addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwchatcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrosseditemptyheartfacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgoogleimagesinstagramlinklocation-pinmagnifying-glassmailminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1outlookpersonplusprice-ribbonImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruseryahoo

Re: [lpsf] Re: New Palo Alto Hate Legislation effects on Native American Liberties

From: John B.
Sent on: Saturday, July 6, 2013 9:04 AM
Thanks for getting me back into the conversation. I lost my phone in the ocean with all contacts aboard.

Maybe you can give me a call again.


From: "Eric "OoPs" Diesel" <[address removed]>
To: [address removed]
Sent: Saturday, July 6,[masked]:59 AM
Subject: [lpsf] Re: New Palo Alto Hate Legislation effects on Native American Liberties

I just returned from Colorado discussing this proposed hate legislation with the Native American Defense League.
I visited reservations in California, Arizona, Utah, and Colorado, to discuss this hate legislation.
This hate legislation would affect many traditionally migrant Native Americans, who retain their traditional culture of moving with the seasons, by living out of their van, SUV, or even car.
This hate legislation would result in any of these Native Americans who tried to go into Palo Alto with their traditional way being arrested. 
There will be a Pow Wow at Stanford in Spring. I will try to get people at the Pow Wow to protest this hate legislation by protesting in front of the home of individual City Councilmembers voted for this hate legislation.

From: Aram James <[address removed]>
To: Eric Diesel <[address removed]>; chuck jagoda <[address removed]>; Doug Minkler <[address removed]>; Shankar Ramamoorthy <[address removed]>; Tony Ciampi <[address removed]>; Palo Alto Free Press <[address removed]>; Lewis. james <[address removed]>; Bruce Kenyon <[address removed]>; Rick Toker <[address removed]>; [address removed]; [address removed]; Lewis. james <[address removed]>; Doug Fort <[address removed]>; Fred Smith <[address removed]>; Mary Stuart <[address removed]>; Kitic S. <[address removed]>
Sent: Saturday, July 6,[masked]:34 AM
Subject: Re: "Hate Legislation" - Aram, Re: My Idea

Good idea, let's run with the "hate legislation" sound bite with the press and council --at least for awhile--and see if this PR angle changes the dynamics of the conversation. The hate crime/legislation angle could sends chills up the backs of some of the council members who view themselves as liberals. These are the same council folks who just recently --as you well know--voted to fly the gay flag. And are shameless in patting themselves on the back for this symbolic act of liberalism.

Just a word change --from vehicle habitation ban to hate crime/legislation might well make the so-called liberals uncomfortably enough- in not wanting  to be associated with such a label as hate mongers/hate legislators that they might actually vote to oppose the ordinance. Thus instead of my current count 7 for the ordinance and maybe 2 against --could be just 1 now, Greg schmid--we might have a sufficient turn around to swing a 5-4 vote against the ordinance. Okay folks---time for your feedback on the idea.

 As it stands I count only one or two council members currently opposed to the ordinance. As such we need to up the tone of the conversation if we are to prevail. Aram

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 5, 2013, at 5:26 PM, Eric Diesel <[address removed]> wrote:

For a media sound bite, it would be helpful to have an accurate single expression used by all opponents of what Aram called "essentially hate legislation", and which I previously called the "Palo Alto Trail of Tears Law".
I think Aram's description hits the nail on the head. This is clearly "hate legislation".
But we must recognize that there may be a population density problem at Cubberly, that may need addressing by a city council (but that is unrelated to sleeping in your car). If that problem, which is a legitimate public health and safety concern in the jurisdiction of a city council.   

From: Aram James <[address removed]>
To: chuck jagoda <[address removed]>; Doug Minkler <[address removed]>; Bruce Kenyon <[address removed]>; Palo Alto Free Press <[address removed]>; Rick Toker <[address removed]>; Shankar Ramamoorthy <[address removed]>; Rick Toker <[address removed]>; Mila Zelkha <[address removed]>; [address removed]; Eric Diesel <[address removed]>; Greg Schaefer + <[address removed]>; Norma Grench <[address removed]>; Lewis. james <[address removed]>; Marie Baylon <[address removed]>; Tony Ciampi <[address removed]>; Dr t <[address removed]>; Fred Smith <[address removed]>; Doug Fort <[address removed]>; Timothy Gray <[address removed]>; Tim james <[address removed]>; Kitic S. <[address removed]>; Mary Stuart <[address removed]>; Linda Martinet <[address removed]>
Sent: Friday, July 5,[masked]:05 PM
Subject: Re: My Idea

Hi Chuck,

Yes, I join your idea of talking the issues through with councilwoman Liz Kniss. Sadly I don't believe she would be willing to talk with us--she might find an honest give and take (our questions), too difficult to answer/handle. 

