Vote on the “Stay Away” Ordinance: Parks and Beaches

Play structure a Depot Park, photo credit: http://www.bcx.org/

Play structure a Depot Park, photo credit: http://www.bcx.org/

During their January 13th meeting the Santa Cruz City Council will be hearing the second reading of the so called “Stay Away” ordinance. For those of you who haven’t heard of this before, the ordinance would give Parks and Recreation staff and other enforcement officers the ability to ban repeat offenders from entering public parks and beaches for extended periods of time, depending on the number of citations and/or arrests they have received. Should a banned individual choose to re-enter a public park or beach they could be charged with a misdemeanor. The issue has proved somewhat controversial with homeless advocates and neighborhood groups taking opposing stances, and thus there is likely to be a lively discussion during the next Council meeting.

Proponents of the ordinance say it’s needed to deal with the level of anti-social behavior being reported in many local parks. Parents and residents who live in close proximity to these sites have written to the Council and the Parks Department with concerns about safety and cleanliness. During the first reading of the ordinance alone Council received over 100 emails from residents about the issue, though not all were in favor.

Opponents of the ordinance claim that it unfairly discriminates against the homeless, who they say have no other option but to sleep in public parks. They point to the lack of available shelter space and existing restrictions on outdoor camping as reasons why many homeless individuals choose to sleep in parks or at the beaches. They further contend that if the ordinance were adopted, it would simply result in more people going to jail for sleeping, or that they will move to other public places.

The ordinance is based on a similar restriction that was adopted by the downtown library regarding repeat offenders. Those who were continually causing problems to other library goers were asked to vacate the premises, up to a year in some cases. If the ordinance were adopted for parks and beaches, first time offenders would be prohibited from re-entering the facilities for 24 hours, the second offense would get a week long ban, third offenses a month, forth offenses 6 months, and 5 or more offenses wold result in a year long ban.

What do you think? Should Santa Cruz adopt a “Stay Away” ordinance for local parks and beaches? Is there another way to address anti-social behavior within these public places? Should the city do more to provide more places to sleep at night for homeless individuals? Vote on the ordinance below, and leave comments about what you would do.

 

2 Comments

  1. It’s a shame there is not an organization of all the hundreds of working people who live in their cars here so that they can have a bloc opinion noted. Nor is there a well-established tenants organization so that non-homeowners can weigh in en masse.

  2. Robert Norse says:

    To read the actual text of this “no courts necessary, just get out” law, go to http://scsire.cityofsantacruz.com/sirepub/cache/2/e5y2okfjeqxksdpkhmfsya0i/396073312092014110820380.PDF . Or if that fails, try: http://scsire.cityofsantacruz.com/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=574&doctype=AGENDA and click on item #18.

    Some of my critical commentary based on the use of the current 1-day Stay-Away law’s targeting of homeless people engaging in life-sustaining behavior (and branding it “criminal”) is at https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/11/24/18764553.php (“Stay-Away Stupidity Not on Tuesday’s 11-25 Council Agenda”).

    Calling homeless people “offenders” who sleep in parks or green belt areas when there are no legal places to go for 95% of the homeless community is a form of hate propaganda long favored by gentrification fans, SCPD “give us more money” officials, and Take-Back-Santa-Cruz style community reactionaries.

    The law is the latest in a series of laws designed to terrorize the poor sleeping outside and pander to the prejudices of those who like to blame them for the city’s failure to fund bathrooms, campgrounds, and adequate needle disposal.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: