Analyzing Homeless Trash

SENTINEL photo by photographer Dan Coyro shows two park rangers approaching a very messy campsite as part of the sweeps which began on July 9th, 2012. Such images are used to villify homeless people and portray the worst case scenario as the norm.

 Do Homeless People "trash" the Environment?

What do the number say?
 

 by Becky Johnson
  

September 23, 2012
 

Santa Cruz, Ca.  -- After a recent beach/inland waterway clean-up by Save Our Shores, the following formula was proffered: Litter Produced = (2.4 oz to 12.9lbs) per volunteer hour x hours worked. Using this standard, we can try to assess how dirty the areas where homeless encampments have been found were/are.

Unifying terms into decimals, we find a range of (0.17 lbs - 12.9 lbs) per volunteer hour collected with an average being 6.4 lbs on Monterey and Santa Cruz County area beaches and inland waterways

SOURCE: Classes of Trash, Monterey County Weekly Sept 20, 2012.

"At the extremes: Carmel River State Beach yielded an average of 2.4 ounces of trash, and Elkhorn Slough produced 12.9 pounds, per volunteer-hour."  -- Laura Kasa, Save Our Shores Sept 20 2012

 A homeless woman is rousted from a large encampment by the Santa Cruz Police Department on December 8, 2011 from San Lorenzo Park. Photo by Chip Scheuer

 


With this formula in hand, we can work backwards and determine how "trashy" an area was at the time of the clean-up. Since homeless encampments are found primarily in the inland waterway areas, those are the statistics we are most interested in.
 

Save Our Shores reports that 550 volunteers picked up 850 lbs of trash (pollution) in 3 hours. So the average person picked up 4.6 lbs of trash at a rate of 1.54 lbs per volunteer hour.
   

  Photo of Occupy Santa Cruz encampment in San Lorenzo Park Nov 1 2011 Photo courtesy santacruz.com

The San Lorenzo River Clean-up produced 315 lbs of trash by 130 volunteers in 3 hours or 2.4 lbs of trash per person at a rate of 0.8 lbs per volunteer hour. While not as clean as Carmel River State Beach, 0.8lbs per volunteer hour is squeaky clean. Especially compared to the average found throughout the region during the entire beach/waterways cleanup.
 

Perhaps homeless people are cleaning up more trash than they are leaving?
 Or these are areas where Public Works, Caltrans, and Boy Scout groups clean up regularly?
 

 In any case, groups like Take Back Santa Cruz and editorials by Don Miller in the SENTINEL can't really claim that the  sweeps are justified because of a clear environmental danger.
   

City Council candidates Cynthia Mathews, Richelle Noroyan, and Pamela Comstock don't have any evidence of an "environmental" reason for supporting the homeless sweeps. And Mayor Don Lane's silence on the sweeps is deafening.

75 River Street "Repurposed"

The Shareholders Meeting inside 75 River St. Photo courtesy of Bradley Stuart

by Becky Johnson

Santa Cruz, CA. --- On Wednesday, a splinter group roughly formed out of Occupy Santa Cruz, occupied a vacant building that years ago housed Coast Commercial Bank. The building at 75 River St. has been sitting empty ever since, providing no services to the public, no jobs for citizens, and no tax revenue to the City. In fact, a forensic accounting will most likely reveal that the empty property is providing a tax write-off to the owner to the tune of the full rent of its last tenant every month.

Furthermore, The City of Santa Cruz has a whole agency to deal with blighted properties, the Redevelopment Agency, which has failed to even address this property. 75 River Street is located directly in the center of our commercial district, sharing a lot line with our downtown post office. The fact that such a building should remain for YEARS without a tenant or business in the center of the community is a testament to the unchecked practices of the 1% (and WELLS FARGO certainly is included in that coddled 1%). Local property owner, Peter Cook laments the taking of “private property” falsely claiming that his property may be next. But unless Cook has property sitting unrented and unused in the middle of our community for years and years, he has nothing to fear.

Add that many in our community would love to rent that building and use it for a business, an organization, or for a community asset, but cannot due to the astronomically high rents charged. Meanwhile, the empty building sits year after year, taking up valuable space, and contributing NOTHING to our community.

Why haven’t our City leaders stepped in earlier and stopped this practice? And is it REALLY the proper use of public safety resources to act as the private security guards for a blighted building that the owners have been allowed to sit fallow for YEARS? These are clear signs that Vice-Mayor Don Lane, the SCPD, and the DTA are really hawkers for continuing to enrich the 1% at the expense of our community by defending the owners of properties like 75 River Street. No private party should be allowed to let their property sit for years at at time, not providing any jobs for our citizens, any tax revenue for the City, or any services for the public. Kudos to the occupiers for pointing out this wrongful policy in action.

If Lane is for real, he'd be promoting a new ordinance to fine such property owners until they get the message that owning property implies responsibility for that property by using it, not moth-balling it.

Lockheed Fire smoke considered

The Lockheed Fire as seen from Swift Street and Highway One
Photo courtesy of Rob Knight

Can we justify our persecution of tobacco smokers by claiming justification as a health hazard?

