If you are concerned about how the City of Santa Cruz has stretched in to hiring private security teams to patrol public open spaces, email the City Council by tonight or show up at the Tuesday 26 February meeting. The Council is going to vote on actually legalizing their own practice, and extending it to allow the private security to patrol the public beaches. Read on for some of my thoughts on this matter.
Here in Santa Cruz, we have this … interesting process used by the City to impose some kind of control on the river levee.
Because we have totally failed as a city population to make the beautiful river levee into a destination for people – there are no food carts, no cafe tables, no benches, no vista points, no attractive plantings, no shade structures, no art, no population of hipster-intellectual-professional-slackers to make the place look cool – the levee instead becomes the quiet, hidden place for all the street people to hang out. (There is a long history as to why we ignore this treasure in the middle of our city, and continuing to allow private security teams to drive patrol cars is not any help to solving that.)
The City’s solution is to hire private security guards to drive up and down the levee. I’ve never seen them do anything other than drive. I can’t imagine what they can do from inside of their vehicle. I just know that my dog and I have to stop and step out of their way as they squeeze through spaces where only emergency service vehicles should ever go. I go on the levee all the time, and I find the private security patrols to be as bothersome to my use of the open space as any of the street people, travellers, and derelicts who hang out there.
People who are enjoying the river levee, regardless of their purpose or background, have the same legal rights of being there. At least, during daylight hours and out of the sections the local Parks Department has closed for “rehabilitation”, which is admittedly their way of making it illegal to be there so they can give tickets to trespassers-on-public-green-space. I have friends who have been ticketed for picnicking on this closed space. I’ve been verbally warned for walking my dog on the levee after dark when it is “closed”. The command and control exerted over this open public space has the effect of further reducing the enjoyability for everyone.
It turns out that the private patrols don’t currently have a legal right to drive there, which the City Council is considering changing. Here is a letter from City Council member Micah Posner to the local Nextdoor group.
Several of you have mentioned a dislike of First Alarm trucks driving on the levees. I always wondered how they were authorized to do that without permission from the City Council. As it turns out there is a city ordinance that limits cars/trucks on parks and beaches to maintenance and emergency vehicles. This ordinance is on the agenda on Tuesday at 3PM with a proposed change that would allow First Alarm and other vehicles contracted by the city to drive in parks and on the beach. This would be an excellent time for people to send emails AND come to the meeting if you have an opinion about these vehicles driving on parks and beaches. Send emails (by Monday evening) to citycouncil@cityofsantacruz.com
Regardless of where you personally stand on the issues of street people in Santa Cruz, I think we can all agree on a few things:
- Santa Cruz really is mostly populated and controlled by the people who live here with legal residences and generally contribute to the tax base.
- Changing the laws to reduce the rights of a small population affects all of us.
- For example, in the City of Santa Cruz, if you are on your lunch break and take a snooze on a park bench after eating, you are in violation of the law. There is a ban on public sleeping that was put in place as a focus on a specific population, but it is binding for all people.
- If you are going to accept your rights being reduced, you should know about it (be informed) and really consider the implications. Are you really going to be more secure?
- Money spent on patrols that sweep street people around (“million-dollar broom” is an accurate term, budget-wise) doesn’t solve any of the problems that keep these people on the street. When people need help, they benefit more from social workers than another night in jail.
Thus I’d rather see us pay social workers to walk around the levee solving problems for people who get lost in three-letter-agency bureacracy. I would rather not see us pay private security patrols to drive around getting in the way of every citizen’s right to enjoy the open space free of car exhaust in our faces.
I encourage all of you to write the City Council and let them know what you think.
(Here is the letter I sent to the City Council:)
Dear City Council:
I am writing in regards to your consideration of changing the situation around allowing private security patrols on the river levee and other open public green spaces, such as local beaches.
In summary:
* I am opposed to having the private security river levee patrols in the first place.
* I do not want you to make this change in the law, especially not without first doing your due diligence of really hearing from the public in multiple well-publicized open meetings.
* I disagree with the process of making our open public spaces illegal, which includes the million-dollar broom sweeping street people around.
* We would be better served as a population if the City hired more social workers to walk around the levee and other locations to help people directly.
As a lifelong citizen of Santa Cruz and California and resident of Riverside Ave. right next to the levee, I deeply feel the eroding of my social rights in the name of false security. We are no safer by having private patrols on the river levee. We may in fact be less safe, and certainly have more of our liberties curtailed.
Personally, I find the private patrols as bothersome to my frequent levee walks as any of the travellers, street people, and outright derelicts I navigate around. The patrol cars disturb my enjoyment of this city treasure, with their sight, sound, and smell. I dislike having to hold my dog out of the way so they can conveniently drive down the levee.
I don’t perceive what the driving patrols are actually doing other than showing presence. They can’t see crimes any better from their cars (vision and hearing are impaired compared to e.g. a bicycle or walking), they can’t see items such as trash or used syringes, and they can’t respond to people in as human a way when wrapped in steel.
I would rather see the City take our hard-earned money and spend it on:
* Social workers who can walk around (probably more cheaply) and work on solving individual problems that keep people on the street. There is ample evidence that it is less expensive to shelter and solve problems than to sweep people around and in to jail again and again.
* Improve the river levee by specifically encouraging activities that draw people, such as riverside cafe carts and tables, benches, art, shade and shelter, free wifi, and a welcoming attitude (and publicity campaign.)
I would rather not see the City Council conduct itself as if it is our fatherly protector. Making changes such as this that affect all citizens is something that needs an enormous amount of daylight shone on it before it even starts to get off the ground. Taking this directly to vote without working hard to involve the public in the first place is unconscionable and unethical.
In closing I want to say that as a private citizen, private security patrols are frightening. They are not beholden to the same standards nor receive the same training as sworn peace officers. I’m more frightened of crossing a private security guard, especially one who feels they are especially deputized because they are being permitted to act in a role normally held by a public peace officer. That sense of entitlement and control is a scary thing.
Thank you for your consideration,