Welcome back to the revived Community Alliance website. Not everything is quite working yet —for example,our ability to include photos with some stories remains non-functional at this hour,our Donate link is not yet revived,a lot of headlines on older stories are appearing twice,etc. —but we have saved all of our old content after our Earthlink server crashed irrecoverably nearly a month ago. We’ll continue to work on the remaining website quirks and issues…in the meantime,welcome back! By Gerry Bill After months of waiting,December finally saw some of the dirty little (or big) secrets of the Fresno Police Department (FPD) exposed to the light of day. Two events came together to make this happen—a public trial full of allegations that the department had a long history of using excessive force and the belated release of Eddie Aubrey’s Office of Independent Review (OIR) report.  Steven Vargas was shot and killed after getting in an automobile accident. A federal jury determined that Fresno police Sgt. Mike Palomino used excessive and unreasonable force in the incident. It is because of cases like this that groups in Fresno have been calling for police accountability and an independent police auditor. For more information,visit www.cccjc.org. Verdict in the Vargas Trial Because of the verdict,the City of Fresno probably will have to pay a cash settlement to the Vargas family. Federal Judge Anthony Ishii put off arguments on compensation until Jan. 18. Even though Palomino did the deed,it is the cash-strapped city that will be on the hook for the money—meaning you and me,the taxpayers. Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer was also accused of wrongdoing in the trial,but the jury decided against blaming him. However,the jury did find,unanimously,that the training of FPD officers needed some work—something that is,of course,the chief’s responsibility. There were some additional issues on which the jury was deadlocked,so it is possible that there will be a second trial;it would likely focus on a wrongful death charge against the city. A second trial could be averted if the family receives enough of a settlement. The OIR Report Finally Surfaces This raises an interesting question:Was the city trying to delay the release of the report until after the Vargas trial out of fear that the report would bolster the Vargas family’s case? We may never know,but the report does contain some elements that substantiated points being made by the family’s attorney. In his report,which covered 2010,Aubrey chose two “focus issues,” both of which relate to the Vargas trial. Aubrey identified officer-involved shootings/in-custody deaths (OISs/ICDs) as his first area of concern. Aubrey’s second issue was the early alert system (EAS),which is designed to flag repeat offenders within the department—officers who have received excessive numbers of complaints,or who are involved in use of force cases well above the department average. It turns out that Palomino’s behavior fits into both of those areas of concern. Aubrey’s Take on OIS and OIS Investigations
Apparently,when the department investigates OIS cases,it doesn’t interview all witnesses,it doesn’t canvas the area for witnesses or video cameras,it does ask leading questions,it does come to conclusions that are not supported by specific facts and it does not look at the past histories of the officers involved. It is almost as if the investigators already have an idea of how they want the investigation to turn out,and they don’t want to be bothered by witnesses,videos or specific facts that might go counter to the narrative they are trying to create. The issue of looking at an officer’s past OIS history is directly related to the Vargas/Palomino case. Aubrey’s report points out that there are a handful of officers who seem to be involved in shootings much more frequently than their peers. He says that during the period 2000‒2010,214 officers fired their weapons in 96 incidents. Of those 214 officers,the overwhelming majority—156—used their weapons only once during that time period. Another 37 officers used their weapons twice,14 officers did it three times,five officers did it four times and only two officers used their weapons five times. According to a joint study by ColorLines and the Investigative Fund of the Nation Institute,published in April 2010,Palomino was in the group that used his weapon four times. In a department of about 750 officers,that means that Palomino is in the top 1% of his department when it comes to shooting people. I guess the FPD has its own 1%. At the trial,the attorney was able to introduce evidence about at least one of Palomino’s previous OIS incidents. It is possible that this crucial bit of information swayed the jury in its finding against Palomino. However,in the department’s own investigations Palomino has always been found to have been justified in his use of force. Apparently,his past record was not even considered by internal affairs. Did the jury know more about Palomino than did the internal affairs division? Maybe internal affairs just prefers to see no evil when looking at its