By Becky Johnson
August 7, 2011

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- On October 8th, 2009, the City of Santa Cruz' 'Smoking Pollution Control ordinance' went into effect. Pushed by Vice-Mayor Ryan Coonerty and City Councilmember, Don Lane, the ban outlawed smoking in wide swaths of public and private property throughout the City. The reasons given were for health reasons and because of tobacco litter.

While smoking tobacco and marijuana were explicitly banned, not all forms of air pollution were addressed. In fact, most weren't.

Air pollution in the City of Santa Cruz contains the smoke produced from automobiles, trucks, refrigeration units, industry, home gas heaters, cooking fumes from homes and restaurants, smoke from backyard barbeques, fireplaces, woodstoves, particle burners, candles, incense, outgassing from particle board, new carpeting, paints, lacquers, air fresheners, hairspray, cleaning fluids as well as dust kicked up in the wind. And what about that gas vapor we smell as we fill our gas tanks? In California alone, this totals 15,811 gallons a day or roughly the equivalence of two tanker truckfulls.

The average car driven in Santa Cruz produces 0.849 lbs of carbon emissions per average US passenger vehicle mile driven. Compared to a pack of cigarettes, this is the equivalent air pollution of 13.6 packs of cigarettes per mile. All of this exhaust goes into our atmosphere where everyone breathes it.

Yet only the smoke from individuals burning small amounts of tobacco or cannabis for personal use have been criminalized.

Consider this: The Lockheed fire burned 7,817 acres between Aug 12 - Aug 23 2009 in N. Santa Cruz County. It's origin has been shrouded in mystery but many believe that law enforcement accidentally started it by trying to burn down a remote marijuana garden. The irony of this cannot be overstated.

Mostly forested lands in the Swanton and Big Creek watershed burned. For 11 days smoke filled the county, choking residents and making everyone miserable. According to the EPA standard, (average fuel loading for woodland fires in California) the Lockheed fire generated 18 tons per acre of air pollution.

140,706 TONS of particulate matter were lofted into the sky and various dilutions of smoke drifted the northern half of the county for 11 days, affecting people out of doors and indoors as well.

The City of Santa Cruz has 60,000 people.

Let's say that 20% of them smoke. Let's say they smoke 1 pack a day.

1 pack a day = 30.5 per month = 366 packs per YEAR
366 packs of cigarettes = 22.87 lbs.

So one smoker in one year produces a potential of 22.87 lbs of air pollution. 12,000 smokers in Santa Cruz for 1 year produce a maximum of 274440 lbs or 137.22 tons per year.

Our citizenry were miserable for days by being exposed to the smoke from that ONE fire. Maybe some asthmatics died then. I don't know. But in order to produce the same amount of air pollution the Lockheed fire produced, all the tobacco smokers in the City of Santa Cruz would have to smoke for 1,025 YEARS.

And this was just the smoke from ONE fire.

No, the Santa Cruz Smoking Ban is not about protection from a 'health hazard' or because of tobacco littering. A public education campaign would take care of that. The ban is about banning people who smoke cigarettes from areas where shoppers and tourists congregate. And its about banning poor and homeless people, since police can pick and choose who they decide to issue a citation to. I'd bet dollars to donuts that more poor and homeless people have been warned and cited than tourists or shoppers.

Cynthia Mathews: Scrooge for the Season 2010

Cynthia Mathews speaks at a community forum on behalf of public safety with Chief Howard Skerry looking on.

by Becky Johnson
December 23, 2010


Santa Cruz, Ca. -- Cynthia Mathews, former member of the Santa Cruz City Council and former Mayor of the City of Santa Cruz is considered liberal and progressive. Yet she strongly supports anti-homeless legislation such as the Sleeping Ban (MC 6.36.010 section a) and initiated the "Move-Along" Law (MC 5.43.020 section two) which criminalizes political tables and street musicians after only 1 hour on a public sidewalk. Now she is going after the Calvary Episcopal Ministry, known locally as the Little Red Church, for reaching out to homeless people and youth with food, coffee, and spiritual assembly.

Mathews wrote a letter on City letterhead stationery April 5, 2010, and accused the church of allowing "the on-going presence of known criminals and drug dealers on church property." She attached her "evidence": a record of service calls from the Santa Cruz Police Department documenting "nearly 100 calls in just over one year" which she claimed is "utterly disproportional to other locations in the City." But is it?

Against over 85,000 annual 'calls for service' documented by the police, do 100 'calls for service" over a period of more than a year truly indicate serious problems or simply document calls by nearby NIMBY businesses and neighbors? And considering the record collected is for 532 Center St, aren't all calls for the across the street Farmers Market and the Drum Circle included in this total?

Nowhere in the letter does Mathews reveal that she owns the house across the street. Nowhere does she reveal her general disgust at the presence of homeless people and her own attempts to drive them from both private property and public spaces.

In a Santa Cruz Sentinel article dated June 7, 2009, church attendance is reported to have dropped over the controversy. However, Audrey Nickel, a member of the Calvary congregation reports that as inaccurate. "

"I’ve been a parishioner at Calvary for 11 years. I’m at the 10:30 service

Cynthia Mathews owns and rents the former home of Hollywood actress, Zazu Pitts on Lincoln St.

approximately 50 weeks out of the year. My husband, as a lay Eucharistic minister, is one of the people who is responsible for keeping track of the number of people in the pews. And I can tell you that our average Sunday attendance is UP since Fr. Joel came to us."

