With a name like "North Dakota Wizards" what could go wrong?

Zazu Pitts Home on Lincoln Street in Santa Cruz, Ca. inShare

$4.1 Million loaned to a for-profit professional sports entertainment franchise while a burgeoning local homeless population is given the boot and a bus ticket out of town   by Becky Johnson September 8, 2012 Santa Cruz, CA. -- With a name like the "North Dakota Wizards" what could go wrong? The City of Santa Cruz has decided to use a parking lot currently used for Seaside Company employee parking, for a temporary sports stadium to house a feeder basketball franchise in downtown Santa Cruz. And they plan to spend $4.1 million of City money to do it, a clear example of charity to the rich. Just last April it was $2.5 million to $3 million.      Tourism-prompted replica trolley bus which shuttles between the downtown, municipal wharf, and the Boardwalk for 25 cents transportation subsidized by public funding. They are considering using "225 under-used permit parking spaces," if there is such a thing, for the Seaside Company employee parking and the shuttle as transportation to work. So Santa Cruz. All the fluff and cosmetics of antique trolley shuttles for 25 cents carrying workers to jobs that don't pay the rent, don't provide any benefits, and don't go anywhere. "A primary employer of youth," they brag. But few Seaside Company jobs are "good" jobs. None are unionized jobs. And remind me again why we are subsidizing the Seaside Company at all? With a homeless population 22% higher than just two years ago, services are severely impacted. Calvary Episcopal, also known as "the Red Church" downtown fed a record 188 people on Monday, August 27th.  Yet, City Council leaders Ryan Coonerty, Hillary Bryant and Lynn Robinson have vowed that the only new services for homeless that they are willing to provide is a bus ticket out of town. Failing to respond as leaders to an obvious public health emergency, the City did just the opposite. The Santa Cruz Police Department, the Parks & Recreation Department, and the Public Works department teamed up to sweep parks, greenbelts, and the riverbanks in order to remove encampments, issue citations, and to make arrests of homeless people for the "crimes" of "sleeping" "camping" "lodging" or "trespass" on public property. Former City Councilmember and former Mayor Cynthia Mathews, also running again, knows the Red Church and Father Joel Miller well. She's been defrocking priests since 2009! Mathews, who owns the historical "Zazu Pitts" home on Lincoln Street, took such issue with Miller's ministry to the downtown homeless wayfarers. She issued a letter on City letterhead stationery no less, seeking to get the Pastor fired. After an arduous and expensive process, Miller kept his job. Move-along Mathews, as we had called her for her advocacy for the non-commercial display device ordinance, aimed at political tables, allowed only 1 hour's time at any location on Pacific Ave. out of a 24-hour period in which free speech could take place. Maybe we should call her "No-time, no-place, and no-manner Mathews?" She also prevented the Planned Parenthood Westside Health Center from unionizing when she was its executive director. All of this is to say that the City has its priorities all backwards. It is subsidizing the rich, and stealing from the poor. The Coonerty-Robinson-Bryant plan is to use City money to finance a for-profit venture that may or may not pay off financially for the City, but which will certainly pay handsomely for Lynn, Hill, and Ryan's friends. And while construction might involve new jobs, none of these will be union jobs. Maurice Baker plays for the North Dakota Wizards in 2009 Our tiny organization, Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom, took a stand on this last spring. HUFF passed a resolution saying we did not oppose the Sports stadium being built, but opposed the use of any City funding. I mean, if its a profitable venture, then investors should be lining up, right? Well "the excitement" of a sports stadium pitched back in April claimed "fans would relish in the opportunity to attend a Warriors event."  What worries me is that the City is already in financial trouble. And City Manager Martine Bernal is not making me feel any better.  "This isn't a money-making scheme for the city," he says (see below). Well if the City is investing $4.1 million dollars it BETTER be a "money-making scheme."  Of course, it's not HIS money. It's ours. Or it was ours. SENTINEL ARTICLE SEP 8 2012 ONLINE HERE. Santa Cruz Warriors up investment in relocation deal; City Council vote expected Tuesday By J.M. BROWN - Santa Cruz Sentinel Posted:   09/07/2012 08:48:20 PM PDT SANTA CRUZ - Ahead of a critical City Council vote Tuesday, the Golden State Warriors' Development League team has agreed to strengthen its investment in a $5.4 million, seven-year deal with the city to relocate this fall. According to restructured financial terms revealed Friday, the Santa Cruz Warriors will prepay four years of rent on a temporary 30,000-square-foot arena to be built between downtown and the beach. The city will use the $532,000 to pay down a city loan underwriting the fast-tracked project. Just a week ago, the team had agreed to pay a full seven years of rent at $133,000 per year, but city negotiators decided to credit the team for three years of rent if the Warriors increased their capital investment - from $600,000 to $1.4 million. That money is separate from the loan. City Manager Martín Bernal said the new agreement reduces the city's overall risk by increasing security on the loan, the amount of which has nearly doubled since the team first publicly announced its relocation plans in April. Receiving four years of rent up front, in addition to collecting annual loan payments of $250,000, better secures the city's investment, he said. "In case we had a worst-case scenario and the Warriors decided to leave and default on the loan, what we wanted to have was more collateral," Bernal said. The team, formerly called the North Dakota Wizards, hopes to host its first home game in late December in a facility constructed on an employee parking lot belonging to the Santa Cruz Seaside Co., which owns the tourist magnet Beach Boardwalk nearby. The facility at 140 Front St. will have 2,950 seats for games, and when floor seats are added, 4,000 for concerts or other events. COMPLEX NEW DEAL City and team officials said there is a tentative deal with the Seaside Co. to relocate Boardwalk employee parking to 220 spaces in downtown garage with underused permit capacity and provide shuttles to the beach. The Warriors also will make $35,000 in annual lease payments to Seaside Co. and paint a Boardwalk logo on the arena floor six feet from center court - a sponsorship the team values at $50,000.   As for collateral, the Warriors agreed to cover $529,000 in prepaid construction expenses if the city releases loan funds over time to cover those costs while the team pays down the overall loan. As the facility's owner, the city agreed to credit the Warriors $1.85 million for the value of the leasehold interest, the city's share of a Kaiser Permanente naming-rights deal and assets within the facility.           With the expedited rent payment schedule, that brings to $2.9 million the amount the city views as collateral against its $4.1 million loan from a public trust fund. That fund, created by the sale of property, can only be used for capital investments, and contains only $6.1 million as of June - just a third more than the Warriors loan.   "By shifting rent payments from the back end of lease to prepayment, by acknowledging some money we have already expended and not requiring city to fully extend the loan amount, I personally thought this was a better way to structure it," said Jim Weyermann, president of the Santa Cruz Warriors. "I tried to respond to reduce the overall perceived at-risk position of the city, though my personal view is the money is not at risk." Original estimates for the facility were $2.8 million. But sandy soil, fire safety requirements and other construction-related issues necessitated a sturdier structure than originally planned - all of which raised costs from to $5.4 million. The facility would come down in seven years unless the team and city agree to extend the arrangement while pursuing a permanent structure.    There is no change in the city's intent to collect concessions revenue, including from wine and beer sales, and apply it to the loan. Revenue from renting the arena out for UC Santa Cruz sports teams, concerts or other events will also go toward retiring the debt.   If debt on the loan remains after seven years, the city has agreed to split it with the team. The minimum the city can hope for is repayment, but there is the possibility for the city to make money on a separate admissions tax, any increases in hotel and sales taxes and sharing in merchandise and ticket sales once the loan is repaid.    Still, Bernal said, "This isn't a money-making scheme for the city. The goal is to see whether we can have a better, more modern facility to revitalize this area and see if we can create a connection between the downtown and beach area. This could catalyze that." There is another minor change separate from the loan: The city will defer general plan and water and sewer fees of $147,000, with the expectation that a $1 facility use surcharge added to each ticket will cover them. As is usual for publicly owned facilities, Bernal said the venue will be exempt from traffic impact fees, which could total close to $1 million. NOISE, PARKING CONCERNS Even if council members agree to the new financial terms, they must OK a special use permit for the property, which is zoned multifamily residential. The council will hear concerns from Beach Hill neighbors over noise, parking and traffic created by the team's 24 annual games and other events. The city's Planning Commission heard those complaints Thursday before voting unanimously to recommend approval of the project.  The commission underlined the importance of key conditions - that the team encourage parking in downtown lots or on-street spaces, that Beach Hill residents get the option of year-round parking permits and that noise be monitored by the city.   "We absolutely want them to park downtown," Weyermann said. "If we can't park people and get them in and out, they won't come back."   He said the team will promote off-site parking through the Internet, advertising and direct mail to season ticket holders and possibly provide face painters, balloon makers or street musicians, to create a "Disney-like entrance" that makes the walk toward the arena more pleasant. Noise will be reduced by insulated metal walls, and fans must be out by 10 p.m.     Richard Andrews, former president of the Beach Hill Neighborhood Association and a city parks and recreation commissioner, said he felt the Planning Commission listened to citizen concerns. But many are still worried about noise.    "I think the neighbors are very suspicious of the whole project," Andrews said, adding that they expect to report rowdy fans. "Some of us feel we are going to have to go through that process." Follow Sentinel reporter J.M. Brown on Twitter @jmbrownreports   HOW THE MONEY WORKS Here are some details about the revised 7-year financing deal on the proposed Kaiser Permanente Arena for the Santa Cruz Warriors: COST SPLITTING: • City: $4.1 million public trust fund loan to Warriors • Warriors: $1.2 million capital investment, plus $200,000 for items outside budget • Devcon Construction: $100,000 capital contribution TOTAL: $5.6 million (though project is estimated now to cost $5.4 million) HOW THE LOAN GETS REPAID: • At least $1.75 million in loan payments by the Warriors ($250,000 annually for seven years) • $1.15 million to $1.5 million in estimated concessions and non-Warriors event rental • $532,000 in rent payments by the Warriors ($133,000 annually for four years) TOTAL: At least $3.4 million to $3.75 million, with any balance to be split by the city and Warriors after seven years OTHER COSTS: • $35,000 paid annually by Warriors for city's lease of Santa Cruz Seaside Co. lot at 140 Front St. • Free team sponsorship for Seaside Co. of $50,000 value in lieu of additional rent • Boardwalk employees will be shuttled to downtown garage, where city gives up 220 spaces in underused permit parking garage. IF YOU GO Santa Cruz City Council WHEN: 7 p.m. Tuesday WHERE: Council Chamber, 809 Center St. INFORMATION: www.cityofsantacruz.com

