A Closer Look at the Wages of City Employees, Part 1
Email This Post
Santa Cruz Police Patrol Officer Jose-Luis Hernandez was paid $92,372 in 2008 in regular salary, and booked an additional $94,145 in overtime pay, to bring his total pay to $186,520.
If you think that this is too much, or that there is little justification in nearly $100,000 in overtime pay to a patrol officer when the county faces a staggering multi-million dollar deficit, you aren’t alone. City employee salary data, which was recently released on the Sentinel’s website, is causing a stir of controversy and public outcry over how much some employees of the city are making.
The data, which is made available to the public at city hall in addition to the Sentinel’s website (for all you cournalists out there), does raise some interesting questions that will be the subject of an ongoing investigation here at Santa Cruz’s citizen journal outfit.
Adam Frank, a recent graduate of the University of California Santa Cruz and Santa Cruz resident, feels that “the city is already over-policed and that we are unjustifiably spending too much on our police department.” He may have a point. Police patrol officers Guillermo Azua, Carter Jones, and Patrick Bayani were paid $51,622.55, $49,184.27, and $40,097.46 in overtime respectively. Sixty two additional Police Patrol Officers were paid a total of more than $848,139 in overtime alone. The total overtime pay to Police Patrol Officers was 1.08 million. And that’s just overtime.
When asked whether he feels investing in our law enforcement so heavily is a wise decision, Frank responded only that, “In the last year, Santa Cruz has seen record numbers of stabbings. If we’re paying them a million dollars to work overtime, you’d think they’d at least be able to stop all the stabbings going down.”
And then there are long time residents like Jason Mays who feel that we can’t spend enough on police. “We need to spend as much money on law enforcement as possible. I’ve lived in Santa Cruz for 20 years and not once have I seen it this bad. The gangs are running this town, killing each other, harassing residents, and we need all the police we can get. Have you been downtown on pacific past midnight on a friday night? It’s a nightmare and quite honestly, I’m terrified. ”
Mays also has a valid point, and the conflicting viewpoints of Frank and Mays illustrate a deeper divide running through Santa Cruz. Many residents feel that we are living in a police state, and to them a figure like $1.08 million in overtime pay to our PD will precipitate feelings of utter shock and horror.
However, on the other half of the divide are residents who see many positive benefits to a greater police presence, and these residents are likely to rest easy knowing that a cool million has been spent keeping the police on the streets as much as possible.
Perhaps the real question is whether or not our police department is understaffed. With the same million spent on overtime, 13 additional officers could be brought onto the force and get paid salaries of $75,000 per year.
This is no doubt a topic worthy of much greater exploration. Of course, questions about city employees’ pay is not limited only to the police department. For example, one data point of interest that catches the eye whilst reviewing the salary information is that Ryan Coonerty earned in 2008 $16,915.96 more than Mayor Cynthia Mathews and likewise more than his next highest paid council member, Mike Rotkin. Coonerty earned slightly over $42,000 to sit on the city council in 2008. By contrast, Ed Porter, Emily Reilly, Lynn Robinson and Tony Madrigal all were paid between $22,000 and $24,000 for their service as council members.
So this is part 1, an introduction if you will, to a multi-part series on salaries we’re paying our citie’s employees, the services being provided in exchange for said salaries, and whether you, the townspeople, think it’s responsible use of the city’s money. Please exercise your voice and have your say in the comments.
Santa Cruz has quietly been preparing for bio terrorism
Email This Post
Unbeknownst to most residents of Santa Cruz, but knownst to the Cournalist, Santa Cruz has been stockpiling supplies and training response teams to deal with a bioterrorist attack. We sat down with “Veronica” who interned with the “Emergency Preparedness and Response” unit in Santa Cruz, an organization created by the Department of Homeland Security to deal with bioterrorism. We talked about the surveys they conducted, stockpiles they created, and who gets the supplies in the event of an attack.
Medical facility on Emeline Ave where our source tells us supplies are stockpiled for a response to a bio terrorist attack. According to our sources, 16,000 masks are stockpiled, and go to municipal workers first in the event of an attack.
COURNALIST: Tell me how you got invovled with the Emergency Preparedness and Response organization. Under what pretex did you become involved with them?
V: It was over the summer. I was doing a lot of research on the Bonny Doon fire. I could see the smoke from my apartment and what’s worse I was breathing it in. It was affecting my life directly, so I wanted to help.
COURNALIST: You were researching online?
V: Yes. I found this volunteer site that had a bunch of organizations asking for volunteers. It listed what opportunities were out there based on the criteria of your search. During my search, I came upon the Emergency Preparedness listing. It was one of the only things in the area I found. The description was,” help out in emergency preparedness” and I thought oh this is great, I’ll be out in the field instead of in an office.
COURNALIST: So you originally started working as a response team to the wildfires?
V: I had to write after action reports on these fires. It was similar to a cal fire report. I had to take all the notes that they had from the fire, the newspaper clippings, maps of where the fire was, and then I had to organize all that into an actual formal report.
But as son as the fire situation died down, it became apparent that the Emergency Preparedness wasn’t about preparing for natural disasters as I originally thought. It became apparent that we weren’t really focusing on natural disasters at all, but rather man made disasters. They didn’t say outright that that was our focus, but there was so many books, and information and DVDs and CD Roms and powerpoint presentations that described what to do during a bioterrorist attack.
COURNALIST: Would they play these for you?
V: Well, part of my job as an intern was to learn. They informally promised me a career as an epidemiologist if I learned all the materials they had and did all the work I was supposed to.
So they would say here’s all the information we have, now start learning it. After a few days, I went through about 15 hours worth of material. All the stuff that didn’t have to do with bio terrorism. And then they told me “ok, now keep learning.” And they would present me with the materials on bio terrorism. They had videotapes and books, DVDs and CD ROMS, powerpoint presentations and so on. It was 75% of the material they had. And that’s the way, they told me, I would get a job there as an epidemiologist.
COURNALIST: You told me earlier that the Emergency Preparedness and Response organization was created by the Department of Homeland Security. When did you find this out?
V: I was told this after being there for about a month. It was my supervisor who told me. Very matter-of-factly. And then it made sense why some of the materials, the DVDs and CD ROMS had “Department of Homeland Security” printed on them.
COURNALIST: So, what would the Emergency Preparedness response be to a bio terrorist attack?
V: Well, first, all the municipal workers from the county would come to the warehouse on Emeline Ave where supplies are stockpiled. There are 16,000 masks there, and one would be given to every municipal worker.
COURNALIST: So the municipal workers are to be given masks first in the event of a bioterrorist attack?
V: Yes. Though there would be some left over for civilians, although the civilians don’t even know there is a stockpile there. Nor were they ever notified. Now, I wasn’t high up in the hierarchy, but I seem to remember something about a list of families that would be given them next, after municipal workers.
COURNALIST: Do you know who was on that list or how they got on that list?
V: No.But to be honest I don’t even know if those masks would actually help. They’re better than basic, but they’re not excellent. They would work well for airborn pathogens or saliva, but if the attack came in the form of a noxious gas or something similar, I doubt how well they would work.
COURNALIST: What else is stockpiled in the warehouse on Emeline Ave?
V: A lot of vaccines. We were the ones who gave out vaccines to firefighters. We also gave out free vaccines to people in Watsonville over the last two years. After they got their vaccine, we would give them the survey. This all happened before I began working there, but I had to compile the statistical data for the survey results.
COURNALIST: What was the survey about?
V: It would ask them questions about how much they trusted the government, at the federal level, state level, and county level. It also asked them questions about how much food and water they had stockpiled at home. They wanted to know how long the average person could survive based on supplies in the home, if the water supply became contaminated, or something happened to the food supply or the grocery stores.
COURNALIST: So you saw the results of the surveys? What was the overall trend of the data?
V: Well, this was when George Bush was in office, so the majority of respondants didn’t trust the federal government. However, most of them did trust the state and the county governments.
COURNALIST: And their stockpiles?
V: From the data we collected, most people could only had a day or two worth of food at home. Most people didn’t have any water at all stockpiled. Almost no one had enough to make it longer than a day if the water supply became contaminated.
COURNALIST: And these surveys were filled out by people who came in to get vaccines?
V: Yes. Mostly people from Watsonville. They would come in for free influenza vaccines and then we would give them the survey to fill out.
