Street SpiritJ U S T I C E N E W S & H O M E L E S S B L U E S I N T H E B A Y A R E A

VVoolluummee 2211,, NNoo.. 1122 DDeecceemmbbeerr 22001155 DDoonnaattiioonn:: $$11..0000

AA ppuubblliiccaattiioonn ooff tthhee AAmmeerriiccaann FFrriieennddss SSeerrvviiccee CCoommmmiitttteeee

by Caroline Pohl

“When homeless people show up,everyone shuts up.” — Dana Minton, aSuitcase client at General Clinic.

On November 17, Berkeley’s CityCouncil met to vote on newly pro-posed anti-homeless ordinances,

which would include criminalizing theplacement of a cart for more than one hourin the same area and forcing homeless indi-viduals to confine their belongings to anarea measuring only two feet by two feet.

In return, these laws made emptypromises to build more restrooms andshowers, as well as provide storage placesfor homeless persons. Undeniably, theseordinances were purposefully constructedto target Berkeley’s homeless community,and to create a new form of criminaliza-tion for this already underrepresentedgroup in government.

It was a typical Tuesday night atGeneral Clinic, as Suitcase Clinic mem-bers and SHARE coordinators —Brandon Chen, Jenny Liang, and VanessaBriseno — prepared for their weeklySHARE discussion with our clients.

General Clinic is a drop-in centerwhere homeless individuals can receivemedical, optometry or dental care, talk toa lawyer, pick up hygiene supplies or

receive other services such as acupunc-ture, laundry or footwashing.

This week, however, the SHARE dis-cussion group would be held at the CityCouncil, providing clients with a literalvoice in politics and their community. TheSHARE coordinators had reserved a placeto speak at the meeting if our clients sodesired.

Before we left, the conversation atGeneral Clinic gradually drifted towardsthe unavoidable topic at hand. In reflect-ing on a previous council meeting on dif-ferent anti-homeless laws, Dana Mintondiscussed the positive response met by theactivism of 200 homeless individuals.

“Empathy shows,” said Dana. “Whenthe homeless show up, everyone shuts up.”

Rafael Dang, another regular atGeneral Clinic, agreed. Having moved tothe United States quite a few years ago,Rafael was concerned about the city ofBerkeley infringing on our human rights.“I believe everyone is free to be home-less,” said Rafael.

Christopher Cort, previously a professorat UC Berkeley and another client ofGeneral Clinic, summed up the conversa-tion nicely as we started out towards CityHall, declaring that he “opposed everythingthat makes life harder for the homeless.”

A view from the steps of City Hall at the Berkeley City Hall Occupation.The occupation has given homeless people a voice and a visible presence.

Lydia Gansphoto

“Through our attendance at the City Council meeting, Ithink we played a role in empowering our clients whospoke out against the criminalization of homelessness.More importantly, we stood in solidarity with them.”

— Vanessa Briseno, Suitcase ClinicSee Solidarity of Suitcase Clinic page 11

by Terry Messman

It was the best of Berkeley and theworst of Berkeley. On one side wasthe Downtown Berkeley Association,

the Chamber of Commerce, and a six-member voting bloc of the City Councilacting as a political machine to rubber-stamp the directives of big business.

On the other side was the conscienceof Berkeley, in the form of hundreds ofconcerned citizens who lifted up theirvoices in defense of human rights, inter-national law, humane treatment, justiceand compassion — all to no avail.

At a crucial moment when the U.S.Department of Justice and the Departmentof Housing and Urban Development havewarned U.S. cities to stop passing anti-homeless laws, and two United Nationsagencies have officially declared that U.S.cities are violating international law bycriminalizing homeless people, MayorTom Bates and the Berkeley City Councilvoted 6 to 3 in favor of draconian newmeasures to persecute homeless people.

Yet, it was the best of Berkeley becauseso many people cared so deeply about the

city’s homeless residents and offered pow-erful and electrifying calls for compassionand social justice. Many people present atthe council meeting on November 17 saidafterwards that they were so moved by theinspiring statements of so many who wait-ed for hours in the council chambers to tes-tify, that it felt like a moral victory forhuman rights despite the passage of theanti-homeless laws.

Berkeley activist Sally Hindman said itfelt like “cognitive dissonance” whenimmediately after the council listened toseveral hours of compelling testimonyabout human rights, the council majorityignored every one of the eloquent voicesraised in defense of the city’s poorest resi-dents, and voted to pass the draconian laws.

The City Council’s first vote onNovember 17 was followed by their sec-ond, and final, vote in favor of the anti-homeless measures on December 1.

The new law severely limits the amountof sidewalk space where people can havetheir belongings to two square feet, andbans lying on the rims of planters. Peoplewith shopping carts will be forced to moveall their possessions every hour. The law

also bans urinating and defecating in publiceven though many called that provision amisleading smoke screen aimed at malign-ing the poor, since it is already illegal.

At one point, Attorney Osha Neumannwalked up to the microphone and told theCity Council that “the fix is in,” thendeliberately turned his back on the counciland directly addressed the large numberof homeless advocates who packed thecouncil chambers. He said that despite themajority vote for the anti-homeless laws,people had succeeded in joining togetherin a struggle that would continue todefend the rights of homeless people.

In an evening packed with inspiringspeakers, the most eloquent testimony byfar came at the very end, when BerkeleyCity Councilmember Max Anderson called

forth memories of an earlier struggle forcivil rights in our nation’s history.

Anderson, an African-American coun-cilmember representing District 3, wasone of three dissenting votes to the anti-homeless measures, along with KrissWorthington and Jesse Arreguin.

Anderson delivered the most magnifi-cent statement of the evening, a powerfulmoral indictment of the Berkeley CityCouncil for following in the segregationistfootsteps of Mississippi and Alabama.

He put Berkeley’s efforts to punish thepoor in historical perspective, remindingeveryone that the council has constantlyattempted to criminalize homelessness formore than 20 years, going back to

A Futile and Brutal ActBerkeley’s New Anti-Homeless Laws“Berkeley continues to outlaw homeless people in the face ofoverwhelming statements from the federal government andfrom nearly every university school of health and law schoolthat says that criminalizing the poor is a futile and brutal act.”

— Max Anderson, Berkeley City Council

Suitcase Clinic’s Solidarity with People on the Street

Homeless advocates begin an all-night vigil in front of old City Hallin protest of the Berkeley City Council’s anti-homeless laws.

Photo credit: KevinCheung, Daily Cal

See A Futile and Brutal Act page 6

December 2015ST R E E T SP I R I T2

A Column on Human Rightsby Carol Denney

Asmall news item showed up inThe Berkeley Daily Planet aroundthe same time as Mayor Tom

Bates and his team methodically passedtheir law criminalizing having more thantwo square feet of belongings in public.

A local artist had all of his work stolenfrom a storage facility. He had propertystolen as well, property which apparentlyshowed up later for resale at Moe’s Booksand Amoeba Music. But his original art-works, a colorful collection includingunique prints and monographs (perhapswithout the same immediate resale value),appear to be gone forever.

Berkeley City Councilmember LindaMaio of District One told the whole townall summer that homeless people “can puttheir stuff in parks, they can sleep in parks,they can hang out in parks,” to excuse hertwo-square-feet sidewalk law, generating apark-protective backlash that she used togrease the way to criminalizing more obvi-ous attributes of homelessness with theusual sweeteners, such as non-existent bath-rooms, storage and services.

People who attended the overflowingCity Council hearing on November 17were treated to a letter from the business(oh yes, it is a business) run by JackPetranker called the Mangalam ResearchCenter for Buddhist Languages whichclaimed their business (yes, it is a busi-ness) was down because of the terriblehomeless people across the street whomthey’re not sure, but might be stealingbicycles and are just so icky anyway.

This would be the new Buddhism,

since the old Buddhism had a slightly dif-ferent perspective on the poor. And it wasespecially interesting to those of us whohave had the police explain that as a mat-ter of policy, they are purposefully mov-ing people from Shattuck Avenue down toHarold Way. I’m not suggesting this is anefarious conspiracy. I’m just saying.

None of the anti-poor stuff was particu-larly original or unexpected. Criminalizingpoverty has become a holiday tradition inBerkeley as predictable as Muzak in retailstores playing “Silver Bells.” Some won-dered if the official statements from theDepartment of Justice and the Departmentof Housing and Urban Development advis-ing against criminalization measures wouldhave any effect. They didn’t. People whocriminalize poverty are great at characteriz-ing it as a safety or public health measure,and the new burden it puts on grant writersis apparently not a compelling concern,even though it affects around seven milliondollars of our HUD funding.

But the real public health crisis is thefact that our current housing policy — theresult of 30 solid years of Mayor TomBates and, before that, his wife, formerMayor Loni Hancock’s complete neglectof affordable housing and homeless resi-dents in Berkeley— presumes that havingpeople sleeping in parks, under bushes,and tucked away as best they can underevery overpass and in every alley, is justthe way things are. Wave to your nearbyhomeless people in your park as you andyour kids enjoy a picnic, brought to youby the developer-friendly policies of yourlocal and state politicians.

But the neighbors are right. No park isdesigned as a campground, and the neces-

sity of clean, safe parks is better under-stood in Berkeley than most places,although park maintenance is still woeful-ly underfunded. None of them, by theway, spoke directly in favor of the crimi-nalization elements in Maio’s proposal,just in favor of the same things any home-less person living unhappily in a parkwants — safe surroundings, convenient,available bathrooms, and the enforcementof the laws we already have.

The campground of necessity shouldbe the City Hall grounds, where there areno more green lawns to confound anymore with tarps and tents, thanks to thedrought, and where public officials haveto meet the people their luxury-housing-only policies have affected.

The little news story about the localartist who lost all of his work was probablytoo small to capture much attention. Thisman’s artwork was in a fully paid U-Haulstorage locker. Many artists use storagelockers after generating an inconvenientamount of canvases, especially those whowork without dedicated studio space onceplentiful in a now priced-out Bay Area.

But the item I read and re-read like apowerful book was the perfect morning-after to the sad council meeting in whichhundreds of people brought compellingtestimony to a council majority thatignored them.

A friend of mine’s roommate and closefriend died unexpectedly a few weeks ago,and even more unexpectedly, her landlady

told her to vacate the apartment at the endof that month, ostensibly for repairs whichneed a permit she has yet to pull.

My friend is a disabled senior on afixed income in one of the few remainingrent-controlled apartments in Berkeley.Even if she can struggle through the diffi-culties that confront a disabled womantrying to establish many years of tenancyon paper and establish her right to stay,she faces living on a pittance, nursingevery dollar, and hoping for the best.

Her top concern, when we speak, ismaking certain that her roommate’s art-work is preserved, and that the work beorganized and recognized so that herroommate’s value as an artist is not over-looked. My friend is an artist herself, asam I, so there flows between us, even in atime of community and personal crisis, anunderstanding that some things are justthe things you do because you care.

To the man who lost so much of his per-sonal artwork in the U-Haul robbery, thankyou for personalizing what our CityCouncil majority (Max Anderson, JesseArreguin, and Kriss Worthington excepted)does not seem to grasp about the perils ofstorage even in the best of circumstances —even assuming the City of Berkeley getsitself into the business of trying to provideit, since right now no storage exists for peo-ple who can’t pay the cost. Because hisstory helps those who need to think about itcrystallize one clear thought: nothing quiteworks so well as housing.

Nothing Works QuiteAs Well As Housing

by Carol Denney

Acreative group of people hassolved the storage problem forabout 50 people without homes in

Berkeley, California. With no money, noforms to fill out, with just a spirit of fel-lowship and cooperation, the sleep-in (oroccupation) on the steps of old BerkeleyCity Hall which began on November 16,2015, in response to new anti-homelesslaws, solved an issue which Berkeley cityleaders have been unable to solve formore than 30 years.

These people are working together withcommunity support to build a cooperativecommunity occupying the old City Hallsteps on Martin Luther King Jr. Way.

The location of the colorful tents andtables has a lengthy list of advantages overthe City Council majority’s plan for home-less people, which for 30 years, has been tochase people all over town, constantlychange both written and unwritten rules,and provide assistance to an extremelysmall ratio of the people in need, with nostorage or safe place to rest for anybodyelse. For about 30 years, it’s been a shellgame where the respite is temporary, thestakes are high, and the disinterest fromBerkeley voters is deafening.

The occupation at Martin Luther KingJr. Way, on the other hand, is storing gearfor about 50 people near transportationand services and has a grassy area fortents with soft lighting at night from near-by streetlights. There are two port-a-pot-ties right across the street in a public parkright by City Hall, the main library, and

the Public Safety Building.It’s right by the farmers market, out of

the way of shoppers and tourists, andlocated on public property near an almostunused building where the City Councilmeets in the old council chambers.

It may not be perfect, especially in thenear-freezing temperatures the occupa-

tion’s residents are currently enduring, butthe creativity and poetry is top notch, andthe environmental standards would give ita platinum LEED rating. Bring some hotfood and come on by.

Two weeks into the occupation, theyhave developed a proposed governmentthey shared with supporters, declaring:“Our first proposed government here atthe Berkeley City Hall Occupation isdone. We may need some minor adjust-ments as we develop and grow. Self rulewith consensus. A desired 100% consen-sus, with a graduated scale.”

Their plan details intricate andthoughtful gradations of consensus, suchas: “70% minimum to approve, but mustbe revisited monthly to revise andimprove consensus percentage. At 80%approval, item gets revisited every twomonths to revise and improve consensuspercentage. At 90% approval, item getsrevisited every 6 months to revise andimprove consensus. Once 100% approvalis reached, the only way to revisit is with51% approval to revisit.”

The statement concludes: “As the vil-lage evolves, these guidelines will allowfor the government and community guide-lines to evolve.”

Berkeley’s Sleep-In Occupation Has Location! Location! Location!

A sleep-out began at City Hall on November 16 in protest of Berkeley’santi-homeless laws, and then it grew into a longer term occupation.

Carol Denneyphoto

A sign bears a message: “This is an occupation, not an encampment.” Lydia Gans photo

December 2015 ST R E E T SP I R I T 3

by Lydia Gans

The residents at Redwood Gardens,the HUD project on Derby Street inBerkeley for low-income seniors

and people with disabilities, are againbeing reminded that they have little powerto control their living conditions. Theirlives are in the hands of the management,and they’ve found that expressing opposi-tion to the actions or policies of manage-ment can have serious consequences.

The building owners recently hired anew on-site property manager and herrelations with the residents got off to abad start and have not improved. Whenshe came to the project, the members ofthe Residents’ Council were interested ingetting acquainted and suggested invitingher to their next meeting. Council Co-chairs Eleanor Walden and Gary Hickssent her an invitation.

Walden reported to the members on theresponse. “The newly hired Acting PropertyManager, Liana Bates-Hall, just paid me avisit. In response to our invitation to cometo the Residents’ Council meeting she cate-gorically refused. She said she had noresponsibility to meet with us as ‘we don’tsign her pay check.’ She defined her jobsolely as carrying out the rules of those whodo sign her paycheck. I told her that herresponsibility was greater than that in thatshe was under the direction of the HUDcontract as held by CSI and that the resi-dents were part of the conglomerate ofparticipants with whom she needed towork. Her manner was surprisingly adver-sarial and conveyed an attitude of disre-spect for the Residents’ Council as havingno authority. She said we are ‘tenants’and have only one duty and that is to ‘payour rent and obey the rules.’”

Walden said that the residents wantedto see her resume. Not surprisingly,Bates-Hall refused. Walden writes,“Although I admit to being a bit heavyhanded by asking for her resume, I don’tthink it is outrageous. If someone askedfor my resume I would be glad to provideit. She is already employed, so it will notbe held against her and we will knowwhat we have to work with. I hear throughmy grapevine that she has a military back-ground. And that is exactly how she hascome on. Her behavior was a good exam-ple of bullying, in my opinion.”

In the two months the new propertymanager has been at Redwood Gardens,tenants have been increasingly frustrated atseeing new rules and changes made with nowarning, and with what feels like no con-cern for their peace of mind and quality oflife. People have mentioned various issues,among them a two-day notice of mandatoryapartment inspection, increases in depositsand fees for various community amenitiesand replacement of garden furniture with-out regard to users’ comfort.

Though the tenants might voice com-plaints, they have little power to affectmanagement practices. Management, onthe other hand, can seriously affect thequality of their lives. And management isthreatening to do just that.

Five of the tenants have received lettersfrom a law firm, Kimball, Tirey & St. Johnin Walnut Creek, accusing them of harass-

ing the manager, Ms. Bates-Hall, and warn-ing them that they could be evicted.Eviction from the project means losingaccess to low-income housing, and beingreduced to homelessness. For those who areelderly or disabled, it would be devastating.

Each of the five targeted peoplereceived somewhat different letters mak-ing various charges, but basically with thesame intent. The five-page letteraddressed to the co-chair of the Residents’Council, Gary Hicks, is one example.

It begins with the charge that the “ten-ant organization ... has been engaging inconduct which is tantamount to harass-ment.” The term “harassment” seems tobe rather open to interpretation. Some ofthe tenants have described their encoun-ters with Bates-Hall as harassment.

The management’s lawyer charged thatGary Hicks, “through your affiliation as amember of the Redwood GardensResidents’ Council, have continually, fre-quently and on a consistent basis harassedher ... as well as instigated other residentsto do the same, including, but not limitedto requesting evidence of her qualifica-tions for her employment position ...name-calling her to other residents includ-ing but not limited to calling her a bullyand making false accusations against her,such as that she was hired by a companywith a suspended license.”

As a matter of fact, this last item camefrom an article by reporter Lynda Carsonin Bay Area Independent Media (IndyBay), certainly not from Hicks.

The lawyer’s letter refers to the LeaseAgreement stating that a tenant can beevicted for noncompliance which includes“repeated minor violations of thisAgreement which disrupt the livability ofthe project, adversely affect the health orsafety of any person or the right of any ten-ant to the quiet enjoyment of the leasepremises and related project facilities...”

People might recall the actions of themanagement last year when they engagedin a massive remodeling process requiringtenants to move their belongings, stayaway from their units in some cases for anextended period of time, and in generalcreating an extremely stressful situation.Regarding project facilities, they moved alaundry to an inconvenient location andclosed off the popular community roomfor over a year.

It seems that it was acceptable for man-agement to “disrupt the livability or thequiet enjoyment of the lease premises.”

Furthermore, addressing the Residents’Council, the lawyer writes that the factthat some residents disagree with the “dis-paraging views or actions espoused byyour organization ... disrupts the livabilityof the project ... (and) disturbs the peaceand quiet of other residents ...”

Several paragraphs are devoted to dis-cussing Ms. Bates-Hall’s refusal to attendmeetings of the Residents’ Council. “Herrefusal is not grounds to make or expressfalse negative inferences to act as managerof the community and you must cease anyand all communications of such viewsexpressed to other residents.”

The management’s lawyer appears tobe denying the First Amendment right tofreedom of speech for the tenants. Theyhave been warned that they are notallowed to express an opinion about themanagement, and are not allowed tospeak out about the policies that affecttheir daily lives. It is difficult to believethat this suppression of First Amendment

rights is occurring in Berkeley. There are other references to conversa-

tions about management among residents.Does this mean that people must surren-der the freedom of speech and their rightto privacy when moving into the project?

Basically, the charges and accusationsmade in the letter are easily challengedand the residents do have some access tolegal aid. But the underlying message isthe reminder that they have no power overtheir circumstances. They have no choicebut to “pay the rent and obey the rules.”Noncompliance can result in “terminationof tenancy.”

And the final kick is in the last para-graph, in bold print, headed with thewarning to CEASE AND DESIST.

Street SpiritStreet Spirit is a publication of theAmerican Friends Service Committee.

Editor, Layout: Terry MessmanWeb content: Jesse ClarkeHuman Rights: Carol DenneyVendor Program: J.C. Orton

Contributors: Avram Gur Arye, ClaireJ. Baker, Jack Bragen, Joan Clair, AlexDarocy, Carol Denney, Lili Dubois,Lydia Gans, Dan McMullan, RobertNorse, Eve Pageant, Caroline Pohl, JuliaVinograd, George Wynn

All works copyrighted by the authors.The views expressed in Street Spirit arti-cles are those of the individual authors.

Street Spirit welcomes submissions ofarticles, artwork, poems and photos. Contact: Terry MessmanStreet Spirit, 65 Ninth Street,San Francisco, CA 94103E-mail: spirit@afsc.orgWeb: http://www.thestreetspirit.org

Street Spirit EditorialAdvisory Committee

Street Spirit is published by AmericanFriends Service Committee. Its work isguided by an advisory committee of expe-rienced and dedicated advocates. Thanksto the Street Spirit advisory committee:

Janny Castillo, Ellen Danchik, DianaDavis, Carol Denney, Michael Diehl,Lydia Gans, David Hartsough, Sister EvaLumas, Daniel McMullan, The SuitcaseClinic, Pattie Wall, Susan Werner.

The Management of Redwood Gardens ThreatensSenior Residents with Eviction for Speaking Out

Senior tenants are facing threats from management. From left, Peni Hall, Gary Hicks and Eleanor Walden. Avram Gur Arye photo

The lawyer warned tenants to“cease and desist” any and allcriticism of management. Mustthey surrender their freedom ofspeech and right to privacywhen living in the project?

Compiled by Daniel McMullan

I’ve had enough of reading things byneurotic, psychotic, pigheaded politicians.All I want is the truth, just gimme sometruth. — John Lennon

Home is a notion that only nations of thehomeless fully appreciate and only theuprooted comprehend. — Wallace Stegner

It is forbidden to kill; therefore, all mur-derers are punished unless they kill inlarge numbers and to the sound of trum-pets. — Voltaire

I am convinced that imprisonment is away of pretending to solve the problemof crime. It does nothing for the victimsof crime, but perpetuates the idea of ret-ribution, thus maintaining the endlesscycle of violence in our culture. It is acruel and useless substitute for the elim-ination of those conditions — poverty,unemployment, homelessness, despera-tion, racism, greed — which are at theroot of most punished crime. The crimesof the rich and powerful go mostlyunpunished. — Howard Zinn

Man is the only animal that deals in thatatrocity of atrocities, War. He is theonly one that gathers his brethren abouthim and goes forth in cold blood andcalm pulse to exterminate his kind. —Mark Twain

Gimme Some Truth

December 2015ST R E E T SP I R I T4

Commentary by Terry Messman

Santa Cruz Mayor Don Lane releasedan open letter last month that took athoughtful look at the suffering of

homeless people in his city, and called forcompassionate measures such as emer-gency warming centers, expanded shelters,legal parking for homeless vehicle dwellers,and an end to the ban on sleeping. [MayorLane’s letter was published in theNovember 2015 issue of Street Spirit.]

Lane’s statement is a significant explo-ration of the issues surrounding homeless-ness — especially in light of the vote onNovember 17 to criminalize homelesspeople by Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates andthe majority of the City Council. Therefusal of Berkeley officials to listen tothe hundreds of people who spoke outwith intelligence and compassion indefense of the human rights of the poorestcitizens was a travesty. In this climate, theopen letter from the mayor of Santa Cruztakes on even greater importance.

Mayor Lane described the enormoussuffering of the homeless community, andacknowledged his city’s failure to provideadequate shelter for the people trapped inpoverty on the streets. Even more surpris-ingly, he questioned Santa Cruz’s mistak-en policies of criminalizing homeless peo-ple and its sleeping ban.

What makes Lane’s statement so mean-ingful is that it flies in the face of SantaCruz’s appalling police attacks on its home-less residents. For the past 30 years, SantaCruz, to its absolute disgrace, has compiledone of the worst track records of anti-home-less legislation in the nation.

The city’s inhumane policy of policerepression has been carried out by self-avowed liberal-to-progressive municipalofficials who have enacted a seeminglyendless series of cruel laws to banish home-less people from public spaces in what canonly be called a deliberate campaign of defacto segregation — segregation based oneconomic class, race and disability.

As a result, many Santa Cruz advo-cates and homeless people are understand-ably suspicious of Mayor Lane’s sincerityand good will, given the city govern-ment’s unbroken record of persecutingand outlawing nearly every facet of theexistence of homeless people.

But there is another way to look atLane’s statement. One way that social-change movements work, is by graduallyeducating and awakening public officialsto the injustice of oppressive laws.

In Santa Cruz, dedicated activists havecarried out a long-lasting and hard-foughtstruggle to expose human rights abuses anddiscriminatory laws aimed at homeless peo-ple. When the first glimmers of light finallybegin to break out, it is important for theactivists involved to keep an open mindabout the potential for change.

Still, it is not only understandable, butessential, for activists in Santa Cruz toremain wary of the true intentions of anymayor or public official who professes tobe reconsidering his city’s long-time per-secution of homeless people. It is impor-tant for them to remain vigilant when theyhave witnessed the rights of homelesspeople constantly violated in their city.

But Lane’s letter is the kind of publicsupport for the rights of homeless peoplethat we must hope will emerge across the

nation in hundreds of U.S. cities with sim-ilarly repressive anti-homeless ordinances.His public challenge to anti-homelesslaws and his call for greater compassion isa challenge to the consciences of munici-pal officials throughout the state.

Mayor Lane’s reflections have notarisen in a vacuum. Recently, the U.S.Department of Justice declared in a courtcase in Boise, Idaho, that laws that crimi-nalize homeless people in cities with inad-equate shelter amount to “cruel andunusual punishment.” And the U.S.Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment warned city officials acrossthe nation that they are at risk of losinghundreds of millions of dollars in federalhomelessness funds if they continue tocriminalize homelessness.

These developments played a signifi-cant role in spurring Lane’s reflections.The mayor admits as much in his letter:

“The federal government has, in a vari-ety of ways, signaled that it will not pro-vide federal homelessness funding tolocalities that enforce laws against sleep-ing outside when those who are sleepingoutside have no legal alternative. The fedshave also started to intervene in courtcases that question local laws that prohibitsleeping in public places for people whohave no place else to sleep.”

It is a positive sign that Lane is callingfor greater public compassion and is re-examining and even repudiating some ofthe mentality that leads to the criminaliza-tion of people living on the streets.

It is worthwhile to look more closely atthe most illuminating points in MayorLane’s public letter — and then at the ter-ribly flawed shortcoming of his statement.

The best part of Lane’s letter is simplyits candor in taking a hard look at thealarming lack of shelter and services forhomeless people in his city. He reportsthat even though County officials haveincreased funding for homeless services,the City of Santa Cruz has significantlyreduced its funding, jeopardizing wintershelter programs and resulting in the lossof meals, restrooms and showers for hun-dreds of homeless people.

Activists have tried for years to makethe City Council acknowledge the com-plete failure of Santa Cruz to house oreven shelter more than a fraction of itshomeless population. It is important thatthe mayor stated this explicitly, in black

and white, to the public.Lane writes, “Despite a fairly wide-

spread misconception, we’ve never had alot of emergency shelter for adults in theCity of Santa Cruz. And now we haveeven less. No matter how you slice it, dur-ing most of the year, there are literallyhundreds of adults without an indoorspace to sleep at night.”

This adds up to a very serious indict-ment. For Mayor Lane admits that SantaCruz is committing precisely the sameinjustice that the Department of Justicecondemned in Boise, Idaho, by criminal-izing people for sleeping outdoors in acity with too few shelter beds.

Lane states: “It has become extraordi-narily difficult for any homeless adult tofind any emergency shelter.”

The mayor also asks penetrating ques-tions about the hardships faced by home-less people. Usually, if city officialsaddress homeless issues at all, they dis-cuss them in a way devoid of all humanfeeling, as if they were talking aboutbloodless statistics or abstract economicindicators, rather than human beings.

It is rare for any mayor to confront thedesperation, anguish and suffering of peo-ple who have lost their housing. Lane asksthe following questions in an attempt toopen the eyes of city officials to the reali-ty that leaving people to languish in mis-ery is not a decent response to the desper-ate levels of human need on the streets.

“Where is a person who attendedSanta Cruz High 15 years ago and who isnow broke and troubled and living on thestreets supposed to sleep tonight?

“Where will we suggest that each ofthe several hundred unsheltered individu-als in the Santa Cruz area spend the nightwhen it starts raining hard?

“What public purpose is served when anunsheltered, impoverished person gets acitation for sleeping outside? Is that kind ofcitation having any positive impact on thehomelessness problem we have?”

Lane makes another important point.City officials across the nation havepassed the blame for the homeless crisisonto the federal government and its fail-ure to adequately fund affordable housing.

Lane rejects that easy transfer of blameas a cop-out, asking how homeless peopleare supposed to survive while waiting forsome other level of government to dealwith homelessness, and asking why

homeless people should pay the price forthe failure of government officials.

Throughout California, excessive andunconscionable rental increases havecaused a critical shortage of affordablehousing and a massive number of evic-tions for profit. Extortionate rents are amajor cause of homelessness.

In Berkeley, the mayor and the majori-ty of City Councilmembers are in thepocket of the real estate interests and cor-porate developers that are driving up rentsto unprecedented levels. That is not onlymy analysis. That is also what BerkeleyCouncilmember Max Anderson said inaccusing the council majority of pushingthrough anti-homeless laws because theyare in the pocket of big-money interests.

Mayor Lane describes the direct roleplayed by sky-high rents in causing greaterhomelessness. He writes, “It’s also impor-tant to note here what is probably the worstnews of all: rental housing costs are sky-rocketing. It’s widely agreed that our area isexperiencing a housing affordability crisisthat is likely worse than any past housingcrisis we’ve seen. People, mainly peoplewith jobs, are being priced out of theirrental housing situations every day.”

Mayor Lane, to his credit, also calledon Santa Cruz to stop criminalizing sleep,proposing that city officials “amend thecurrent camping ordinance to remove ref-erences to ‘sleep’ and ‘sleeping’ and ‘cov-ering up with blankets.’” That is a stepforward, if only it is followed up by theSanta Cruz City Council.

In addition, Lane called on the City toallocate more funding for shelter, and tobecome a partner with Santa Cruz Countyin running an emergency warming centerto provide life-saving shelter in the win-ter. He also suggested that the City workwith a partner organization to set up apilot project for homeless residents tolegally sleep in their vehicles, and explorethe possibility of allowing an agency tocreate a small pilot camping area for peo-ple unable to find any housing.

It is truly unfortunate that, after sayingso many of the right things about homeless-ness, Mayor Lane then launches an unwar-ranted attack on the very activists who havechampioned the rights of homeless peoplein Santa Cruz, in season and out. It is a bit-ter irony that the mayor maligns the same

On Homelessness and Human Rights in Santa Cruz

Santa Cruz police have been constantly arresting and harassing the Freedom Sleepers outside City Hall. Photo by Alex Darocy

See Homelessness and Human Rights page 5

Mayor Lane has maligned the very activists who have done the most to keep concern for humanrights alive for all these years in Santa Cruz. Have they been noisy and “boisterous” in advocat-ing that poor people not be criminalized? Thank God they have.

Santa Cruz has enacted banson sleeping in parks and invehicles, bans on blankets,and bans on sitting-camping-breathing-eating-sleeping-dreaming-and-existing.

December 2015 ST R E E T SP I R I T 5

Commentary by Robert Norse

Homeless United for Friendshipand Freedom (HUFF) dis-cussed the recent Facebookposting by Santa Cruz Mayor

Don Lane, and our member’s response.Becky moved and HUFF voted to con-

tact each of the Santa Cruz CityCouncilmembers to determine their positionon Lane’s proposed removal of sectionsMC 9.36.010a and b from the CampingOrdinance. This should clarify the real divi-sion on the City Council and expose thereal tensions and real violence — as MartinLuther King might have said.

I’m not one to reject partial stepstowards restoring basic civil rights to thoseoutside. However the following needs to besaid: It appears this is being done inresponse to potential threats of litigationand funding cutoff from HUD for cities thatcontinue to criminalize homelessness (aswas the case with Vancouver, WA, and var-ious southern California cities recently).

The point here is that merely eliminat-ing “sleeping” and “blankets” provides noimmunity from 6.36.010c citations (“camp-ing with the intent to remain overnight”).Nor from other citations that serve thesame purpose. Nor from the weather and

danger of sleeping outside. It does howeverprovide possible legal protection from liti-gation and a claim that Santa Cruz is“doing something” and shouldn’t have itsfunding cut off.

What could Mayor Lane do that wouldinvolve action rather than rhetoric?

As Mayor, he could ask the CityManager and Police Chief to stop all cita-tions of those sleeping, covering up withblankets, or camping outside either forthose offenses or for “being in a park afterclosing” (something now frequently usedwhich suspiciously looks like a dodgeagainst potential litigation and liability for8th Amendment violations). The Councilmajority could counter him with differentinstructions — but that would be mostembarrassing for them.

As Mayor, he could publicly state hebelieves the public has the right to be atCity Hall after dark in peaceful protest, andask for removal of the klieg lights, no park-ing jackets over the meters, and First Alarmthugs that appear every Tuesday night whenthe Freedom Sleepers hold their protests.

As Mayor, he could request the CityAttorney to grant amnesty for all MC 6.36.and MC 13.04.011 citations for the last twoyears and request the courts do the same.

As a member of the City Council,Mayor Lane has voted for a series of anti-homeless laws over the last decade,including expanding the forbidden zonesdowntown where people can sit, perform,peacefully sparechange, or table; makingthree unattended infractions the basis for amisdemeanor prosecution; making everysubsequent infraction citation after three

unpaid ones an actual misdemeanor; crim-inalizing peacefully standing on a medianwith a sign; making taking issue with apark employee a misdemeanor; and thecop-empowering Stay-Away order laws.

As Homeless Services Supporter, Lanecould apologize for voting for the require-ment that the Homeless (Lack of) ServicesCenter be transformed into a de facto prison(with gate, guards, ID) with the funding thatshould go to expanded services, and actual-ly bring up restoration of general homelessservices (such as bathroom and regularshower access, meals, and laundry use);require the HSC to dump the bogus grant-seeking “path to housing” requirements ofthe Paul Lee Loft and return to its originalmission (which was actually to get thehomeless away from the downtown, but atleast made a pretense of providing food,access to waiting lists though not reallyshelter, and other rather basic services).

Introduce a measure to provide dump-sters, portapotties, and regular trash pick-ups for all existing homeless encamp-ments — where homeless people actuallylive these days. Or do so through a privatecharity drive as was done in Fresno.

Make it clear that the “Magnet”Theory, the “Homeless as Public SafetyThreats,” the “Needlemania” mythsteria,and the other dangerous but effective pre-texts used over the last few years to passmany of these laws and fund abusivepolice/ranger behavior have no basis infact. Lane does not mention these “ele-phants in the room” at all and perhaps forunderstandable reasons — namely, that hewent along with this mythology and may

not have the fortitude to challenge it. Orperhaps he’s afraid it will offend the right-wing Council majority and its Take BackSanta Cruz homeless-bashers to blowaway their bugaboos.

Lane voted for the crap that came outof them (the Citizens Public Safety TaskForce for instance). He needs to specifi-cally repudiate those votes and supporttheir repeal.

Declare that during the first rains, ifthere is no real shelter (“warming center” or“sanctuary place” or “campground” or “tentcity,” whatever you want to call it) avail-able, he will join with activists in simplygoing into a vacant building and using it forthat purpose — whether we’re talking CivicAuditorium, City Hall Council chambers,Stadium, etc. to protect the lives and safetyof those he cares so much about.

Lane’s letter states that “enforcementhasn’t worked,” yet there is no mention ofhuman rights, civil rights or criminalization.

The issue is not whether Lane’s propos-als are better than the Council majority’sbullshit, but whether they are adequate forhomeless survival this winter. And forHUFF, whether they have anything to dowith the “mandatory minimums” that willreally set us on the right path.

For me, we wouldn’t be very far alongthat path which involves real housing,rewarding work, revolutionary shift fromwar to healing, profound redistribution ifpower and income, and other rather pro-found changes. Lane has his LengthyRedemption Lament. We have our job todo — which has to do with reality notrhetoric. Let’s get on with it.

Santa Cruz Activist Responds to Mayor Lane’s Letter As mayor, he could ask thecity manager and police chiefto stop all citations of thosesleeping, covering up withblankets, or camping outside.

homeless advocates who have advocatedliterally every single one of the proposalshe makes in his letter.

Lane refers to the unwanted presenceof the city’s homeless activists as the “ele-phant in the room.”

“In Santa Cruz, I believe the biggest‘elephant’ is the behavior of a handful ofhigh-profile homelessness activists.(Note: these are homelessness activists —the most notable among them are notthemselves homeless.) Years of boisterousand offensive behavior have caused me toavoid dealing with some aspects of localhomelessness issues. I imagine this is alsothe experience of some other local electedofficials. Anyway, I am not proud of mychoice to avoid some of these issues. Ihave allowed what I see as the poisonousbehavior of a very small number of peopleto keep me from taking on some trulyimportant issues.”

I read that passage with dismay. I haveattended many protests in Santa Cruz overthe years, and instead of “poisonous behav-ior,” I have seen nonviolence in action,spirited protests that asked the right ques-tions, and challenged terribly unjust laws.

At times, I have also seen activists hurlangry accusations at public officials —yet these officials were entirely guilty ofpersecuting the poor and other acts ofinhumanity. Some demonstrators haveoccasionally crossed the line into hostilityand name-calling. Perhaps that would nothappen in a perfect world, but I cannotthink of any movement yet that has main-tained perfect discipline at all times.

Mayor Lane chose to malign the veryactivists who have done the most to keepconcern for human rights alive for all theseyears. Have they been noisy and “boister-ous” in advocating that poor people not becriminalized? Thank God they have.

Have they stung city officials with out-spoken protests and, at times, intemperateaccusations? Cry me a river. They have

only done so in order to stick up for poorpeople who would otherwise be defense-less and voiceless in Santa Cruz. What isat stake are human lives — and not thedelicate feelings of the City Council.

Another irony is at work. Almost all ofLane’s proposals for safe sleeping places,legalized areas for vehicle dwellers, and amoratorium on the sleeping ban, did notoriginate with him, but with the homelessadvocates he recklessly defames.

Santa Cruz homeless advocates havewritten thoughtful articles in Street Spiritthat proposed every one of the ideasembraced by the mayor in his letter. TheFreedom Sleepers have gone far beyondMayor Lane’s suggestion for an end to thesleeping ban by repeatedly putting theirbodies on the line in weekly nonviolentsleep-outs at City Hall.

It is strange that a mayor would advancethese identical proposals, saying he is nowready to “engage in frank conversations onthese issues” even with people that “havedisagreements on any particular policy” —and then publicly disparage the activists.

Santa Cruz activist Steve Pleich said,“It is ironic that the Mayor has chosen toadvocate for these programs after monthsof foot dragging while simultaneouslytaking a swipe at the very activists whohave been advocating for the programs henow seems to be embracing.”

City officials may dislike the activistsfor disrupting business as usual, but theseprotests only occured because the CityCouncil has presided over police raids andrepression for three decades.

Instead of creating housing and otherhumane solutions, they have enacted anendless series of sleeping bans and vehi-cle bans and blanket bans and park bansand bans on sitting-camping-breathing-eating-sleeping-dreaming-and-existing.

Mayor Lane honestly admits, “I am asresponsible as anyone in this communityfor our failure to address our lack of shel-ter and our over-reliance on law enforce-ment and the criminal justice system to

manage homelessness.”One must add that, as mayor of Santa

Cruz, Lane is more responsible than any-one else for the city’s failure to provideshelter and for the cruel laws that result inconstant police harassment and raids.

Even while admitting his own complic-ity in these misguided homeless policies,Lane goes out of his way to defame theactivists who have been right all along.

It is reminiscent of the city officials inAlabama and Mississippi in the 1960swho attacked civil rights workers as “out-side agitators” bent on disrupting thepeace of their segregated cities.

The civil rights workers that this nationnow honors were not honored in their time,but were vilified for upsetting the estab-lished order. Then, as now, activists whodefended an unpopular minority incurredthe wrath of public officials and the police.

They were disparaged just as MayorLane disparages his own city’s civil rightsactivists. Santa Cruz officials resent pro-testers because they use tactics that makethem uncomfortable. At times, they havebeen rude and confrontational.

All of the civil rights activists in ournation’s history have made city officialsuncomfortable. No mayor ever wants theestablished order to be upset. Yet that iswhat activists must do. They must exposeunjust laws and create an uproar so that cityofficials are forced to listen. They must cre-ate a moral crisis to force an unwilling gov-ernment to deal with the issues.

Given the amount of human sufferingon the streets and the police repressionordered by city officials, it is remarkablethat there have been virtually no instancesof violence in a 30-year history of home-less protests in Santa Cruz.

Instead, there have been dedicated peo-ple working to create a moral crisisaround homelessness, exactly as MartinLuther King described it in a public letterof his own, “Letter From a BirminghamJail.” King’s words from his jail cellexplain why homeless activists in SantaCruz must go on agitating for change anddisturbing the peace of public officials:

“Nonviolent direct action seeks to cre-ate such a crisis and foster such a tensionthat a community which has constantlyrefused to negotiate is forced to confrontthe issue. It seeks so to dramatize theissue that it can no longer be ignored.”

Later in his letter, King added, “The pur-pose of our direct action program is to cre-ate a situation so crisis packed that it willinevitably open the door to negotiation.”

That is what activists in Santa Cruz areattempting to accomplish, and MayorLane and the City Council must under-stand this and bear it in mind.

The mayor also needs to take intoaccount the other side of this conflict: themany times when city officials and thepolice have muzzled or banished protest-ers, and the extremely offensive and rudeand censorious ways they have conductedthemselves in silencing dissenting voices.

Have the activists sometimes expressedtheir anger about injustice in bitter out-bursts? Without question.

But the vast majority of homelessprotests in Santa Cruz have been conduct-ed in a nonviolent way, even while theactivists have faced police mistreatment,jail terms and the scorn and publicdefamation of city officials.

What is at stake in these protests arethe very lives and human rights of peopleliving on the streets of a city that hascriminalized their existence, a city thathas utterly failed to provide enough shel-ter, as testified by the mayor himself.

Considering the life-and-death urgencyof the issues at stake, if protesters some-times have vented their frustration at theofficials who have refused to listen torepeated appeals for humane treatment ofpeople living on the street, so be it.

Nonviolent resistance has been definedas “relentless perseverance.” Relentlessperseverance is the hallmark of the SantaCruz activists. Though they are routinelymaligned by city officials, they have car-ried out principled actions in defense ofthe rights of homeless people with a long-lasting dedication that is an inspiration toanyone who cares about human rights.

from page 4

On Homelessness and Human Rights

December 2015ST R E E T SP I R I T6

Measures N and O in 1994. Anderson said, “Berkeley continues

trying to outlaw homeless people in theface of overwhelming statements from thefederal government and from nearly everyuniversity school of health and law schoolthat says that criminalizing the poor is afutile and brutal act.”

He responded directly to a fewBerkeley residents who earlier in theevening had tried to stir up fear againsthomeless people in the city. “The poorhave a hell of a lot more to fear from theaffluent than the other way around,”Anderson said. “We have heard and seenwhat has happened when the rights ofpeople are systematically ignored.”

Anderson then reminded Mayor Batesand the City Council that they had heardtestimony from public health nurses aboutthe “terrible health problems suffered bypeople on the streets” — people who areon medications for congestive heart fail-ure, people who have kidney failure, ordiabetes, or a host of other diseases.

Anderson said that Berkeley officialshave tried to criminalize basic things thatall human beings must do, including sit-ting and lying, sleeping and urinating.

“Now we’re criminalizing people sit-ting in a two-by-two-foot space that theyare condemned to have all of their posses-sions in,” Anderson said. “This is so dra-conian and so backward and so reac-tionary that you’d think this is coming outof Alabama or Mississippi.”

A BOOT ON THE NECKS OF THE POOR

Over the years, I have heard many,many voices speaking out in defense ofhomeless people, but Anderson touched onsomething very profound in describing thehuman damage caused by the new anti-homeless law. He somehow captured thedeeper dimension of the appalling injusticebeing done to the poorest of the poor byMayor Bates and the City Council.

Perhaps it was his shattering image ofa boot on the necks of the poor.

“To continue to pile on and put a booton the neck of people when they need ahelping hand is so beyond the pale of whatwe stand for in this city,” Anderson said.

“And to have this thing be driven bywealthy, big-money interests that apparent-ly hold sway over six members of thiscouncil at any given time without regard toany kind of moral or ethical standards —even ignoring HUD guidelines! We don’tmind losing money for affordable housingin this city. We don’t want to build housingthat is affordable for poor people. We throwour money on high-rise monstrosities thathouse only the richest among us.”

In light of Anderson’s reminder to hiscolleagues about the life-threateninghealth problems suffered by people on thestreets, it almost defies belief that theyignored the testimony of nurses and ser-vice providers about the especially harm-ful impact their new laws would have onpeople with serious medical conditions.

Olivia de Bree, a nurse practitioner inBerkeley, described the health problemsof homeless people she has worked with,and told the council, “This legislation isvery inhumane.”

She told the City Council that there arehigher rates of premature mortality amonghomeless people in Berkeley. Nationalstudies have repeatedly shown that peopleliving on the streets have far shorter lifespans than the general populace and oftendie prematurely due to serious illnessesand disease, and exposure to the elementsand to violence.

De Bree testified that homeless peoplehave higher rates of strokes, emphysema,hepatitis and liver cancer. People from theages of 45 to 64 who are homeless have4.5 times higher rates of age-adjustedmortality.

Cancer and heart disease are two of themost common reasons why they are dying,she said, and that led her to a scathingdenunciation of the council’s anti-homelesslaw that would require people to move theircarts every hour and to have only twosquare feet for their belongings.

“When people have heart disease,you’re going to ask them to move theirshopping carts every hour,” de Bree said.“Who are you kidding? You are cruel!You are asking them to keep their posses-sions in a two-by-two-feet area and carrythe rest? Are you insane?”

The nurse reminded the council thatpeople with serious illnesses who live onthe street have far worse outcomesbecause of the bad living conditions theyface. “We’re not talking about people whohave controlled but people with uncon-trolled diabetes, with amputations, ulcera-tions, and neuropathy,” de Bree said.

“These are not people you should bekicking when they are down and that isexactly what you are doing, and it’sincredibly inhumane. When you see ahomeless person on the sidewalk andimagine that they are 20 to 30 years olderbecause they are very sick, that is whoyou are hurting.”

She also warned that these anti-home-less measures could jeopardize HUDfunding for affordable housing, and ques-tioned why the City Council would know-ingly take steps to lose funding for afford-able housing. The loss of housing is apublic health crisis, and she warned that italso “deters Black people from living andworking in this city.”

De Bree pointed to a recent survey thatshows that 49 percent of homeless peoplein Berkeley are African Americans.“African Americans are disproportionate-ly represented among the homeless,” shesaid. “In South Berkeley, we see institu-tional racism.” The new anti-homelesslaws would disproportionately affectAfrican-Americans who are homeless and“will only make their lives harder.”

Daniel McMullan also spoke outagainst the discriminatory aspects of theanti-homeless measure. McMullan, a CityCommissioner on Berkeley’s Human

Welfare Commission, reminded CityCouncilmember Linda Maio, one of thekey authors of the measure, that the coun-cil’s vote for anti-homeless laws on Dec.1, 2015, came on the 60th anniversary ofthe day that Rosa Parks refused to give upher seat on the bus in Montgomery,Alabama, and helped to spark the civilrights movement.

McMullan said that the Berkeley CityCouncil has been reversing the spirit ofthe civil rights movement with its “lazy,racist, anti-human” laws that stem from a“beat-up-on-the-victim ideology.”

At the council hearing, McMullancharged that the proponents of the anti-homeless laws were depicting “homelesspeople as filthy animals,” and denouncedthe City Council for enacting the laws at“the whims of business and developmentoutsiders” and “at the expense of the peo-ple that live here.”

McMullan reminded the council thatBerkeley voters had voted down a similaranti-homeless initiative, Measure S, in the2012 election. “The voters said by votingdown Measure S that we don’t want thesekinds of anti-homeless laws in Berkeley,”he said. By passing these laws despite the

will of the voters, McMullan said, theCity Council is sending a “big love letterto developers telling them they will spit inthe face of the voters for you, no matterwhat the people say, so please put moneyin my political campaign.”

George Lippman, chair of Berkeley’sPeace and Justice Commission, told thecouncil, “From a social justice standpoint,these laws perpetuate this country’s histo-ry of racism.”

Lippman said that in 2015, societyseemingly learned a great deal about theprevalence of racism and the differentimpact of law enforcement on black people.

“But tonight,” Lippman said, “I won-der if we have learned anything at all. Theimpact of these laws is to further the massincarceration of African Americans and todestroy black lives and black communi-ties. This is the hidden reality of the anti-homeless ordinances. And it gives the lieto the liberal Berkeley rhetoric that we allagree that black lives matter. These lawssay that black lives, in fact, do not matter.Anti-homeless ordinances are part of theethnic cleansing of American cities asmuch as racial cleansing.”

from page 1

See A Futile and Brutal Act page 7

A Futile andBrutal Act

Homeless people have set up tents at City Hall and have begun creating a community governed by consensus. Lydia Gans photo

Four women who played inspiring roles in organizing a vigil and sleep-out at CityHall. From left, Moni Law, Genevieve Wilson, Elisa Cooper and Sally Hindman.

“This is so draconian and so backward and so reactionarythat you’d think this is coming out of Alabama orMississippi.” — Max Anderson, Berkeley City Council

December 2015 ST R E E T SP I R I T 7

Moni Law and Sally Hindman helpedorganize a sleep-out that began on thesteps of old City Hall on Monday,November 16. The two women and a fewothers slept on the steps all night beforethe council meeting, and their act of soli-darity triggered the large-scale occupationthat flourished into a community of peo-ple in tents and sleeping bags that sooncovered the City Hall grounds.

Moni Law told the City Council, “Itwas freezing last night,” adding that shewas awakened repeatedly by the coldweather and by car alarms and street nois-es, and found what it was like to have noaccess to a bathroom all night long.

In the morning, she wrote this reflectionabout the sleep-out: “On this cold night,after sleeping out in solidarity with myhomeless neighbors, I said, ‘Lord give com-fort and relief to the men, women and chil-dren who suffer daily from food and hous-ing insecurity — homeless people.”

Law told the councilmembers thatJesus and Buddha would tell them to havecompassion for homeless people. Sheadded, “Shame on us. Shame on us forjailing people and fining people. If they’rehomeless, give them the help they needinstead of a jail cell or a fine.”

Many seniors can barely remain intheir housing due to rising rents, Lawsaid. Law works to help people find hous-ing, and in moving terms, she describedthe desperate urgency of the people shehelps. “There are children and seniors inthe food lines in Berkeley,” she said.“There is a 74-year-old senior sleepingout on the sidewalk every night. She toldme it was so cold and wet and she hadnowhere to go. Why does she have tosleep out on the street? Instead of facingthis kind of law, what about a compas-sionate policy for the people?

“Jesus said feed the hungry and housethe homeless, and call out to them withunconditional love. All our faith tradi-tions, Jewish, Buddhist and Muslim, allcall for compassion. Mahatma Gandhiagitated for the untouchables.”

Sally Hindman helped to organize thesleep-out and described the 36-hour vigiland fast as “deeply spirited but very coldand noisy.”

“I got really sick afterwards,” Hindmansaid. “It’s simply miserable being home-less. As an asthma sufferer I particularlycan’t imagine how people survive outthere day in and day out in the cold withcompromised lung capacity.”

Despite these hardships, Hindman felt itwas essential to find some way to act in sol-idarity with people on the streets. “I had nochoice but to take the strongest possiblefaithful actions to stand in solidarity withmy homeless brothers and sisters fightingfor justice,” she said. “The situation forthose on the streets has become increasing-ly desperate. There are two-year wait liststo get into affordable housing.

“The Berkeley police and DowntownAmbassadors are already harassing folks onthe street with tickets and efforts to makelife on the street even more miserable thanit already is. And now there’s a fight tomake it illegal for homeless people to carrytheir belongings with them, when we willnever have proper storage space to protecttheir things. I just can’t keep functioninglike it’s business as usual.”

Marium Navid, a Vice President ofThe Associated Students of the Universityof California (ASUC) told the CityCouncil, “I am here on behalf of the thou-sands of students who elected me to thisposition.” The UC Senate passed a resolu-

tion that unanimously condemned the CityCouncil’s anti-homeless measures and“the way these laws are set up to treathomeless people in this community.”

Navid added, “I am frankly disappoint-ed that the elected officials of the city thatI live in could even propose somethingthis horrendous. This is not how you solvethe problem. This is how you reintroduceinstitutional racism. This is how you makesure that you violate human rights.”

The entire anti-homeless campaign wasorchestrated by the Downtown BerkeleyAssociation and the Berkeley Chamber ofCommerce. Despite all the impassionedtestimony of countless Berkeley residentswho spoke out against the inhumanity ofthe new laws, the only people the CityCouncil majority would listen to wereJohn Caner of the Downtown BerkeleyAssociation and Kirsten McDonald of theChamber of Commerce.

The ordinance was passed by a bloc of

votes on the City Council consisting ofMayor Tom Bates and CouncilmembersLinda Maio, Laurie Capitelli, Lori Droste,Daryl Moore and Susan Wengraf.

Just before they cast their votes to perse-cute and criminalize homeless people, awoman walked up to the microphone anddenounced their actions. She then called fora moment of silence “for all of the home-less and disabled senior citizens who willdie on the streets from exposure to the coldbecause they cannot find housing.”

Mayor Bates ignored her request, andloudly broke into the moment of silenceagain and again. Every time she asked forjust a moment of silence to honor the suf-fering of homeless people, Bates brokeinto the silence and loudly ordered her tosit down, even though she was one of thevery last speakers and might have beenafforded a moment of silence.

She refused to sit down and calledagain for a moment of silence, but Bates

continued to break into the moment ofsilence. He badgered her and ordered herto sit down. He could easily have grantedthis simple request. Instead, he showed acomplete lack of respect for the sufferingof homeless people in his city.

One last time she tried. Once againBates barked at her to sit down. She said,“A moment of silence for those who willdie in the cold.”

The mayor rudely told her to sit down. “Shame on you,” the woman said. “I

said a moment of silence to show respectand honor, but you clearly have none.”

This is how bad it has become inBerkeley under the administration ofMayor Bates. The mayor is on his wayout, and one of his last public acts in theseason leading into Christmas was tooverride a simple request for a moment ofsilence to honor the poorest of the poor.

His legacy is this new set of laws thatpersecutes people in need.

“First They Came for the Homeless.” An eye-catching banner hangs in front of the occupation on Martin LutherKing Street in front of Berkeley City Hall. The occupation began when the council passed anti-homeless measures.

Lydia Gansphoto

from page 6

A Futile andBrutal Act

by Carol Denney

The only guy, just one, who spokein favor of the new two-square-feet law at the Berkeley City

Council on December 1, gave an unex-pected compliment to the ongoing protestwithstanding the freezing weather in frontof old City Hall in Berkeley on MartinLuther King Jr. Way for having strictbehavioral standards.

“This town needs to have standards,”insisted Eric Panzer of Livable Berkeley, abooster group for all things developer-friendly. His compliment to the protestgroup which began its demonstration witha sleep-in on November 16 and includedlocal activists, city workers, and clergy, didnot go unnoticed by the wide-eyed councilor by attorney Osha Neumann, who wasnext in line to speak and invited him toendorse the newly named Liberty Cityprotest more formally.

Many of the Berkeley communityhave done just that. Around 75 peoplegathered in front of the old City Hallbuilding to share stories, music, food, andmarch together for just over a mile to theLongfellow Middle School being used forthe Berkeley City Council meeting, alarger hall than the tight 123-seat capaci-

ty of the usual council chambers. Liberty City has a large “No Drugs or

Alcohol” sign prominently displayed bytheir circle of colorful tents and has nowreceived its third warning from theBerkeley Police Department recommend-ing that it take advantage of local shel-ters, etc. Their supporters spoke for hoursat the City Council meeting on December1, trying to stop the second reading ofwhat most already knew could perhaps bedelayed, but certainly had the votes itneeded to become another layer ofBerkeley’s anti-homeless laws.

The best quote of the night heard overan auditorium reverberating with chantsand stomping was Vice Mayor andCouncil Chair Linda Maio’s plaintivedefense that the two square foot law wouldnot be used until storage was made avail-able, and that “they are really big bins.”

Really big bins. The photographs ofrows of ugly plastic garbage bins used inSan Diego and elsewhere — in lieu of hon-estly providing low-income housing —never has quite the desired effect on peoplewho wish to convince themselves thatcriminalizing having more than two squarefeet of possessions (shopping carts andblankets excepted, or so Maio claims),among other idiocies, is somehow okay.

Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates, recover-ing from a fracture at home, was presentover a phone system and sounded like hewas gargling.

The City Councilmembers whoopposed the measures tried valiantly tocraft substitute motions. CouncilmemberJesse Arreguin tried to add a directivemaking currently locked bathrooms openall night and expanding the possessionsfootprint to four square feet, whileCouncilmember Kriss Worthington keptgetting shut down by Maio who seemedterrified of letting him speak at all. Thevote apparently took place while theroom rocked, at least three members ofthe City Council were locked in variousarguments, and the clock ran out.

That’s how democracy happens inBerkeley. The last time anti-homeless lawspassed in Berkeley with this same cast ofcharacters, the ordinance was overturnedby a people’s referendum and then putbefore voters who turned it down.

So who does the City Council majori-ty represent? At least one guy, theDowntown Berkeley Association’s CEOJohn Caner who wrote the initial law(with Maio and Arreguin) in a backroom, felt represented in all the madness.And he didn’t have to say a word.

Two Square Feet and a Whole Lot of Shaking Going On

December 2015ST R E E T SP I R I T8

by Daniel McMullan

“A Laundryman is more valuable tothe community then a Real Estate Man.”— J. Stitt Wilson. Socialist Mayor ofBerkeley, 1911-1913

When you say it out loud itsounds preposterous: “It’sthe poor and homeless whoare to blame. They are the

ones that have all this power over thequality of your life.”

They are called the rich and powerfulfor a reason. They are powerful, and likeit or not, they are the true architects ofyour community.

But there is only profit in that, whengood things are pointed out. When badthings happen, people ask questions. Withrents skyrocketing, some people are angryand fearful. Some are starting to look atdecades-long maneuvering that has mar-ried local politics inextricably with realestate and developer interests.

With rent increases in Berkeley(depending on who you want to believe)of 12 percent to 31 percent, it has beenhard for working families to stay in a citywhere they have lived for decades —some of us for generations.

Do your elected officials demand wetake a look at this? Do they try to figureout where rent control is failing? Requiremore affordable housing from develop-ers?

Well, according to Linda Maio, amember of the Berkeley City Councileyeing the mayor’s seat, it is the homelesswho are to blame. This ever-powerfulminority is the source of all our woes.Time and money is never ill-spent whenwe are enacting more regulations crimi-nalizing them.

Maio’s anti-homeless measure is thesame proposal that was backed away froma few months back after an uproar fromthe public. Such an uproar over homelesspeople might even help to distract thepublic.

After all, members of the City Councilmust do something to drown out an evergrowing growl that is coming from a pop-ulace that is having its life blood squeezedout by greedy landlords and developersand the needy politicians in their pockets.

For as quiet as it’s being kept, whileyour public servants mouth “AffordableHousing” platitudes; in another room,they spout the high rents that can be com-manded in Berkeley as proof of the greatjob they are doing for their masters. It iselection time and it is time to deliver andto show the bosses that they are willing todo their bidding, even in the very face of

the people that elected them. For in a busy, distracted world, it is

money that wins the day — unless. Unlessthe people, You and I, fight the moneywith our time. Doing the footwork it takesto talk to our neighbors and share withthem what is really going on. Overcomingtheir money with our energy.

These same people — the landlordsand developers and politicians in their pay— tried to put forward Measure S, ananti-homeless ballot measure, in 2012. Iwas astounded by the number of slickmailers that filled my mailbox with liesand half truths and the tons of money theycommanded.

Being a homeless advocate, I knew thereal story, but what chance does a personconcentrating on other things have? Theytrust these people to speak the truth, butwhen it comes to the only subgroup insociety where such hate speech andoppression is tolerated — the homelessand poor and disabled — the powers thatbe rarely tell the truth.

Every single one of these mailingsinspired me to get out of the house, mailerin hand, to talk to my neighbors aboutwho and what was really behind this, andwhat game they were really playing.

And now here we are, just three yearslater, after Berkeley voters rejected anti-homeless criminalization, and it is alreadytime to trot out this grim anti-homelessstrategy again, this one-trick pony.Whether or not it passes, it saps the ener-gy we could be putting towards trueprogress.

They want us busy. They know weheld a meeting on November 22 to discusswhat is happening to housing in Berkeley,

a meeting titled: “Berkeley’s HousingCrisis: What Can We Do About It.”Another, a Town Hall on the same sub-ject, was called by Assemblyman TonyThurman on November 12.

These are meetings that were called bysome of the smarter heads in Berkeley,the kind of folks that make sense. Andthat does not bode well for politiciansseen as Pro-WageSlavery, politicians whoare slacking off on affordable and low-cost housing. But when someone iscaught out and they are not very honest ornot very bright, whatever the case may be,they sometimes do the knee-jerk thing and

double down. Throwing good money afterbad on anti-homeless measures. Onlyhere, it is all bad. Bad, bad, bad. The vot-ers have spoken on this issue.

We know it is obvious that these issuesare related. High rents create homeless-ness. Wasting time and money drawing upstatutes to make illegal what is alreadyillegal is taking away resources and atten-tion from the real issues — issues we careabout deeply and will be heard.

They will not split us off. They willbring us together. And together we willfind solutions and elect those that will put

As Rents Skyrocket, Berkeley’s Favorite ScapegoatComes Back Into Play: The Homeless Are to Blame

The residents of the homeless occupation at old City Hall in Berkeley have named their protest, “Liberty City.”

Socialist Mayor J. Stitt Wilson, Berkeley.

Signs of the times: “First They Came for the Homeless.” “Homeless, Not Helpless.”

Seen No More(For the homeless on Gillman Street)

by Joan Clair

How to become youin the dust?Seen no more,they've cleared you up.Seen no more,they've cleaned you up.And where you wereis a space.And where you are —no trace!

On the steps of old City Hall, protesters lined up candles to light theall-night vigil and a sign that said: “Build Affordable Housing.”

Carol Denneyphoto

See Berkeley’s Favorite Scapegoat page 9

December 2015 ST R E E T SP I R I T 9

by Lili Dubois

Ifirst met Eve Pageant at a restaurantat which I worked in Berkeley. Shewould bring her current artwork andwork on it for several hours at a time.

It ranged from fabulous human figuresculptures to sculptural reliefs to oil paint-ings to ink, charcoal and colored pencildrawings. It was the best artwork I’d everseen, including that of the art professorsin my college classes.

We became quick friends, and I foundher to be a shy, modest, knowledgeableand generous person. Ultimately, I visitedher home studio, and the sheer numbers ofher art pieces astounded me. Every wallwas covered with her paintings, andshelves were filled with her bronze andwax sculptures.

Eve loved music, and played banjo andguitar, and was learning electric basstowards the end. She often accompaniedme to my gigs, where she would makepen and ink sketches of the musicians andpatrons. People often mistook us for sis-ters, and ultimately we became sisters,closer to me than my real sisters.

Eve grew up in Indiana, where her par-ents were both psychology professors andpublished authors. One of her sistersbecame an ear, nose and throat specialistand surgeon. Her other sister was a bril-liant biochemistry major before her ownearly death.

Eve received her Bachelor of Fine Artsdegree from Indiana University. She suf-fered from severe asthma her entire life,and Indiana’s climate didn’t agree withher. As a child she had to spend entiresummers in her air-conditioned bedroom,where she spent many hours developingher art skills, which weren’t impacted byher asthma. She told me that she wasn’table to go to camp like the other kidsbecause of her asthma. Her parentsoffered to send her to a treatment center inColorado to live, but Eve decided not to

leave her family.She and her partner moved to Boulder,

Colorado, where amazingly she had notrouble breathing. But they were intriguedby the idea of living in Hawaii, and movedthere. But as soon as Eve stepped off theplane, she realized it was a mistake.

Over the several months they lived onthe Big Island, she had to go into the hos-

pital several times. They moved back tothe mainland, to San Francisco, whereshe’d briefly lived during the “summer oflove,” as a teenage runaway in 1967.

But around 1978, her partner, who suf-fered from chronic depression, unexpect-edly committed suicide. Eve was under-standably traumatized by this, and movedback in with her family, who at that time

lived in Palo Alto. Ultimately, she found ahome in Berkeley, where she had lived asa high school student while her father wason sabbatical. She was never homeless, asfar as I know, but there were times thatshe was so hard up that she was down toone pair of worn-out canvas shoes, andcouldn’t afford another pair.

Because of her legal disability, sheexplored the local resources for the dis-abled. She found that the CLC had anextensive art program with many differenttypes of art supplies, including a kiln. Sheproduced a dozen or more figurativeceramic sculptures of her own design,glazed and fired them. Though theyweren’t as regal in appearance as herbronze pieces, they are among my person-al favorites.

Eve never had a large exhibit inBerkeley, but she’s had pieces on displayin institutions such as the De YoungMuseum in San Francisco, and IndianaUniversity.

On the morning of October 30, 2015,Eve was found with her bronchial inhalermask on her face, sitting slumped over.She had been deceased for about twohours. Her death was determined to befrom cardiac arrest, with contributing fac-tors of hypertension and chronic obstruc-tive pulmonary disease (COPD). No ser-vices were planned.

Her family hopes to publish a book ofEve’s art. Eve was 66. She will be missedby all her friends and family. She was themost gentle, talented and memorable per-son I’ve ever known.

The Lifelong Journey of Berkeley Artist Eve Pageant

Cruisin’. A sculptural relief by Berkeley artist Eve Pageant, 1949-2015.

Her art ranged from fabuloushuman figure sculptures tosculptural reliefs to oil paint-ings to ink, charcoal and pen-cil drawings. It was the bestartwork I’d ever seen.

those solutions in place. The Bay Area is a bad place to play

people off as stupid. Recently, the Mayorof Santa Cruz has written a letter pointingout the failures of criminalizing the poor.Nationally, the Justice Department andthe Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment have made it clear thatcriminalizing the poor and homeless iswrong and will not be tolerated or funded.

Berkeley’s Linda Maio is out on anincreasingly thinner and lonelier branch.One where money from rich, out-of-townspeculators might just be too heavy tobear. How many times can you disrespectthe voters on behalf of the big-moneyinterests, and get away with it?

This issue came up before the CityCouncil on November 17 and again onDecember 1. Even with very short notice,there were hundreds who spoke againstthe anti-homeless ordinance and a merehandful that spoke for it. The importantthing for our elected officials in Berkeleyto know is that these hundreds are notstuck behind their televisions or depen-dent upon mailers. We all got out of thehouse because the issue this time is biggerand more urgent. Our futures depend onus. The futures of our children depend onus. The cold steel of shackles have awak-ened some people.

Except for the heartening turnout ofmany, many people who spoke out againstMaio’s ordinance, the Berkeley CityCouncil meeting on November 17 waspathetic. An aging, cranky, overfed cadre of

Progressipublicans were doing the biddingof their Masters, regardless of how manycitizens ask for justice and humanity.

Then came the City Council meetingon December 1 and the second and lastreading of the repressive anti-homelesslaws. I did not think it was a coincidencethat the meeting was on December 1,2015, exactly 60 years to the day thatRosa Parks refused to give up her seat onthat Montgomery Bus, thereby starting asequence of events that brought about theCivil Rights Movement.

And now on the 60th anniversary ofRosa Park’s historic action, here we are atodds with a group of people that havesteadily and incrementally been rollingback those civil rights in Berkeley foryears now.

The council meeting on December 1was one of the craziest I have seen in awhile. And what it lacked in integrity onthe side of elected officials, it made up forwith the passion of a broad swath ofBerkeley residents.

At the old City Hall, a protest camphas sprung up, asking for relief in what isnothing short of a statewide and nation-wide housing state of emergency.

At the council meeting on December 1,before they began discussing the anti-homeless laws, they unfortunately broughtup an issue about an apartment block of18 units on Durant Street that was boughtby a developer who had no intention ofcollecting a measly 18 fair-priced rents.

Though he had no demolition permit,he told the residents that demolition wasimminent and they had to get out. Then he

invited the Berkeley Fire Department touse the property for drills that includedbreaking down walls and all sorts of dam-age. Then he complained that HOME-LESS SQUATTERS did the damage andit was so severe that he had to demolish18 units and rebuild 56 with all the priorrent control out the window.

On any other night, this would havesailed by with a wink and a nod, but notthis night. See, I was busy with junkissues and this important piece of infor-mation almost sailed by me. We couldn’tbelieve what we were hearing! Are youkidding?

And the council started out wanting toapprove it, saying what a great deal thatone low-cost apartment in 56 would be! Abuilding that looks like an ice cube in aneighborhood that includes the JuliaMorgan Berkeley City Club a blockdown, the Rockefeller’s InternationalHouse on the street above, and the land-mark Hotel Blue Sky across the street.But under the glare of the public, theysoon withered and sent it back to theZoning Adjustments Board where you canbet it will be well-attended.

I hate to use strong language, but thesepeople are nothing less than criminals andcorrupt functionaries. It really was dis-graceful. We really cannot trust thesefolks. Things have to change before ourentire community is lost to the group ofofficials on our City Council not just will-ing, but seemingly eager, to sell outBerkeley residents.

It is very obvious that they subscribe tothe idea that money elects people, not vot-ers. Yet, our success in defeating MeasureS tells another story.

J. Stitt Wilson, Berkeley’s socialist

mayor back in 1911, knew the value of aLaundryman and a Real Estate Man. Heknew that one cleans things. The othercan be quite the opposite.

Dan McMullan is a Commissioner on theHuman Welfare and Community ActionCommission and Director of the DisabledPeople Outside Project.

Berkeley’s Favorite Scapegoatfrom page 8

The Ripple in the Lake by George Wynn

In the heartof the Redwood countrywhere the cold windblows in the lateAutumn FallI listen to a volunteerin the soup kitchenafter he offers me Secondssay, "I go out to the woodsas often as I can (justlike my daughter didbefore she got hookedand died after sheleft the military)to watch a ripplein the lakeI know I'll never againsee the auburnof her hairbut I live for thatimage of me and hersitting, watchinga ripple in the lakeand that seemsto make allthe differencewhen my emotionsand feelings arebeyond weary."

December 2015ST R E E T SP I R I T10

Science Fiction by Jack Bragen

Iwas fine as a shape-shifter and animmortal until doctors got their sani-tized, ignorant hands on me. The first

thing Doctor Baker did, when he assessedme with his feeble mind, was order upsome Haldol to be administered by forceif necessary. Everything changed whenthat mind-disabling medication tookeffect.

My senses were deadened. I couldbarely move. My torso felt stiff as aboard. And I realized that my shapeshift-ing ability was mostly blocked by theantipsychotic drug. For the first time incenturies, I was scared.

It was group time, and I fidgeted in mychair because of the medication’s side-effects. I looked around the room andrealized others were also fidgeting — andthey clearly didn’t want to be there.

One man stood up from his seat, wasirate and wasn’t making any sense.Immediately, the directing psychiatristtold these two burly psych techs that hewas to be taken away. They got on bothsides of him, each man grabbed an arm,and they walked off with him.

Finally, it was my turn to speak. “Ireally feel better and I would like to gohome,” I ventured.

Dr. Baker asked, “What made you beatup the man on 50th Street?”

“He was pimping an underage girl, hewas overly assertive with me, and I toldhim to go to hell.”

“Are you a customer of prostitutesoften?”

I said, “Never! That guy is scum andhe was barking up the wrong tree.”

“Settle down, Mr. Stiles. Let the med-ication take effect. You’re a little angrytoday and we want to see you calmdown.”

I wanted to say, you’re a prick and asorry excuse for a doctor. But it was goingto be impossible to get released if I con-tinued on this angry track. I would need tosimulate a crisis and then “a meaningfulrecovery.”

“Sorry, Dr. Baker.” It took consider-able effort to feign regret.

The psychiatrist apparently didn’t buyit. “I will meet with you today, Mr.Stiles.”

###

The meeting with the evil psychiatristdidn’t go according to his plan. I hadsome stored reserve power and I was ableto telepathically zap him into a stupor.Then I took control over him. Dr. Baker,while he was under my power, issued anorder to release me from the hospital. Totop it off, I made him write me a prescrip-tion for marijuana.

My attempt at escape almost worked.Baker had a more powerful consciousnessthan I anticipated, and came back to hissenses too soon. I stood in front of thenurses’ station expecting to be let out thefront door of the unit. But then, the headnurse’s intercom buzzed.

“Got it, I’ll do so right away,” thenurse said into his phone.

I found myself flanked by the twogigantic psych techs, and I was escortedto a locked room.

“Behave yourself or we will tie youdown to the restraint table.”

The door was shut, a formidable doorof solid wood. I took a seat on therestraint table since no other furniture wasin the room. The room was appointedwith a toilet, but no sink or drinking foun-tain.

What now? I was tired, and I realized my options

were limited. I decided it was time for anap, and I laid down on the restraint tableputting both hands under my left ear,since no pillow had been provided.

###In the next meeting with Dr. Baker, he

had reinforcements in the room, and bythis time, the antipsychotic meds hadobliterated most of my abilities. So be it. Istill had my wits, surprisingly enough. Iwould use the situation to my maximumadvantage.

Dr. Baker spoke. “How did you causeme to have a lapse in memory and to writea release order? Are you a trained hypno-tist?”

I replied, “No. I am an extraterrestrial.We have abilities.” I was feigning havingdelusions. I am not really an extraterrestrial.

Dr. Baker stared at me very intently.“Bull,” he said. “Where did you learn thisability?”

I said, “There is a training complex onMars.”

The nurse and the psych tech in theroom both chortled involuntarily. Bakerglared at them. “Sorry,” the nurse said.The psych tech didn’t apologize, butstopped himself from laughing.

Baker looked at me. “Maybe a bit ofelectroconvulsive would zap some of thatsmartass out of you.”

I replied, “I demand to speak to anattorney.”

Dr. Baker picked up the phone on hisdesk and put it in front of me. I picked upthe receiver and realized I didn’t have aphone number to reach anyone, much lessan attorney. I put the phone back on itshook. The nurse and psych tech mumbledfaintly in a tone of sarcasm.

“Not really from Mars?” I said, “You can’t give me elec-

troshock without my consent.” “Are you sure of that?”I didn’t reply. I was flabbergasted. Dr.

Baker smiled. Baker said, “I want the truth and I want

it now.” “I don’t know what you’re talking

about,” I answered. “Yes you do. You have abilities.

Where did you get them?” I replied, “You want me to talk? Then

tell these two goons to leave the room...”

###

“I could train you.” I paused. “But onlyin return for my release.”

“Why should you trust me?” It was atypical question for an antagonistic psy-chiatrist.

I said, “I don’t trust you, but whatother chance do I have of getting out ofhere?”

Dr. Baker replied, “Good thinking.You could train me in return for the slightpossibility that I’ll release you.”

“I need to be off all meds for twoweeks,” I said. “I won’t make any trouble.”

“You got it.”

###Again I met with Dr. Baker. After two

weeks without medication, my powerswere almost fully restored.

Baker said, “I heard you got a nastyshaving cut. Where is it?”

I rotated my head to show all parts ofmy face and neck.

“Wow, nothing is visible. Did you healthat?”

I said, “Let’s try you on a shapeshift-ing technique. I will guide you through aprocess, and at the end, you will haveshapeshifted to look like me.”

“Wow.” It was all Dr. Baker could say.(What an idiot, I thought.)

Within a few minutes, I guided Bakerinto a trance and got him to look like me.Then I told him to sit in my seat, which hedid. I used my power to give him a tele-pathic zap, which caused him to becomecompletely unconscious.

Then, I shapeshifted to look like Dr.Baker, and I went into the little closet hehad in his office and put on one of hisshirts. I sat in his chair, and pressed theintercom button.

“The patient needs immediate elec-troshock,” I said.

Two psych techs entered DoctorBaker’s office.

One of them asked, while rubbing hischin, “Um, how big of a zap does heneed? He already appears out.”

I replied, “I tranquilized him becausehe was out of hand. He needs the biggestjolt that the equipment can deliver.”

The psych tech paused. “Are yousure?”

I replied, “I’m late for a lecture and Idon’t have all day to argue it. I’m the doc-tor, remember?”

“Got it. We’ll carry out your ordersimmediately.”

“Contact Dr. Johnson and tell him he ison duty. I have to go.”

I picked up Baker’s giant set of keysfrom his desk drawer. The psych techscarried Baker away, believing he was me.I made it as far as the parking lot, where Isaw there was a parking space reservedfor the hospital director. I got in the carand drove five blocks to a bus stop. Ishapeshifted again to look like a nonde-script doctor, and boarded the bus.

When I got home, I realized that thelandlady had been taking care of my cat. Iexpressed profound gratitude. I got a fewnecessary items, got in my car, and head-ed out of town.

I had done this a couple of times before— change identities, that is. If you are animmortal, you learn to do that. Peopledon’t understand, they don’t like it, andthey want to have what you have. I won-dered what it would be like to live inSouthern California...

###On television I saw a news piece of

how a psychiatrist had accidentally beengiven a lethal level of electroshock. Therewas mention of an escaped mental patient,and a picture of my face as it had beenbefore I moved to the Los Angeles area.My new appearance took some effort atfirst, but eventually became my defaultappearance.

The End

The Shape-Shifter and the Psychiatrist

Poster art courtesy Madness Network News

Dr. Baker asked, “Where did you learn this ability?” “There is a training complex on Mars,” I replied. The nurse and the psych tech chortled involuntarily.Dr. Baker glared and said, “Maybe a bit of electrocon-vulsive would zap some of that smartass out of you.”

The Old Roadieby George Wynn

On the roaddriving late at nightI ask my hitchhikeran old manwith no teeth“Where youcoming from?”

“Let's just sayI spent a weekin the Cityby the Bay.Living on the street.made me scared.San Franciscogave me itchy feetand when problemsappear I disappear.”

December 2015 ST R E E T SP I R I T 11

We were a pretty eclectic group as weshuffled along the mile from the FirstPresbyterian Church, where GeneralClinic is held on Tuesday nights, all theway down to the Berkeley City Hall onMartin Luther King. It was an interestingscene: the traditional social barriers thatseem to exist between the homeless andclients dissipated, and some others on thestreets even joined our walk.

We arrived at the old City Hall around8 p.m., just as the agenda of the CityCouncil shifted towards the topic of anti-homeless laws. The entrance of City Hallwas blocked as the meeting had reachedcapacity, but a few clients and Suitcasemembers were able to weave their wayinside. The rest of our group, bothSuitcase clients and volunteers, stood out-side in the cold, watching the broadcast ofthe meeting outside on camera.

The environment inside the councilchamber was poignant and powerful.Many homeless individuals, as well asother citizens of Berkeley, had spent thenight before the meeting in tents andsleeping bags outside City Hall. The lineto voice opinions on the anti-homelessordinances flooded past the doors, but twoof our clients, Rafael and Christopher,were able to speak out.

Following our exchange about politicalpragmatism and the purpose of govern-ment from the discussion before, Rafaelcontinued his proposal of an “outsidesociety” — one that would cater to theactual needs of the homeless in Berkeley’s

community. These anti-homeless laws,according to Rafael, were not the appro-priate solution to the problem at hand.

According to Christopher, this newpolicy is divergent from how the City ofBerkeley has treated homelessness in thepast. Having been a part of the communi-ty for years, as both a professor andhomeless individual, Christopher has ben-efited from the city’s mental health care.

Instead of criticizing the homeless,Christopher suggested that the City of

Berkeley provide more funding for mentalhealth. Both Rafael’s and Christopher’sspeeches were met with applause.

The City Council meeting continueduntil about 12:30 a.m. In the wee hours ofthe morning, the council passed the anti-homeless ordinances. Disappointment filledthe room. The vote to pass these laws, andto criminalize the homeless even further,was a failure for Suitcase Clinic and thehomeless community as a whole. Yet, har-mony still rang amongst those who

attended the meeting. “I attended the City Council meeting,

along with other Suitcase Clinic membersand clients,” said Vanessa Briseno, aSHARE coordinator. “Through our atten-dance, I think we played a role in empower-ing our clients who spoke out against thecriminalization of homelessness. Moreimportantly, we stood in solidarity withthem.” The voices of our clients — theirspeeches, cheers, and applause —remained a victory still for Suitcase.

The Solidarity of Suitcase Clinicfrom page 1

The Suitcase Clinic is organized by UC students and holds community meals and provides medical, dental and legal assistance.

by Lynda Carson

In a court ruling that affects thou-sands of poor Section 8 tenants inOakland, San Francisco, Berkeley,Richmond, Alameda County, Marin

County, Contra Costa County, and mil-lions of other tenants across the nation,the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appealsdeclared that the Housing Authority of theCity of Los Angeles illegally cut subsidiesto thousands of Section 8 renters.

During 2004, the Housing Authority ofthe City of Los Angeles (HACLA) cutSection 8 housing subsidies for about20,000 low-income residents without giv-ing proper notice in advance, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Ninth CircuitCourt of Appeals declared on November30, 2015.

The Section 8 Housing ChoiceVoucher Program provides rental assis-tance to the most vulnerable members ofour nation, including woman with chil-dren, the elderly, and disabled. Section 8renters generally pay 30 to 40 percent ofthe rent to the landlord, and sometimesmore, and the housing program pays therest.

For households who are living inpoverty on a fixed income, and house-holds living paycheck to paycheck, anyunexpected decrease in their housing sub-sidies can result in homelessness. This iswhy the program contains procedural pro-tections designed to ensure that beneficia-ries have at least a full year to plan forcutbacks to their rental subsidies.

The cutbacks generally result in rentalincreases that Section 8 tenants cannotafford, and even with an advance notice ofone year, poor families often become

homeless because of funding cuts to theirSection 8 vouchers.

The three-judge panel agreed with theplaintiffs in this case that the HousingAuthority reduced the amount of Section8 beneficiaries’ subsidies without provid-ing a proper adequate notice, in violationof federal and state law. Additionally, thecourt reversed the grant of summary judg-ment in favor of the defendants, anddirected that summary judgment beentered in favor of the plaintiffs.

According to court documents, theHousing Authority failed to provide com-prehensible information to Section 8 ben-eficiaries about the payment standardchange and its effect one year in advanceof the change’s implementation.

Section 8 tenants Michael Nozzi andNidia Pelaez, along with the Los AngelesCoalition To End Hunger AndHomelessness, sued the HousingAuthority for illegally cutting the subsi-dies for about 20,000 Section 8 house-holds.

The illegal cutbacks to the rental subsi-dies for the poor Section 8 tenants result-ed in many elderly and disabled residents,including families with young children,paying much higher rents that averagedaround $104 more per month, the courtsaid.

Because the court ruled in favor of theSection 8 tenants in the class action suitbrought by the Los Angeles Coalition ToEnd Hunger And Homelessness, BarrettLitt, an attorney for the recipients, saiddamages would run in the millions.

“This decision should not only lead tocompensation for the tens of thousands ofLos Angeles Section 8 recipients thatwere hurt by the illegal reduction in bene-fits going back in 2004-2006, but alsoprotects all Section 8 recipients going for-

ward, wherever they may be,” Litt said. It took eight years of litigation for yes-

terday’s ruling to occur, and according toreports, the attorney representing theHousing Authority said he will recom-mend appealing the decision to a largerpanel of the Ninth Circuit, and if neces-sary all the way to the U. S. SupremeCourt.

The Section 8 Voucher Program,presently called the Housing ChoiceVoucher Program, has become the domi-nant form of federal housing assistanceacross the nation. With more than 5 mil-lion people in 2.1 million low-incomefamilies that are currently using vouchersto subsidize their rents, it is a very suc-cessful program.

However, the successful program hasbeen unfairly under attack by Republicans

for many years, and has faced many fund-ing cuts in recent years as a result ofsequestration budget cuts, including addi-tional cuts that occurred from 2004 to2006, under the Bush administration. Cutsto HUD’s subsidized housing programshave taken place as a result of votes byRepublicans, and Democrats through theyears.

Presently, it is a very uncertain futurefor Section 8 tenants and public housingtenants. Public housing units are beingprivatized under the RAD program, andall of HUD’s subsidized housing pro-grams have faced budget cuts, with theRepublicans willing to shut down the fed-eral government in order to have it theirway.

Recently, Senator Rand Paul blocked afunding bill to fund HUD’s subsidizedhousing programs, essentially holdingpoor families across the nation hostage,until he gets what he wants out of the fed-eral government.

According to records with theDepartment of Housing and UrbanDevelopment (HUD), in Los Angelesthere are 49,671 Section 8 units in theirinventory, with an additional 23,866Section 8 units in Los Angeles County.San Francisco has 9,147 Section 8 units.Oakland has 13,424 Section 8 units.Richmond has 1,851 Section 8 units.Berkeley has 1,935 Section 8 units.Alameda has 1,845 Section 8 units.Alameda County has 6,273 Section 8units. Marin County has 2,153 Section 8units. Contra Costa County has 6,876Section 8 units.

Lynda Carson may be reached at ten-antsrule@yahoo.com

Court Rules Los Angeles Housing AuthorityIllegally Cut Section 8 Housing Subsidies

“This decision should not only lead to compensation for thetens of thousands of Los Angeles Section 8 recipients thatwere hurt by the illegal reduction in benefits going back in2004-2006, but also protects all Section 8 recipients goingforward, wherever they may be.”

— Barrett Litt, attorney for Section 8 tenants

December 2015ST R E E T SP I R I T12

Sixth Street Nightsby George Wynn

“Too many peoplehate homelesspeople for beinghomeless,” he said.“Why it don't makeno damn sense!I worked all my lifebefore my accidentthen my workmen'scomp ran out anddammit here I am.I'm 60 nowbad eye blur and allI can't missthe passers-byfurtive negativityof me (one ill-cladsorry wrinkled-skinnedsidewalk sleeper).Should be a sinto be poor.All men and womenand children areour brothersand sisters.These 3 frayedblankets don't seemto keep the windnor cold out ofthese old bonesin front of thisstorefront doorno matter howmany timesI roll myself up.I may be sorebut my poetrybooks from thethrift shop do kindawarm my spirit.”

The Young HoboAn Enduring AmericanTraditionby George Wynn

Relaxing on his bagat night in a cleandowntown alleyto light up oneof my Camel Non-Filtershe says “Everybodywants to be goodat something.I'm good at hoboingeven though the Chamberof Commerce andshopkeepers considerme good for nothing.I'm an outcastfrom coast to coast.Hobos even beforethe Grapes of Wrathbeen traveling light and carefree about Tomorrow:Long live Today!I always sayregardless of how much sorrow and vagrant jailcells I've enduredon the road or rails.I love to kiss theopen road smackon the mouth!Everything thathigh techies are, I'm not.A little cash helps but ambitionand materialismare unthinkableas long as I canstumble alongthe wrong sideof the trackscap abovemy eyebrowsto a ripe old agewhistling a songmade of mistshowing mysly smileto the skyand cryand cryfor women who abandoned meor I abandoned them.Thanks for the smoke.""Keep the pack."

Brother of Mineby Carol Denney

people in houses are sure that you wantto be out in the wind and the coldpeople in houses grow more and more certainwhile we just grow tired and oldsome of the people who live here outsidecan remember when there was a daywhen if you found someone curled up in a doorwayyou’d welcome them home and you’d say

brother of mine are you out in the raindo you need a hot meal or a handbrother of mine you don’t have to explainsome of us here understand

we once had plenty of housing and jobsand a minimum wage that made senseso many vacancies even the greediestlandlord had reasonable rentsthey bulldozed the low-income housing awayand they built for the luxury crowdthey’ve twisted the meaning of sharing todayfrom the voice I can still hear out loud

brother of mine are you out in the raindo you need a hot meal or a handbrother of mine you don’t have to explainsome of us here understand

getting rich quick is the game of todayin tech and in real estate tooand every equation just happens to leave outwhat happens to me and to youthe poets and artists are footnotesinstead of the core of what happens todayand people in houses hear little or nothingoutside cause they’re all locked away

brother of mine are you out in the raindo you need a hot meal or a handbrother of mine you don’t have to explainsome of us here understandsome of us here understand

The Wheelchair Joggerby Claire J. Baker

On a dusty track in totalsunlight, wearing sky-bluewarm-up suit and running shoes,low in her chair, head bent,lips tightened, stunted armspulling hard, slowly she rollsaround the track, countingone by one the laps.

Young college sprintersgazelle beyond her snail pacelike wind. Yet they realizehow hard she pulls.Runners who look back(as if to wish her a good run)tend to lighten her armsand their own legs.

Remembering PoetMary Rudgeby Claire J. Baker

Dear Mary, we hadn't knownyou were a nun. Did you reachyour Dominican heaven?Or as the one who wrote,“We who are luminous,”are you enshrinedon a luminous island —a kind of stepping stoneto glory?

Looking way back, the Bay Areapoetry scene was ho-humbefore your meteoric arrival.I'll extract from your poeticcurriculum vitae two words:

peace, justice.You arrived stimulated,activated, ready.And you took us with you.

Your good worksshall remain remembered.And your warming sign-off“In poetry” ringsas valid now as ever.You were activated,stimulated, ready.And you took us with you.

Sixth Street Nightsby George Wynn

“Too many peoplehate homeless people for being homeless,” he said.“Why it don't makeno damn sense!”I worked all my lifebefore my accidentthen my workmen'scomp ran out anddammit here I am.I'm 60 nowbad eye blur and allI can't missthe passers-byfurtive negativityof me (one ill-cladsorry wrinkled-skinnedsidewalk sleeper).

Wrestling the Windfor Jack Hirschmanby Julia VinogradIt’s easy to write about what’s wrong with the world, outraged,accusing, scolding man and God like lazy childrenwho hadn’t done their homework.It’s much harder to keep a vision of what the world should bebehind your smiling eyesand make us look until we want those faces,those lives to call our own while centuries wake up.It’s hard to write us outstretched warm hands to holdwhen we’re alone.When you’re alone.It’s hard to write the world right as spring rain, right as summerwith no more fault-finding than the seasons.What does it mean to be human, to be fully human?How big must a poem be to stretch us to our full heightstill testing our legs? We need words to open uslike Japanese paper flowers opening in water. All at once.Against all logic. And yes it’s hard.The poet who makes these words spends his lifewrestling the wind.

For Pete Seegerby Julia VinogradNo, you are not dead, I saw you singing“This land is your land” and the mountains sang with you.I saw you on the lake your magic boat sang to cleanand the ripples touched your feet, pretty active for a dead man.Your face was young again, lit up by your music,coaxing out stars to sing counterpoint,“to everything there is a season.”You kept the wind and the rain in the back pockets of your blue jeans.At night you were the man in the moon and your musicsmiled down on lovers.This land you love cannot let you go, orange groves can’t ripenwithout the light from your eyes.When you walk thru cities fear and loneliness run hissing from your musiclike feral alley cats and we gaze at each otherin awed recognition. How beautiful the world,the world that cannot die. You cannot die.This is where all the flowers are, forever.