officers. Failure of the Early Alert System The EAS is supposed to be a four-step process. The first step is the generation of reports based on a statistical analysis of selected performance indicators for a particular officer. Steps two,three and four involve identification of problem officers,review of the file by an EAS committee and,finally,an intervention. Aubrey reports that in 2009 and 2010 there were 38 reports generated by the EAS,but only three of those went to committee and none went as far as an intervention. In other words,the FPD has no officers with problems serious enough to justify an intervention. The Fresno Police Department on Trial Aubrey makes exactly the same point in his report. He recommends that department training staff should be deployed to any OIS scene so that they can learn from the particulars of the case and perhaps make improvements in future training. Then,Aubrey says,the department should publish training bulletins for each and every officer-involved shooting. Aubrey states,“It is critically important to learn from past shooting incidents to determine whether tactics may be improved,evaluate decision points to use deadly force,and to effectively use this information to train other officers concerning encounters where deadly force may be used.” He goes on to say that such training could help reduce the loss of life and reduce “civil litigation.” Had there been such training in the FPD,perhaps Steven Vargas would still be alive today,and the city would not be looking at millions of dollars in legal fees and settlement costs. When will we ever learn? ***** Gerry Bill is emeritus professor of sociology and American Studies at Fresno City College and is on the boards of the Fresno Free College Foundation,Peace Fresno and the Fresno Center for Nonviolence. He is co-chair of the Central California Criminal Justice Committee,and a longtime activist in Fresno. By Michael “Bud” Green  An intense struggle over the right to grow,distribute and sell marijuana in Fresno is under way. This article brings readers up to speed on the debate and legal implications that you need to know about. The assignment seems straightforward enough:Write an article summing up the medical cannabis scene in Fresno. The diehard journalist starts a mental checklist of sources and court cases,then gives up. Dry facts don’t tell the full story. Long story short,if you’re a Prop 215 patient in Fresno who counts on dispensaries for safe access,things are not looking good. Dispensaries in Fresno County are operating on borrowed time,with a county ban that takes effect in March and the ever-present threat of federal raids. That threat isn’t theoretical. Five dispensaries were raided in June,and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) followed up by taking down Buds 4 Life’s two locations in October. It’s unknown whether Mark Bagdasarian and his son,Ryan,were fully compliant with California law,but that’s irrelevant in federal cases where medical cannabis doesn’t exist as a criminal defense. The pair were featured on a list of federal enforcement actions announced at an Oct. 7 press conference in Sacramento. “They had installed an ATM in one store,and one of the defendants told investigators they were making $30,000 to $50,000 per day selling marijuana,” wrote Ben Wagner,U.S. Attorney for California’s Eastern District. Beyond the feds,Fresno County Sheriff Margaret Mims says there’s no such thing as a legal dispensary under state law. No attempt to sort the good apples from the bad ones;the strategy is to zone them all out of existence. In so doing,the sheriff and the Board of Supervisors (with the exception of Susan Anderson) have belatedly followed the lead of hundreds of cities and counties around the state,albeit with a certain Fresno flair that defies polite description. The Board of Supervisors also passed a Draconian cultivation ordinance to replace the cultivation ban they can’t enforce now,all the while proclaiming their compassion for patients—but only if those patients are dying or sick enough to pass the supervisors’ moral muster. If you want respect,in other words,you’d better fluff up the pillows on your deathbed. Everyone else is just a stoner in their eyes,even qualified patients and caregivers who follow state law to the letter. Informed debate? Forget about it. Yet questions abound:Why is California being targeted by the feds while Colorado’s more regulated dispensaries are untouched? How can U.S. Attorney Eric Holder tell Congress that his 2009 directive to limit federal enforcement in medical cannabis states still applies when it’s open season in California,Washington and Montana? Where is the state legislature,state Attorney General Kamala Harris and her predecessor,Gov. Jerry Brown? Inquiring minds want to know how it came to this,15 years and counting after the passage of the Compassionate Use Act. I wish I had answers to those questions and more,but I don’t. All I know for sure is that it’s a historic time in our social,medical and legal understanding of cannabis. That,and it’s going to be a chilly winter in Fresno for collective-dispensary operators who are brave enough and/or foolish enough to provide Prop 215 patients with safe access to medical cannabis. In closing,some hard facts sprinkled ever-so-lightly with conjecture and editorial comments. Read the hyperlinked version at fresnocannabis.org/dispensaries. Are Collectives and Dispensaries the Same? Legally,a collective is a group of qualified Prop 215 patients,nothing more or less. When those groups decide to distribute medical cannabis among their respective members through a storefront or delivery service,that business is often called a dispensary. Most local ordinances in California ban or restrict all types of patient collectives,not just those that operate dispensaries. Are Dispensaries Legal under Federal Law? But the Fourth District Court of Appeals rejected the federal preemption argument in 2010. The second appeal of that case is under way,but in the meantime,the Anaheim ruling has the force of law:“California’s decision in the (Compassionate Use Act) and the (Medical Marijuana Program Act) to decriminalize for purposes of state law certain conduct related to medical marijuana does nothing to ‘override’ or attempt to override federal law,which remains in force.” The more recent Riverside ruling concurs:“We agree that under Qualified federal preemption of state medical marijuana law is not a valid basis for upholding Riverside’s zoning ordinance banning (medical marijuana dispensaries).”  This is the “bud” from a Bubba Kush marijuana plant,which federal law says is illegal,California state law permits it if used for medical purposes,but city and county ordinances are trying to regulate it almost out of existence. Interestingly,people rarely question whether federal law trumps the state’s medical cannabis laws themselves—there is no case law that declares Prop 215 is invalid,or the Legislature’s 2003 follow-up,SB 420,or even last year’s SB 1449,making simple possession of non-medical cannabis an infraction instead of a misdemeanor. The U.S. Supreme Court found that medical cannabis dispensaries were illegal under the Controlled Substances Act in 2005—but it did not overturn Prop 215 or SB 420. If the legal issues are confusing,consider how federal law is enforced. This July,Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole issued a memorandum that attempted to clarify federal policy with regard to enforcement in the 16 U.S. states where medical marijuana is legal or decriminalized. According to Americans for Safe Access (ASA),Cole’s memo threatened enforcement actions against “persons who are in the business of cultivating,selling or distributing marijuana,and those who knowingly facilitate such activities,” including local and state officials. The memo further underscored that “state laws or local ordinances are not a defense to civil or criminal enforcement of federal law.” As the ASA and other advocacy groups have pointed out,the Cole memo appeared to be a retreat from President Barack Obama’s pledge that he was “not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws” regarding medical cannabis. It also backtracked from a 2009 memo issued by Deputy Attorney General David Ogden,which stated that federal resources should not be used for “individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana.” U.S. Attorney General Holder testified before Congress in December that the Ogden policy still applies,even though dispensaries in California and other states are being targeted in a new wave of federal raids. U.S. Attorneys have sent letters threatening public officials from at least 10 states with criminal prosecution if they implement laws regulating the production and distribution of medical marijuana,according to the ASA. In California,the U.S. Attorneys’ Office has not only sent warnings to elected officials but also to landlords who rent property to dispensaries. The Cole memo appears to give wide discretion to prosecute dispensaries and large-scale growers,while also placing landlords and government officials and/or employees into the realm of potential targets. Complicating matters further,the Second District Court of Appeals in Los Angeles said in an October ruling that a Long Beach ordinance permitting dispensaries violated federal law. “The city’s ordinance…goes beyond decriminalization into authorization,” reads the ruling,which has been appealed to the California Supreme Court. Since then,Sacramento stopped processing dispensary permits under that city’s ordinance,and Eureka reversed course by passing a dispensary moratorium. Chico and Redding both repealed their regulatory ordinances,citing federal warnings. On Oct. 27,the ASA filed suit against U.S. Attorney General Holder and Melinda Haag,the U.S. Attorney for California’s Northern District. The lawsuit accuses the federal government of seeking to “coerce and commandeer” California’s police and regulatory powers over medical cannabis,in violation of the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Federal lawsuits filed by dispensary operators around the state are also pending,though a judge denied their request for an injunction to stop future raids. Are Dispensaries Legal under California Law?  Rick Morse,owner of the Medmar medical marijuana dispensary in the Tower District,was an early victim of Fresno’s crackdown. See:http://fresnoalliance.com/wordpress/?p=4170 It depends on who you ask. Sheriff Mims first supported a dispensary ban more than a year ago in an appearance before the county supervisors,a stance she has repeated consistently since then. “I do not believe that the Medical Marijuana (Program) Act or Prop 215 legally allow[s] for dispensaries or storefronts as they currently exist,” she said in December 2010. Yet then-Attorney General Brown’s office released a set of guidelines in 2008 that supports the idea of legal,collective cultivation by Prop 215 patients. “Neither Proposition 215,nor the MMP,conflict with the CSA (federal Controlled Substances Act) because,in adopting these laws,California did not ‘legalize’ medical marijuana,but instead exercised the state’s reserved powers to not punish certain marijuana offenses under state law when a physician has recommended its use to treat a serious medical condition.” The Attorney General’s guidelines don’t have the force of law,nor do they say that medical cannabis is even legal. Prop 215 and SB 420 didn’t legalize anything,including storefront dispensaries or large-scale grow sites. Prop 215 provides patients with an affirmative defense should they be arrested on suspicion of violating state laws prohibiting marijuana cultivation,transportation,distribution and sales. SB 420 created “get out of jail free” ID cards,but many patients fear being in a statewide database,even one designed to help them avoid arrest. Both laws are silent on how and when patients can exchange cannabis,whether through a storefront dispensary or other nonprofit business. The state Attorney General’s office is working on an update of its guidelines that says dispensaries may (or may not) operate legally under state law. The legal status of dispensaries could change more substantially if voters pass one or more cannabis reform measures in the 2012 statewide election. Are Dispensaries Legal under Local Ordinances? Fresno County’s ordinance bans dispensaries and so strictly limits cultivation that it amounts to a de facto ban. Even so,collective operators have for now abandoned efforts to pass a ballot measure that would replace the ordinance passed in August. Attorney Bill McPike,a medical cannabis patient,cited the Long Beach ruling when he filed suit against the county in October;more litigation seems likely. In November,the Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld Riverside’s dispensary ban. Although Anaheim’s ban is still under appeal,Riverside shows the likely outcome:Local governments have broad land-use authority that can be applied to cultivation and dispensaries—but only in the absence of state law that occupies the whole field of medical cannabis regulation. In December,a statewide coalition of advocates including the ASA and the California Cannabis Association submitted a ballot measure that would preempt most local medical cannabis regulations and establish a state panel to oversee cultivation,distribution and sales. Should that initiative or one or more legalization measures qualify for the November 2012 ballot,debate will focus on whether statewide regulation of cannabis is preferable to local ordinances and bans. The feds don’t get to vote,but they’ll likely try to influence state voters,just like they did with Prop 19 in 2010. ***** Bud Green is the online persona for Michael S. Green,a Fresno native who tracks cannabis stories at CalPotNews.com. He hopes to form an association of medical cannabis patients in 2012;visit www.FresnoCannabis.org for details. By Kevin Hall Old Tricks,New DogsThe San Joaquin Valley needs some really good dogcatchers right now because the air polluters and their lapdogs,watchdogs and guard-dogs are running loose and need to be locked up. Pollution levels this fall reached highly dangerous levels throughout the Valley on repeated mornings,nights and the occasional afternoon,and it’s only going to get worse in January. This time of year we’re breathing in the very small particles that lodge deep in our lungs or enter the bloodstream to trigger heart attacks,strokes and even do damage at a cellular level. During this prolonged red-air season,not a single Air Alert was (or will be) issued by the Valley Air Board. Children ran and played through recesses. Evening football games were played. Seniors took morning walks. Joggers went on their runs. Little did they know the damage being done to their lungs,their hearts,their futures—and the immune systems of their future descendants. Not once did the regional agency formed to address this public health crisis issue a word of warning. Why Not?Because the Valley Air Board is a captive agency controlled by the polluters it’s supposed to regulate. Instead of warning the public of impacts and risks,the board’s staff has entered the final stage of the classic industry “four dog defense.” First perfected by cigarette makers and later used by every bad actor from chemical manufacturers to the fossil fuel industry,this is a four-stage process (as described by Jennifer Sass of the Natural Resources Defense Council in an Amy Goodman interview). It goes like this:the first “dog” or line of defense is where the polluter responds to public criticism by saying,“My dog doesn’t bite!” Meaning,in this case,that air pollution doesn’t cause harm,but,of course,the science proves them wrong. So,they release the second hound,which barks,“Okay. My dog bites,but he didn’t bite you.” Again,the science proves them wrong. Air pollution is pervasive and we’re all exposed to dangerous levels. Third dog:“Fine! My dog bites;he bit you,but he didn’t hurt you.” Wrong yet again,of course. Air pollution really,really hurts you,and the more research we see the more harm we learn about. So the fourth dog is unleashed,and this is the one our Valley Air Board and staff now use exclusively in their role as the PR arm of the industrial polluters. It says,“My dog bites. He bit you. He hurt you. It’s your fault!” This is why we don’t see Air Alerts being issued on an almost daily basis during the summer months and every other day during the fall and winter. If they did,the public would soon be calling on those air board members to demand clean air and,worse yet in their eyes,force these elected officials to either take real action or step down. Red Pill versus Blue PillDr. Kari Nadeau,a medical doctor and Stanford researcher,gave a presentation recently that delivered a Matrix-like,red-pill moment of awakening into a harsh reality. In simple terms and leaving out the reams of technical research data Dr. Nadeau and her team released only after nine years of careful study,the researchers examined the genetic code of our children as it relates to the production of T-cells in their immune systems. T-cells play a critical role in a body’s ability to respond to attack,determining the type and degree of chemical response within the body. People with low counts have severe allergies,asthma,GI disease and Type I diabetes. It turns out the human body has an efficient method of taking elements,like air pollutants,in blood and injecting them into cells,specifically into the nuclei. In Fresno (and similarly affected Valley communities,in my opinion),the genetic code of the children studied has been permanently damaged,resulting in lower T-cell counts. As it turns out,Fresno kids with asthma not only have T-cell counts lower than Fresno ones without asthma,but when compared with young ones from outside the Valley,our healthy kids have lower counts than Palo Alto kids with asthma. A “healthy” immune system in a Valley child is weaker than a damaged immune system from one on the outside. And the genetic damage is not only permanent,it’s hereditary. The genetic inheritance these kids pass along to the next generation is one of a weakened immune system—from birth. Chances are it’s been happening here for some time now. So the next time you hear that fourth dog barking,remember who loses and for how long. Think about volunteering as a dogcatcher and joining the effort. We need you. Generations to come need you. ***** Kevin Hall is director of the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition based in Fresno and online at www.calcleanair.org and on Facebook. CVAQ is a partnership of more than 70 community,medical,public health,environmental and environmental justice organizations representing thousands of residents in the San Joaquin Valley unified in their commitment to improve the health of Californians. Contact him at kevin@calcleanair.org. By Mike Rhodes  This photo shows the destruction of one of the homes in the Monterey Bridge homeless encampment. The home was owned by Mother Nature (see the accompanying photo of her reaction to the destruction of her shelter). She kept crying,“That’s my home,that is my home.” Just before Christmas,the City of Fresno continued to hammer away at the homeless,destroying more of their modest shelters,this time on the Monterey Bridge. The attack on this encampment is part of a campaign that started at the end of October and represents a significant shift in city policy that no longer permits the homeless to live on public property in shelter of any kind. Fresno police officers are now vigorously enforcing rules that do not allow homeless people to even sleep on sidewalks. On Santa Clara Street,near the Poverello House (a homeless center),homeless people told me that the police come through almost every night,wake them up and tell them to move on. While I was there one night,interviewing homeless people about this situation,a patrol car pulled up and announced over the loudspeaker that camping is not permitted. The announcement went on to say that “violators will be subject to arrest.” The people in this area were evicted by city workers,their tents and shelters were destroyed,and they are now sleeping on the sidewalk,many of them in front of homes that are vacant near Santa Clara and E streets. Those boarded-up houses sit less than five feet from where people are bundled up in their blankets and sleeping bags,being threatened by the police with arrest.  This is Mother Nature as she watched her home being kicked down. At the Monterey Bridge,city workers smashed apart the homes of a dozen homeless people. Mother Nature was one of the people who watched in horror as the city destroyed the home that kept her warm at night. “That’s my home,that is my home,” she wailed as a group of sanitation workers kicked her home down. The City of Fresno says it is destroying the encampments because there are construction projects in the area that require their removal. Greg Barfield,who is the homeless prevention and policy manager for the City of Fresno,says that the city is finding housing for those affected by the destruction of the encampments. Yet,at an impromptu meeting of the people evicted from the Monterey Bridge,none of them indicated they had been offered housing. On a live TV show the night of the eviction,Barfield was asked why the homeless were being evicted now,just as the weather is getting cold. He responded that “no time is a good time” to evict the homeless but argued that it was the right thing to do. The city also defended its policy of providing no safe and legal places for the homeless to live. Preston Prince,executive director and CEO of the Fresno Housing Authority,said that he does not support the concept of safe and legal campgrounds. Both Prince and Barfield said they wanted to provide housing for the homeless and not encourage temporary encampments. Other panelists on KNXT (the Catholic TV station that hosted the discussion) argued passionately for the need for a short-term solution for the homeless,because nobody is saying that the City of Fresno or the Housing Authority is going to find all homeless people housing any time soon. Chris Schneider,executive director of Central California Legal Services,challenged Barfield to support the Safe Ground concept. Barfield refused to express support for safe and legal places for the homeless to live. Kevin Hamilton,the deputy chief of programs at Clinica Sierra Vista,said there are more than 3,000 homeless people on the streets of Fresno and that while it is nice that city efforts have found housing for some of them,you can’t ignore the reality that people need a safe place to sleep at night. That point was repeated throughout the 90-minute program by other panel members,the in-studio audience and callers. Bill Simon,chairperson of the Bishop John Steinbock Homeless Advocacy Committee,asked why the City of Fresno destroyed homeless people’s property,even though it was clearly marked with their names on it. He showed a video of a shelter being destroyed,even after he had told workers who it belonged to,that the owner was at school at the time and that she wanted her property saved. The destruction of homeless people’s property appears to be in violation of a federal court order,prohibiting the city from taking and immediately destroying their property. The court order directs the city to put any property of value in storage for at least 90 days,so the property can be reclaimed. Tough LoveOn Dec. 15,the homeless in Fresno experienced some of the “tough love” that Larry Arce of the Rescue Mission likes to talk about. As the City Council was discussing an ordinance that would make it illegal for the homeless to camp on city property (e.g.,City Hall,an alleyway,sidewalks),a crew of city workers was busy destroying homeless people’s property.  This group of people was evicted from the Monterey Bridge. They were asked to raise their hands if they had not been offered housing by the City of Fresno. They all raised their hands. Police,garbage trucks and a flatbed truck arrived on Santa Clara and F streets;there were no signs posted and no warning of this cleanup. Shopping carts were collected,homeless people’s property removed (some people said their clothes and other items were thrown on the ground),put on a flatbed truck and taken away. The homeless people living on Santa Clara Street were told to take what they wanted and the rest would be destroyed. Some people,who were away for the day or inside the Poverello House,had no opportunity to save their sleeping bags,blankets,clothes and other personal possessions. City workers then took what people could not carry away—throwing it into garbage trucks,where it was crushed and taken to the dump. Judy Hess,a homeless advocate who went down to talk to the homeless people after this incident,said the city not only took blankets and sleeping bags but also took homeless people’s firewood too. Because the city destroyed all of the shelters that the homeless people had built,they were keeping warm at night by building fires. Hess also said that one person lost an urn that held his grandfather’s ashes. Bobby Gray,who first alerted the Community Alliance to this situation,said the city had taken all of her clothes and bedding materials;she had not been on the street at the time because she was inside the Poverello House making Christmas decorations. Gray also said that one man had been injured when he was pushed off a couch by a city worker. While the “cleanup” on Santa Clara and F streets was going on,the Fresno City Council was discussing the adoption of an ordinance that would make it a criminal offense for anyone to camp on city property. The item,which originally appeared on the Consent Calendar,was pulled,and a three-hour-plus discussion ensued. About 20 homeless advocates and a couple of homeless people spoke out against the proposed ordinance. Several Occupy Fresno activists spoke out against the ordinance,saying that it appeared that the city was trying to stop them from “occupying” city property. Some of the reasons given for opposing the camping ordinance were as follows:
 This is on the corner of Santa Clara and E streets,where homeless people sleep on the sidewalk,even though there is an empty house five feet away. After the public presentations,in which everyone who spoke called on the city not to pass the proposed ordinance,City Council members spoke. Council member Sal Quintero said he was undecided until he received a letter from Larry Arce at the Rescue Mission (which he read aloud) talking about how the homeless needed to have their shelters destroyed—that the tough love would bring them into the programs they needed to get off the streets. Baines insisted that the camping ordinance was not directed at the homeless. He speculated that the ordinance was directed at the Occupy Fresno movement. That sentiment was repeated by other City Council members and staff. The City Council voted not to back the anti-camping ordinance but intends to bring it back up for discussion in January 2012. A list of articles about homeless issues in Fresno over the last 10 years is available at http://fresnoalliance.com/wordpress/?p=1313. ***** Mike Rhodes is the editor of the Community Alliance newspaper. Contact him at editor@fresnoalliance.com.
I was intrigued when I heard City Council member Sal Quintero (on the same day and about at the same time when the attack described above took place) say that he was going to vote for an ordinance banning the homeless from sleeping on sidewalks because he agreed with the tough love message it sends to those who are down and out. District 3 City Council member Oliver Baines yelled at homeless advocates at that meeting because he said the ordinance was actually targeting Occupy Fresno,but that is another story. Some friends and I started dissecting the “tough love” approach the city has implemented on the homeless,and we came to the conclusion that it explains a lot. One of my friends put it this way:“Actually,I think the right-wing logic goes something like this:To help the poor,the best thing to do is punish them until they are not poor because punishment builds the character they need to be not poor,or in this case homeless. In addition,to give the poor assistance compromises their motivation to change their situation because it creates dependence on other people rather than promoting independence. So if I’m following this logic correctly,destroying the property of the homeless,over and over again,and chasing them all over the streets is the right’s way of trying to help them.” I think my friend nailed it. The policy makers at the City of Fresno,whether they are articulating it this way or not,believe they are being cruel to be kind. Another friend added:“It’s known as ‘prosperity theology,’ a relatively recent phenomenon in American Christianity. In short,riches are the result of piety;lack of riches stems from lack of faith;so to offer assistance to the poor is to ‘reward’ their lack of faith. Helping them equates to opposing God’s will. While the civil servants in question might not be adherents,they work in an institution led by those who are. Those at the top set the tone or culture of our city government.” How else can you explain the heartless and cruel policy of taking poor people’s shelters,waking them up in the middle of the night and chasing them off of public sidewalks,and then stealing the last stick of wood they have to keep themselves warm? It makes me ashamed to live in Fresno. But,what are you going to do about it? That is what I want to know. How about if the progressive community came together and started thinking strategically about how to have more power and influence in Fresno? That is exactly what is going to take place on Jan. 8 at 2 p.m. in a meeting that will take place at the Unitarian Universalist Church at 2672 E. Alluvial Ave. in Clovis. If you want to help build a more effective,powerful and unified movement for social,economic and environmental justice,come to this meeting. Single issue groups,like the homeless advocates,can fight these injustices one at a time—sometimes we will win and sometimes we will lose. But if we unite with other progressives in this community and figure out a way to build unity and achieve political power,we can stop being on the defensive and reacting to one crisis after another. Join me on Jan. 8,and let’s see if we can move beyond single issue politics in Fresno. *** Mike Rhodes is the editor of the Community Alliance newspaper. He can be reached by email at editor@fresnoalliance.com. | ||
| Copyright ©2012 Community Alliance - All Rights Reserved | ||