Kevin McArgel also defends Father Joel Miller from the disgruntled members of the congregation who are complaining.

"I've met these “accusers” who have brought these ridiculous charges upon him and can say they are just that: RIDICULOUS. These very few individuals expect some kind of environment of very traditional behavior on behalf of those who come for guidance whether or not its some kind of simple compassion or just some sustenance like a little food."

Cynthia Mathews, who works closely with the Downtown Association, police, and the Downtown Management Corporation, laments Calvary's homeless outreach services claiming they indicate " ..a lack of buy-in by Church leadership to the collaborative problem-solving effort" which for Mathews means, fewer services, fewer hours when homeless people or street kids are allowed on the property, and trespass charges for those who remain on church property.

Father Joel Miller, Rector, Calvary Episcopal Church, Santa Cruz, Ca. Photo courtesy of Metro Santa Cruz

Father Joel defended his mission by referring to New Testament texts.

"In the gospel we’re told that Jesus sits down to eat with sinners and tax collectors. The worst people!” says Miller in a soft and nasal voice as he saunters between the well-worn pews. “So what we see is that Jesus loves people, he loves his neighbors, includes them and embraces them. That’s what we try to do here."

Local news reports paint Fr. Joel as going it alone with his ministry to the poor and homeless. But that is contradicted by former vestry member, Scott Galloway. He reports that Ronee Curry, a volunteer who had been managing a Monday Night Coffee House at the Elm Street Mission had been asked to relocate. Ronee approached Fr. Joel Miller of Calvary Episcopal Church, and Fr. Miller invited her to address the Calvary Vestry with her request to relocate her Monday Night “Coffee House” ministry to Calvary. Fr. Miller supported Ronee’s proposal, but the vote of the Vestry in favor of bringing Ronee and her program to Calvary was nearly unanimous. "

By June of 2009, Father Joel had already capitulated to pressure from Mathews and the City to allow police on the property to enforce 'no trespassing' laws effectively ending the use of the property as a place where young and homeless people could be.

Yet, this was not enough for Mathews.

Zazu Pitts home on Lincoln St. directly across the street from Calvary Episcopal Church

Cynthia Mathews and Ryan Coonerty are heavily associated with the Downtown Association, where along with Ryan's wife, Emily Bernard, they are behind an effort to install old parking meters to collect spare change that would fund middle-class case managers for houseless people. Ryan himself pushed for legal protections for "statues" earlier which would make it a crime for REAL homeless people to beg within 14' of these special "charity" meters.

Coonerty and Bernard's 'Penguins' have already been fully implemented, and stand banning homeless people from sitting or begging within 14' of them in any direction. It's part of Ryan's Downtown beautification by promoting sculptures displayed on public property.

Ryan Coonerty and Emily Bernard in SENTINEL wedding photo published Jan 31, 2010.

On June 5, 2010, Cynthia Mathews wrote her now-infamous Grinchish-Scroogian letter. Failing to acknowledge her own personal involvement on behalf of her own property values directly across the street, her intervention on behalf of her tenant, Rachel Daso, or that she was giving a one-sided account, Mathews sunk to a new low in promoting her anti-homeless agenda. Was the letter prompted by any City Council action? One wonders.

Mathews letter was largely responsible for Calvary Rector Joel Miller being admonished by his Diocese in a rare hearing known as 'Presentment' . He has hired a lawyer and is currently appealing that decision.


Ronee Curry, in order to take pressure off of Father Joel, took to performing her ministry in the streets by handing out food, socks, and handknit "beanies" to homeless people in front of Borders Books, but gained negative notice from current Mayor Ryan Coonerty.

"My feeling is that what they're doing is neither helpful nor compassionate. Instead of encouraging panhandlers and drifters to seek a better life, [they're] helping them subsist in misery," said Ryan Coonerty. Ryan's wife, Emily Bernard is the President of the Downtown Association, and an owner of Dell Williams Jewelry.

Several parishioners rallied to support Fr. Joel.

"Another inaccuracy is the implication that the Episcopal Church as a body brought the charges against Fr. Joel, " Parishioner, Audrey Nickels claims. "Rather, a small group of parishioners, in a highly unorthodox move, got a lawyer and brought charges against him in an ecclesiastical court."

UPDATE JANUARY 19 2011: Voices from the Village has done a show which first aired on January 9th 2011 on Community Television of Santa Cruz County, on this topic. Host, Louis LaFortune interviews Father Joel Miller, Scott Galloway, member of the Calvary Church vestry, Richard Enriques, a formerly homeless man who was helped by Calvary, and Don Lane, currently Vice-Mayor of the Santa Cruz City Council and longtime member of the Board of Directors of the Homeless Services Center. Video of the program can be viewed here.


SOURCES:
"Sculp Tour comes to Santa Cruz" Dec 4, 2008_Lauren Foliart, City on a Hill Press
"Calvary Episcopal seeks balance between serving the homeless and serving congregation"--Genevieve Bookwalter June 7 2009
"Downtown raises ire of City Officials"--Genevieve Bookwalter Dec 22 2009
"Controversial Santa Cruz Priest charged by Church" --Curtis Alexander Sept 14 2010 -- Santa Cruz News
"Bathrobespierre's Broadsides: Civil Rights for the Poor" Free Radio Santa Cruz, Dec 5, 2010
Interview of Ronee Curry by Robert Norse
Auntie Imperial's News & Blog Reviews

Prohibitionist Mentality at Santa Cruz City Council

Photo: Citizen Fitmaurice attends the 2oth anniversary remembrance of the October 17th, 1989 Earthquake in front of the Santa Cruz Post Office. Fitzmaurice was on the council in 2000 when the original medical marijuana dispensary ordinance was written. Photo by Becky Johnson

by Becky Johnson
January 31, 2010

Santa Cruz, CA. -- What's up with "marijuana-friendly" Santa Cruz? Five years after Prop 215 passed, the Santa Cruz City Council passed an ordinance to regulate dispensaries. Five years AFTER passage, and TEN YEARS after passage of Prop 215, the first dispensary, Greenway, opened. Since then, two other dispensaries have opened. One opened in the downtown area, but was shut down by the City in less than a month. The second, opened with permits and is still in operation. That's two dispensaries, and both are doing a brisk business. In cash-strapped Santa Cruz, many have thought of regulating and taxing marijuana as a way to boost sagging budgets. But few who are thinking along those lines actually hold a seat on the City Council.

And this, despite clear indications in February by the Justice Department, that the DEA would no longer enforce marijuana eradication efforts in States which have legalized such activities. On October 19, 2010, Attorney General Eric Holder put it in writing. So why the delay?

The Santa Cruz Sentinel published news of the desire to extend a moratorium on new dispensaries by the planning department in an article by J.M. Brown entitled "Santa Cruz medical marijuana advocate urges city to rule on plan for new dispensary" on January 31, 2010 tells the tale of Stuart Kriege who completed his application to open a medical marijuana dispensary on the West Side of Santa Cruz. After 8 years of the intractable Bush Administration leaving in its wake arrests, crop seizures, and an array of charges or just seizures, the cannabis friendlies sensed that change from the Obama Administration would result in a less prohibitionist mentality. However, that is all that applicant Kriege was experiencing.

"Despite Kriege's plea, the City Council unanimously extended the ban for four months and 15 days so planners could verify whether there was a need for additional dispensaries. A city survey found a quarter of buyers at the existing clubs live outside Santa Cruz County."

Now one can wonder at how the City managed to survey pot buyers. People are disinclined to give their home address, and the information given to the provider is confidential. And since when has the City been concerned about visitors coming from outside Santa Cruz County to our environs to buy any other product? How would City Planners determine if there was a need anyway? People again, in an atmosphere of criminalization of selected substances, are unlikely to volunteer what their future marijuana buying habits are likely to be. And haven't City Planners had enough time already? At what point does a delay become a de facto ban?

"Council members also want planners to ensure Kriege's proposed shop and the two local clubs meet state and local regulations, including operating like nonprofit organizations."

Again, this is puzzling. The ordinance written in 2000, does provide minute detail for operating a dispensary. Two centers are currently operating, presumably within State and local laws, and structured as non-profits, so why the confusion? And why do we even PAY these planners? They sound like speedbumps. Costly speedbumps.

"the City Council has to weigh expanding legal access to pot at a time of increasing anxiety about drug- and gang-related violence."

So irrational fear, driven by an anti-marijuana prohibitionist mentality reigns supreme at the leftmost City Council. Nevermind that neither dispensary currently open has had any gang associations whatsoever, and a well-run dispensary would put drug-dealing street gangs out of business and customers would vote with their feet.

"Still, city planners said they need more time to make a recommendation about expanding regulations on dispensaries. The current ban was set to expire Feb. 8. Planners first asked
for a ban last June after receiving near daily inquiries about opening pot clubs -- as interest sparked by an announcement from the Obama administration that California
dispensaries would no longer be targeted by federal drug agents. Only Kriege has
pursued a formal permit request. Several council members said they agreed to give planners more time to ensure that dispensaries don't operate at a hefty profit, given that medical marijuana is supposed to be a low-cost enterprise."

BECKY: This is the opposite of what they have actually said. They have urged operators to charge the same amount of money as black market street prices so that buyers are disinclined to sell it once they get it. Technically the dispensaries are not supposed to profit, but quite a bit of money does change hands. For budget-starved Santa Cruzans paying a very high sales tax and facing cuts in services, taxing marijuana seems a logical solution.

The ordinance doesn't say anything about the price, other than that they must provide it to anyone eligible, even if they can't afford it. (I am unaware of any other non-profit in Santa Cruz which is required to give away product!) Both dispensaries have attempted to supply grass to low-income folks including a discount and 'compassion baggies' which they give away.

"My primary concern is that our local ordinance and state law seemed to me to say a dispensary can only be a co-op or collective," Councilman Don Lane said. "Both models are democratically controlled and member-oriented."

Don is behind the times. Owners quickly re-organized their operations to fit the cooperative or collective model. Buyers show proof of their medical eligibility, and agree to a set of terms. They then join the collective, thus complying with State Law. But apparently Don needs more time to figure this out. None of the reasons proposed make the slightest sense. The dispensaries have not generated a single call for service, not surprising considering that the ordinance requires a uniformed security guard to be on the premises during hours of operation (again adding to the costs which no other business or non-profit is required to do).

I can't imaging that GREENWAY is "democratically controlled" either. Owner, Lisa Molyneaux, invested her life savings to open the doors. A buyer coming to score some bud hardly has the same say about how it is run. Perhaps DON LANE just doesn't like smokers, no matter their brand. In September, the council, led by LANE passed a sweeping anti-smoking ban that criminalized burning any combustible substance.

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_14304899

Poor Science by the CDC and HHS on Second Hand Smoke

Man openly defies the smoking ban on Pacific Ave.
January 10, 2010 -photo by Becky Johnson

Editors Note: On June 16th of 2009, Laurie Lang testified before the ad hoc Outdoor Smoking Task Force headed by Santa Cruz City Councilmembers Ryan Coonerty, Mike Rotkin, and Don Lane, As the representative of the Santa Cruz County Department of Health she made the following claim:

"There are hidden costs to smoking. Three years after Pueblo, CO instituted its smoking ban, a 40% drop in emergency room visits for heart problems was recorded."

But is it true? That seems a very dramatic drop in emergency room visits based on banning second hand smoke in restaurants and bars? Yet, here was an expert, a paid professional health spokesman, reminicient of the flouride is good for our teeth people. Filled with their own authority and lulling the populace into thinking that solid science is behind these claims. Well, just as I suspected, it's not. But it takes a Medical doctor who has been studying the effects of tobacco on the human body for 20 years as a scientist, and is currently a professor at a university teaching social and behavioral sciences, to read the studies, look at the data, and ask what turn out to be very reasonable questions any thinking person should have asked.---Becky Johnson, Editor

"I am a physician who specialized in preventive medicine and public health. I am now a professor in the Social and Behavioral Sciences Department, Boston University School of Public Health. I have 20 years of experience in tobacco control, primarily as a researcher. My areas of research interest include the health effects of secondhand smoke, policy aspects of regulating smoking in public places, effects of cigarette marketing on youth smoking behavior, and the evaluation of tobacco control program and policy interventions."

--- Michael Siegel, Boston, Ma.

CDC: Pueblo Smoking Ban Reduced Heart Attacks by 41%, Due Mostly to Decreased Secondhand Smoke Exposure; But Conclusions are Biased and Invalid

by Dr. Michael Siegel
January 5, 2010

Published at: The Rest of the Story
Tobacco News Analysis and Study
found online at: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/01/cdc-pueblo-smoking-ban-reduced-heart.html

In a new study published in the current issue of MMWR (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports), researchers from Colorado and from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have concluded that the smoking ban in Pueblo, Colorado caused a 41% reduction in heart attacks during the three years following its implementation, primarily due to a reduction in secondhand smoke exposure associated with the ban (see: Alsever RN, et al. Reduced Hospitalizations for Acute Myocardial Infarction After Implementation of a Smoke-Free Ordinance --- City of Pueblo, Colorado, 2002--2006. MMWR 2009; 57(51);1373-1377).

The study compared the rate of hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction (heart attacks) in the city of Pueblo with similar rates in Pueblo county (outside of Pueblo) and El Paso county (which includes Colorado Springs) for the 18-month period prior to the implementation of Pueblo's smoking ban and for the two 18-month periods following the smoking ban, which was implemented in July 2003. While there was no significant reduction in heart attack admissions for Pueblo or El Paso counties, there was a reduction in the heart attack rate of 19% and 41% from pre-implementation to the first and second post-implementation periods, respectively, in the city of Pueblo.

The study concludes: "These findings suggest that smoke-free policies can result in reductions in AMI [acute myocardial infarction] hospitalizations that are sustained over a 3-year period and that these policies are important in preventing morbidity and mortality associated with heart disease. This effect likely is mediated through reduced SHS [secondhand smoke] exposure among nonsmokers and reduced smoking, with the former making the larger contribution."

The Rest of the Story

Before you jump to any conclusions here (something the study did prematurely), consider this: let's accept the study's conclusion as correct - that smoking bans do lead to a dramatic, immediate reduction in heart attacks, in part because of a large reduction in smoking prevalence. Let's suppose that you want to demonstrate this "fact" by showing that compared to a similar city, heart attack rates in the city with the smoking ban fell substantially more after the ban was implemented.

Now you have to choose a comparison city. You have two choices, with the following information available about the smoking prevalence changes in those cities from pre-implementation to post-implementation:

City A - The smoking prevalence increased from 19% to 24%.
City B - The smoking prevalence remained relatively unchanged, dropping only from 24% to 23%.

Which city would you choose as the comparison city?

If you choose city B, you would be justified. There was little change in smoking prevalence, which mirrored the changes nationally during that time period, so one could argue that this is a reasonable comparison group.

If you choose city A, where there was a large increase in smoking prevalence, you are going to expect to see an increase in heart attacks due to the rise in smoking alone. This is going to artificially reduce any secular decline in heart attacks occurring in the comparison city and bias your results towards finding a larger decline in heart attacks in the city with the smoking ban.

A researcher who chose city A as the comparison city would certainly be suspected of having intentionally biased the results towards finding an effect of the smoking ban on heart attacks.

The last thing in the world that you want for a comparison city is one in which there was actually an increase in smoking prevalence, defying all odds about what the national trends in smoking are throughout the nation.

Unfortunately, this is exactly what this study does: it knowingly uses a comparison county in which it has been documented that the smoking prevalence over the study period has increased from 17.4% to 22.3%.

The study doesn't try to hide this fact. It openly acknowledges that the reported smoking prevalence in El Paso County (the comparison group) increased from 17.4% in 2002-2003 to 22.3% in 2004-2005.

Given this finding, El Paso County simply cannot be used as a comparison population. You can't take a population in which you know that smoking prevalence increased substantially and "pretend" that it represents a reasonable area in which to evaluate the baseline secular trends in heart attack admission rates that would have occurred in the smoking ban city in the absence of the smoking ban.

Of course you are going to find that the rate of heart attacks in El Paso County did not decline all that much, given the increase in smoking. El Paso County is clearly not going to give you a good, representative picture of what the actual secular trend in heart attack admissions is.

Now if smoking rates throughout the country had increased substantially during the same time period, one could argue that El Paso county is representative of the nation as a whole, or of Colorado as a whole. But clearly, the trends in smoking reported in El Paso are an anomaly - they are very different from the rest of the nation and from Colorado, where we know that smoking has continued to decline during the study period.

While I am not arguing here that the study intentionally used El Paso county in order to try to create the finding of a smoking ban effect on heart attacks, the fact that the study failed to even consider this problem suggests to me that there is a great deal of bias inherent in the paper. Yes, I do think that the study wanted to find an effect of the smoking ban and that it lost its neutrality somewhere in the process. It's natural to want to see the positive effects of a public health policy. But you have to separate your desires from the science itself. More about that later.

Another important problem is the other comparison group that was used: the rest of Pueblo county. Since this area is directly adjacent to Pueblo, which is the one city in this area, it would be expected that many residents of Pueblo county work in, and/or spend time in Pueblo, including eating in restaurants in the city. Thus, one would expect that if the smoking ban reduced heart attack rates, it would reduce rates among Pueblo county residents as well. It's not like those residents were somehow shielded from the intervention.

For this reason, the study should have combined the heart attack admissions from Pueblo and Pueblo county. Doing this, the reduction in the heart attack rate from pre-implementation to the second post-implementation period is 33%, rather than 41%.

Two logical comparison groups that one would want to consider are the state of Colorado as a whole and the nation as a whole. Heart attack admission rates for Colorado during the approximate period of the study (2002-2005) dropped by 18.4%. For the United States as a whole, the heart attack admission rate dropped by 17.2% during this period.

It is quite a different situation to claim that the smoking ban in Pueblo reduced heart attacks by 41% (because there was no significant decline in the inappropriate comparison county of El Paso) than it is to view the whole picture, and see that a 33% decline in heart attacks in Pueblo must be compared with about an 18% drop throughout the state of Colorado and a 17% decline nationally during the same time period.

The fact that these comparisons were not made is problematic, since the data are readily available (it took me about half hour to access and run the numbers). Why wouldn't the study want to look at the statewide trends in Colorado, rather than simply rely on the biased control group of El Paso county? In 30 minutes, the study could have determined that there was an impressive 18% decline in heart attacks in the whole state during the study period, thus making it clear that the present conclusion of the study is inaccurate.

The bottom line is that the study fails to appropriately determine the baseline secular trends in heart attacks in order to be able to judge the differences observed in Pueblo from the trends that would have been expected in the absence of the smoking ban. For this reason, the study cannot conclude that the observed changes in heart attacks are due to the smoking ban, rather than to other changes that took place over time, including changes in medications being used to treat heart disease, better diagnosis and more aggressive treatment of heart disease, and a substantial decline in smoking prevalence in Pueblo county during the study period, which may or may not be due to the smoking ban itself.

More troubling to me than the fact that the study draws a conclusion that is premature and inadequately supported by the data is the appearance of bias in the study. Not only in the choice of a comparison community where smoking prevalence dramatically increased during the study period, but also in the conclusion itself.

Even if we stipulate that the smoking ban did cause the decline in heart attacks, how can the study possibly conclude that the effect was due primarily to reduced secondhand smoke exposure? The study made no attempt to determine the smoking status of the heart attack victims, so there is no evidence that the reduction in heart attacks occurred primarily among nonsmokers. Neither did the study measure changes in population-based exposure to secondhand smoke.

Moreover, the study itself documents that there was a substantial decline in smoking prevalence in Pueblo county during the study period, from 25.9% to 20.6%. Wouldn't this documented decline in active smoking prevalence be the presumed major reason for the observed decline in heart attacks, as opposed to reductions in secondhand smoke exposure? At very least, wouldn't a study simply remark that both mechanisms may be operating, but that it can't be determined to what extent each is contributing?

The fact that the study concludes that it must primarily be the secondhand smoke reduction is curious. The fact that the editorial note of the study begins by claiming that evidence shows that brief secondhand smoke exposure can trigger a heart attack is revealing. If you look at the report to which that claim refers (the 2006 Surgeon General's report), you will not find any conclusion that brief secondhand smoke exposure triggers heart attacks. And you certainly won't find any evidence in that report that if we reduce secondhand smoke exposure, we can reduce heart attacks triggered by secondhand smoke exposure.

You may remember that I have previously called attention to the poor science by CDC and the Department of Health and Human Services in their communications regarding the acute cardiovascular effects of secondhand smoke, when they went out on a limb, against the advice of respected and expert scientists in the tobacco control field, and told the public that brief secondhand smoke exposure is enough to trigger heart attacks, cause heart disease, and cause lung cancer.

It seems odd that even if we stipulate that the overall conclusion of the study is valid (that the smoking ban caused a dramatic reduction in heart attacks in Pueblo), the study would emphasize that the effect must be primarily due to the reduction in secondhand smoke and thus a reduction in heart attacks among nonsmokers that would have otherwise been triggered by brief secondhand smoke exposures in restaurants or other public places.

Even if I were writing this editorial as a highly biased advocate, I would have simply concluded that the effect is likely due to the combination of a reduction in smoking prevalence and a reduction in secondhand smoke, but that the study provides no way of teasing out the degree to which these two phemomena are operating.

In fact, given the large decline in smoking prevalence reported in Pueblo county, even the above conclusion seems biased, since it is clear that if the effect were real, the smoking prevalence reduction would likely have been a major reason.

The study goes overboard not only in its overall conclusion, but in its attempt to paint these data as somehow proving that eating in a smoky restaurant for a half hour is causing lots of people to keel over from heart attacks. The study does nothing of the sort.

Let me finish by emphasizing that I would like nothing more than to have strong evidence presented that smoking bans are resulting in immediate and dramatic reductions in heart attacks. As I have devoted much of my life's work to promoting smoking bans, especially in bars and restaurants, it would bring a great sense of fulfillment to now that these policies are immediately saving lives and that we can document these acute effects.

However, I am first a scientist and I believe that in public health, our conclusions must be based on solid science, not just on conjecture or our deeply felt desire to see the success of our policies.

Outdoor Smoking Task Force Mtg. notes June 16, 2009

Photo: Santa Claus Smoking on a Marlboro Cigarette Pack

NOTE TO READER: At HUFF's request, Council member, Don Lane sent these notes from the task force that came up with the "Smoking Air Pollution Ordinance" which will be passed into law on a second reading tomorrow (Sept 22, 2009) by the Santa Cruz City Council. First Don had claimed the Task Force report was online. It wasn't. Then when he sent it, it was unintelligible. Presumably no one from the public has had a chance to read it yet, but it will be passed into law tomorrow on the afternoon agenda. Note that the Task Force met in private, with only selected members invited. And though the entire ordinance is tailored to remove poor and homeless people from public spaces, there was no representative for homeless people or advocate for smokers invited. This is Ryan Coonerty's world. Zero public input. Secret meetings. Excluded participants. Sweeping loss of rights. HUFF has gone on record as opposing the law due to its intended selective enforcement against marijuana smokers and poor and homeless people.

--- Becky Johnson, Editor

Outdoor Smoking Task Force

Information Gathering Meeting

June 16, 2009 – 3 p.m.

I. Input from City Staff

Dannettee Shoemaker

§ The City has a smoking ban on Main Beach, Cowell’s Beach, parts of San Lorenzo Parks and Grant Street Park. Staff would support a larger ban.

§ The purpose of the ban is for health and the waste issue from cigarette butts

§ The ban has been fairly successful but enforcement is an issue. At the time the ban was passed, there was only one ranger. Now we have four but the smoking ban enforcement of the ban may not always be the highest priority.

§ The debris from smoking on Pacific Avenue, the wharf and other parks is a huge problem.

§ Some City employees and wharf businesses are concerned about how the smoking ban will work and where they and customers will be able to smoke

§ There are real public safety concerns with smoking on the wharf: a ½ mile long wooden structure with pilings coated with creosote

§ There are concerns and fears about losing customers to other jurisdictions where smoking is allowed

§ Would support smoking ban in parks as smoke travels and secondhand smoke is a problem

§ Further, the goal of the Parks and Recreation Department is to encourage people to get out and exercise and smoking doesn’t fit in with this goal.

§ In response to a question from Ryan Coonerty (RC), Its Beach is now within the State’s jurisdiction and just a small sliver belongs to the City.

§ In response to a question from RC, yes a ban in the City’s open space would be supported. There are severe fire concerns, particularly from the nearby residents. Our open space can be just like dry tinder with great fire potential.

Mark Dettle

§ The Public Works Department sees the post-smoking impact as non-point source pollution. Smoking debris blows all over the City and is picked up in storm drains and with street sweepers. Although cigarette butts are individually small, collectively, they become a big problem.

§ Public Works would support a ban from the litter reduction perspective.

Tom Graves

§ City employees affected when cigarette smoke comes in through windows. This can be very impactful to those with asthma.

§ Encourages the Task Force to consider how smoking affects employees in the workplace.

II. Presentations from Invited Guests

Santa Cruz County Department of Health – Laurie Lang and Andrea Silva

[Note: I have a copy of the powerpoint presentation.]

§ Secondhand smoke outdoors is as harmful as secondhand smoke indoors.

§ In a recent clean-up, 26 lbs of butts were recovered from Pacific Avenue in only 9 hours.

§ 85% of Santa Cruz residents are non-smokers

§ Discussion and support of a tobacco retail license

§ Discussion of smoking bans in other cities. Generally, outdoor smoking ordinances create designated smoking areas

§ There is a correlation between smoking rates and the price of cigarettes

à RC commented that San Francisco is considering a 33 cent/pack fee to cover clean-up costs.

§ There are hidden costs to smoking. Three years after Pueblo, CO instituted its smoking ban, a 40% drop in emergency room visits for heart problems was recorded

§ Studies have shown that there is no negative impact from a smoking ban on restaurants and other businesses.

Save Our Shores – Laura Kasa, Lizzie

§ There are tremendous marine life impacts: 1 cigarette butt in will kill marine life in 1 Liter of water

§ Cigarette butts are as toxic to fish as pesticides

§ The litter problem causes by cigarette butts is staggering. 62,000 pounds of butts have been recovered from Santa Cruz beaches over the past two years

§ During the beach clean-ups, cigarette butts are by far, the most common trash found

§ There is a recommendation to classify cigarette butts as toxic waste

§ Cigarette butts do not biodegrade; they contain plastic

§ Cigarette filters (butts) captures the toxins before they enter the smoker’s lungs but when discarded release those toxins into the environment

§ Save Our Shores recommendations:

a. Smoking ban

b. Anti-litter laws

c. Financial assessment on cigarettes (waste fee or tax)

d. Public information campaign / place signage with photos of the impacts (diseased fish, etc)

e. Implement a program to exchange used butts

f. Ban sale of filtered cigarettes (knows is severe but this is a serious problem)

§ In response to a question from Don Lane (DL), Save our Shores said they would be willing to design the signage if the City had the resources to create and install

Santa Cruz County Chamber of Commerce – Bill Tysseling

§ The Chamber has no position yet and looks forward to seeing a proposal before making specific comments.

§ The solicitation for feedback sent to local businesses yielded a mix of responses

§ Dominican Hospital and Santa Cruz Medical Foundation were enthusiastic for health reasons. Dominican will be going smoke-free by January1, 2010.

§ Community ambiance could be improved by pedestrians not walking around in clouds of smoke. Further, the impact on behaviors, particularly constraining the use of downtown as a smoking lounge, would be positive.

§ There are concerns about pushing the problem elsewhere.

§ There are concerns about enforcement.

§ Competitive impacts have been raised and worries about clientele going to places where you can smoke. Example story: four friends go out to lunch. They are more likely to go to a place where the one smoker in the group can smoke.

§ In re: to a retailer fee, concerns about competitive impacts. Other jurisdictions should be brought in if the City is to proceed with this concept.

§ The City needs to designate places to smoke. Question of who will create the smoking ghettos and the need to consider parameters, distance, protection from the weather and ash try amenities.

§ The City should consider how to address second stories – balconies, roof tops, etc.

§ The City should consider balancing not penalizing those who do smoke with social costs (environmental, health) of secondhand smoke.

§ The City should consider how employee will smoke.

§ The Chamber of Commerce is enthusiastic about participating as the outdoor smoking ordinance concept moves forward.

Santa Cruz County Conference & Visitors Council – Maggie Ivy

§ There are some concerns about enforcement and liability. Los Angeles held businesses harmless.

§ Public education is important. Santa Monica invested $150,000 in the first year of its ban to educate. The CVC could help here with the noticing and dissemination.

§ Some cities have tried a trial period for 90 days or so.

§ The City should consider impact on hotels. Most new properties are completely smoke-free but how to regulation the pool and outdoor lounge areas?

§ The majority of visitors to Santa Cruz would likely enjoy a smoke-free environment but those that do smoke will be inconvenienced.

§ International visitors, about 8% of Santa Cruz County’s tourists, tend to be smokers.

§ Recommends looking at other cities with bans: Los Angeles, Mammoth Lakes, Santa Monica

§ Health and litter issues affect tourism as well.

§ The CVC is happy to participate moving forward.

Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk – Kris Reyes

§ The Boardwalk discontinued smoking about 4-5 years ago. Smoking is allowed in designated areas on the street and these areas receive the necessary attention to keep them clean. The ban has been a success.

§ The reactions of patrons, when asked to smoke in a designated area, have been cordial. Further, more people are proactively asking where they can smoke. This suggests a greater awareness that smoking is not allowed everywhere.

§ The Boardwalk has new beach grooming equipment – sand sifters – that capture litter, including cigarette butts. The equipment has been picking up fewer butts since the City’s beach smoking ban was instituted.

§ A problem area is the Promenade between the casino and Idea restaurant. There is nothing there to prevent people from smoking and other behaviors.

§ The Boardwalk is happy to participate in the process moving forward.

III. Public Comment

John Huffman – Santa Cruz resident and downtown property owner

§ There is a cigarette butt problem around his properties. He cleans plaza lane and finds lots of butts there an in the planter boxes.

§ The sidewalks on Pacific Avenue have cracks that are just the right size for a cigarette butt, requiring some effort to remove.

Ron Perigo – Santa Cruz resident

§ He has noticed a lack of cigarette butt collection points. Because there are not enough places to deposit the butts, people throw them on the ground.

§ Stormdrains have become a collection point for butts.

§ The City of Los Angeles vacuums their stormwater drains every fall before the rains (the task force here informed Mr. Perigo that Santa Cruz does this as well)

Submitted for the record by:

Don Lane

Santa Cruz City Council

809 Center St. Room 10

Santa Cruz, CA 95060

831-420-5022