Camping Ban Newsmaker of 2010

NOTE TO READER: The SENTINEL refuses to name ED Frey, founder of Peace Camp 2010, or Chris Doyon, or Robert Norse for their valiant in-your-face protest against the Sleeping Ban as a "Newsmaker." No. The SENTINEL names the "Camping Ban" as "the Newsmaker" of 2010. Clearly in an attempt to keep any of the proponents from getting too much publicity. I think that COLLETTE CONNOLLY and GARY JOHNSON are the TRUE newsmakers of 2010 with their ferocious and tenacious resolve to protest the critical lack of legal sleeping areas in Santa Cruz juxtaposed against an inhumane law which criminalizes the innocent and life-sustaining act of Sleeping. Peace Camp 2010 never sought to eliminate the entire camping ordinance. Only the portions that make sleeping at night a crime, and make using a blanket to keep warm a crime. The SENTINEL notes, as if it were a good thing, the strange and expensive civil injunction achieved against a homeless couple for sleeping out of doors downtown too much. With the money spent on City lawyers, the couple could have had a first, last, and security deposit on an apartment paid along with 2 years rent. Instead, we have the city's "victory" against the couple who are still homeless and still must sleep at night illegally.--- Becky Johnson, Editor

July 10, 2010, Peace Camp 2010 gradually increases its numbers as the word on the street gets out.
Photo by Becky Johnson

2010 Newsmakers: Santa Cruz camping ban kept homelessness in headlines throughout the year

By J.M. BROWN

Posted: 12/19/2010 01:30:28 AM PST

found online at: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_16896091

Click photo to enlarge

Homeless activists staged a sleep-in on the courthouse steps that... (Dan Coyro/Sentinel File)

• «
• 1
• »

SANTA CRUZ -- This summer, the city successfully won an injunction against a musician who had been cited more than 20 times for violating a ban on overnight camping.

Authorities also made more than 20 arrests and issued 100-plus citations in July and August in connection with a protest against the ban that began on the county courthouse lawn and moved to City Hall, dubbed Peace Camp 2010 by the demonstrators.

The year also saw the City Council increase its three-strikes law against violators of city code, a move meant to put more muscle behind laws against camping, loitering downtown and aggressive panhandling. The new rule allows the city to seek misdemeanor charges against people who fail to respond to three or more citations in six months.

All of these steps demonstrated that homelessness, specifically the city's camping ordinance, was a controversial newsmaker in 2010, just as it has been in many years past. And just as in years past, the line between illegal behavior on the part of some transients was blurred with the over-arching, ever-present problem of homelessness, which continues to frustrate city officials and nonprofit workers advocating for the homeless.

But some advocates, like those who organized the summer protest, say it's wrong to create laws that effectively make it illegal not to have shelter or to beg for financial help on the street. As attorney Ed Frey, an organizer of the protest who is now defending the citations of participants in court, said last week: Campers just "need a place to sleep."

Councilwoman Katherine Beiers, a member of the Homeless Services Center's board, said the years-long struggle over the camping ban has been frustrating, but she believes the city should focus its efforts now on simply providing more shelter.

The Homeless Services Center has just 46 beds available on a 30-day rotating basis for emergency shelter. The River Street Shelter has 32 beds set aside for the same purpose, but 60 percent are held for referrals from the county's mental health agency.

"Nobody can get stable and move on if every night they have to figure out a place to sleep," Beiers said. "That's where the energy and money has to go."

Beiers and other advocates acknowledge there is a lot of work to be done to change the public's perception about the ties between homelessness and drug dealing, camping and other problems. In the spring, the Homeless Services Center came under fire from critics who believed the program lacked security and effectiveness, but new director Monica Martinez has been hailed for making a number of changes to better the center's security and relationship with the community.

But Miguel DeLeon, the homeless musician, and the protest provided fodder for those who have long argued that the city's generous social services funding has made it a magnet for transients. In August, a judge issued a permanent injunction against DeLeon, ordering him not to sleep outside after 11 p.m. The protest started July 5 when people began sleeping overnight on the courthouse lawn.

More than a month later, as frustration over the unsightly camp mounted among judges and other court workers, sheriff's deputies began making arrests and issuing citations. When demonstrators moved to the City Hall courtyard, they were met with more citations and arrests by police before the protest effectively ended in late August.

However, the demonstration appeared to have had some effect. Several weeks later, the council voted to dismiss citations for camping if a homeless person was on a shelter wait list when the ticket was issued. Robert Norse, an advocate for the homeless, called the change "a minor step forward" but added, "It does no good to say you are on a waiting list because you still have to sleep outside."

Victory for the 1st Amendment in Nazi Salute case

Robert Norse in SENTINEL photo by Schmuel Thayer

by Becky Johnson
December 18, 2010

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- As a HUFF member since 1996, and an eye-witness to Robert Norse's arrest in both 2002 and 2004, I am hardly unbiased. On the other hand, I have been able to consider this case from a totality of details that neither the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Norse's attorneys, David Beauvais and Kate Wells, or any single witness other than Norse himself, has been privy to.

I have heard every kind of argument and smear-job made against Norse. That he is a trust-fund "baby," that he only wants to get his name in the papers, that he hurts "the homeless" more than he helps them. And that this case doesn't really advance the rights of homeless people. Etcetera, ad nauseum, and who really cares what some people think? What is the truth?

First let me share some of my personal perspective. I was with Robert Norse when he first gave a stiff-armed "salute" to then-mayor Tim Fitzmaurice prior to 2002. Fitzmaurice stopped the meeting. Denounced Norse publicly. Ordered him to leave the chambers (he complied). And announced that all future "Nazi" salutes would be disallowed.

Fitzmaurice had lost a case in 2001 against Norse, myself, and Bernard Klitzner, when he attempted to place a temporary restraining order banishing the three of us from his office when we staged a daily Koffee Klatch outside his office in a

Tim Fitzmaurice in 2005 photo by Becky Johnson

lobbying effort to put the Sleeping Ban on the City Council agenda as an item for discussion. Fitzmaurice refused. The TRO was disposed of by Judge Samuel Stevens in June of 2001, but the
order kept the three of us away from one city council meeting and from the mayor's office for 5 months, effectively side-lining us. Klitzner had a lien on his house for the cost of transcripts the Barisone's had insisted on, despite "winning" his case. Norse was forced to spend thousands of dollars out of pocket. Fortunately for me, since I was a welfare mother at the time, I was not charged for court costs. Still, it was clear that Fitzmaurice harbored a grudge against us for making him testify and for ultimately winning the case.

When Fitzmaurice ordered Norse to leave the chambers, he complied, but the incident didn't sit well with him. It was the Golden Porto-Pottie Incident all over again. In that case, Norse and I had spray-painted a bedside commode with gold paint, decorated it with ribbons, and put a sign on it: Golden Porto-Potty Award to Mayor Katherine Beiers for her 1:15AM defection from a plan to set up safe zones where homeless people could legally sleep at night, complete with dumpsters and porto-potties. Norse was prevented by the Sgt. at Arms from bringing the "award" into the meeting at all, much less, being able to present Katherine Beiers the award during oral communications. Here, he was sure his 1st amendment rights had been truncated.

Now Fitzmaurice had declared in advance which 1st amendment rights no longer existed in the City Council chambers in Santa Cruz. Norse vowed that if the same situation ever happened again, he would act differently.

Norse, HUFF, and I were attempting to get physical evidence of oppression against members of the public who were excluded from meetings or had their rights to freedom of speech trampled in some way at the meetings. It had happened to both of us previously and it had happened to other HUFF members, such as the schackled detention of James Nay, and the violent assault on David Silva by Sgt. Andy Craine. I took to bringing a videocamera to city council meetings so I could record what occurred as it happened and not be dependent on the official audio and videotaped recordings of the meeting. On March 12th, 2002 Mayor Christopher Krohn was mayor.

Norse and I had met with Krohn previously, shortly after he become mayor. We met inside the old, Jahva House coffee-shop on Union St. in December of 2001.

Krohn had appeared hostile to me. Demanded to know if Norse was planning on running for city council himself. We had discussed problems we were having with the oral communications period of the city council meetings. Krohn wasn't listening. We left the meeting disappointed that we had supported his candidacy in the first place.

Mayor Christopher Krohn oversees a marijuana give-away
on the steps of City Hall in September of 2002

He obviously wasn't going to carry our issues during his term as mayor.

On March 12th, Mayor Krohn announced that oral communications was about to begin. Norse had hoped to speak at oral communications but he despaired when we arrived to see a large group of people there, eager to speak about the Doug Rand Peace Park. With that many people choosing to speak, he would have little chance to speak at all, since he had spoken at the previous city council meeting. It is yet another unconstitutional "rule" at the Santa Cruz City Council that if you have spoken at the previous meeting during oral communications, you must defer to any person (even if you've waited 29 minutes and some guy walks in 1 minute before the comment period ends) who did not speak at the previous meeting. There is no logical reason for this rule. Clearly citizens who are more informed and involved will speak more often. The council can, at its wish, extend oral communications to accommodate any extra speakers, so there can be no claim that a frequent speaker will supplant a less frequent speaker. But that rule has lasted over a decade now.


Krohn asked for a show of hands. A forest of hands went up, including the hand of Susan Zeman. Then Krohn announced (much to my dismay) that he was shortening oral communications from 3 minutes to 2 minutes "so everyone will get a chance to speak." Michael Tomasi, Robert Norse, and Susan Zeman all stood in line, awaiting their turn to speak.

When Robert Norse approached the podium, Krohn ordered him to wait, claiming he'd spoken at the previous meeting. Norse returned to side of the chambers without comment. Then Michael Tomasi approached the podium, only to likewise be turned away. But Tomasi didn't appreciate at all having waited 30 minutes to speak and loudly objected. I saw the commotion and turned my videocamera on just in time to see him shouting loudly "I'll see you on the streets, pal!" as he exited the doorway. I was still filming when Susan Zeman was ordered away from the podium and threatened with expulsion.

Zeman, an anti-war activist had come to speak about the Doug Rand Peace Park. She felt that since Krohn had counted her hand just prior to oral communications, and she had NOT spoken at the previous meeting, that SHE would be the last speaker. She was dumbfounded by his treatment.

As she was forced to leave the podium, Norse lifted his left hand briefly in Krohn's direction indicating he found Krohn's behavior to be heavy-handed. He told me later he had given "a fascist salute" to show his displeasure. The rest you can see on the tape of what happened next.

Current Mayor Ryan Coonerty in a 2005 photo taken

at his cashier job at Bookshop Santa Cruz

Current Mayor Ryan Coonerty was quoted in the Sentinel on December 16th, that Norse was "properly removed from the meeting" not because of the Nazi salute, but "because of the overall disturbance he caused."

"There is a pattern of disruptive behavior that is at issue here," Coonerty said. "And we hope the court in San Jose will recognize that we can't have a functioning democratic processes when you have somebody who is constantly disrupting the meeting.

Apparently Ryan Coonerty doesn't mind adding slander to the list of charges Norse can make against the City. Norse not only doesn't "constantly disrupt meetings" but, despite attending 100's of meetings, he has never been convicted for disrupting any meeting in Santa Cruz. Notwithstanding efforts by several mayors and councilmembers to paint him as "a disruptor." Norse went to City Council and repeatedly asked that the minutes of the meeting accurately reflect what had actually happened at a previous meeting. 99% of the time, the council ignored his request and allowed the minutes to reflect a very biased view of what had actually occurred.

Mayor Scott Kennedy was quoted in the Fish Wrap Live that Norse had been convicted of disrupting a city council meeting. Kennedy was forced to print a retraction.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has put a chill into the spine of the Santa Cruz City Council should they dare flatten the 1st amendment rights of members of the public attending their meetings. Chief Justice, Alex Kozinski used the strongest language possible when he said "Councilmember Fitzmaurice clearly wants Norse expelled because the "Nazi salute" is "against the dignity of this body and the decorum of this body" and not because of any disruption. But unlike der Fuhrer, government officials in America occasionally must tolerate offensive or irritating speech. "

While this decision, 11 - 0, doesn't give the City much hope on appeal, it is not the end of the case. Norse has only won the right to go to court and have a trial on the facts. He may have to go back into the same courtroom of Judge Ronald Whyte and seek a fair trial from a judge who has granted two summary motions for dismissal against him already. Not an inviting scenario.

9th Circuit Court reverses itself in Nazi Salute case

SENTINEL photo by Schmuel Thaler with the following caption "(Sleeping Ban opponent Robert Norse has been targeting Bookshop Santa Cruz in his protests)" possibly a reference to Norse's recent conviction for singing a song on a busy sidewalk near Bookshop Santa Cruz. Norse was convicted of "unreasonably disturbing noise" and was fined $250.

NOTE TO READER: As the videographer of the snippet of the City Council meeting where Robert Norse issued his "Nazi" salute, I know a thing or two about what else happened at that meeting. And unlike the statement issued by Mayor Ryan Coonerty in today's SENTINEL, Norse in no way orchestrated a disruption of the meeting. Nor can Norse be held accountable for the reactions and over-reactions of offended City Councilmembers. The City Attorney's office recently claimed they'd spent $114,000.00 defending Christopher Krohn, Tim Fitzmaurice, and Scott Kennedy from Norse's lawsuit. And that was BEFORE City Attorney George Kovacevich went to Southern California to have his hat handed to him on a platter by the en banc panel of the 9th Circuit Court. After over eight years, the court has ruled that Norse can have his day in court after all. ---Becky Johnson, Editor

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_16872299

Appellate panel rules Norse suit can go forward: Lower court will have to reconsider Nazi salute case

By J.M. BROWN

Posted: 12/16/2010 01:30:01 AM PST

SANTA CRUZ -- An 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday unanimously agreed a trial judge should reconsider Robert Norse's free-speech lawsuit against the city of Santa Cruz.

Norse, a longtime City Council agitator and advocate for the rights of homeless people, claims his free speech protections were violated when he was ejected from a City Council meeting in 2002 after raising a Nazi salute. Norse was arrested for disrupting the meeting and refusing to leave, although the charges were later dropped.

