PeaceCamp2010 and the Lodging Six Trial ~~ University Students Perspective

County Shouldn’t Punish Civic Activists:

Several Peace Camp 2010 demonstrators
face criminal charges

By City on a Hill Press, UCSC student newspaper, editorial; Volume 45 Issue 26

Published May 5, 2011 at 3:19 am

Illustration by Louise Leong.

The right to assemble is guaranteed in the First Amendment to the Constitution for a reason: liberty depends upon it.

This week, the Santa Cruz County Superior Court is moving forward with the trial of six people accused of illegally camping outside government buildings in the summer of 2010. Five men and one woman rolled out their sleeping bags over the summer with dozens of others who protested a city ordinance that bans sleeping outside at night in public places.

Peace Camp 2010, as it became known, began July 4 on the county courthouse steps and continued to Santa Cruz City Hall, where it ended in October. Many demonstrators were cited and arrested, but judges dismissed nearly all violations except for those of the six defendants in this week’s case.

Eliot “Bob” Anderson, Arthur Bishoff, Collette Connolly, Christopher Doyon, Gary Johnson and Ed Frey stand accused of breaking a state lodging law by participating in the protest against the anti-camping policy. If sentenced, the group could face jail time, exorbitant fines or community service.

On Tuesday, four defendants were found guilty, Anderson was dismissed because of a hung jury, and Doyon did not show up to court. He is now facing a warrant for arrest. Sentencing is expected on May 10.

The protest was intended to scrutinize the constitutionality of a policy with questionable implications. While thousands of homeless people reside in Santa Cruz County, there are only a couple hundred beds in county shelters to accommodate them.

Demonstrators argued that local governments’ insistence on presenting a wholesome image is infringing on the basic rights to life and liberty, including the very personal decision of where to sleep at night.

Because the camping ordinance criminalizes sleeping outside of a private residence, thousands of people need to “get on their feet” or “get out of town.” Unfortunately, both of these clichés are easier said than done.

Unemployment has made even the most qualified job seekers desperate for minimum wage employment. People without residences are often excluded from jobs, and while there are a few exceptions, most find the transition from street life to mainstream society painful and ultimately unsuccessful.

To top it off, state and local governments across the country actively expel the homeless with strictly enforced anti-camping policies. In more extreme cases, the homeless are bussed to other places.

Ordinances like the one in Santa Cruz exist across the country. The logic for many cities is that if sleeping outside is allowed in one town (especially a beautiful one with a mild climate), then the homeless will come flocking to sleep on the streets.

This may be true. However, the exclusion of residence-less persons from a community is both elitist and immoral. Santa Cruz should be concerned with maximizing liberty, not avoiding a population of people who sleep on the streets.

There is no point in targeting these six demonstrators, especially in light of charges being dropped against all other protesters. It is a way for the city to show that it is tough on crime. Yet, shouldn’t we be congratulating these protesters for recognizing a potentially unconstitutional policy and taking action against it?

Beyond the questionable ethics of the policy itself, there is no reasonable explanation for why these six people specifically are facing court charges.

The right to assemble is a clear and non-negotiable right in this country. It has been essential to important social movements throughout U.S. history: abolition after the Civil War, women’s suffrage after that, progressive reform in the 1930s, and most present in the recent consciousness, the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

For Santa Cruz to claim that the assembly of those six protesters was illegal because they were in sleeping bags is appalling. Peace Camp 2010 was a peaceful demonstration and, as such, it is protected under the First Amendment.

Basic rights are not contingent on a person’s residential status. Each of us has the right and the responsibility to protest unfair and discriminatory laws.

Tags: Bill of Rights, Editorials, Protests, Sleeping Ban,

Were they Lodging? Guilty, guilty, eleven times guilty, and one verdict hung

Demonstrating Against the Sleeping n Camping Bans:

Free Speech takes a Back Seat to County Aesthetics

by Becky Johnson
May 3, 2011

Evening at the courthouse last summer.
"Oh, what a mess, how can anyone STAND them?"

The top of Ed Frey's truck that brought our porta-potty each
evening and returned it by quarter to 8 am every morn.

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- Jurors delivered a verdict this afternoon in the Peace Camp Six trial. Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, and Hung. A sixth defendant, Chris Doyon, was absent and a bench warrant was issued. A good Samaritan paid Doyon's bail, but that "fact" was irrelevant to District Attorney, Sarah Dabkowski, who reported to SENTINEL reporter that there is a warrant for Doyon's arrest. But then facts were never set in stone for Dabkowski.

Why just last January, Dabkowski said "lodge" means "they can't lodge, can't live, can't stay the night, can't sleep somewhere, can't set up roots somewhere if they don't have permission."

However, despite no definition being contained in the actual language of PC 647 (e), Gallagher supplied his own!
Not waiting for the prosecution to take a stab at what "lodging" means in a legal sense, Judge John Gallagher jumped forth and issued his own definition, creating the perhaps greatest grounds on which to appeal the verdict.

Gallagher told the jury that they should use this definition of lodging: "to lodge means to settle or live in a place, that may include sleeping"

Not only had this been a hotly disputed item at the hearing where Frey challenged the Constitutionality of the law based on it being "vague and overbroad" especially due to the lack of a definition, the defense did not have time to digest the meaning of Gallagher's hand-chosen definition in order to prepare a proper defense. Needless to say, neither did any of the defendants last August, September, and October. I mean, for a homeless person to comply, they'd have to stop "living in a place" since 647 (e) covers the entire State of both public and private property!

Then Gallagher sternly told the jury that "Even if you disagree with the law, you must follow the law." This is standard practice in Santa Cruz County courts but has no legal authority. Jurors are allowed to vote their conscience, and rule on the totality of circumstances. They may consider whether a law is being selectively enforced, or that the prosecution is largely political. They can judge the value of the law itself and find "not guilty" even if the evidence is clear that that law was broken. Being a juror is the most powerful position a single person can have on the justice system, far greater than as a voter. Being a foreman of a jury is perhaps the most influential position a citizen can have in influencing how our laws are applied. This jury was having none of that.

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse," the jurors trumpeted self-righteously. But they themselves were ignorant of the law. So were virtually all of the dozen or so police officers and deputies who testified. After Lt. Steve Plageman testified that in his 23 years or so as a deputy, he'd never written a PC 647 (e) citation before August 6th in his life, the DA objected every time defense attorney, Ed Frey asked about their experience in enforcing the law. Judge Gallagher sustained it every time. They were told the issue was "irrelevant."

But was it? How can anyone, much less a bunch of homeless people without access to computers, televisions, or home libraries going to know about an ordinance that law enforcement had never used before? And no one could know what Judge John Gallagher was imagining the definition of illegal "lodging" would eventually be.

Yet the jurors, like contestants at a beauty show, mouthed important truths about justice and the importance of the law, while failing to see a stark example of selective enforcement right in front of their own eyes. It was obvious from the testimony of a dozen police officers that 647 (e) was ONLY being enforced to shut down an otherwise legal protest against laws which criminalize sleeping, and was ONLY being enforced at City Hall and on the steps of the Santa Cruz County Courthouse.

Defendant, Eliot "Bob" Anderson was not convicted when the jury hung on one juror's opinion: That a homeless person should not have to gas their dog, to use one of our local homeless shelters for the night. Eleven jurors disagreed. No one can sleep well tonight in Santa Cruz County.

"We live in a society where our system elects representatives by the voters of California. They pass our laws," the Jury spokesman, Mr. K said following the verdict. "And if the people think the law is wrong, then they should actively work to change it." He also admitted that had Gallagher NOT given the jury a definition of "lodging," they could not have come to a verdict as easily or at all.

Fresh with a victory, it is now possible that sheriff's and SCPD may now feel emboldened to use 647 (e) more widely now> ANY homeless person, whether sleeping or not, in the day or the night, can be arrested for "settling in, or living in a place, that may include sleeping" or for " intending to spend the night without permission" (as DA Dabkowski challenged, as if that were a crime) on both public and private property." Since public and private property encompasses the entire state of California, they cannot avoid committing the law....ever.

Sigh. More homeless jury trials are upcoming. Gary Johnson faces a jury trial for sleeping twice in twenty-four hours, something our doctors encourage us all to do. And Linda Lemaster has a pre-trial before Judge John Gallagher in Dept 2 at 9 am on Wed. May 4th.

"I don't think we could have come to a verdict without a definition," said the jury foreman after the end of the trial.

You Snooze You Loose in Santa Cruz

Housing NOW! in Santa Cruz's
Linda Lemaster Loses Hearing to
Demur 647(e) Friday, March 4, 2011

Today, I went to Santa Cruz County Superior Court in hopes of convincing
Judge Rebecca Connolly that the County's Sheriff's use of 647 ( e ), an anti-lodging State law, is unconstitutional.

I still believe the lodging law as used here is overly broad, vague, and undefined. A person can't really know, based on reading this law, even with research alongside one's reading, whether her behaviors are intended as "lodging". Too chilling!

In the face of my personal right to, and need for, freedom of speech, and other particulars of this case, I am disappointed by Judge Connolly's decision.

The judge said, "I can't believe this statute is vague. Regarding unconstitutional
issues, I don't think it's so vague it would influence the 1st amendment. I find
the statute as written is sufficient on its face.

"As to the citation, it's sufficient to address the charges -- it says it's illegal to lodge -- with respect to 647(e), (it) is not void for being overbroad. I'm going to deny the demurrer."

Attorney Mark Garver, my Public Defender, made a compelling presentation for my long- awaited demurrer hearing in court Friday morning. Becky Johnson and Gary Johnson, both Peace Camp 2010 participants provided support and solidarity, for which I am grateful.

Superior Court Judge Connolly wrapped the whole mess up by sending my lodging "violation" to Judge John Gallagher's court next door, in Dept. 2, 8:30am March 11th, because. she said, he has "the other" lodging law cases from Peace Camp 2010.

I am unhappy with her decision mostly because the Judge didn't even care enough to wonder, or ask, what situation(s) could lead us to raise the question of whether this law is viable for it's application last summer during an ongoing demonstration to protest the dangerous and even deadly sleeping-camping ban cherished so long by the City of Santa Cruz.

For more information on the demurrer hearing, check out Becky Johnson's "One Woman Talking" article also on blogspot.com.

To Sleep, Perchance to Dream . . .

What Does Lodging Mean Today?

Santa Cruz County's Superior Court hears Friday, Nov 12, Constitutionality of state Lodging law 647(e) used against demonstrating sleepers from Peace Camp 2010.

by Linda Ellen Lemaster

While I was attempting to support demonstrating homeless and other sleepers at PeaceCamp2010, I got a lodging ticket. So now am slated to appear in Superior Court Friday, November 12, at 1o am to plea.

Continued Arraignment?

I have asked my Public Defender, Mark Garver, to ask for a court hearing to determine whether or not the lodging law is even constitutional these days. Am told I can demurr having to say "guilty" or "not guilty" until after this hearing.

While it is hard to imagine such an antique law being constitutional, use of similar cruel tools is spreading around the country, and especially "lodging" gets applied against homeless people. I feel this resumption of laws from the past is a form of retaliation against people for their status of being "homeless" and often without money or significant property.

Another concern I felt when I first GOT a citation for allegedly trying to sleep on cement: the legal words appear to be supportive of private property and it's agents, yet the presumed crime of "sleep" occurred on public property. I believe teh courthouse entryway was selected initially by PeaceCamp2010 creators because it could be a refuge, however briefly (PeaceCamp2010 lasted over 3 months but in two locations).

Hopeful that the Court can deliberate from a place beyond provincial alliances, and keep it's focus on what will unfold in the future because of it's interpretation of justice, and will consider who becomes hurt and who benefits by it?

Consider witnessing this hearing to determine the constitutionality of California's Lodging law: Friday, November 12, 10 am. And join me if you want, I'll be "warming up" for it in the Court/County Bldg Atrium at 9:20am, or out on the same walkway PeaceCamp2010 occupied this summer if it's warm.

Let's talk. Lives are at risk by what unfolds. This story feels "incomplete" without mention of campers' totem, Porto Potty, but you'll have to show up to hear more.

Linda's Hearth note: I posted this article in Indybay santa Cruz today. Come to court with me on behalf of standing up to the Big turnip Blood Combine machine that's spitting out more and more homeless people than ever.

Linda's Hearth commends City on a Hill Press for It's Look into Homeless Sleepers

Linda'sHearth Note: This article is copied from City on a Hill Press, which is the student-run newspaper for University of California at Santa Cruz. Wish I had asked the reporter during interview if she could mention Housing NOW! in Santa Cruz, a grassroots project for which much of my 30+ years of family outreach work has been gathered. Thanks, City on a Hill, for not only Steinwick's article, but also for the paper's photo features that surveyed students regarding the anti-public-sleeping situation. I really like the headline!~ LEL

How Do You Sleep at Night?

by Blair Steinwick, City on a Hill Press

A few years ago, advocate for the homeless Linda Lemaster knew a family in Santa Cruz that couldn’t afford a traditional home. Instead, the family members lived and slept in their bus. Soon they couldn’t afford to keep the bus either, and were forced to sell it and split up: mother and daughter went to a shelter, father and son lived under a bridge.

“The whole family came apart,” Lemaster said with a sigh, her voice cracking with tears. “The father was really resourceful, but nobody has what it takes to run a household without a place to be, without plumbing, you know?”

The cost of living was made more difficult for the family of four by parking fines they incurred — which included fines for sleeping in their vehicle between 11:00 p.m. and 8:30 a.m., made illegal in Santa Cruz by law 6.36.010. The law also bans camping, sleeping, and using blankets on public property during those hours.

This ordinance, in conjunction with the lack of emergency shelter, makes finding a good night’s sleep a difficult task for Santa Cruz’s homeless population.

6.36.010

In April, the Santa Cruz Police Department listed 122 service calls regarding illegal camping. Of these, 22 resulted in citations, usually including a fine of around $20 — though subsequent citations can add up to over $100.

“There are approximately 1,000 to 1,500 homeless people in the Santa Cruz area, so it’s a pretty small number, and that’s because the police are really only citing people when they’re in very visible, problematic places,” said Councilmember Don Lane of the per capita number of citations among the homeless population. “It’s not like they’re going out and looking for people to give tickets to.”

Still, the “sleeping ban,” as it has been dubbed by activists, is an issue keeping both homeless people and sympathizers up at night. The ban went into effect in 1978, and has been stirring up controversy ever since.

Santa Cruz is certainly not the first or only California city to have a sleeping ban. This year, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom is pushing to get a similar law passed, which would forbid sitting and lying on sidewalks for most of the day in California’s city by the bay, much to the chagrin of local and national activists.

Los Angeles did not allow people to sit, lie, or sleep on any public sidewalk until Jones vs. City of Los Angeles in 2006 ruled that this was unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. Despite the attention sleeping laws receive, not one Santa Cruz City Councilmember has proposed repealing the sleeping ban.

Activists from Santa Cruz’s Homeless United for Friendship and Freedom (HUFF), as well as the Human Rights Organization, have held protests and debates for over a decade with the hopes of repealing the ordinance. They have had no luck to date.

Robert Norse, founder of HUFF, suggested the ban might be an effort to make the city look more appealing.

"The Homeless death rate (in US) is almost twenty years premature." - Becky Johnson

Illustration by Joe Lai

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

“There’s a concerted effort to drive homeless people out of sight, at least, if not out of town,” Norse said.

Lane cites public opinion as the driving force behind the sleeping ban’s creation and longevity.

“I don’t think the majority of the people in the community want [sleeping laws] to be changed …most people have a sense that we don’t really want people to just be able to sleep anywhere,” Lane said. “It’s a real problem … there aren’t enough legal places for everyone to sleep, but the question is, does that mean people should just be able to sleep anywhere?”

Vice Mayor Ryan Coonerty suggested that because Santa Cruz residents support homeless services in other forms, repealing the sleeping ban could actually harm the community.

“Santa Cruz provides more services for homeless people than any other community in California or the country,” Coonerty said. “One of there reasons we do that is that we have community support, and a very quick way to dry up the community support is to allow people to start camping on the streets or in parks.”

Coonerty said the city offers a variety of services, including food distributions and counseling for homeless community members.

“We provide services that other cities are unwilling to provide. … In turn, we have a larger homeless population, and then, because we’ve done the right thing, we’re not allowing people to camp,” Coonerty said. “Whereas the communities that actively drive homeless people out of their communities and give them no tools to turn their lives around, aren’t criticized for having a camping ban there, because they’ve driven all the homeless people out of their community.”

Activist Lemaster said that the ban itself took a toll on the family she knew that was trying to sleep in their car.

“Little things like that ate up their ability to live as a family,” she said. “Homeless families are so at risk, there’s so many things that could go wrong to destabilize them. … One ticket can be a year’s worth of hell. I’ve just seen families pulled apart.”

Hope for Compromise?

“What’s ironic about this whole thing is that it doesn’t have to be this way,” Robert Norse said, his voice rising with passion and anger. “[Santa Cruz] needs to set up areas where homeless people can sleep and park their vehicles.”

Having specific camping and parking areas is an approach that has been tried before.

In 2000, Linda Lemaster led the Homeless Issues Task Force in Santa Cruz. The task force researched and discussed different issues plaguing homeless people in the area, then presented the City Council with a list of suggested actions it could take to help curb these problems. Among the findings was an idea to have a designated area where people can legally sleep at night without being harrassed, a so-called “Tent City,” a goal that never fully came to fruition.

“We got kind of a cold shoulder from the City Council to most of these recommendations,” Lemaster said. “Maybe they did whatever they had to formally, but they didn’t even discuss it … because most of [the recommendations] were either controversial, or the city thought it would cost something.”

Don Lane cites a different reason for not currently having designated sleeping areas in Santa Cruz.

“There have been [homeless camping sites] in the past, and, every time that the city has tried to do that, it ended up being pretty much a disaster and in disorder,” Lane explained. “Even the majority of homeless people who were staying in those camping areas started moving away from them themselves.”

According to Ryan Coonerty, the chaos would put a strain on the city and present insurmountable challenges.

“If you set up an area like that, then you are responsible for maintaining public health and safety … you’re screwed,” Coonerty said. “You’re basically telling people ‘it’s OK to camp here, and you’ll be safe,’ which is a big responsibility … both the health and safety of people was compromised.”

In spite of housing woes, there is hope for those who can’t put a roof over their heads. Shelters in Santa Cruz do offer some relief.

Shelter for Some

During easier times, Jane Cooper* lived in a rental house with her 13-year-old daughter and three sons, aged 11, five, and 10 months. Then one day, the house burned down.

“We lost everything. Pictures, keepsakes, my animals,” said Cooper, sitting in a cozy meeting area in the Santa Cruz Homeless Services Center. “We just left with what we had on. … I still have nightmares, they [the children] have nightmares all the time about the fire.”

The family didn’t have renters’ insurance, and Jane had trouble finding work as a veterinary technician. As a result, the Cooper family was forced to stay in a slew of hotels, and then an empty rental house owned by Jane’s aunt — “We were sleeping on a hardwood floor,” Cooper said.

On Feb. 17 of this year, Jane got onto the waiting list to stay at the Rebele Family Shelter in Santa Cruz, part of a complex of shelters run by the Homeless Services Center. After a couple month’s wait, the Cooper family moved in during early April. They have been living there ever since.

“I love it here. I love it. It’s been very, very positive for me and my kids,” Cooper said with a smile. “It’s a lot of burden off our shoulders, just knowing that we have a place to lie down and food to eat. And everyone’s been really supportive.”

The Rebele Shelter, which receives funding from the federal, state, and city level, as well as private donations, houses families like the Coopers for between three to six months, usually around 28 families at a time. The families come from a variety of different situations.

“We get families who are sleeping in their cars, who are couch surfing, who are in hotels, who have a family member to stay with. So it really depends on the family,” said Sonya Goodpaster, a case manager for the shelter. “Part of the case plan here is getting sustainable, long-term housing, so we work with different agencies for that. … We’ve also had a couple of families who faced different barriers, as far as immigration and employment and whatnot, and have had to go to different shelters.”

Shelter Director Letita Schwarz said that about 85 percent of families do find secure housing after leaving. She also noted one condition required to stay at any of the Services Center’s shelters, which include the Paul Lee Loft Shelter and the Page Smith Community House, along with the Rebele Family Shelter.

“We do require that this is a clean and sober place,” Schwarz said. “So, if they have prior drug history, I will drug test them before coming into the shelter.”

Advocate for the homeless Becky Johnson said that this policy unfairly discriminates.

“Food, shelter, and sanitation should be provided for anyone who is without, just out of basic human dignity,” Johnson said.

Despite the success of the shelters, Goodpaster emphasized that Santa Cruz lacks adequate emergency shelter.

“You get people who call the shelter wanting emergency housing, like ‘I need a place tomorrow night or tonight.’ And, unfortunately, our program is a waitlist,” Goodpaster said. “I think one of the obstacles that I’m facing today is a single father with a 15-year-old son. … He calls all the places and they’re all full, he wants to know where he can go.”

There is the Santa Cruz National Guard Armory, which provides emergency shelter, but only during the winter months, and Schwarz said it’s currently lacking funding.

Vice Mayor Coonerty said it is unclear how much of Santa Cruz’s population is without housing, and called the statistic “difficult to calculate.”

“Some homeless people are sleeping on couches, or hotel rooms, or other places,” he said.

Coonerty also said that no one can receive citations for camping or sleeping in their vehicles on nights when shelters are completely full.

According to the City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code, however, “Any citation issued for a violation of this chapter shall be dismissed by the City Attorney in the interest of justice if, at the time of citation issuance, the winter shelter at the Santa Cruz National Guard Armory is filled to capacity.” This means that campers only have this particular legal protection in the winter months.

Additionally, Linda Lemaster said that because many homeless people do not know this information, they end up getting tickets anyway, and don’t have adequate information to contest the charges.

“If they call the Homeless Resource Service Center, and they say ‘No, we have no beds’ … then those people’s tickets get dropped,” Lemaster said. “But how many [homeless people] know that?”

“Not One Face of Homelessness”

Cooper hopes to rent a house when she leaves the Rebele Shelter in a few months. Until then, she says she’s realizing more every day that being homeless is not always the individual’s fault.

“Everybody has their different stories. Some people lost their homes to foreclosure, some people lost their homes [from being] laid off, our house burned down,” Cooper said. “I mean, we’re all normal people,” she added with a laugh.

Rebele Family Shelter Director Letita Schwarz said that people don’t always end up on the street because of poor decisions, and that, sometimes, it’s simply a matter of “unforseen circumstances.”

“There’s not one face of homelessness,” Schwarz said.“There’s not one picture of who that person is, or what that person looks like, or what their circumstances have been. I think there’s a lot of misconception that someone has done the wrong things or made the wrong bad choices, and that’s why they’re here.”

The debate over the sleeping ban will most likely continue for years, and shelters will do their best to accommodate people in need. Meanwhile, activists will keep working to see that every homeless person has a safe place to sleep legally. According to the Washington Post, the average life expectancy for homeless people in the U.S. in 2006 was 51 years, compared to 78 for the average American.

“The homeless death rate [in the U.S.] is almost 20 years premature,” activist Johnson said. “Robbing a homeless person of sleep ultimately deprives them of life.”

~~~~~~

*Name has been changed.

Originally Published June 3, 2010
© 2010 City on a Hill Press, Vol 44 issue 30