless presence here is a lot less concentrated than when I lived in Berkeley and there were easily a dozen homeless within a block of me, including sometimes sleeping in he crawl space.

What I think the downtown blocks could do to improve their businesses is to finance a public toilet in a central well lighted location. They are supposed to rely on bringing out of town tourists to shop there - downtown definitely isn't just a draw for people living in Santa Cruz. But often you end up walking to just Starbucks, Santa Cruz coffee, or trying to sneak by the waiters in one of the restaurants to use a bathroom. What are people visiting the t-shirt shops and bike stores supposed to do. Can anyone tell me if there actually is a public toilet downtown?
 

Re: New Year's Roust for the Homeless--Another SCPD attack on Public Spaces

ya know...

if i was homeless and it was wet and cold outside, and i didn't have access to a shelter, i'd go hide in a parking garage too...

'out of sight, out of mind,' eh?
 

Re: New Year's Roust for the Homeless--Another SCPD attack on Public Spaces

Why is it the city's responsibility to find homes, jobs, and/or substance abuse programs for homeless. They are primarily driven to the streets by high cost of living? Sitting on the perimeter of the parking garages, solicitating donations for artwork? The city hires physically and mentally handicapped people to sweep up trash on the sidewalks and streets downtown. How come there is trash left behind in these garages, along the railroad tracks, along the leeve, in the parks? It is hard to find regards for someone that does not respect. There is no snow on the ground. There are several organizations to assist with a number of situations, from Food Not Bombs to Emeline to the new housing development on River Street. There are several ways to contribute to our community without conforming to the 9-5 mentality. Come on now. We all live here. We are all aware of whats going on. It's time we all started to work towards a solution and not a point-the-finger cover-up. And that means ALL of us, not just the some-what sober ones.
 

Promote the general welfare

ANONYMOUS WRITES: " Why is it the city's responsibility to find homes, jobs, and/or substance abuse programs for homeless."

Since this article is about a law which would prohibit all members of the public from being in a PUBLIC parking lot or structure for longer than a whopping TEN minutes, its a LONG WAY from pressuring the city to find homes, jobs, or substance abuse treatment programs for Homeless people. In fact, its in the opposite direction in terms of public policy.

We can have a City which, as a matter of public policy, helps homeless people to return to productive and healthy lives. Or we can have a City who, through a large and over-paid police force can drive homeless people from sight, if not from the area entirely.

We have to spend money one way or another. It costs the City about $1000 every time a cop whips out his ticket book to write another citation. Courts, jails, and lawyers are not cheap.

We COULD choose to spend the same money on housing people in area motels or building housing people with low-paid jobs could actually afford to rent.

Its YOUR responsibility as a good citizen to call the City Council and let them know which policy you want them to back with OUR money.

About the law itself. I believe it is unconstitutional on its face since it is a poorly disquised loitering law. And similar loitering laws have been outlawed by the Supreme Court.

But then City Attorney John Barisone ($500,000/yr. to see him sit in a chair for city council meetings)doesn't mind spending OUR money going to court to defend his own poorly written, draconian, and unconstitutional law.
 

Re: New Year's Roust for the Homeless--Another SCPD attack on Public Spaces

"We COULD choose to spend the same money on housing people in area motels or building housing people with low-paid jobs could actually afford to rent."

Oh, yeah, congregate'm! I remember what happened when all those homeless were put up in New Brighton St Park... well, a homicide and several O.Ds later (not to mention theft and vandalism in the surrounding area) took care of that initiative!

Some homeless truly have problems, and it'd be nice if we could pick them out from those that are simply dredges of society.
 

Blame the victims again and again

Reply to N5669:
Get your facts straight!
The "River Street Refugees" were "housed" in New Brighton State Park for 2 WEEKS at public expense. There were NO crimes committed in the park during that two week period, NO MURDERS, but one man did die of an overdose.

I personally believe that all people are worthy of our compassionate help--especially in terms of life-preserving shelter from the elements. Remember, we, in a city which has chronically failed to provide housing for the people who live and work here, make it illegal for a homeless person to shelter themselves.

The River Street Refugees stayed together for far longer than two weeks. Since many were US veterans, they were able to move from park to park to park for several months more, LEGALLY sheltering each other--no thanks to any govt. help!

Your account reflects only your biased emotional revulsion at the bottom rung of our society, rather than any true account of what happened.
 

Calendar

No events for this day.

view calendar week
add an event

Views

Media Centers

Syndication feeds

Account Login

This site made manifest by dadaIMC software