A street performer on the problem with Santa Cruz’s new downtown ordinance.
Gianna's Gifts of Life
Re: “Gianna’s Gift” (Cover, Dec. 4): Thank you for such a heartbreaking but beautifully written article by Geoffrey Dunn. Gianna Altano's tragic young death from CF provided the gift of life to so many because of her generous organ donations. Sending tender thoughts to her family and friends.
Deb Murray
Aptos
The Not-So-Simple Truth
Re: “Outside the Box” (Currents, Dec. 4): For over 20 years I worked with the Downtown Association and with street performers in Santa Cruz to remind them of the agreement of mutual respect that they had signed on to in 1980. That agreement called on all parties to resolve disputes not through the use of laws and police but to treat each other as neighbors. The few problems that weren't pre-solved by showing the agreement to new downtown performers were addressed in an atmosphere of respect for each other’s interests.
But when the DTA worked with the city council and police chief to abrogate that voluntary agreement in order to “make things simpler” by passing street performer specific laws, they lost me. I couldn't understand the maze of restrictions written into their new laws, and neither could the police or downtown hosts (or city council members, when I would give them a pop quiz on the specific restrictions). It did anything but make things simpler. So they did what we knew they would do: they amended those new laws, and then re-amended them, and each time they included greater restrictions. They are stricter, but they are anything but simpler.
Street performing is not one of Santa Cruz's “downtown problems.” Let me say that again: street performing is not one of Santa Cruz's “downtown problems.”
In the interest of simplicity, the council and merchants agreed that there would be no need to meet with performers or concern themselves with their interests, there would be laws and there would be police and that would be that. They had the ear of an eager council and it passed, thereby abrogating a working agreement. Informally, they assured me and others that they would only use the laws against some performers and not others … you know (wink), it would be “complaint driven.”
Among the problems that they quietly promised to enforce selectively was a provision in the law that would keep all performers at the curbside instead of allowing performers to stand with their back against the buildings. This only soundslike something that the merchants would prefer, and the matter came up a handful of times over the years, but was rejected each time by the merchants themselves when we pointed out that this would mean that the best acts would attract crowds that would block their show windows and the lesser acts would play toward their open door. Our voluntary guidelines allowed that the performer and merchant in question could come to an agreement about which side of the sidewalk they played on. That, it was being said, was too complicated, and they wanted to make it simpler. So they passed laws.
They were in a hurry to pass a full packet of “downtown ordinances,” and this time they wouldn't meet to have that discussion. They shut out the performers when they asked for meetings and they chose to skip that whole complicated “give each other respect” thing. It was intended to relieve the merchants of that burden and replace it with police enforcement of each merchant’s musical tastes. Is anyone surprised to hear that that isn’t simple?
Tom Noddy
Santa Cruz