Liz is used to speaking without having to answer to anyone, and certainly would likely be unwilling to undergo a reasonable cross-examination, re her lack of solid logic for pushing what is essentially hate legislation, AKA the no vehicle habitation ordinance.  

Of course, if you can pull off a meeting with Liz, where she's willing to discuss the issues openingly, that would be quite a coup. I say go for it. I'd love to join you at such a meeting.


Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 5, 2013, at 8:03 AM, chuck jagoda <[address removed]> wrote:

Thank you.

I was tired and sent it out at first with mistakes in the title.

I would like to get to talk through the whole thing with LIz Kniss and whoever else is behind the push for the ordinance.  Even if you want to get rid of homeless people, it's a stupid way to try to do it.  I say that for the reasons you so often mention:  that it will cost/waste a ton of money fighting the embarrassing law suits based on lots of good law that will only result in Palo Alto (at least the pro-ordinance parts of it) looking bad.

Unfortunately, although Dennis Burns is willing to talk, I don't get the impression that LK and the Poop Police are so willing.  As precedent, I cite the behavior of the Greenmeadow Association at Cubberley.

See you in about three weeks.

I still want to take you to the great buffet at Crazy Buffet on ECR in Sunnyvale.


On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Aram James <[address removed]> wrote:
Anther excellent piece!! Aram 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 4, 2013, at 10:24 PM, chuck jagoda <[address removed]> wrote:

An Open Letter to the
"Don't Feed Stay Cat" Faction

Currently in Palo Alto there is an ordinance afoot.  It was dormant for many months.  Recently it has come alive with a herpes-like virulence.  Did too many Palo Altans forget to take their anti-oxidants?

The issue is whether or not homeless people can sleep in their vehicles.  However--typical of this convoluted issue-- it would also prohibit people from sleeping NEAR there vehicles.  I am on the side that says if people are having such hard times that they are sleeping or even WANTING to sleep in their car, they need help, not having their few remaining resources taken away.  Where do they sleep then? On the street, lawns, or median dividers?

I would like to point out a few things to those who think that it would be good to have a Vehicle Non-Habitation Ordinance (VNHO) that would criminalize those so poor they live in/out of their cars.  I call those people members of the "Don't Feed Stray Cats" school of thought.  They worry about being too lenient, too inviting--that if they don't pass such a law, "Palo Alto will become a magnate for every homeless person on the Peninsula."

As unsheltered (homeless) people we are:

• 2-6 times more likely to die from all causes than the general population for people of comparable ages
• More than three times more likely to commit suicide than the general population.
• Almost seven times more likely to die from HIV or hepatitis
• Three times more likely to die from chronic lower respiratory diseases than the general population, with an average age of death from this of 56 compared to 76
• Twice as likely to die from heart attacks and chronic heart disease and at an average age of 59 – 16 years lower than the general population which is 75-years-old.

We are subject to robbery and assault like anyone else except most of us don't have any building or locked doors to protect us.  But even worse we are vulnerable to police harassment, beatings, and murder.  The only group more vulnerable and subject to police attack than black people is homeless people.  And if you're black AND homeless, you really don't want to get into a police confrontation.  And if you don't know what I'm talking about, you're either an ostrich or very removed from the streets.

As a homeless person it is very easy to lose one's tools, important papers, documents, work clothes, as well as friends and family.  It's easy to feel disconnected from the world and work and hope.  It can be hard to climb back to a job, a home, a vehicle.

Every day can be a series of struggles for food, shelter, security of one's goods and self.  Every night can be a search for a place to be warm, be left alone, to get needed sleep.  Palo Alto's homeless often ride the bus all night--"The Hotel 22"--called that because the  #22 VTA Bus travels El Camino to San Jose and back.  And forth.  And back.  Until the night is over.  It's better in the winter when the Armory in Sunnyvale is open.

And you members of the "No Milk For Stray Cats" folks think you're going to make our lives harder and drive us away with your ordinance?  Do you really think a VAHO makes being homeless all that much worse?  That people who have life long ties to the area will just pick up and go somewhere else?

It's really a matter of whether you want to cast the vote of the City as a whole in favor of being sufficiently mean and inhospitable.  Would you feel that way if the same number of people suddenly became homeless from a forest fire, or superstorm, or tornado, or tsunami?  

All the ordinance that will do is make the world a little meaner--not just the world of the homeless, but the whole of your environment.  You can make a meaner world for us and the children now--and for your own children when some of them fall prey to the same of the same challenges we have.  Only when they are in this spot, there'll be fewer resources and more repression and more resentment--IF you continue down the path of The Dreaded Ordinance to the Mean New World.

Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Eric "OoPs" Diesel ([address removed]) from The San Francisco Libertarian Party Meetup Group.
To learn more about Eric "OoPs" Diesel, visit his/her member profile
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

Our Sponsors


    February's honorary sponsor supports activism for police accountability!

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy