FIRST AMENDMENT; journalists, scholars and political activists facing the prospect of indefinite detention

Federal judge strikes down part of anti-terrorism law

Associated Press,found on Vanderbilt U's First Amendment Center

Wire Report,Thursday, May 17, 2012

NEW YORK — A judge yesterday struck down a portion of a federal law giving the government wide powers to regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists, saying it left journalists, scholars and political activists facing the prospect of indefinite detention for exercising First Amendment rights.

U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest in Manhattan said in a written ruling that a single page of the National Defense Authorization Act has a “chilling impact on First Amendment rights.” She cited testimony by journalists that they feared their association with certain individuals overseas could result in their arrest because a provision of the law subjects to indefinite detention anyone who “substantially” or “directly” provides “support” to forces such as al-Qaida or the Taliban. She said the wording was too vague and encouraged Congress to change it.

“An individual could run the risk of substantially supporting or directly supporting an associated force without even being aware that he or she was doing so,” the judge said.

She said the law also gave the government authority to move against individuals who engage in political speech with views that “may be extreme and unpopular as measured against views of an average individual.”
“That, however, is precisely what the First Amendment protects,” Forrest wrote in Hedges v. Obama.

She called the fears of journalists in particular real and reasonable, citing testimony at a March hearing by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Christopher Hedges, who has interviewed al-Qaida members, conversed with members of the Taliban during speaking engagements overseas and reported on 17 groups named on a list prepared by the State Department of known terrorist organizations. He testified that the law has led him to consider altering speeches where members of al-Qaida or the Taliban might be present.
Hedges called Forrest’s ruling “a tremendous step forward for the restoration of due process and the rule of law.”

“Ever since the law has come out, and because the law is so amorphous, the problem is you’re not sure what you can say, what you can do and what context you can have,” he said.

Hedges was among seven individuals and one organization that challenged the law with a January lawsuit. The National Defense Authorization Act was signed into law in December, allowing for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism. Yesterday’s ruling does not affect another part of the law that enables the United States to indefinitely detain members of terrorist organizations, and the judge said the government has other legal authority it can use to detain those who support terrorists.

A message left yesterday with a spokeswoman for government lawyers was not returned in time for this story.
Bruce Afran, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, called the ruling a “great victory for free speech.”

Forrest has “held that the government cannot subject people to indefinite imprisonment for engaging in speech, journalism or advocacy, regardless of how unpopular those ideas might be to some people,” he said.

Attorney Carl Mayer, speaking for plaintiffs at oral arguments earlier this year, had noted that even President Barack Obama expressed reservations about certain aspects of the bill when he signed it into law.

After the ruling, Mayer called on the Obama administration to drop its decision to enforce the law. He also called on Congress to change it “to make it the law of the land that U.S. citizens are entitled to trial by jury. They are not subject to military detention, policing and tribunals, all the things we fought a revolution to make sure would never happen in this land.”
The government had argued that the law did not change the practices of the United States since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and that the plaintiffs did not have legal standing to sue.

In March, the judge seemed sympathetic to the government’s arguments until she asked a government attorney if he could assure the plaintiffs that they would not face detention under the law for their work.

She wrote in yesterday’s ruling that the failure of the government to make such a representation required her to assume that government takes the position that the law covers “a wide swath of expressive and associational conduct.”

Jail for Gary & Ed Looms THIS Month, story by Steve Argue

USA: 

Human Rights Activist Ordered to Six Months of Jail, More Repression Scheduled in Santa Cruz, California

by Steven Argue,  Sunday Jul 29th, 2012 6:44 PM

"The case of Ed Frey is reminiscent of an earlier Santa Cruz case where Sandy Loranger did time in jail for feeding the homeless soup. When the judge offered her counseling instead of jail Sandy Loranger replied, "If feeding my fellow man is a crime, I am beyond rehabilitation."

ed_frey.jpg

Photo Credit, by Bradley Stuart from Indybay. Human rights activist, Ed Frey, speaking, has been ordered to six months in jail starting August eighth.]

Human Rights Activist Ordered to Six Months of Jail, More Repression Scheduled

By Steven Argue

On August 24th Judge Moody ordered human rights activist and attorney, Ed Frey, to begin a six month sentence, ordering him to check in for jail at 9:00 AM on August 8th, 2012.

Ed Frey was arrested in 2010 for protesting on the Santa Cruz County Courthouse steps. He was opposing Santa Cruz laws that make it illegal for the homeless to sleep at night. Ed Frey’s only act of civil disobedience was sleeping outside in solidarity with the homeless. In Santa Cruz, the human rights of the poor to even survive are routinely violated on the most basic levels. Sleep at night and covering-up with blankets are both illegal in Santa Cruz for people outside or in a vehicle. Ed Frey was arrested protesting these laws at a three month protest that was called “Peace Camp 2010”. That protest initially started in response to a 63 year-old homeless minister, Robert Facer, being ticketed for sleeping on the beach on a night when all of the homeless shelters were full. Peace Camp 2010 initially attracted many homeless people and other activists, but it was eventually shut down through police repression.

Other activists still facing abuse stemming from that 2010 protest include Gary Johnson and Linda Lemaster. Gary Johnson, like Ed Frey, has also already been sentenced to six months in jail. On August 24th Gary Johnson will be subjected to a hearing similar to Ed Frey’s most recent one. At that time, Gary could also be ordered to begin his six month sentence. Activist Linda Lemaster is scheduled for jury trial on October 14th for sleeping at Peace Camp 2010 as well.

In addition to prosecuting protesters for sleep “crimes”, the Santa Cruz courts are currently persecuting nine protesters who were part of a three day occupation of an abandoned Wells Fargo Bank in 2011. The abandoned building was seen as having potential use as a community center and shelter for people without housing. Each activist is facing two felony charges and two misdemeanor charges and could be sentenced to up to seven years in prison if found guilty. These activists have become known as the Santa Cruz 11 due to the original number of defendants. Nine are still being prosecuted.

The Santa Cruz 11 are being prosecuted for a peaceful occupation that included a policy, posted to the wall, of carrying out no vandalism. Yet, protesters have been charged with “felony vandalism”, “conspiracy to vandalize and trespass” (another felony), and two types of trespassing misdemeanors. These charges are not backed by actual evidence. None of the Santa Cruz 11 were arrested on the scene and six of the 11 who were charged are high profile journalists who have been critical of the Santa Cruz Police Department and/or Santa Cruz City Council. Not targeted for police repression were individuals present who are more friendly to the status quo, like former Santa Cruz Mayor Katherine Beiers.

On August 20th, seven of the Santa Cruz 11, Cameron Laurendau, Robert Norse, Becky Johnson, Gabriella Ripplyphipps, Brent Adams, and Franklin Alcantara will be appearing in the court of Judge Burdick for their so-called “crimes”. As opposed to this kind of repression being carried out by the local liberal capitalist government of Santa Cruz, the Revolutionary Tendency of the Socialist Party demands the charges against the Santa Cruz 11 be dropped. Instead of seeing the occupation of a bank as a crime, we call for the nationalization of all banks without compensation. And we call for the proletarian seizure of all unused buildings under the control of the banks to provide shelter and housing for those who need it. Meanwhile, the local Democrat Party, which controls the Santa Cruz City Council, sends out their cops to carry out repression against people in the community demanding justice.

Likewise, the liberal government of Santa Cruz sends out its cops to harass the homeless. Numerous laws on the books are there specifically to target the homeless. This includes MC 6.36.010, a law that makes the acts of sleeping or covering up with a blanket punishable by $100 to $200 fines. For the homeless this is often unpayable. Democrat Mayor Don Lane recently passed another law that makes ignoring three sleeping tickets a misdemeanor punishable by six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. And a third Santa Cruz City law now also makes any third infraction (of any kind) an automatic misdemeanor as well.

During Peace Camp 2010, however, the Sheriff’s department and Santa Cruz DA chose to arrest and prosecute Peace Camp 2010 activists under a much harsher California state law. The law they used was the so-called “Unlawful-Lodging Law” 647e. At the time of their arrest, those found guilty of violations 647e could be punished by up to six months in jail. Since that time, however, the Democrat controlled State legislature doubled the penalty. The reality in courts has now been laid bare, that under this law the act of sleeping, either by people who are homeless or people protesting in solidarity with the homeless, is punishable by up to a year in jail. Since the arrests at Peace Camp 2010 this same so-called “Unlawful-Lodging Law” 647e was also used to attack Occupy Santa Cruz and a number of Occupy activists did face 647e charges.

Gary Johnson and Ed Frey were convicted of sleeping in 2011 and sentenced to six months in jail. Their convictions were secured in the court room of the notoriously pro-police and anti-homeless Judge Gallagher, nicknamed “Grim Gavel” Gallagher. Revealing the political nature of the draconian sentences, Judge Gallagher told homeless activist Gary Johnson he “could get some sleep in jail”.

In June, 2011, with the courts facing a public outcry after two weeks in jail, Ed Frey was released on bail pending appeal with his bail of $50,000 dollars (for sleeping) reduced to $110. Supporters quickly passed the hat and Ed Frey was released from jail on bail. Gary Johnson was similarly released the next week. Those six month sentences, however, have continued to hang over the heads of Ed Frey and Gary Johnson and now the oppressive capitalist state is demanding Ed Frey do the time, starting August 8th.

Another protester charged at that time, Eliot Anderson, was freed by a hung jury that failed to convict him. A juror said of the case, “Anderson should not have to gas his dog to try to get into a shelter to legally sleep.”

In the trial of Gary Johnson and Ed Frey many potential jurors were upset by the fact that they were to sit through a two week trial for the “crime” of sleep. One example was an elementary school teacher who said, "When I first came to Santa Cruz, I lived in my van for three years. During that time, I was hassled, arrested, and jailed. There is no way I could be impartial in this case considering the pain these people are suffering." A number of potential jurors said similar things, but of course they never made it onto the jury. People who are aware of what is going on generally don’t make it onto juries in the United States. Such dumbed-down juries do as they’re told, as this one did, in a typical manner when they were told they weren’t allowed to have their own opinions. In the oft repeated mantra of blind stupidity and injustice in America’s capitalist courts, Judge Gallagher told the jury, "Even if you disagree with the law, you must follow the law."

Four protesters were convicted under 647e for sleeping at the protest. Two did not show up for the absurdity of sentencing and warrants were issued. Ed Frey and Gary Johnson were offered 400 hours of Community Service and 3 years probation for sleeping. In response, Gary Johnson who is homeless, asked, "How can I take probation to obey all laws, when you've defined "sleeping" as lodging to the jury, making it a misdemeanor crime? How can I not sleep for six months during probation?" Judge Gallagher told him “he could get some sleep in jail.” On basic principle and inability to comply, both Gary Johnson and Attorney Ed Frey turned down probation and were then sentenced to six months in jail.

This was reminiscent of an earlier Santa Cruz case where Sandy Loranger did time in jail for feeding the homeless soup. When the judge offered her counseling instead of jail Sandy Loranger replied, "If feeding my fellow man is a crime, I am beyond rehabilitation."

Peace Camp 2010 was simply an act of free speech. It was a peaceful protest with the only act of civil disobedience being the illegal act of sleeping outside. Protest facilities included a port-o-potty provided by Attorney Ed Frey. This helped provide the homeless with a safe place to sleep for months, despite the city government’s failure to provide such needed relief for its citizens.

In addition to Gary Johnson’s six month sentence, Gary Johnson has now also been convicted of additional counts of sleeping since that protest. This is for sleeping last winter outside of the Santa Cruz courthouse with a sign that read “Sleep is Not a Crime”. On those additional counts of sleeping, Judge Gallagher sentenced Gary Johnson to 2 years in prison on a suspended sentence, which means the sentence could be carried out if Gary Johnson is later harassed by police and found guilty of additional “crimes”.

The “Unlawful-Lodging Law” 647e for which Gary Johnson and Ed Frey were arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced was also recently used in Santa Barbara. This was in August 2010 when the Santa Barbara Police ticketed Courtney Caswell-Peyton, a Santa Barbara disabled woman who fell asleep in her wheel chair. She showed-up for court worried about the possibility of getting her first conviction for any crime. Facing strong protest in that case, the Santa Barbara DA dismissed the charge in the “interests of justice”. While happy about not being convicted, she left court saying she was still homeless and questioning why she had no place to sleep.

Unlike the Santa Barbara dismissal, Gary Johnson and Ed Frey were convicted in the notoriously bad Santa Cruz courts. Judge Gallagher is making an example of them for standing-up against the anti-homeless laws of Santa Cruz and California.

“Unlawful-Lodging Law” 647e states, “Who lodges in any building, structure, vehicle, or place, whether public or private, without the permission of the owner or person entitled to the possession or in control of it” “are guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor". According to the Santa Cruz courts, Santa Barbra Police, and the Santa Cruz Sheriff’s department, “lodging” means the same thing as “sleeping”. In May 2011, this same anti-homeless law 647e was made even worse with the State Legislature making a second violation punishable by up to a year in jail and a $2,000 fine. So now homelessness in the state of California is punishable by up to a year in jail if one is caught sleeping twice.

Voting for this worsened anti-homeless law were Democrats and Republicans alike, including local Santa Cruz Democrat and darling of many reformist liberals, Bill Monning. He voted for that increased penalty at the same time that people who actually stand-up for human rights were fighting against it with their personal freedom on the line. Not a single Democrat or Republican voted against.

As the California state government, dominated by Democrats, passes anti-working class austerity and extremely harsh anti-homeless legislation, the Democrat holding power in Washington DC, Barrack Obama, wages wars in an increasing number of the world’s countries. These are wars for the profit of arms manufacturers, oil corporations, and other imperialist capitalists. Likewise, Obama locks-up suspected whistle blower, Bradley Manning, for exposing U.S. crimes against humanity in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bradley Manning is accused of releasing the helicopter footage that shows U.S. troops nonchalantly gunning down civilians including journalists, first aid respondents, and children in cold blood. Instead of charges of murder for those who committed it, it is Bradley Manning who goes to prison under Obama while Obama has publicly stated his opinion that Manning “is guilty”. Likewise, trillions of dollars that could be used in a saner socialist society for housing, healthcare, jobs, and education are instead squandered on war under this insane capitalist system.

Meanwhile, the local Democrats in power in Santa Cruz send out their cops to silence protests for human rights for the homeless, to silence protests against the trillions of tax dollars given to the banks, and cut the hours of care under the In Home Support Services program by 3.6% in 2011, hours of care that are needed to keep the disabled, elderly, and dying living and in their homes. While the Democrats of the Santa Cruz City Council support the city’s anti-homeless laws and police repression, they oppose measures that would help fight homelessness like an increase in the minimum wage and have been part of carrying out austerity that includes the lay-off of workers and cuts in homeless services while at the same time hiring more cops.

As the current crisis of capitalism threatens the break-down all that is left that is civil in our society, the Democrats charge ahead with the Republicans in making sure it is the poor and working class who pay for the crisis of capitalism, not capitalist profits. All reformist dreams of the Democrat Party in any way being a source of any sort of “hope” should be abandoned in favor of recognizing reality. Labor unions must abandon their illusions in the Democrats and stop giving them our money and instead prepare to fight by putting union dues into strike funds. The true power of labor will never be found groveling at the feet of hostile Democrat politicians. Instead, labor has the potential to win demands by shutting down the profits of the capitalists.

As opposed to the Democrat’s program of more war, more cops, criminalization of poverty, political repression, and austerity; labor must move forward with our own demands. Those could include a massive jobs program to house the homeless and slow climate change, the seizure of housing foreclosed by the banks to be used by those who need it, and an end to capitalist medicine in the United States, a major cause of debt, homelessness, and death. Without an independent fight-back of the working class, using the power of the strike for political demands, the situation will just continue to grow bleaker.

A revolutionary workers’ party should be built to advocate and lead on just such a class struggle program. To remain a tool of the working class in the long run such a party also needs to have an anti-capitalist program for the building of socialism. Political parties without a clear and rapid revolutionary anti-capitalist program, once in power, just become mere rulers over the inherent injustices of the capitalist system. Instead of capitalism, an egalitarian socialist economy in the United States with production based on human need rather than capitalist profit could easily provide everyone with a job, housing, health care, and free education. Such a society needs to be built on principles of workers’ democracy rather than Stalinist dictatorship or American style dictatorship of the wealthy.

The alternative to socialist revolution becomes increasingly clear as capitalist society becomes less and less able to take care of its people; climate change caused by capitalist greed becomes an increasing threat to the future of human civilization; the capitalist state becomes increasingly repressive; and the leading capitalist countries plunge the world into war after war of imperialist domination and conquest. As the great German revolutionary Rosa Luxemburg said in 1918, our alternatives are socialism or barbarism.

Stop the Repression! Overturn the Convictions of Ed Frey and Gary Johnson! Drop the Charges Against Linda Lemaster!

Drop the Charges Against the Santa Cruz Eleven!

End Laws making it Illegal for the Homeless to Sleep at Night!

Nationalize the Banks! Seize Housing From the Banks for those Who Need Housing!

Expropriate the 1%! For a Socialist Planned Economy to Provide Housing, Jobs, Healthcare, and Education For All! No Rent Charged Above 10% of Income!

Smash the Capitalist State in a Proletarian Revolution! Disband all U.S. Police Forces, Prisons, and Courts (all of which are anti-poor, anti-working class, and racist). Build a Proletarian Democracy!


This is an article of Liberation News, subscribe free (not affiliated with the Stalinist PSL who stole our name):
https://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news

Check out the Statement of Purpose of the Revolutionary Tendency of the Socialist Party (RTSP)
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/01/07/18704314.php

Join RTSP discussions on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/yahoo#!/groups/RevolutionaryTendency/

"San Fran: Odyssey of a Sleeping Ban‏" -featuring Jennifer Friedenbach at SF Coalition on Homelessness

Linda's Hearth note:  Generally my notes are below pasted-in Linda's Hearth posts. This article(s) is longer than most, so I'm privileging myself by putting my note above.  I first got to work with Jennifer  of  Coalition on Homelessness in 'welfare reform politics', both of us and other moms with children in tow. Later, it was at Housing California yearly conventions we got to know each other better, including each others' interests in housing and getting rid of homelessness.

aside: I passed the annual organizing bash off, then at a Raddison Hotel in Sacramento, as a "vacation" for my youngest child, who would have had no concept for vacate meaning "R&R" if not for those confabs. Except for these events, "vacate" came to mean "evict" in our lives, then in service to buffering poverty in low income families here in Santa Cruz County. 

So I'm ever-grateful for the gulp of culture that included care for children of low income participants who attended early Housing California conventions. He benefitted from the children's activities and grew up to offer a child-care hand, himself, before the Raddison events dried up and so did I. Now, Housing California seems to still exist, I guess, but it has come to belong to realtors and bankers and opportunists. Tenant rights and anti-homeless organizers and activisits no longer participate.

Meanwhile, Jennifer is the ED of Coalition on Homelessness, and the Coalition is fortunate indeed. The article just below shares a glimpse of her at work, and of her organizations long-established values, which include treating homeless folks as if they are human beings. The articles below this are background, for those intersted. 

I encourage everyone to read about Jennifer, the prejudice she deals with, and faces head-on in her job. Later I hope to process the "below this" articles better, or to summarize the background.

Jennifer Friedenbach, champion of S.F. homeless

by Heather Knight, Published 04:00 a.m., Sunday, February 5, 2012

 

This time, the battleground was a recent meeting of the Board of Supervisors' land use committee, which was voting on Supervisor Scott Wiener's legislation to ban camping, sleeping and four-wheeled shopping carts in Jane Warner and Harvey Milk plazas in the Castro. Wiener called it "basic, common sense legislation."
But Friedenbach - director of the love-it-or-hate-it Coalition on Homelessness, which is celebrating its 25th anniversary this year - said it was the latest example of San Francisco's quest to criminalize those living on the streets.

She packed the rows and aisles of the committee room with homeless people and their supporters to decry the legislation. Several gay rights icons and friends of Milk's agreed with her and penned a letter to the committee saying the late supervisor would have hated the restrictions in his old stomping grounds. The savvy Friedenbach used the big names to her full, in-your-face advantage and instructed her supporters to spend the meeting holding up pictures of the men under big, black letters reading, "Friends of Harvey say no!"

"So here's a Cleve Jones," she said before the meeting began, handing out pictures of the famous AIDS activist. "Here's a Harry Britt. And here's a Tom Ammiano," she continued, distributing pictures of the former supervisors.

Distracting to Wiener

The signs, indeed held aloft throughout the long and contentious meeting, must have proved at least a little distracting to Wiener, the latest representative of Milk's district.

The creative, confrontational strategy was trademark Friedenbach, described by her friends and enemies alike as passionate, organized and whip-smart. And hard-working, too, considering she earns a salary of just $22,000 a year.

Her auburn hair held up in a messy bun with chopsticks and her long-sleeved T-shirt showing traces of sweat, Friedenbach busily passed out yellow speaker cards, encouraging her supporters to talk. She handed out press packets to reporters and kept an eye on her two sons before addressing the supervisors herself.

"I'm saddened to go down this very tired and very hurtful road," the 46-year-old began. "We can't say this legislation is anything but anti-homeless. Who else is sleeping in public places? Who else is pushing large shopping carts?"

Much of the crowd burst into applause and hoots of support. The committee wasn't buying it, voting 2-1 in favor of the legislation.

Friedenbach is certainly used to these kinds of highs and lows, having worked at the controversial nonprofit for 17 years. She counts among her proudest achievements expanding access to substance abuse programs for homeless people, establishing standards of care in homeless shelters and successfully advocating for a city-funded rental subsidy program.

But she's best known to most San Franciscans for her heated battles against City Hall politicians, most notably former Mayor Gavin Newsom.
Usually, the mayor prevailed with voter support such as in his attempts to ban aggressive panhandling and sitting or lying on sidewalks and his slashing of welfare checks if housing is available.

Newsom did not respond to a request for comment. Friedenbach, for one, says the coalition's spirited advocacy has at least provided a voice of resistance.

...Supervisor Wiener said Friedenbach's unwillingness to negotiate with political opponents and her publicity stunts are counterproductive.

"I think the Coalition on Homelessness has had a very, very negative impact on San Francisco's ability to address homelessness in a meaningful way," he said.

On a recent morning, Friedenbach sat in the coalition's offices on Turk Street, huddled in a black down jacket zipped up to the top, having canceled heating in the office three years ago because it got too expensive.

The coalition runs on a budget of $250,000 a year, raised from private donors - many of whom first learn about the coalition through buying its newspaper, the Street Sheet, from homeless people who sell it and keep the money. Seven paid coalition staff earn the same hourly rate of $12.75, though several work just 10 hours a week.

"It covers my lunch habit," Friedenbach said of her salary, bursting into her well-known belly laugh. "I pretty much just mooch off my husband."

...Friedenbach drives a 1985 Chevy Caprice station wagon, and the family lives in a 900-square-foot home they bought 16 years ago in the Mission District with a mortgage payment of $1,400 a month....

She told Paul Boden, then director of the Coalition on Homelessness, that she would fundraise for him for six months for free if he'd hire her after that. He did. She became director a few years ago.

Boden said Friedenbach's passionate beliefs and thick skin have served her well. "I've seen other people where the first letter to the editor that called them a poverty pimp, they get really hurt by it," he said. "That's not her."

That's a common knock against the coalition - that its staff members actually want homeless people to remain on the streets so they can continue to operate. Friedenbach said that's ridiculous.

"I would love to go out of business," she said. "I would be like 'Woo hoo! I'm going to my kids' school and volunteer all the time and infuse a little joy in my life!' None of us who do this work want to see it continue. It's heartbreaking."...

Friedenbach says dealing with City Hall is actually her least favorite part of the job, though she was there again Tuesday when the full Board of Supervisors took up Wiener's plaza legislation. After the board voted to remove the ban on shopping carts, they passed the rest of it.

Friedenbach and about a dozen coalition members gathered outside the chambers after the vote and hailed it as a huge victory.

Despite vehemently fighting against it for weeks, they said there was actually plenty to like about the legislation. Camping would now be an infraction instead of a more serious misdemeanor. People can sleep in the plazas during the day, just not at night.

Wiener said he got most of what he wanted and so did the coalition - and that the whole public fight could have been avoided if they'd negotiated from the start.

But for the coalition, training a bright spotlight on homeless issues is the point. They consider the plaza fight one for the memory books and distributed the colorful "Friends of Harvey" signs after the vote to keep as souvenirs.
"I want the lavender one," Friedenbach said with a laugh.

Heather Knight is a Chronicle staff writer. hknight@sfchronicle.com.

Occupy The Castro: Neighborhood Activists Face Off Against Wiener In Open Spaces Debate

by Chris Roberts

December 3, 2011 8:15 AM

Scott Wiener supports the Occupy movement -- the Castro District's elected supervisor affixed his name to the Board of Supervisors' pledge of support. He won't be around for the local neighborhood edition Saturday -- he'll be out of town -- which may be just as well, as a group of neighborhood malcontents are using their Occupy the Castro protest to further their opposition to a set of rules Wiener's proposed for the Castro's open spaces that are anathema to Occupy standards.

Harvey Milk Plaza, the brick entryway into the Muni station at Market and Castro streets in front of the Diesel store, named for the slain LGBTQ icon and marked by the gigantic rainbow flag visible from many parts of town, and Jane
Warner Plaza, the intersection of Castro, 17th, and Market streets, closed to automobile traffic under the "Pavement to Parks" program in favor of planter pots and patio furniture, are virtually the only open spaces in the entire Castro aside from sidewalks.

The rules currently governing both are insufficient, according to Wiener, almost comically so: Harvey Milk Plaza is technically owned by Muni, while the California Vehicle Code is the law of the land at Jane Warner, which is a road, just closed off from automobile traffic. Neither are governed by the Parks Code, in effect in nearly every other open San Francisco space.

Wiener introduced legislation Nov. 15 to, among other things, ban camping, large wheeled vehicles like shopping carts, and smoking in both spaces.

"We've been talking about this in the neighborhood for several years," Wiener said Friday.

"Folks in the neighborhood agree, it's important to know what's acceptable and what's not. That's the impetus for it."

While the rules would outlaw camping like everywhere else ruled by the Park Code, Occupy the Castro has nothing to do with Wiener's proposed rules for the Castro's public spaces, the supervisor noted.

