Almost one year ago–on May 24, 2013–Californians dodged a bum’s rush.
That was when the California Legislature refused to make the streets safe for DDMBs.
Or Druggies, Drunks, Mentals and Bums, as they’re known to many of the paramedics and police who must deal with them.
Or as “the homeless,” to those of Politically Correct persuasion.
A measure introduced in April, 2013, by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) would have legally allowed DDMBs to sleep and sit in public places and accost hard-working citizens for unearned money.
The bill had already passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee on a 7-2 vote, but fatally stalled in the Assembly Apporpriations Committee on May 24, 2013.
Titled ”The Homeless Person’s Bill of Rights and Fairness Act,” it was first introduced on December 5, 2012.
Among the “rights” the bill would have created
- “The right to rest in a public space in the same manner as any other person without being subject to criminal or civil sanctions, harassment, or arrest by law enforcement, public or private security personnel….because he or she is homeless, as long as that rest does not maliciously or substantially obstruct a passageway.”
- “The right to decline admittance to a public or private shelter or any other accommodation, including social services programs, for any reason he or she sees fit, without being subject to criminal or civil sanctions, harassment, or arrest from law enforcement, public or private security personnel….”
- “The right to assistance of counsel if a county chooses to initiate judicial proceedings under any law set forth in Section 53.5…. The county where the citation was issued shall pay the cost of providing counsel….”
- “Every local government and disadvantaged unincorporated community within the state shall have sufficient health and hygiene centers available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for use by homeless people. These facilities may be part of the Neighborhood Health Center Program.”
- “The right to solicit donations in public spaces in the same manner as any other person without being subject to criminal or civil sanctions, harassment, or arrest by law enforcement, public or private security personnel…because he or she is homeless.”
- “‘Harassment’ [of DDMBs] means a knowing and willful course of conduct by law enforcement, public or private security personnel…directed at a specific person that a reasonable person would consider as seriously alarming, seriously annoying, seriously tormenting, or seriously terrorizing a person.”
“Seriously alarming” and “seriously annoying” behavior by DDMBs–such as aggressively demanding money from passersby–would, of course, not have been considered illegal.
The bill further stated: “Any person whose rights have been violated under this part may enforce those rights in a civil action.
“The court may award appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief, restitution for loss of property or personal effects and belongings, actual damages, compensatory damages, exemplary damages, statutory damages of one thousand dollars ($1,000) per violation, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff.”
In short, the aim of the bill was three-fold:
- To arm society’s undesirables with the full force of law to demand unearned monies from those who actually work for a living;
- To arm them with the right to infest, with their psychotic behavior, drug/alcohol addiction and often disease-carrying belongings, any public place they choose; and
- To put hard-working, law-abiding “squares” on the defensive in protecting themselves against the filth, aggressiveness and risk of injury from such DDMBs.
In recent years, several cities concerned about the number of undesirables occupying public spaces have passed local ordinances banning them from sitting and lying on streets and sidewalks.
These include Los Angeles, Santa Cruz, Palo Alto and San Francisco (where it is unenforced).
Ammiano’s bill would have forbidden police from enforcing ordinances regarding resting in public places unless a county has provided sufficient support to such undesirables.
The legislation received little attention from the media.
To fully understand what passage of such legislation would have meant for California, it’s necessary only to look at Ammiano’s own city, San Francisco.
This city:
- Doles out cash payments to virtually anyone with no residency requirement.
- Spends $200 million a year on “honeless” services.
- Has a “homeless” population between 7,000 and 10,000.
- Of these, 3,000 to 5,000 refuse shelter.
But the true realities of this problem can only be seen at the street level.
One of these realities is Suzie Wong, 66, who goes by the name Ling Ling. A resident of the Nob Hill District, Wong daily alights from the 27 Bryant bus from the Mission and halts at the nearby bus stop.
There she drops her drawers to leave a yellow or brown deposit on the sidewalk, then heads to her usual spot to panhandle.
Residents have lodged scores of complaints with the city about Wong’s repeated defecations. The Department of Public Works sent crews to clean up her messes at least 44 times in a six-month period.
Police have repeatedly arrested Wong for a 5150 involuntary psychiatric hold at San Francisco General Hospital. But doctors usually release her before the cops even get back to the station.
Ammiano’s legislation would have legalized such behavior throughout California.
So the upcoming anniversary of its defeat is well worth celebrating.
ABC NEWS, ALCOHOLISM, CBS NEWS, CELEBRITY CHEFS, COOKING, DEPOSITION, FACEBOOK, FOOD NETWORK, KU KLUX KLAN, LAWSUITS, MANAGEMENT, NBC NEWS, PAULA DEEN, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, RESTAURANTS, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, THEFT, TWITTER
PAULA DEEN’S REAL LAGACY: PART ONE (OF THREE)
In Bureaucracy, Business, Law, Social commentary on April 14, 2014 at 12:00 amThe purpose of this blog is to highlight the ways public and private bureaucracies actually operate–as opposed to how they usually want others to believe they operate.
Occasionally, a case comes along that is so filled with blatant violations of law and common sense that it offers a road map of what others should do to avoid similar disaster.
Such a case is that of celebrity chef Paula Deen.
On April 3, Uncle Bubba’s Seafood and Oyster House closed without warning.
The Savannah, Georgia, restaurant lay at the center of the infamous Paula Deen lawsuit.
And, in keeping with the mistreatment she had long tolerated against her employees, Deen closed Uncle Bubba’s without a trace of class.
Yes, Paula Deen thought so little of her employees that she didn’t even tell them beforehand. She let them show up to work, only to find kitchen appliances being removed from the restaurant.
Employees collected their severance checks in the parking lot.
Insead, the restaurant posted the following announcement on its Facebook page:
“Since its opening in 2004, Uncle Bubba’s Oyster House has been a destination for residents and tourists in Savannah, offering the region’s freshest seafood and oysters.
“However, the restaurant’s owner and operator, Bubba Heirs, has made the decision to close the restaurant in order to explore development options for the waterfront property on which the restaurant is located.
“At this point, no specific plans have been announced and a range of uses are under consideration in order realize the highest and best use for the property.
“The closing is effective today, Thursday, April 3, 2014. Employees will be provided with severance based on position and tenure with the restaurant.
“All effort will be made to find employees comparable employment with other Savannah restaurant organizations.”
In 2013, Deen became the subject of nationwide controversey when Lisa Jackson, a former employee of Uncle Bubba’s, filed a sexual/racial harassment lawsuit against her.
In a deposition, Deen was asked if she had used the word “nigger” and she replied: “Of course.”
Suddenly, she lost her cooking show on the Food Network. Several of his business partners–including Sears, JC Penney and Kmart–also gave hr the heave-ho.
The lawsuit was eventually dismissed, but, by then, the damage was done.
Commentators focused obsessively on Deen’s admission that she used the word “nigger.” Entirely ignored was the longtime mistreatment she had allowed to be dished out to her employees.
Paula Deen
Deen, her brother Earl “Bubba” Hiers, her company, and the corporations that operated a pair of restaurants she owns in Savannah, Georgia, were sued by former employee Lisa Jackson.
A complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia in November, 2012, claimed that Jackson was subjected to “violent, sexist, and racist behavior” during her five years’ employment by Deen.
It was for that reason that she left Uncle Bubba’s Oyster House, which was run by Hiers, in August, 2010.
Jackson’s complaint alleged that:
The allegation that black employees were ordered to use separate bathrooms and entrances harkens back to the ugly days of the pre-civil rights South.
That was an era where most blacks knew their place–or were murdered by the Ku Klux Klan.
In May, 2013, Deen gave her own deposition in the case.
She denied many of the allegations against Hiers-–but ended up admitting that she was aware of his offensive behaviors:
Q. Okay. Are you aware–-you were here during your brother’s deposition, right?
A. Yes.
Q. So you are aware of the things that he’s admitted to?
A. Absolutely.
Q. Did any of the things that your brother admitted to doing, including reviewing–-reviewing pornography in the workplace, using the N-word in the workplace, did any of that conduct cause you to have any concerns about him continuing to operate the business?
A. No. My brother and I, 25 years ago…each started a business and we each had $200 to start that business.
My brother built the most successful long-service business in Albany, Georgia, with his $200. My brother is completely capable unless he’s being sabotaged.
Mistake #1: Deen acknowledged that, if she hadn’t known about her brother’s behavior prior to his deposition, she was present during this and thus learned about it then.
Mistake #2: Deen acknowledged that even after she officially became aware of his behavior, she did not feel there was any reason to sever him from the company.
Share this: