Special Assembly consensed for 4pm Saturday November 5 to discuss this issue. See you at the courthouse!
Earlier this evening we reported on increased pressure from Santa Cruz county sheriffs on our occupation of the Santa Cruz County Superior Courthouse. Today the City of Santa Cruz has also manifested its will by delivering an event permit to us. This permit, not requested by Occupy Santa Cruz or any of its participants, allows but clearly restricts the usage of our San Lorenzo Park campsite adjacent to the courthouse.
This permit appears to be far less than a benevolent sanctioning of our activities, and more a statement of intention to enforce the stated terms. Among these terms, notably, is an end date of November 16, 2011, after which we “shall break-down and clean-up the permitted area immediately following the event” should another permit not be issued.
The documents, reproduced below, consists of the following: a three page cover letter addressed to our Legal Group representative Steve Pleich from City Manager Martin Bernal, a two page “Non-Commercial Permit and Conditions of Use” for the San Lorenzo Park Benchlands, and fifteen color photographs as referenced in the cover letter.
The photographs, not reproduced here, are intended to document the “degraded and unsanitary conditions at the San Lorenzo Park Benchlands, directly attributable to the 24 hour a day demonstration, which necessitate the issuance of the subject permit and, more specifically, the conditions imposed in connection with the permit’s issuance” and depict two full trash bags of rubbish, several close-ups of feces of indeterminate origin, a man holding half a bottle of brandy, a lovely assembly of tents, and a well-stocked camp pantry.
Without delving too far into an analysis of this document, it probably should be noted here that while the cover letter states our encampment is “without benefit of any toilet or other sanitation facilities,” we do have a rented portable toilet and wash-station on the premises, and the park also houses two bathrooms which are locked by city employees at sundown.
Expect a lively discussion of this document at tomorrow’s Special Assembly at 4pm and General Assembly at 6pm, Saturday November 5.
Permit, page 1
Permit, page 2
Permit, page 3
Permit, page 4
Permit, page 5
38 Responses to “City Constrains OSC to Terms of Unrequested Permit”
Pretty sure we consensed to have an emergency meeting at 4pm to specifically discuss this document, ask questions, and prepare some thoughts prior to the 6pm GA meeting. Any way to also get that 4pm meeting broadcast out to the populace?
Oh cripes, I was almost certain that the consensus was _against_ having a separate 4pm meeting. I will check with last night’s notetaker (Tom, I think) and post another notice sometime this morning, if necessary.
Andy, we agreed to have a meeting at 4:00, with Steve, and report the results to the G.A. at 6:00. I’m getting the notes from last night typed and sent to you right now.
Tom: thanks! I didn’t call you because I was able to confirm this from three sources prior to the morning. I’ve put out notice about the 4pm meeting on all the appropriate channels.
This is my first draft, as an individual OSC Occupier, to the City Manager. I encourage all to express their individual opinions.
As for me: I’m going to try to get Legal to look his over, before I send it off.
Dear Mr. Martin Barnal, City Manager of Santa Cruz:
Thank you for your first attempts at addressing several emerging problems, inherent in establishing a positive and respectful environment that exemplifies a citizen of Santa Cruz expressing her or his rights to free speech and assembly.
However, as an individual protester and member of OSC: I fear that your tone and approach to this legal assertion of our Constitutional rights is in dire need of correction, before we can engage in further productive dialogue.
The very addressee for the permit—Steve Pleich—is problematic. Mr. Pleich is a representative of himself, and perhaps the Legal Committee, And as OSC values individual expression and the right to free speech: allow me to address this letter in the tone of a citizen who has just received a demand from the City to pay a fine, the penalty of which is off from the offense by a factor of six or so.
The fact that you mentioned “28 days” in the “permit” is also problematic, for legal but understandable reasons. As you must be well aware, 28 days is the maximum time in California law that a tenant is allowed to stay, before their location can be called a “residence.” OSC does not advocate anyone taking up any “residence” in the Park, and seeks to exercise respect for all of its patrons…whether or not they must, through the inequality of the financial system, be forced to sleep outdoors.
I, for one, am honestly puzzled, between the media-coverage (the Sentinel, and local TV-news) of this “permit:” and the dictatorial nature of it. In the Sentinel article, Deputy Police Chief Steve Clark is quoted as saying that OSC has a “balanced approach to allow people to voice their concerns and protest.” He also said that the “onus” is on us, to remove “that element (that engages in criminal activity).” And yet, the “permit” is voiced in the nature of an ultimatum.
Please allow me to be the first to acknowledge the fallacy of human nature, and that yes, perhaps we at OSC should have applied for a permit sooner. As I recall, it was discussed in early General Assemblies: but discarded due to your selective approval and enforcement to permit applications of past expressions of free speech.
But to return to the permit…I find two sections particularly troubling, as they are in error. Your conception of enforcement of SCMC Section 10.65.120 which, the permit quotes: “Any person or organization intending to conduct a noncommercial event in the city of Santa Cruz” first shall obtain a permit.
We are not a “noncommercial event.” We are a gathering of individuals who engage in consensus, who protest the unjust economic distribution of wealth. An important portion of our protest is a 24-hour vigil to reflect the dire economic circumstances of our collective struggle. A few of us, while not Occupying 24 hours a day for various reasons, will nonetheless defend OSC’s right to Occupation, with in the limits of a peaceful, nonviolent protest.
The notation of restrictions on “time, place, and manner” of the event is also problematic. Since we make these decisions by Consensus: it takes more time to provide that information, than a corporation, or an individual.
The “permit” also implies that we “deny access to the community.” As I am sure you are aware: we have supplied ample space for the community to have cultural events, and have even encouraged further events to manifest through OSC Family Days, concerts, and a peaceful “human chain,” along West Cliff Drive.
The “permit” also incorrectly suggested that we did not provide lavatory facilities or kept the area clean, when neither is the case.
All that being said: I recognize that some assistance is required to mitigate the problems of a long-term Occupation. I would like to address the “permit’s” demands directly, and offer my response per my First Amend rights, and from my experience as an Occupier.
Others might agree or dissent, as per their wont: or my opinion might change to reflect the decisions of the upcoming General Assembly.
1. The demand to have us “pack up and leave” at a preset time, is absurd. At best, I imagine we “might” agree to meet elsewhere (and no: it is beyond absurd to require us to submit a new “permit:” every time we make this decision); or possibly to alter our protest to cease its 24-hour vigil.
Since we are an affinity protest of Occupy Wall Street in New York, a 24-hour vigil: I do not see the latter as a likely option, unless OWS takes the lead. But who knows? I am not a fortune teller.
2. Asking for an “event coordinator” to “make sudden decisions for a consensus body is absurd, on its face.
3. – 9. Are all, in my opinion, all reasonable requests. Yes, we should be responsible for cleanliness, safety, and intolerance of illegal drugs at our Occupation (the issue of dogs might be problematic: but can also be a topic for further negotiation), parking issues, and general respect for laws and ordinances designed to protect Lorenzo Park.
10. Is problematic, since we have been using, with Park permission (as I understand it) a few, but not all, of its facilities.
11. Supplying 3 toilet facilites may be a negotiable point: but we would likely require an alternative to hitching them to moving vehicles. Perhaps we can (with General Assembly approval) negotiate a mutually equitable location? Again, I can only reflect my own views.
12. – 15. This seems acceptable to me. At this particular moment.
16. Occupy Santa Cruz reserves the individual and collective right to treat this “permit” as a first, incomplete attempt to negotiate. We/I look forward to more further negotiations in a less hierarchical, less demanding format that sounds as if you are trying to pressure us out of expressing our right to assemble, and our choice of protest.
We sincerely hope to avoid any horrible examples of police overkill, such as recent events in Oakland.
17. Is absurd double-speak. How can we be “revoked:” should we “fail to comply” in the first place?
I look forward to future, more productive negotiations. I engage in this protest not to encourage illegal or dangerous behavior: but because it is my right as a citizen of OSC, Santa Cruz, and the United States.
.
Sincerely,
Neil Mick
This looks good.
But I don’t happen to believe this ‘permit’ amounts to much more than a ‘notice to quit’ *ultimatum* on the 16th and the PD’s people will get great humor from our attempt to ‘negotiate terms’.
No matter what the choice boils down to an attempted eviction most likely in a couple of days, or on Nov 16 when the ‘non-profit event permit’ (that hadn’t been requested, but ‘served’), expires. I say, despite in my disgust at saying so, but strategically and tactically, ‘sign zee papers’ and then, just like the ethic-less freaks who govern and work for the city do when you try to collaborate or garner support, smile at them like we’re going along with the ‘plan’ and then on the 16th go nowhere.
About the “Homeless”…
When I read: “City parks rangers on Friday estimated that 80 to 90 percent of the roughly 75 tents in San Lorenzo Park were occupied by the homeless…”
I thought “Maybe that just goes to show how many homeless people there are in Santa Cruz, and should give us pause for reflection on how that came to be so.”
DO NOT BE DISTRACTED! Homeless campers or not, the permit expires on the 16th, and if you expect the city to renew it… (cue rotfl’s).
One more note, in a cynically humorous vein, the shelter at the armory **usually** opens on the 15th. Most of the ‘problem children’ will be gone by the 16th if that is so.
You could open the Armory today, and and I think we’ll still have the same problems.
Why would somebody want to take a bus ride to DlV park, to go somewhere where they can’t smoke, drink, shoot or chop bikes?
Because that is what they’ve always done, including the Armory. The Armory also hires (for $$$) some of the ‘inmates’ to watch over the ‘asylum’!
Expect some of the camp’s security thugs to go away too.
In any protest, the purpose is peaceful resistance and refusal to cooperate with authority. Allowing the police or City to dictate the terms of our protest is a mistake in my opinion. I suggest we all read the following please :
http://www.rall.com/rallblog/2011/11/03/syndicated-column-the-occupiers-choice-violence-or-failure
Thanks for that…
To make it clear: I am not “allowing the police to dictate the terms of” my my protest. I am using the “permit” as a first step to address some issues that need immediate attention, and discarding directives that I find frivolous or draconian.
Drug use and and passive tolerance of violent behavior are not the cornerstones of my protest. The City, IMO, is within its full rights to demand appropriate attention to certain ordinances that are not a central plank of this protest.
If we want to protest harsh and lopsided marijuana enforcement…fine. We should schedule a “smoke-out” event: and have a strict non-tolerance of marijuana use in-Camp, or on the steps.
My 2c.
So you want to use an ultimatum from the police to do what they’ve been unable to do for the thirty five years I’ve lived here?
You be the cop kung fu boy.
The issue that needs attention is the permit itself, and whether we honor it, or BURN IT as the people at the Oakland #Occupy did, or something else.
I remember you Neil… You’re the FREAK who typed, on a FaceBook page: (paraphrase)”Some of my (un-named and most likely mythical) acquaintances aren’t coming to the occupation because they HEARD (from YOU perhaps Neil?)
Direct quote: “There are dirty hippies hanging out”
You aren’t in a position to call the shots on anything Neil… You’ve been outed as a ‘hater’ a looong time ago.
Take your now-diversionary and always-destructive “Take Back Santa Cruz” proto-Fascism down the road bud.
Oh look! Troll alert!
I remember you too, clown. Your aliases may hide your cowardly identity: but your lies betray the same old rot.
Next.
Did you or did you not type that divisive piece of trash I quoted above?
I bet Neil is the mythical “Aunty Soil” who started the pro-cop Soilie Watch blog that attempts to oust local radicals to the police and government officials
Gosh, malkuth, or AntieImp or whatever troll’s name you’re wearing, your keen sleuthing skills have uncovered my dastardly plot.
Now, who am I supposed to be, and what plot am I doing, again? I lost interest in reading your post, past “mythical.”
Uh, thanks City. I can see how this makes it easier politically for you to still bust homeless people in the park while ignoring our occupation, but since the need for usable public space is a small and important part of our occupation, we got that covered, thanks.
While neither the GA nor the individuals in the legal committee asked for the special event permit, nor for all the restrictions that come with it, thank you for the kind thought, but no thank you.
If you still would like to help (and to be sure, help without strings attached is certainly welcome), perhaps you could direct the city manager to direct the police to leave the occupation alone. We know you have no direct say over the county sheriffs, but perhaps your example will inspire the county supervisors to direct the sheriff to also leave the occupation alone.
In any case, thank you for thinking of us. While your help is welcome, we’ll be okay without you.
You can put my sig on that…
…if you ever bothered to use your real name.
ROTF… I do… on FB. Elsewhere I can call myself whatever name I like, and so can you. The only veracity related issue is whether one uses the same nick over time, and I’ve been using that one for at least 5 years.
BTW, “Trolling” is in what is typed and why. NOT whether one uses their real name or not.
Oh, how sad. A boy who thinks that the last post actually has any effect, in the real world.
As I was saying… Trolling is in the content and rationale. Your ad homs bore me.
…and the “Boy” thing sounds pretty racist to me. Do you know whether I’m African American or not? Or is that the way you generally address people?
What was that noise?
…sounded like a fly farting.
Haha they actually addressed the letter to our fearless white male leader? Just goes to show how far his privilege (which he holds no qualms over exerting upon everyone with authoritarian force) extends. OSC should ditch that fool
“Revolutionary activity, Bakunin correctly observed, was best entrusted to those who had no property, no regular employment and no stake in the status quo.” ~~Chris Hedges
Bakunin had little time for Marx’s disdain for the peasantry and the lumpenproletariat of the urban slums. Marx, for all his insight into the self-destructive machine of unfettered capitalism, viewed the poor as counterrevolutionaries, those least capable of revolutionary action.
Bakunin, however, saw in the “uncivilized, disinherited, and illiterate” a pool of revolutionists who would join the working class and turn on the elites who profited from their misery and enslavement.
Bakunin proved to be the more prophetic.
The successful revolutions that swept through the Slavic republics and later Russia, Spain and China, and finally those movements that battled colonialism in Africa and the Middle East as well as military regimes in Latin America, were largely spontaneous uprisings fueled by the rage of a disenfranchised rural and urban working class, and that of dispossessed intellectuals.
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/10/31-0
Oh, go play with your prayer-beads or something: and leave the pontification to folks who actually show up.
Next.
I was there tonight Neil, as I have been for most days since the first meeting in London Nelson park.
You’re going to shred your credibility as anything but a no-nothing crank if you keep going.
Personally, I think that label probably suits the situation since I see no particular social why or wherefore to what your involvement in all this is besides you vituperative words about ‘hippies’ and ‘the homeless’.
I think Bakunin IS apropos.
You probably don’t even know who he was…
And Neil, you’re the pontificator. I was just posting a piece by Chris Hedges I thought some people might find interesting.
There is very likely an important dynamic that the city is overlooking: At its very worst so far, OCS is an inconvenience for some people. Occupiers have been very well-behaved, and except for rare instances have bent over backwards to comply with the law. What OCS provides is a sort of pressure-release valve which allows a lot of very angry and frustrated citizens a non-violent outlet for their anger and a way to feel that there may be some hope in changing an otherwise intolerable direction that this society is heading. Unpredictable, possibly violent conditions will be inevitable if that pressure-release valve is closed.
Can someone tell me why the “shitty” permit is being discussed ad nauseum (and how)if Mayor Coonerty sent a letter saying to disregard it?? Or did I miss something??? It was read at the beginning of today’s GA…
Nevermind my prior post, the alleged document under discussion was reported by others to be a playful hoax.
!
on November 6th, 2011 at 7:23 am #
[...] PLEICH AND THE PERMIT CONTROVERSY Later in a day romantic Steve Pleich influenced debate by announcing an unapproved assembly and traffic with city authorities for a singular camping assent in San Lorenzo Park. See http://occupysantacruz.org/2011/11/04/city-constrains-osc-to-terms-of-unrequested-permit/?mid=51 [...]
See! Pleich is a fucking cop. Give him the boot
When he grows up he wants to be a politician.
HAHAHAHAHA
Howdy, I humbly am bringing a concert to your town. It’s all locals, and I am going to many different OCCUPY towns across California. We are videotaping a small documentary (with the only digital camera I’ve got, as it does video), and I am simply using the gear in my truck to give you a nice concert atmosphere. You can speak your minds, as I am a free speech advocate, have worked on/off for Grateful Dead for many years, and love my crowd. I hope you have fun at the site, too, as it is a co-op. Since you are too far away from my band friends, it will just have to be “by request” tunes like live Grateful Dead (Furthur) audio from the recent Monterey shows, for example. Breakfast in bed with the Grateful Dead on morning of 19th, let’s say. build-a-concert.com See you on the 18-19th, as that is my Santa Cruz stop… I’ll bring LOTS of people with me… going to be in Oakland on 19/20th, too, if you have resources for me there. We are going to be able to do streaming video servers across the country, if necessary, for live event coverage due to helpful donations/investments.. peace and love – pete
if you dont’ need the concert gear, Im just gonna take pics and say howdy to friends on the way to Oakland… peaxce