COURNALIST: Did they ever create a plan to communicate to the public what they should be stockpiling?
V: No, we didn’t make a big deal out of it. Though I did find myself wondering often, why are we preparing for something unless there is a possibility it might happen? Unless we possibly know it might happen. It definitely made me think there was something sinister to this. I didn’t have a good feeling about it.
COURNALIST: So when did you stop working for Emergency Preparedness, and why?
V: I quit in September. I didn’t see it going anywhere. I got the sense that I was being lead on, and used, and doing everyone else’s work for them just to make their own workloads easier. And I wasn’t getting paid, and had better things to do with my time.
COURNALIST: Thank you for the interview.
Final note: A quick Google Search reveals this website for the Department of Homeland Security’s Preparedness and Response program. In addition, SantaCruzHealth.org has this website which specifies that the “Public Health Department provides services to respond to… new man–made threats, such as bioterrorism” but makes no mention of the Department of Homeland Security, which has supposedly created the program.
Citizen News Roundtable
Email This Post
Join us tomorrow for a citizen news roundtable. Bring local news tips and a willingness to meet up with likeminded people as we discuss recent Santa Cruz news.
Meet up on the 2nd floor of the Santa Cruz Library downtown. 4:30-5:30 p.m.
Everyone is welcome. See you there!
My opinion: new ordinances, city council
Email This Post
As this is an opinion piece, I’d like to put forth at the start my own view that my sympathies are, for the most part, with the city council and not those opposing the limits of use on public space just legislated.
Santa Cruz city council
A small downtown area of Santa Cruz is trying to remain economically viable against a coming wave of human misery which may engulf it. The actions of the city council have, as their end, a noble goal. Shopkeepers, the best of them, want to do all that they can to attract a diminishing discretionary dollar. Many of them feel their cultural or personal values are a part of the retail experience. A hungry patron happily downing a couple of tacos can make the chef’s day. Further, the costs and hazards of doing business in a retail venue such as downtown Santa Cruz are great. Other businesses, while less visible to the public, feel that their image is somehow reflected in the mirror of their surroundings, and wish to feel that the taxes they pay contribute to a positive public experience. These companies are trying to build bridges, to be good neighbors. Lastly, Santa Cruz, like other towns across the state, has built its budget in part upon such foundations. As the terminator unfolds upcoming economic pandemonium, local dollars will count more.
While both sides of the issue recognize the economic importance of the downtown area, the relative importance differs. It is much more demanding to raise a family, to meet the contingencies that arise when something in your house breaks, or when something goes wrong with the health of a child. These are things we have little control over; indeed less as time goes on with health insurance drying up (Hello, Barack! Are you listening? Remember the campaign?) as I say drying up faster than the snow pack that feeds the San Lorenzo River. In pursuing a better business climate, the city council is also pursuing something that all residents of and visitors to Santa Cruz would welcome, a clean, safe, and culturally vibrant downtown that is a pleasure to see and experience. When I visit downtown Santa Cruz, I wish to be unhindered by aggressive panhandlers. And I would like to enjoy both the spontaneous musical arts and the more permanent public works of art.
That having been said, the way in which the legislators sought to achieve their goals was puerile. It scored a 12 on my Bozo-meter, which had to be recalibrated to register the unexampled stupidity and awkwardness. The previous high figure of 10.2 was the legacy of W, to wit: “If we don’t get paid, we must invade!” A body of international law, recent experience in Vietnam, and his own advisors’ advice notwithstanding, he stuck us in it and we can’t get out! Sorry. I had hoped for a better effort from tiny, beautiful Santa Cruz. We all need love. But respect must be earned.
Here, the public should have been advised, existing legislation reprised, and enforcement issues discussed. A more cogent case for the modifications to existing ordinances should have been presented, as well as guidelines for lawful conduct. As it now stands, I cannot play the violin in front of a statue if my case is open, but I can display my oratorical skills in condemning capitalists, socialists, and anyone born after the crucifixion to enduring fire and brimstone. Wow. That’ll attract the tourists.
But I’m being disingenuous. I believe that the city had in mind a kind of credit card legislative agenda, this being the first payment. As subsequent innovations in public deportment developed, so too would the statutes evolve. The public would be perpetually nagged by its legislators. Legislator A is the patsy this time, and legislator B takes the fall next time. This can rise to the level of “acting under color of law” when a hidden legislative agenda is at work and is highly illegal. When one legislates, one must be clear and complete. We do not outlaw stabbing one week and strangulation the next.
What happens next? Well, the legislative history, I believe, does not forebode success for Santa Cruz’s ordinance package. To improve and expand existing ordinances. One has to tread lightly here. In Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41(1999), the Supreme Court of the United States found a Chicago ordinance unconstitutional for not giving clear guidelines for acceptable conduct in the use of open space that Chicago was trying to restrict in the again laudable quest for safer streets.
That’s a high hurdle to meet: What guidelines are there to allow users of open space to know that their actions or deportment are lawful? But, said the court, in the absence of such guidelines, it will view even specific restrictions as arbitrary or unfair. If this, or similar, is found to be appropriate case law, then the ordinances so amended will likely fail upon judicial review.
Did I say judicial review? Pursuant to high-handed, bungled, or controversial legislative initiatives, activists often seek to draw a test case by violating a newly enacted statute. Sometimes there is advance publicity, which may occur here. Sometimes the violation can take the form of an act of compassion or the execution of a work of art (i.e., to perform it, not to shoot it). These events are well worth attending, as they often become the stuff of local legend. And surely, in a vibrant democracy, we must allow a gentle request for judicial review.
It would be premature, however, to call this civil disobedience. Civil disobedience evokes images of civil rights marches and bridge blockades. Those acts are peaceful but are, intentionally, inflammatory, and not usually directly related to the offending law. And civil disobedience occurs after the courts have affirmed the offending law. And it is persistent. Here we are just talking of drawing a test case. The rest can come later.
In closing, I would hope that the city council does not expend too much time or money in defending its recent actions. A simple meeting in which the downtown problems are open for discussion can have a very positive effect. By including people on all sides of the issues, we may all wind up being more mindful in our actions and considerate of others. This would result in the few noncooperative ones standing out, drawing public attention to either get them into programs for the homeless or addicted, or dealt with as otherwise appropriate.
The Face of Education Cuts: What They Actually Mean for One Local School
Email This Post
WATSONVILLE —In the lobby of Landmark Elementary School, Lupita Galvan, the office manager, answers calls from parents, most of them in Spanish.
To her left is a poorly lit nurse’s office, no nurse in site, with the door open. A boy sits on a plastic bed holding his knee.
And to her right sits an overflowing bulletin board. TEACHER WISH LISTS, it reads. A dozen or so wish lists are stapled to the board. Each one has a picture of the teacher, her name and a list of basic school supplies that she’ll have to dig into her own pocket to pay for if parents don’t chip in. The lists include requests for pencils, markers, glue sticks, paper, tissues and printer cartridges.
But their biggest wishes don’t make the list.
After the Pajaro Valley school board announced an anticipated loss of $17 million in state funding this year, the teachers’ requests have become more fundamental. They hope for a library, buses, after school programs, music classes and most alarmingly, their own jobs.
“If these budget cuts go through we’ll lose a third or more of our staff,” said Jennifer Wildman, the principal at Landmark Elementary School. “We’re scrambling asking ourselves what we can cut. But we’ve already cut so much.”
Now she is asking herself not what she can cut but who.
“We’re being forced to ask what’s more important to the school — a custodian or a librarian,” Wildman said. After a brief pause, she added, “Well, the bathroom has to be cleaned.”
In five years of operation, Landmark Elementary School has seen two major budget cuts. Last year alone, the district sliced $8 million from the district’s budget. At Landmark Elementary School that has meant pulling the plug on music classes and slimming down the physical education programs. Long before that teachers started to dig into their own wallets for basic school supplies.
But with a $17 million deficit now lingering over the Pajaro Valley Unified School District (PVUSD), changes are about to cut right to the bone.
Wildman said the cutbacks would impact all levels and departments in the school district. Pay freezes, pay cuts and layoffs are all possible. If half of Landmark Elementary School’s teachers receive pink slips — a worst case scenario — that would push class sizes beyond 30 students. This at an already underperforming school where only 20 percent of the students read at the state level.
Most of the students come from socio-economically disadvantaged homes. More than 75 percent of them receive free lunches through a federal program designed to provide nutritious lunches to those who can’t afford them.
“The kids are already being hit hard by the economy,” Wildman said. “Their families are losing their homes and they need clothes.”
But the added pressures of larger classrooms, fewer teachers and fewer after school programs could mean even fewer opportunities to achieve success, according to Roberto Torres, the assistant principal at Landmark Elementary School.
The two administrators applauded the teachers for their hard work in the face of these potentially dire circumstances.
“Teachers are tricky,” Wildman said. “They can make do with very little.”
That means working 12-hour days sometimes and grading homework on weekends. But they do an excellent job of keeping the students focused on school and not school cuts, Wildman said.
“The students have no idea.”
So now, Landmark Elementary School must wait along with the rest of PVUSD for the final draft of the district budget that will be released on March 15. The district will send out pink slips to teachers and employees on that date. Though the state’s final budget won’t be finished until late June, the district is preparing for the worst.
“The big thing right now is the uncertainty,” Torres said. “What we have now is barely enough. But it could get a lot worse.”
For now the school is holding staff meetings to discuss what else they could possibly cut. They’re hoping that parents, teachers and administrators will continue sending letters to local and state legislators. But other than that, all that is left to do is wait.
“We’re just hoping it’s crazy talk, and everything will settle,” Wildman said, with a measured laugh. “We’ll do what we have to when the time comes.”
Peter Lindener Stands in Defense of Freedom of Expression, Talks of Civil Disobedience
Email This Post
Peter Lindener is not happy about the city council’s recent ruling that music and art cannot happen together. You probably don’t know Peter Lindener by name. You probably know him as “that saxophone guy from downtown”. Or maybe you’ve never taken notice, save for a brief moment walking down Pacific when you hear his bluesy notes and see him smiling back at you. That’s the Peter Lindener that downtown Santa Cruz used to know. But now Peter is rather upset because working musicians have been caught in the crossfire over the battle for a safe and respectable downtown. The Santa Cruz City Council recently passed a package of ordinances that places greater restrictions on where musicians can play their instruments and use a “display device”, such as a hat or guitar case to collect tips.
Among the most questionable restriction found in the ordinance package bars local musicians from performing within 10 feet of public sculptures and other works of art. In a recent email to city council (passed on to the Courant Times) Lindener expresses his outrage:
” …Don [Lane] pretty much spotted the concern of somehow art installations somehow being declared as incompatible with Musical performance… if the Musician happened to put out a place to put tips. …I chose to relocate to Santa Cruz because Pacific Ave has the potential to be one very nice place for musical collaboration with others one might meet on the avenue… I am concerned enough to feel like I would want to speak up for others who might feel more effected by this evenings revision of places considered suitable for making music in the City Of Santa Cruz.
I do feel it a bit ironic that somehow amid it’s not all so clear rationals for where musical performance might be considered permissible, Public Art and Music will not be allowed to coexist withing ten feet of one another, for exactly what reason, perhaps might in the end escape most all of us….”
Musicians have a right to raise concern over the ordinance, which explicitly labels as incompatible musical performances (for tips) with our many great public works of art. These are not the people urinating in public, panhandling aggressively, verbally accosting those walking by. Musicians are not the vagrants that these ordinances are designed to target. These are the people who are being unjustly caught in the crossfire. These are the very people who bring Santa Cruz its unique and wondrous charm and provide free entertainment to all of the downtown shoppers.
And so, I am inspired to hear Lindener announce to city council (via an email shared with the Courant Times) his intentions to explicitly disobey this new ordinance which he feels is an infringement on his constitutional rights:
…I am currently considering explicitly making music within the ten foot exclusion zone where Art and Music are not legally allowed to coexist, and to do so while placing a receptacle for tips, just to make my point…… I will be expecting to be cited, for that matter I will notify the authorities of this infringement myself, when cited, I will refuse to sign, and expect that the full consequences of the violation will then unfold. I will then expect prompt due process as I will decline any terms for release on bail. Then before the court I will question the constitutionality of these ordinances and then rest my case after submitting a copy of Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience also into evidence. One option the city would have could to refuse to cite me for my infringement, if so, we would document such, and the issues of selective or perhaps non enforcement would likely then at some point also follow………
These charged words bring to my mind the image of Rosa Parks, who refused to sit in the back of a bus for her belief in equality of life. She is widely regarded as a hero for standing up for the equality she believed in. And it is by the same logic, the same token of heroism that if art and music cannot co-exist legally in downtown Santa Cruz, Peter Lindener is preparing to act in defiance, to stand up for his basic beliefs about freedom of expression. And all he asks for, his one request of city council, is that art and music can co-exist legally, in the same place at the same time. He asks this of the same city council that never fully explained why they were banning musicians from public art.
In fact it was Ryan Coonerty who justified the the public ordinance 5.43.020, which bans working musicians from downtown sculptures. He stated at the city council meeting on Jan. 26 that this was a necessary ordinance so that the public can comfortably approach and enjoy the public works of art, which they can’t necessarily do if working musicians are performing in the immediate vicinity.
But are the musicians themselves not creating works of art, live and on the spot? Is the live music not more enjoyable than the sculptures themselves? Whereas the latter is subject to personal taste, the former is undeniable. And so, to draw the argument full circle, it is by the same logic that one could arguably contend that public sculptures should not be installed within 10 feet of performing musicians.
Some of the best music I’ve ever heard in my life I’ve heard downtown, from incredibly skilled and talented musicians. I understand the need for a safe, enjoyable downtown experience. But street musicians are the very reason that I and many others enjoy downtown Santa Cruz. Why were they targeted in the recent package of ordinances? How many people complained that they didn’t have access to sculptures because of musicians? How many would trade the musicians for the sculptures?
I have to hit the streets now, to find out the answers to all these questions. In the mean time, keep an eye out for Peter Lindener playing his saxophone in musical defiance of a city council who ruled that art and music cannot happen together.
Santa Cruz City Council Cracks Down on Homeless, Panhandlers, Street Musicians, Political Tablers, Streetperformers
Email This Post
Inside the City Council chambers it was warm. Local business owners had gathered for the epic showdown that was to be tonight’s meeting dressed to varying degrees of suits, button down shirts, fine leather shoes and sport jackets, each of them convinced that the ordinances at hand will have a direct bearing on their business’s bottom line. And maybe they’re right.
Outside in the cold, by chance or by design, stood almost all of the homeless members of the community in attendance. They had shown up to find out the ways in which their lives would be fundamentally impacted tonight, and to raise what meager voice they had against the new ordinances on the table which arguably aimed the crosshairs on each one. Some of them raised their voices loud and with anger. They might have been drunk. Others did nothing but sit on a bench outside, listening to the whole thing from the loudspeaker in somber distress. Their supporters gathered round outside as well, who ranged from UCSC and Cabrillo students, to long-time residents of 30+ years.
It is the opinion of this reporter that almost everyone in attendance was either misinformed or unclear as to what the package of ordinances entailed. I had reviewed them for hours before the meeting, and knew first hand how complicated and bureaucratic they really were. Essentially what the entire package amounted to, when you boil it down, was giving the police more coercive power over the homeless, pan handlers, activist tablers, street musicians and street performers. It did this through increasing the restrictions placed on where these groups of people can legally be present.
By chance or by design, the city council members themselves were confused and unclear with respect to the new ordinances. The seven ordinances in the package were the result of a collaboration between Mayor Cynthia Matthews, and council members Ryan Coonerty and Lynn Robinson. The goals were to bolster business downtown and enhance people’s safety and willingness to come downtown and spend time there. Yet they drew sharp criticisms from some members of the public, who cried foul over the back-door meetings that Matthews, Coonerty and Robinson had with the Downtown Association and other owners of local businesses. These meetings, through which the new ordinances were drafted, were closed off to the rest of city council and the general public.
The lack of transparency, combined with the rushed process in which it was brought up publicly for the first time, voted on, and unanimously approved all in the same night, represents an erroneous system of local government. These ordinances are real. They effect people’s lives. Based on public comment tonight, there were many, many people who felt passionately both in favor of and against this ordinance package. It is therefore my feeling that this is not an issue that should have been rushed through, but one that should be carefully deliberated over a period of at least two city council meetings. But I digress.
It was city council member Don Lane who made the only real attempt to discuss the laws in any depth, questioning specific aspects of the different ordinances in an attempt to gain clarification on what he was about to vote for. He also publicly noted the fact that today was the first opportunity council members had to discuss the ordinance package. The ordinances in question, of which there were seven, ranged from sensible to just plain illogical and should have been voted on idividually instead of an all-or-none fashion.
One ordinance in the package was aimed at people who don’t take citation from law enforcement seriously. It made three unanswered citations an arrestable offense. This could potentially be seen as a relocation program by which homeless people are physically removed from the streets and thrown in jail. If you examine the logic of this ordinance in detail, one thing becomes immediately apparent. No homeless person has the money to pay their citations. The vast majority of citations given to homeless and panhandlers probably go unanswered (and I have to check with the police department for confirmation). Previously, you could get literally hundreds of citations and still walk the streets a free man. Now after just three unpaid citations you would be arrested. If you can’t make bail, which most homeless and panhandlers can’t, you’re going to jail.
Another ordinance imposes a one-hour limit on public benches. This was originally described to be enforced based on complaint. However, upon deliberation with city council, prompted by the suggestions of Don Lane, this was expanded to include a definitive time limit on all benches to one hour by the entire public and not based upon complaint. Lane’s contention was that imposing a time limit on benches based solely on complaint would result in the selective targeting of homeless people along with people who just look homeless.
And then there was ordinance 5.43.020 which shrinks the spaces avaialble to street performers and musicians. Under the new ordinance anyone with a display device, which includes a hat for people to throw money into, can no longer perform within fourteen feet of any public sculpture or artwork, directory or trash compactor.
Members of the public spoke, one after another, for hours. It seemed that almost everyone who supported the ordinances were local business owners. However, one notable speech was given by a young woman who used to be homeless and pulled herself out of her situation to overcome. She stated that not once had she resorted to panhandling to being uncivil, and urged city council to pass the ordinance package.
For each person that supported the ordinances someone spoke out against them. Wyatt Johnson, a student at Cabrillo College, vowed to boycott downtown shops if these ordinances were passed. Colin Campbell Klein, a local writer and graphics arts designer, emphasized that the underlying problem we’re dealing with is poverty in the midst of a global economic crisis and that these ordinances don’t address the real problem. Klein went on to say that, “I think there is an underlying unconscious fear of people in the middle class who don’t like the fact that the homeless are reminders of where they might be in six months if the economy keeps going in the direction that it is.”
Ten minutes or so before 11 p.m., after hearing public comments for hours and then each stating why they support the ordinance package, the city council voted unanimously to approve the entire package of seven ordinances.
Peace Scholars from the Middle East Present (and Pose an Important Question to All of You)
Email This Post
A small group of 12 gather at 7:30 pm on the 25th of January to allow for UC Santa Cruz’s visiting Peace Scholars to make their presentation on their role, their objectives, perspectives, and insights. Who are the Peace Scholars? The United States Agency for International Development has launched a large scholarship program for young leaders in the North African and Near East region to gain leadership skills and cultural exposure both within their own region and in the United States. With an emphasis on forging solutions to the regions many issues and a commitment to community service, these impressive individuals shared their experiences to the small but receptive audience with strength, passion, and grace.
Nancy Sharabi
The first speaker of the night is an education major from Egypt, with her ambitions focused on working within the Egyptian government in the field of education, aspiring to the position of Minister of Education. “Through education, we can achieve anything,” Ms. Sharabi asserts throughout her presentation. During the course of their scholarship she explains that the participants have learned not only the differences between the Arab countries and between the Middle East and the United States, but also the similarities. As they learned about other cultures and their values, they have been through a lot of personal transformation. Despite differences amongst the Scholars, she explained that they were able to negotiate productive solutions to many of the regions problems. She believes that it is through experiential learning that we can break down barriers of misunderstanding and misinformation.
Zakaria Dalli
The second speaker completed his degree in American Studies from Morocco, aspiring to work in providing better job opportunities in his country. More along cultural lines, Mr. Dalli exposes many cultural misunderstandings between the cultures of the Middle East/North Africa and the United States. Frustrated by the common assumption that his country only has camels, he addresses the need for the people of the United States to expand their awareness of lifestyles and realities outside their borders. He explains that the media in the US is not a productive force for education on topics regarding the Middle East. In addition to culture, he remarks on the need for citizens of the United States to take part in political consumerism, supporting companies that do not have conflicting political ties with their customers. Mr. Dalli makes it clear that the US policy around the world is not bringing peace, but is in fact having the opposite effect, and he hopes that the people will influence their government to take a different direction.
Anonymous
The third speaker chose to have her name withheld and is from Palestine, majoring in French Literature with a desire to work with disabled children. She acknowledged that different people have different ideas of peace, but that her vision of peace consists of “the ability to live normally, peacefully, and with identity.” In agreement with Mr. Dalli, she communicated her frustration with US media outlets and their lack of substantial and accurate information regarding the Middle East. Due to the recent events between Hamas, the government of the Gaza Strip, and Israel, the speaker stated that the war was “not equal in casualties, and not equal in weapons,” emphasizing this point with the statement “…homemade rockets vs. chemical weapons? Is that fair?” Education, in her opinion, can be the medium that can rid the world of hate and misunderstandings.
The Peace Scholars Question
Following their presentation, they wished to use this publication as a medium to inquire to the reason that the people of the United States are not interested in knowing the truth about the Middle Eastern culture, politics, and point-of-view. They wish that the people here would be as interested in knowing the realities of the situation and not simply being content with the information they receive from the media and the government.
Please leave your comments if you would like to respond to this question or to the presentation as a whole, and your responses will be given to the presenters.
For more information on the Peace Scholars program, please visit:
http://www.usaid.gov/locations/asia_near_east/countries/omep/
City Council rumored to push new ordninances targeting homeless
Email This Post
Local resident and pro-homeless activist Robert Norse has received some interesting information from an unnamed member of Santa Cruz city council. According to his source, which we believe to be credible,
“On Tuesday evening the Santa Cruz City Council will consider recommendations by Mayor Cynthia Mathews and Council members Lynn Robinson and Ryan Coonerty to make Santa Cruz’ downtown and beach area more safe, vibrant and welcoming for community members and visitors alike. This effort will improve and expand existing ordinances in order to make them consistent, understandable and enforceable; other programs will address specific issues. The proposal includes:
- Revising existing ordinances for greater consistency and enforceability. Making existing distances and definitions consistent for activities such as aggressive panhandling. (Distances are not increased.)
- Adding new protected areas around public art, directory signs, and trash compactors
- Adding one hour limit on public benches, based on complaint.
- Adding ordinance directing that three unanswered citations become a warrant, thus creating a meaningful consequence for chronic offenders.
- Direct City participation in a “Real Change, not Spare Change” program by the DTA.
- Authorize chronic inebriate program limiting alcohol sales.
- Work with District Attorney for stronger enforcement of new graffiti laws and stay-away orders for chronic offenders.
- Explore increased law enforcement presence through non-general fund revenue sources.
- Launch public rest room program in partnership with local businesses.”
As Robert Norse points out in an article on Indybay published here, these ordinances give law enforcement the tools they need to selectively choose who they consider to be an undesirable presence and take actions against them. According to Norse, “The folks behind the new laws–if this Councilmember’s info is correct–would be Mayor Mathews, ex-Mayor Coonerty, and Councilmember Robinson. The laws were cooked up in meetings closed to the public, but open to merchants, city staff and police of the Downtown Working Group.”
The ordinances should appear on either the afternoon or evening agenda of city council on Tuesday January 26th.
More Photos from the Palestinian/Israeli Protest at UC Santa Cruz
Email This Post
Please enjoy these photos from the recent protest at UCSC. Also, I have received interesting information in regards to the person that decided to lay in the middle of the Quarry during the protest. He was with neither side. He wanted to make a point to both sides that the current actions from both sides will just end up in deaths from Israelis and Palestinians. Please note, though, that this is what I heard from a friend who supposedly knows the protestor, but I did not get to speak to him directly.
|
|
FROM THE EDITORS » |
|
Writing Contest Reminder PVUSD Will Announce Cutbacks, Layoffs Tonight Writing Contest! Experiments In Print Capitola Call to Service Meet-up