Yet he's still in the crosshairs: queer activist Tommi Avicolli-Mecca, one of the organizers of Occupy the Castro, accused Wiener this week in a Bay Area Reporter editorial of focusing more on banning public nudity than preserving AIDS funding. And some Castro District agitators and gadflys accuse Wiener's rules of violating the sacrosanct spirit of Harvey Milk himself.

A modern-day Milk would need a permit from the Department of Public Works to organize rallies on the brown tile that bears his name, as would nonprofits and other events using the space, according to neighborhood resident Gary Virginia, who's lived in the Castro since 1987.

"These areas are public space and should be as least restrictive as possible," said Virginia, who noted that while permits can easily be secured for city-organized events like ski jumps on Lombard, "the average person is being restricted in many ways at one of the busiest intersections and tourist destinations in the city."

Other opponents of the legislation aren't pleased with Jane Warner Plaza's hours, as volunteers take in and put out the tables from shelter in the morning and at night, meaning there's places to sit -- with towel covering bare bottom -- from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. only. Others, like blogger and iconoclast Michael Petrelis, find issue with the provision on "peddling or vending" wares or printed material.

Of course, there's nothing in Wiener's laws or anywhere else that would ban political speech or demonstrations in the area, such as the marches and rallies seen most recently during the Prop 8 debate -- and the Occupy the Castro rally planned for noon Saturday.

Most permits are a nominal formalities, easy to obtain, and not much more than a nod to the notion that public spaces are for the enjoyment of all, and if a rally or a motive for profit require their use, a fee is small potatoes.

And nothing's final, either -- Wiener said Friday he's open to amendments when the legislation enters the committee process in the new year.

Ordinance would put restrictions on Castro District plazas

 

by T.J. Johnston, SF Public Press — Jan 26 2012 - 2:13pm

A proposal to regulate two popular Castro District hangouts by restricting chairs and shopping carts is a step closer to becoming city law.

The Board of Supervisors will decide Tuesday on an ordinance, which passed the Land Use Committee this week that would ban nighttime sitting, sleeping, vending, smoking and even pushing a shopping cart in Harvey Milk and Jane Warner Plaza.

Supervisor Scott Wiener said his measure will clarify a legal gray area that city and park codes don’t cover at the plazas located across the street from each other at the intersection of 17th, Castro and Market streets. He called it “common sense legislation.”

The city would charge fines up to $500 for camping, smoking and selling merchandise without a permit in those areas. The ordinance would also bar sitting on removable chairs between 9 p.m. and 9 a.m. and bans shopping carts.

Supporters from neighborhood associations and merchant groups said the law would alleviate noise, safety and public health problems. But advocates for homeless people and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth oppose the measure, saying it adds to existing codes that already penalize them.

“This isn’t about law. It’s not about order, it’s not about rules, it’s not about safety, it’s not about quiet,” said civil rights organizer Bob Offer-Westort of the Coalition on Homelessness. “It’s about an emotional response, and the emotion that the author of this legislation has chosen is hatred.”
If the board approves the measure, it could take effect as soon as Feb. 29.

Posted: 10:08 p.m. Tuesday, Jan. 31, 2012

SF supes pass new regulations for Castro Plazas

KTVU.com and wires

SAN FRANCISCO —

A proposal to ban camping and other activities at two plazas in San Francisco's Castro District was approved by the Board of Supervisors Tuesday, but only after the removal of regulations that had angered homeless advocates in the city.


Supervisor Scott Wiener had proposed the legislation to prohibit a variety of activities in Harvey Milk Plaza and Jane Warner Plaza, both located near the intersection of Market and Castro streets.


Wiener had proposed to ban sleeping in the plazas at any time of day, as well as pitch tents or other structures to camp there. The legislation also proposed to prohibit the use of wheeled equipment in the plaza.


That last item rankled advocates from the San Francisco-based Coalition on Homelessness, who argued that the legislation unfairly targeted the homeless, particularly those who used shopping carts to carry their property.


The homeless advocates also argued that the legislation was unnecessary because of a state law that already bars lodging in public places without permission.


Bob Offer-Westort, an organizer with the Coalition on Homelessness, camped out in Jane Warner Plaza on Friday night and was quickly arrested for breaking the state law, which he said proved Wiener's proposal was redundant.


Wiener argued today that the state law concerning lodging in public "is unclear at best," and that the homeless advocates "want to have their cake and eat it too ... if they went to court, they would say (the state law) doesn't apply and is unclear."


When the legislation went in front of the board this afternoon, board president David Chiu introduced an amendment to remove the wheeled equipment prohibition from the legislation.


Chiu said he was "worried about the issue of elderly people and others that have to use carts" to get through the plaza.


The board easily passed the amendment, then narrowly passed the full legislation by a 6-5 vote, despite opposition from supervisors like Christina Olague, who called the proposal "a solution looking for a problem."


Supervisor Eric Mar said he too opposed it because he was worried that the legislation would lead to police targeting the city's poor and youth.


Wiener argued that the legislation was "not about targeting, it's about small constrained public spaces" and said it "had broad support throughout the neighborhood."


Despite the legislation passing, homeless advocates gathered outside board chambers following the vote to celebrate what they considered a victory.


"The legislation passed but all the harmful parts are out," Offer-Westort said. "We didn't have any objection to most of the legislation."

E-mail Rachel Gordon at rgordon@sfchronicle.com.

SF supervisors split on plaza restrictions

Rachel Gordon, Chronicle Staff Writer

Published 04:00 a.m., Wednesday, February 1, 2012

0
inhare

A San Francisco Board of Supervisors' narrow vote over new regulations for two Castro district plazas showed the deep political divide over the issue of homelessness in the city.
The board gave preliminary approval to the legislation Tuesday on a 6-5 vote, showcasing the progressive-moderate split among San Francisco's lawmakers. Final consideration is set for next week.
Supervisor Scott Wiener, who sponsored the legislation, described it as "modest, basic legislation" that absorbs some of the rules governing city parks and streets.
The proposal would affect Harvey Milk and Jane Warner plazas at Market and Castro streets. It would ban smoking and bar people from selling merchandise without a city permit; an exception would be made for written and other materials protected by the First Amendment.
But it was two other elements that stirred the most controversy: a ban on large shopping carts, which are often used by homeless people to stow their possessions, and a prohibition on sleeping and camping. Homeless activists urged supervisors to reject the plan.
In an attempt to mollify critics, the legislation was amended Tuesday to remove the shopping cart provision and to only bar sleeping in the plazas between the hours of 8 p.m. and 8 a.m.
But the changes weren't enough for supervisors who voted against the proposal.
"Generally, I'm philosophically challenged by restrictions to any public space that we have here in San Francisco," said Supervisor Jane Kim.
Added Supervisor John Avalos: "I tend to want to support people who I feel are more vulnerable, and I'm going to be siding with them on this. I do believe we have to figure out how to make our city the sanctuary it really is, and when I see intent behind legislation that constrains our abilities to use public space and enjoy it, I question that legislation."
Wiener, the Castro district representative who said he crafted the legislation at the request of neighborhood organizations, said his intent is not to undermine people's rights to assemble or visit the public plazas.
"We have a very, very extensive parks code governing our parks system. There are many rules in place for our sidewalks. None of these rules have undermined the freedoms we enjoy as a community," he said. "Rather, these rules ensure that these public spaces are usable by everyone."
Board of Supervisors President David Chiu, who helped craft the amendments, and cast the decisive swing vote, said the fissure on the board was based more on ideology than on policy.
"I do think we in our roles have to figure out how to move beyond the intense emotion and symbolism around some of these issues and get down to what this legislation really does, and I do think it's a modest piece of legislation. ... It by and large reiterates what's in our parks code," he said.
Joining Wiener and Chiu in voting in favor were Supervisors Carmen Chu, Malia Cohen, Sean Elsbernd and Mark Farrell. Voting with Avalos and Kim in opposition were Supervisors David Campos, Eric Mar and Christina Olague.

COMMENTS

dr_floyd

2:15 AM on February 1, 2012

The city may have extensive rules and regulations, but from what I can see they don't enforce anything...

I'm not against the homeless, but I am against being hassled by an aggressive panhandler at an ATM (long been illegal), I'm tired of being chased down the street and touched or having my way blocked by another aggressive panhandler. I'm tired of seeing street thugs who are not homeless pray on tourists because the city wants to do nothing. I'm tired of seeing the thugs pretend to be disabled and homeless to get tourists money. (Did you ever see the shift change at the wheelchair on Geary Street, the day guy gets up and leaves and another guy uses the chair in the evening, both are more mobile than I am)...

San Francisco needs to start worrying about the rights of everyday San Franciscan's over the tourists and street people.

If people need help they can go to many agencies, most who choose to be in the street only do so because the city bends backwards to let them do so...

What if the city just gave out cigarettes, alcohol and drugs, it would probably stop this in its tracks.

I see business closing and tourists being upset at our antics. All I hear lately is about people's rights, lets hear about people's responsibilities! The rights of the average San Franciscan are being trashed in our efforts to let people act out any way they want for any reason. It is hurting tourism because most other venues don't allow it. So Honest Ed Lee says he does not want the tourists hassled in Union Square, Let him walk down Geary some evening without his squad of goons and see what it is like...

10:12 AM on February 1, 2012

John Avalos said:I do believe we have to figure out how to make our city the sanctuary it really is, and when I see intent behind legislation that constrains our abilities to use public space and enjoy it.

This just shows what and idiot John Avalos is. Why should San Francisco be a sanctuary for those who come hear to do harm to the City? As far as contraining our ability to "use and enjoy" public spaces, its the abusive panhandlers and vagrants who constrain that ability and its Supervisor Weiners legislation that is designed to fix that problem. Avalos and Mar are up for reelection this year. Vote them both out of office and San Francisco will be better off for it.

   

billmurphy1959

12:10 PM on February 3, 2012

Some have the public realm and the public good in mind. SuperWiener, as some like to call him, has his delicate sensibilities, affluence and the broader agenda of privitazation of public spaces in, um..mind?

In the words of the Supervisor ""This legislation is not draconian. It does not restrict anyone from the plazas," said Wiener, later adding, "This is basic, common sense legislation." - well, obviously that's a matter of opinion. It's interesting to me that Wiener focuses his attention on such matters (which some might categorize as demonizing the homeless, destitute and desperate...), rather than do work to HELP homeless people. As one person has said "I'm sooo releived to know that our very own "SuperWeiner" (I just coined that) is expending his legislative might to tackle the REALLY BIG issues plaguing our fair corne...r of the City."

Unfortunately for all of us and for our city by the bay, Homelessness has been a favorite political football in this in some ways provincial town for neigh unto 4 decades. The politicians and other forces in the city use homelessness and the homeless to attain other political goals. I find this particularly ugly and loathsome as the homeless represent the weakest link in our shared culture - they are the most desperate of folk among us. Just in case there are those of us who might not have thought of this, many if not all of the homeless are multiply-diagnosed. The first thing they are diagnosed with is not having a home (a condition which plays havoc with one's dignity not to mention personal hygiene.) Then comes HIV disease of various stages of progression, other infectious diseases such as tuberculosis as well as health problems that are present in the non-homeless population but may not be treated in the homeless due to lack of medical care or access to such, active or latent drug and alcohol dependencies, mental illness, at-risk state of being for such things as sexual and physical and emotional and legal assault, and the list goes on and on.

Add to that, the heavy handed regulatory aspirations of Wiener. Let's face it, folks, even if he isn't one of the 1% now, he is certainly acting like one and undoubtably aspires to be one of the one, in time. He DOES have a Harvard Law degree, after alll.......but unlike our President, Barack Obama, he is not an appealing creature - quite the opposite.

Core Changes In Califormia's 'Brown Act' Signed Into Law To Save Money

California authorizes government in the shadows

• SAN FRANCISCO, CA - JULY 11: California Governor Jerry Brown prepares to sign copies of the California Homeowner Bill of Rights (AB 278 and SB 900) on July 11, 2012 in San Francisco, California. Gov. Jerry Brown signed the California Homeowners Bill of Rights that establishes landmark protection rules for mortgage loan borrowers. The laws go into effect on January 1, 2013. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images) Photo: Justin Sullivan, Getty Images 

by Don Tatzin, from S.F. Gate

Published 07:49 p.m., Sunday, July 22, 2012

I do not envy the challenge facing California's legislators and Gov. Jerry Brown. The bursting of the housing bubble, high unemployment, reduced property values and the never-ending Great Recession, coupled with the rising cost of government, have triggered a financial debacle from which state government may not recover for a decade. Even in difficult times, however, state officials should not forget the words of the Declaration of Independence: "Governments ... [derive] their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Pursuant to that spirit, in 1953 California adopted the Ralph M. Brown Act, which demanded that lawmakers make decisions openly and deliberate before the public. "The people of this State," states the act, "do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created."

Our lawmakers have seemingly forgotten these commands.

In what was billed as a cost-saving move, the Legislature and the governor recently suspended portions of the Brown Act - specifically those ordering local governments to post notices of public meetings in advance.

This purportedly will save state government about $96 million by eliminating a mandate. (Mandates placed on local government by Sacramento must be paid for by the state government.) This saving equals about .07 percent of the state budget. Despite the loss of state funding, the vast majority of school districts, cities, special districts and counties will follow the law, because it is the right thing to do.

Some jurisdictions, however, will not, and the implications of their actions could be more costly than the money saved. These agencies will, instead, follow the Legislature's and governor's cynical lead and no longer post meeting notices or report results of closed sessions. Eventually, an agency will do something wrong - either unintentionally or purposefully crooked - that might not have occurred if the public and press oversight that comes from posting agendas and reporting actions were required.

When that happens, we will hear the predictable hue and cry from the press and Sacramento lamenting the day. Special investigations will be launched, reports issued and crackdowns promised.

Citizen confidence in government will decline further. People will be less likely to vote for new taxes if they know that the governing body can meet without public notice to decide how to spend their money and make other important decisions. If just a few of California's hundreds of local governments act badly, the rest are tainted.

Citizens should do two things. First, demand that the local governments that serve you continue to adhere to the Brown Act. Second, convey your opinions of the state's decision to your legislators and Gov. Brown.

History offers inspiring stories of people who would not trade their principles for temporal benefit. Those stories should be required reading in Sacramento.

Don Tatzin is a member of the Lafayette City Council, which will continue to follow the Brown Act.

PeaceCamp2010 update: More Jail for Ed, starting early August

Soquel attorney to serve jail time for illegal lodging

By Cathy Kelly - Santa Cruz Sentinel

Posted:   07/24/2012 04:49:47 PM PDT

photo from Larissa Mueller, Sentinel file ~~ Attorney Ed Frey parks his truck with portable toilet in tow in... 

SANTA CRUZ - Activist attorney Ed Frey was ordered Tuesday to report to County Jail on Aug. 8 to begin serving a six-month sentence on his conviction for illegal lodging, after the Sixth District Court of Appeals in San Jose declined to review his conviction.

Judge Robert Moody, a retired Monterey County judge, made the ruling while filling in for Judge John Gallagher.

In May, Frey and four others were convicted by a jury on misdemeanor charges of illegal lodging. The group was among several dozens involved in the "Peace Camp" protest on the courthouse steps that began July 4, 2010. Protestors later moved to Santa Cruz City Hall, where they stayed until October.

Many participants were warned, cited and arrested, and judges allowed plea bargains or resolved their cases in other ways, prosecutors said.

But Frey has been seeking to challenge the law on constitutional grounds, saying people have the right to sleep outside and that denying homeless people that right amounts to criminalizing poverty. He has also argued that "lodging" is too vague a description of the illegal behavior.

Tuesday, he vowed to continue the challenge by appealing to the California Supreme Court. He said he is trying to obtain Friend of the Court briefs from groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union.

He said he could complete his jail sentence in three months and hopes to qualify for work furlough.

Follow Sentinel reporter Cathy Kelly on Twitter @cathykelly9

Linda's Hearth note: the visiting Judge scolded attorney Frey, saying Ed's wasting the Court's resources, so he didn't want to consider anything new in this case. 

Meanwhile, I talked with Gary Johnson a few days back, and he shared some hopes about the appeal Ed Frey is collaborating on. Courtroom personnel behave like we have, somehow, taken advantage of them. I find an inherent bigotry at 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz, creating a kind of selective blindness. Gary Johnson, attorney Ed Frey, and I, do not believe that these little 'sweep' laws used to herd homeless people "forward" in their march to Nowhere can be  legitimately used to step around or supercede the First Amendment of the US of A Constitution. 

Sooner or later, a greater standard of justice that does not reinforce poverty-causing social policies, will be returedn to our Nation. I'm working for sooner, care to join us in this struggle?

Santa Cruz Indymedia 

Workshop

 

	Community Media w/ Indybay: Free Skool Santa Cruz
	Wednesday July 25
	7:00 PM - 8:30 PM
Santa Cruz, CA Contact Teachers for Location: bradley [at] riseup.net
Community Media with Indybay is a Free Skool Santa Cruz class. July 25th is the 2nd class. Remaining classes will be held on the following Wednesdays at 7 PM: Aug 8th, Aug 22nd, Sep 5th, & Sep 19th. Location TBA / Contact Teachers. Community Media with Indybay will be an introduction to contributing to the all-volunteer website, Santa Cruz Indymedia (aka Indybay), which is part of the global Independent Media Center network. We will discuss the philosophy of Indymedia, and demonstrate how anyone can publish text, photos, audio and video, either as news articles or event announcements, directly to the website. You will sharpen the skills you are already have, and be ready to cover the action in the streets. Anyone wishing to learn how to publish content to Indybay is welcome to attend. Drop-ins always welcome. This Free Skool Santa Cruz 2012 Summer class will be taught by Alex and Bradley, volunteers with Santa Cruz Indymedia. About Free Skool Santa Cruz A radically different approach to living and learning, Free Skool Santa Cruz is a grassroots educational project beyond institutional control. It a direct challenge to dominant institutions and hierarchical relationships. The project strives to blur the lines between teacher, learner, and organizer. About Santa Cruz Indymedia Santa Cruz Indymedia is an open-publishing website for the Monterey Bay Area. Indymedia is a tool for the creation of radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of truth. Since 1999, Indymedia has grown into a network of Independent Media Centers (IMCs) all over the world by means of a commitment to equality, decentralization and autonomy. Indymedia empowers anyone to become the media for the purpose of sharing information and views that are blocked out or misrepresented by the corporate media; that is, to stand with the oppressed against the oppressors. support-independent-media... http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/01/2...

Chinese acrobatic show at Boardwalk's Bandstand, Santa Cruz

Karen Kaplan kaplanks@hotmail.com	Jul 7 (1 day ago)
to undisclosed recipients

EMPEROR'S IMPERIAL CIRCUS
at the SC Beach Boardwalk

July 8 - August 23, 2012
Sunday - Thursday

TWO FREE SHOWS DAILY!

Mondays-Thursdays:
Noon and 3pm

Sundays:
Noon and 6pm

An astonishing 30-minute acrobatic show featuring Chinese Poles, a human pyramid, contortionist, foot juggling, and the traditional Lion Dance. See a show once reserved for Chinese Royalty, FREE on the Boardwalk's Beach Bandstand! Take a peak behind the Imperial walls. The show features Chinese acrobats and Shaolin Monk martial artists bringing to life the ancient magic of the Emperor’s court as practiced through centuries of Chinese culture.

Bring a beach chair or towel to sit on and enjoy the show!

180/180 ~~ House Our Worst-Case Neglected Homeless Folks, Those Who Have Given Up, Medically Ill-served, Hiding in Bushes

our most vulnerable homeless people

deserve shelter and safety ~

Wednesday, 04 July 2012 

-- by Joel Hersch, for Good Times Santa Cruz weekly

 

180/180 campaign aims to address the price of homelessness

Of an estimated 2,700 homeless people living on the streets of Santa Cruz County, just 10 to 15 percent of them—the “medically vulnerable”—account for 70 percent of the costs incurred by countywide services.

The newly implemented 180/180 campaign aims to save lives and money by permanently housing that population.

Medically vulnerable homeless (people) are a subset identified within the “chronically homeless” population, which accounts for about 33 percent of all homeless people in the county. The chronically homeless are identified as having been homeless for a year or more or having four or more episodes of homelessness in three years.

In May, 180/180 volunteers surveyed 325 homeless people in Santa Cruz County and identified 155 of them as medically vulnerable or as being at risk of premature death, says Philip Kramer, the campaign's project manager.
Thirty-seven of those medically vulnerable homeless individuals—those who suffer from at least one serious physical, mental or substance abuse problem—had a combined total of 67 hospital admissions in the past year, Kramer says. The average hospital admission cost is $8,500. Multiplying that figure by 67 and then dividing the total by 37, shows that each of those chronically homeless people cost the county $15,392 in hospital bills alone.
By providing the 180 most vulnerable homeless people with housing, the campaign plans to help those who are the most at risk of death, as well as minimize the expenses incurred by the county in responding to their emergencies.

“It's a win-win,” Kramer says. “If this appeals to your sense of compassion, then great. But these are also the people who need to go to the hospital the most, who are getting picked up by the police and using emergency services, so it makes good fiscal sense. They're not only the hardest cases, they're also the most expensive.”

The 180/180 campaign is one of 136 similar programs being conducted across the country. Helping to facilitate all of the campaigns is the parent organization, 100,000 Homes, whose goal is to house 100,000 chronically homeless Americans by July 2014.

Kramer says there have been more than 60 studies done nationwide over the years that evaluate the cost effectiveness of permanent supportive housing relative to general relief emergency services.

In a 180/180 study based on 2008 figures, the average monthly public costs for chronically homeless people in supportive housing is $605. The study found that the monthly cost for those people when left on the streets is $2,897.
The last figure factors in a homeless person's dependence on paramedics, ambulance rides, shelter beds and food stamps as well as their inevitable contacts with police, nights in jail and getting processed through the court system.

The average cost for an ambulance response and transport is $2,400, according to Christine Sippl, of the Homeless Persons Health Project. The cost of a county jail booking is $119 plus $98 per bed night.
She says the average cost per admission at a hospital in the Western United States is $8,500, but can be significantly higher for medically vulnerable people who suffer from complex illnesses that require expensive treatments and longer-term stays.

Jake Maguire, communications director for 100,000 Homes, refers to Los Angeles County's homeless housing campaign, Project 50, which has been active for five years.

According to a June 8 Los Angeles Times article, Project 50 ultimately housed 133 chronically homeless people, 85 percent of whom are still in their housing. Those housed soon stopped requiring as many visits to the ER, stopped being arrested and began seeking treatment for addiction, Maguire says.
Medical costs for the Project 50 participants in L.A. fell 68 percent in the first year, according to the Los Angeles Times article.
Between 2008 and 2010, the program cost the county $3.045 million but generated $3.284 million in estimated savings, yielding a net savings of $238,700.

“One chronically homeless person can cost [a] county $40,000 to $50,000 over the course of a year,” Maguire says.
Housing them and providing supportive services to prevent emergencies is a more systematic way to manage health, he says.
“What happens is they [the homeless] end up getting services for preventive care instead of going to the ER, and that's a much cheaper way to manage a person's heath,” Maguire says. “Help them routinely rather than wait for a crisis to flare up.”

Monica Martinez, the director of the Homeless Services Center in Santa Cruz, says this is “counter intuitive to what many people think should be done for the homeless.”

“We're investing money in these people no matter what,” she says. “We're either going to invest in smart solutions that help them live a higher quality and hopefully longer life, or we're going to, by default, invest in our emergency resources to act as the social safety net for this population.”
The next stage for 180/180 is to initiate the housing process, Kramer says.
The first wave of homeless people the campaign plans to house is veterans, 24 of whom were contacted during the survey week. Veterans are at the top of the list because they are eligible for a special type of veterans' housing voucher, called VASH, that is currently available through the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Kramer says.

For non-veterans in the second wave, the campaign will use Section 8 housing vouchers, which supplement housing costs for low-income individuals and families.

There are 4,200 Section 8 housing vouchers available in Santa Cruz County through the Housing Authority, but they have only about a 1 percent turnover rate, making about 40 available each month, Kramer says.

The 180/180 campaign requested three weeks ago that the Housing Authority set a preference for chronically homeless individuals, arguing that they have less opportunity to access the vouchers due to their circumstances, he says. They hope to have two or three set aside each month.
180/180 appealed to the County Board of Supervisors, who sent a letter to the Housing Authority supporting the priority list of Section 8 housing vouchers, Kramer says.

Kramer says they made a similar request to the VA for priority VASH vouchers.
The first group of 180/180 participants will be housed in apartments scattered throughout the county, Martinez says. Part of the campaign's work will be to reach out to landlords who accept Section 8 vouchers as well as contact landlords who may not have considered it in the past.

Kramer hopes that sharing the financial results will cause many people to view solutions to the homeless problem in a new light.

“We're showing that it makes more sense for a community to pick someone who's really sick up off the streets and get them out of the emergency room, out of the ambulance, and put them in an apartment and give them supportive services,” he says.

Ardella Davies knows firsthand how housing can turn a person’s life around. Davies lived on the streets for nine years while struggling with diabetes and a methamphetamine addiction. In September 2011, she was given an apartment at the Nuevo Sol complex in Santa Cruz. She received the housing through Project Home Base, which is managed by the Santa Cruz County Homeless Persons’ Health Project in collaboration with County Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services. Since moving in, she says her health has improved greatly. She says being able to cook proper food in her kitchen and having a bed has changed her life.

"You have a place to put your head,” Davies says. “You have facilities to cook. You have your basic needs. Everyone needs housing.”

Photo caption: Ardella Davies was homeless for nine years, during which time she was coping with diabetes and an addiction to methamphetamine. Since moving into the Nuevo Sol apartment complex in Santa Cruz last September, she says her health has improved greatly.

Comments (2)

...
written by Phil Kramer, July 06, 2012

 

Much of 180/180's success and legacy will be in forming improved working methods and streamlined processes. Both the VA and Housing Authority, cited in this article, have worked closely with 180/180 to make this happen, and we are grateful. Many 100k homes communities have cut in half the time it takes to identify, qualify and house a vulnerable homeless person. We can do the same here in Santa Cruz County, thus saving time and money. To learn more go to www.180santacruz.org.

...
written by Phil Kramer, July 06, 2012
 

This article does a good job covering the cost-effectiveness of Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH). Put simply, it is less of a drain on the public purse to house a medically vulnerable homeless person than to have them accessing expensive emergency services. And, as cited, Ms. Davies is one such person who has turned their life around with PSH - we know it works, but with only 199 units administered across the County it's not enough. We need to expand this successful program. To learn more and find out how to involved go to www.180santacruz.org.