(photo by Becky Johnson)

May 21 2006

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- Only after John Barisone, attorney for the City of Santa Cruz received a 30-page brief in defense of Maurer, did he decide to drop the charges and avoid a constitutional challenge of the law. Since then the City has spent thousands of dollars arguing in federal court claiming the law is constitutional. The Federal Judge disagreed and sided with Mauer. Arrested twice for violating the City's agressive panhandling ordinance Maurer was sitting quietly with a bucket seeking spare change when he had been charged for "using profane or abusive language" while soliciting.

Barisone wrote a letter to Judge Irwin Joseph saying that Maurer didn't break the law because his speech had not been specifically directed at the people from whom he was seeking donations.

Yet John Maurer's attorney, Paul Sanford argued that language to that effect had been specifically deleted by the city council in 2002, primarily so police COULD ticket a person who was sitting quietly seeking donations for "agressive solicitation." In order to persuade the Judge that the ordinance was NOT unconstitutional, Assistant City Attorney Wendy Morgan mislead the court claiming that this was a requirement of the law. Morgan proceeded to quote to Irwin Joseph the "old" ordinance which was more narrowly tailored to only abusive interactions between the defendant and those from whom he sought donations.

"What the law now allows is the ability to ticket someone who sits quietly seeking spare change," Kate Wells commented Sunday on Free Radio Santa Cruz 101.1 FM.

Paul Sanford pointed out to Judge Joseph that Morgan had read the wrong ordinance. Joseph acknowledged he had been given the wrong ordinance, but when Sanford argued that the court should proceed with the trial by first examing the constitutionality of the law. Joseph declined. In order to avoid having to rule on the constitutionality of the case, moved to dismiss, forcing Sanford and Maurer to literally make a "federal case about it."

The city settled with Maurer earlier this month, paying him $5,250. Kate Wells and Paul Sanford get to split $25,000. The settlement also required the city to amend its panhandling law in regard to the use of profanity so that it is no longer unconstitutional.

Kate Wells says she has taken a lot of heat for her share of the settlement by citizens concerned about the financial fix the City is currently in. "I'm sure John Barisone's charges to the City were equal to ours."

She says that she and Sanford made several attempts to resolve the Maurer case without filing a federal suit. Barisone was unmoved. But then, there is more money in it for him if he doesn't settle. Most people in Santa Cruz are unaware that the $500,000 contingency fee the City pays his office annually only pays for his presence at City Council meetings. All other expenses, including the hours he bills the City in court are at additional cost to the City.

During the federal case, there were TWO attornies involved, George Kovacevich and Jeff Barnes, who Wells describes as the wet-behind-the-ears attorney to whom Barisone assigned the case. Wells described that at trial, Barnes tried to argue that it is the "custom" of the police to only city those who are directing profanity at those from whom they are seeking donations, only to be scoffed at by the Judge. "He basically said How can you say this is the custom when the council specifically removed language to that effect?" Then she added "I have nothing but praise for Jeff Barnes. He was hood-winked. It's clear they did this precisely so they could ticket the peaceful behavior of John Maurer sitting quietly with a sign."



Past Barisone Blunders:

--- Blue Lagoon lawsuit re: police harassment by the SCPD --cost to city $500,000 plus
--- DeAnza/Clearview Court rent control abandonment --- where a ruthless out of state corporation seized the life savings of longtime residents and seniors by capitalizing on a flaw in the rent control ordinance written by John Barisone
--- Settled a suit for several thousand dollars with street musician, Michael True, for having copies of his own CD in his guitar case while performing under another Barisone law
--- defended suit against the City when homeless activist, Robert Norse was arrested for obstructing a 20-ft sidewalk with a 2 1/2 foot cardtable costing the city thousands of dollars. Norse was paid a settlement $5000 for the false arrest
--- Barisone has written laws against hackysacking, bubble-blowing, sitting within 14' feet of a building, the "shoulder tap" law, the youth curfew,the "Move-along" law and has prosecuted homeless people on littering charges for feeding the birds
--- Barisone wrote the 5-Minute Rule which limits public comment on consent agenda items to five minutes total, no matter how many items on are on the agenda
--- Spent thousands of dollars prosecuting the author for using sidewalk chalk on a sidewalk
--- Spent thousands of dollars defending against the right of homeless people in Santa Cruz to avail themselves of the necessity defense for sleeping or camping violations with the Camp Paradise case
--- Joined the City with an Amicus brief on a case which supported the right of police torture suspects
--- prosecuted a 76-yr-old homeless woman for tresspassing at the National Guard Armory
--- Barisone is pushing the 15-Minute Law which, if passed Tuesday, May 22, 2006 will make it a crime to exist in a parking garage or selected parking lot for longer than 15-minutes or be cited for tresspassing

HUFF calls for major reform of the Soliciting ordinance (MC 9.10.010) on Tuesday May 23, 2006 from the Santa Cruz City Council.

Since the City Council must rewrite their anti-homeless panhandling law due to a recent loss in federal court which declared the law unconstitutional, we at HUFF urge them to fix the anti-homeless and draconian measures regulating those asking for acts of charity.

While asking for spare change is a protected activity under the 1st amendment free speech protections, the courts have ruled that time, place, and manner restrictions are allowed if the government can present a signficant government interest---usually a health or safety concern.

HUFF questions whether any public health or safety concern is addressed by restrictions such as not soliciting from a seated position, in groups of two or more, or holding a sign asking for food after dark? Actually, these ordinances THREATEN the health and safety of hungry homeless people!

HUFF reminds the citizenry that laws against fraud or assault will still apply and we support those laws.

HUFF urges the Santa Cruz City Council to humanize its ordinance against begging, which is undoubtedly violated only by the poorest of the poor, in the following manner:

1. reduce the 50 foot restriction from a change-dispensing machine to 15 feet.
2. remove the dusk to dawn prohibition
3. allow people to solicit while in a seated position
4. allow people to solicit in groups of up to four people
5. remove all prohibitions against soliciting with a sign
6. remove all locations of restriction to prohibited ONLY where they obstruct a
sidewalk or a doorway
7. strike the section on misleading solicitation
8. remove prohibitions against leaning on public property while soliciting

We prefer that the City send this matter to the Downtown Commission for a thorough examination and review first. Reasonable and humane ordinances in other cities can also be studied. HUFF will remain available as a community resource for feedback on proposed language.

Contact Mayor Cynthia Mathews and the Santa Cruz City Council at : citycouncil@ci.santa-cruz.ca.us

from:

HOMELESS UNITED FOR FRIENDSHIP & FREEDOM
309 Cedar St. PMB 14B
Santa Cruz, Ca. 95060
(831)423-HUFF
www.huffsantacruz.org

Nice to see Becky doing something other than dissing Rachel Corrie. Thanks.

Santa Cruz, Ca. --- At a contenious afternoon session, Mayor Cynthia Mathews led the council to vote in the 15-min-rule which will make it illegal to remain in a parking garage or in only one of the 14 City surface parking lots. Councilmember Ed Porter, surprised the audience when he changed his vote to "no."

He had asked Deputy-Chief Kevin Vogel of the SCPD what difference the law would make in enforcement since it would still require a call for an officer or a CSO to write a citation.

"This way we can cite those who are not engaged in criminal activity," Vogel said.

HUFF and Human Rights Organization activists all spoke out against the law. Not a single supporter came to the second meeting to speak in support of the law.

Several homeless people spoke about how their already difficult lives are made into nightmares by the police harassment they suffer.

Later, at oral communications, a homeless man named Casey spoke. "You know how everyone was claiming that they weren't passing this law against homeless people, from the council to the city attorney. Yet when you picked only one surface lot to extend the ban to, you had to pick the lot right across the street from the Elm Street Mission which feeds homeless people several nights a week."

The law goes into effect 30 days from May 22, 2006.