Norse said he abhors the Nazis' views and only used the gesture to protest then-Mayor Christopher Krohn cutting off a speaker critical of the council. The city, which has spent more than $100,000 fighting Norse, has since argued the salute was part of an organized attempt to disrupt the meeting.

After watching a five-minute clip of the salute and arrest, a federal trial judge dismissed Norse's suit in 2007, and a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit upheld that decision. But a rare en banc panel of the appeals court agreed to rehear the case in June and reinstated Norse's suit Wednesday.

The ruling said U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Whyte in San Jose should have heard more evidence after giving Norse's lawyers just two days to prepare for a hearing that would have determined whether the case would go forward. The en banc panel's ruling indicated that city officials kicked Norse out because they disliked his views.

However, the en banc panel dismissed the arresting officer, Sgt. Loran "Butch" Baker, from the suit against city officials. The ruling said Baker followed proper procedures when Krohn complained Norse was disrupting the meeting and refused orders to leave.

The city's current mayor, Ryan Coonerty, said Norse was properly removed from the meeting not because of the Nazi salute, but because of the overall disturbance he caused.

"There is a pattern of disruptive behavior that is at issue here," Coonerty said. "And we hope the court in San Jose will recognize that we can't have a functioning democratic processes when you have somebody who is constantly disrupting the meeting."

Norse was pleased with the ruling, saying, "Any reasonable person looking at the video cannot conclude there was a disruption. There is an arrogance on behalf of the council in their determination to intimidate their critics. It's not about the Nazi salute. It's about the public's ability to engage in ordinary free speech behavior."

Norse, who lives in Felton and Santa Cruz, still frequently attends council meetings, calling for a repeal of the overnight camping ban and measures taken by the council in recent years against aggressive panhandling.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The Politics of the Playground

Wednesday, 20 January 2010

by Chris Snowdon





PHOTO: Man openly violates the smoking ban
on Pacific Ave. January 10, 2010





found online at: http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2010/01/politics-of-playground.html

Like many a political leader before him, the Mayor of Santa Cruz is learning that when it comes to tobacco, nothing you do is ever good enough to satisfy the prohibitionists.

As reported previously, Santa Cruz recently enforced an outdoor smoking ban to go along with its many other anti-smoking laws. Santa Cruz resident Ethan Epstein describes how 'comprehensive' these bans are:

In this bastion of “tolerance,” smoking has been banned throughout all indoor public spaces, outdoor dining areas, parks, beaches, and downtown thoroughfares. My (exorbitantly overpriced) apartment building has imposed a smoking ban that even covers private residences.

I don’t smoke, but my girlfriend does, and she is forced to shiver in the bitter – for California – cold when she wants to light up. That smell wafting into your apartment is not cigarette smoke: it’s illiberalism and intolerance.

And what does the American Lung Association in California (ALAC) do to reward Santa Cruz's slavish devotion to the anti-smoking cause? It awards the city a 'D' in its Tobacco Report Card.

Treating this arbitary rating system with absurd high seriousness, ALAC spokesman Paul Knepprath said the city was oh-so-close to getting a 'C'.

Paul Knepprath, vice president for advocacy and health initiatives with the American Lung Association in California, said although Santa Cruz city code identifies "smoke" as a public nuisance, the wording isn't strong enough.

Knepprath said if the code specifically referred to second-hand tobacco smoke, it would have meant an additional bonus point, which after the errors were fixed, would raise the overall grade.

"That's how close it was," he said.

In other words, Santa Cruz could have only got a 'C' if its politicians lied and said that smoking outdoors posed a health risk to nonsmokers. There is, of course, no evidence for this.

What makes all this funnier, is that the Mayor has taken the news very badly indeed and has started throwing his toys out the pram. He scribbled an angry letter to the ALAC, saying...

"This is ridiculous and, frankly, it does not motivate me to press my City Council colleagues to take further action to reduce smoking: quite the reverse."

Quite the reverse? You mean you're going to take action to increase smoking just because the ALAC hurt your feelings?

"I feel we are being abused and that the rating system is clearly a fraud and meaningless."

And Mayor Rotkin was still throwing a hissy-fit when the press caught up with him...

"Frankly, it makes me so angry I don't ever want to talk to these people again," he said in an interview.

Is this the level of school-yard politics we've be reduced to? Draconian laws being introduced to impress the bigger boys and then petulant name-calling when they don't get the pat on the head they feel they deserve?

I don't claim to be an expert on local politics in America, but aren't politicians supposed to be acting in the interests of their electorate rather than trying to to earn gold stars from out-of-town single-issue campaigners? Rotkin's reaction makes it pretty clear that climbing up a league table comes ahead of serving his electorate.

Rotkin himself is a rum fellow. He teaches 'Community Studies' at the University of California ("yes, I think I will have fries with that"). This includes an Introduction to Marxism, which I'm sure he teaches in a balanced and reasoned way, as you would expect from someone who edited The Socialist Review for ten years, describes himself as a "Marxist-Feminist" and lists his interests as...

Marxist theory, capitalist system, community power structure, institutional analysis, and affirmative action.

According to Discover the Networks:

Rotkin's ideals are outlined in his 1991 PhD thesis (entitled Class, Populism, and Progressive Politics: Santa Cruz, California 1970 - 1982), which describes his stealth strategy to implement socialism in the United States. A chapter from this thesis, titled "A Three-Part Strategy for Democratic Socialism," currently serves as an assigned reading for his "Introduction to Marxism" course.

Part one of this strategy is Grassroots Organizing, which means finding groups with grievances against society and helping them to "wrest concessions," as he phrased it in his thesis. Borrowing from Saul Alinsky's tactics, Rotkin advocates hiding his true socialist agenda from the people he helps while "preparing the ground" for subsequent stages.

I don't wish to offend the good people of Santa Cruz who have elected him as Mayor four times, but from where I'm sitting this man sounds like an asshole.

And it gets better. Mayor Rotkin - who, let's say again, has banned smoking outdoors - is a board member of the American Civil Liberties Union. Is this guy for real, or what?

It's interesting to note that Santa Cruz's recent outdoor bans were brought in to curry favour with the ALAC after getting a 'D' last year.

The city received a "D" for 2008, which partially prompted the council to pass the ban on smoking along Pacific Avenue, West Cliff Drive, the Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf and other public sites. The ordinance, which took effect in October, expanded earlier prohibitions against smoking in restaurants and in lines for movies and concerts.

All of which makes last year's debate over whether or not to bring in these bans look like a bit of a charade. Policy seems to be being dictated by unelected pressure groups rather than the council. The silver lining is that the ALAC seem to have gone too far this time and alienated the childish and self-absorbed politicians upon whom they rely. I predict Santa Cruz will be getting a 'C' sometime soon.

Thanks to Becky for the tip

Debunking of Past SENTINEL coverage of "Nazi Salute" case

by Becky Johnson
July 18, 2009

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- Since the Santa Cruz Sentinel is the paper of record in the City of Santa Cruz, it's particularly egregious when those reporters shoddily report events or outright misreport them. Since this tendency imbues all SENTINEL writers, I tend to suspect the editorial board is the party responsible rather than any individual reporter at any time. Shanna McCord is no exception. The bias from the editorial board is to present a Chamber-of-Commerce type view of Santa Cruz, which is pro-business, pro-police, and anti-homeless.

In this article, I post the April 4, 2007 SENTINEL article in its entirety titled "Judge rules Nazi salute too disruptive for public venue. " I have imbedded my comments to voice my concerns or to add in information which the reader might not know. I did attend this hearing and took notes.


This post is based on a previous post at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/huffsantacruz.

FROM 2007:

from: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2007/April/04/local/stories/09local.htm (LINK APPARENTLY BROKEN NOW)



Judge rules Nazi salute too disruptive for public venue

By Shanna McCord

Sentinel staff writer
April 4, 2007

SANTA CRUZ - Free speech goes only so far inside City Hall.

A federal judge has ruled that city officials had the right to eject a homeless-rights advocate from a council meeting in 2002 for giving a Nazi salute. The judge said the action was too disruptive for the venue.

BECKY: False. The Judge did not rule that the Nazi Salute is a disruption. His ruling turned on the fact that Norse had been warned previously against using a Nazi Salute in council chambers and that the chair has "wide discretion." The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had also examined the "Nazi Salute" previously, and saw no disruption. The Judge ruled that Mayor Krohn had "qualified immunity" and therefore could not be prosecuted.

SENTINEL: "You don't have the same First Amendment rights in a meeting as you do on the street," said attorney George Kovacevich, who represented the city in the five-year, $100,000 legal fray. "You have the right to attend, but you don't have the right to say whatever you want, whenever you want"

BECKY: Note that this $100,000 which John Barisone now bills the City for is not covered in the $500,000 for Barisone's contract. This case included writing a 70-page brief in response to an 8-page brief and other tactics to bill the City the maximum amount his office could possibly bill.

SENTINEL: Robert Norse sued the city for alleged violations of his civil rights under the First and Fourth amendments shortly after being arrested at a council meeting in March 2002.

BECKY: For his one and a half-second raising of his arm silently from the side of the room, Norse was handcuffed and carted off to jail. The alleged "disruption" was never prosecuted as the DA determined there was not enough evidence to press charges.

SENTINEL: Then-Mayor Christopher Krohn had called an end to the public-comment period of the meeting and instructed a woman to step away from the microphone. After twice being told to leave the microphone, the woman walked over to Norse, who raised his right arm toward council members in a Nazi salute, the way Nazi supporters saluted German dictator
Adolph Hitler during World War II.

BECKY: Krohn had earlier asked how many wanted to speak at oral communications. Activist, Susan Zeman was in the earlier group who had raised her hand. She believed she had been granted permission to speak and was shocked to walk up to the podium and have Krohn cut off oral communications right in front of her. Nor would he listen to her appeal to allow her to speak. When Krohn threatened to have her removed, Norse responded with the Nazi Salute. Note, the SENTINEL uses the word "Nazi" twice and the name "Adolph Hitler" once in the same paragraph. Norse has characterized his salute as meaning rote obedience to a fascist authority. And Norse raised his left arm.

SENTINEL: Then-Councilman Tim Fitzmaurice interrupted Krohn to ask Norse to leave the meeting, saying the salute was an insult to the "dignity of the body"

BECKY: This was content-based. No one can say that if Norse had given a "thumbs up" he would have been arrested. Offending the "dignity of the body" can happen when citizens are redressing government grievances. Norse contends that the "rules of decorum" forbid citizens from criticizing their government.

SENTINEL: Norse refused to leave and was subsequently arrested.

BECKY: The problem with Norse raising his arm to the council was not the meaning of the salute, but rather the disruption the salute caused, according to U.S. District Judge Ronald M. Whyte, who issued the decision last week.

SENTINEL: A City Council policy states that people who "interrupt and refuse to keep quiet or take a seat when ordered to do so by the presiding officer or otherwise disrupt the proceedings of the council" may be removed from a meeting.

BECKY: It's clear from the videotapes that it was Fitzmaurice who interrupted the council meeting with his delicate sensitivities, no doubt fueled by his dislike of Robert Norse (who he has walked out on twice while speaking) and his desire to have him removed from the meeting. Attorney Kate Wells, (who McCord declined to interview) said "The Council has a practice of interrupting their own meetings and then blaming individual citizens for the disruptions they themselves caused."

SENTINEL: Norse, a council gadfly who often launches bitter attacks on the city's homeless policies, said the salute was meant as a protest to the city's refusal to deal with homeless issues.

He plans to appeal Whyte's decision to the 9th District Court of Appeals.

BECKY: No doubt this case will move forward as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals did not see the same "disruption" that Whyte did.

see: http://beckyjohnsononewomantalking.blogspot.com/2009/07/9th-circuit-court-hears-arguments-on.html

SENTINEL: "This is not about the Nazis and this is not about me," Norse said Tuesday. "This is about mayoral actions that involve oppression. What I'm fighting is not the Nazi salute. I'm fighting council oppression"

BECKY: Norse has been arrested four times, three times at City Council and once on the sidewalk in front of New Leaf Market. He was not prosecuted in any of these arrests, and won a settlement from the City for the New Leaf incident where he sued for false arrest. Unfortunately, The City was able to exclude any evidence of these arrests or subsequent lack of convictions from the trial.

SENTINEL: Rules limiting speech at council meetings are absolutely necessary to conduct city business, Kovacevich said.

BECKY: Norse doesn't dispute this. He contends his Nazi Salute was non-interruptive, and protected by his first amendment rights. Otherwise, it would be okay to agree with what council is doing but not to disagree. The salute happened in the time interval in which one item had ended and the next item had not yet started.

SENTINEL: Federal law also gives added protections to city officials in cases of alleged civil rights violations. City officials can mistakenly violate a person's rights and not be held liable.

"They have to make spontaneous calls and run a meeting and not be
afraid of getting sued every day," Kovacevich said.

BECKY: This was the actual ruling by Judge Ronald Whyte: that the councilmembers are immune from liability despite a pattern of false arrests. Despite rules that violate the 1st amendment and eliminate the right of the citizen to disapprove of what the council is doing.

SENTINEL: Former Mayor Scott Kennedy, serving on the council in 2002, said Norse's salute was disruptive because he was standing in the front of the room where the council and public audience could see him.

"In my view, it was not the content," Kennedy said. "It was the time and place, and it did disrupt the meeting"

BECKY: Kennedy himself was named in another incident on Jan 13, 2004 where he arbitrarily established a system of tallies for warnings, which included calling holding a sign a "disruption" or inaudible whispering in the audience a "disruption" . His "system" , under which he had Norse physically arrested, didn't even last to the next council meeting. Norse was never prosecuted for this arrest.

SENTINEL: Councilman Mike Rotkin, not on the council in March 2002, said Norse has a long history of arguing with council members and straying from the topic being discussed.

BECKY: Kovacevich did an exhaustive analysis of every time Norse has spoken at City Council since 1999. Norse was ruled "off-topic" in less than 5% of comments. Rotkin also had Norse arrested at a council meeting in June of 2005 for violating the "5-minute rule" in which Rotkin limited comments on all consent agenda items by members of the public to a total of 5 minutes, which means that members of the public have little or no time to speak on items on the agenda, despite the Brown Act assurance that they do. Norse faced charges for 16-months only to have all charges dropped a week before trial.

SENTINEL: "The entire council meeting is not a free speech forum," Rotkin said. "We go out of our way to make ourselves open and accessible to everybody. Robert needs to follow the process like everyone else, which is what the court told us"

BECKY: The court told the council they are immune from liability no matter what they do. Norse has offered to settle for his attorney fees and minor changes in the rules of decorum at City Council meetings.

Read Judge Ronald Whyte's decision at:

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/03/27/18383947.php

SENTINEL: Contact Shanna McCord at smccord@santacruzsentinel.com.