💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › politics › SPUNK › sp000428.txt captured on 2022-03-01 at 16:22:48.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
THE CRIMINALIZATION OF POVERTY IN SANTA CRUZ: MANAGING SOCIAL DISSENT A Statement From: Industrial Workers of the World Santa Cruz General Membership Branch 1994 Santa Cruz Camping Ban/Conduct Ordinances: The Criminalization of Dissent We of the Santa Cruz I.W.W. hold that recent attacks on the poor, homeless and activist street communities are not merely the result of a local aberration. These attacks are part of a national effort to manage the radicalization and social protest of an increasing number of people experiencing poverty. A Brief Introduction Gentrification, meaning redevelopment, increasing rent, and costly `beautification,' (efforts aimed at attracting a more upper-class tourist base) provides the backdrop and justification for intensified social control. With the creation of several new categories of petty crime, such as sitting, asking for spare change or sleeping in public, a powerful City-Business-Developer alliance is emerging to ensconse police harassment in the necessary judicial legitimation. Explicit use of selective enforcement, condoned police brutality, the absence of jury trials and the imposition of costly fines for convicted offenders are all elements of the recently reworked public "conduct ordinances." Criminalization of the "Lifestyle Choice;" Managing Social Dissent While proponents argue that the new legislation targets behavior and not specific classes or communities of people, we of the I.W.W. maintain that the targeted "behaviors" are those which *characterize* certain social classes. Sitting on the sidewalk, peacefully asking for spare change, or sleeping in public are all aspects of a social *condition.* Yet city power players and the capitalist press have been very successful in their unrelenting portrayal of homelessness and poverty as an individual "lifestyle choice." In Santa Cruz this assertion functions as the linchpin of moral justification for ever-increasing criminalization of homelessness. We charge that it is extremely false to assert that any majority of the nation's homeless are "homeless by choice." Yet the disgust and hatred that is exhibited towards those *perceived* as choosing not to participate in the current economic system seems telling. Why should the assertion that a particular "lifestyle" was *chosen* be valid grounds for its subsequent suppression? Perhaps because that "choice" is perceived as a tremendous threat to the current status quo in Santa Cruz, a status quo predicated upon cheap, available, very low paid labor bound to the second highest rents in the nation. What would happen if the option to avoid rent and wage slavery by sleeping outdoors were to become more desirable and/or possible for a large number of people? The bosses and landlords in town however "progressive" they may claim to be would then have to face the level to which their privileges and comfort depend on the subordination of others. Thus we assert that criminalizing a certain social condition because it is perceived as a choice, demonstrates the purposeful effort to manufacture consent and enforce bondage to the highly exploitative work/rent system. The criminalization of the "choice" not to participate in "the system," demonstrates the fascist strategy of current anti-homeless campaigns; to attack, manage, regulate and ultimately destroy perceived or actual social dissent. Anti-Poor Campaigns and Class Struggle The Camping Ban, the "conduct" ordinances and the surrounding neo-liberal discourse about "behavior" and `right-to-be-rich' are targeted not only at street populations but also those who are currently housed and employed. All low paid waged laborers; copy/coffee/food service workers, retail laborers, office workers, temporaries, light industry productionists etc. are essentially being warned by anti-homeless legislation to "play it safe" on the job so as not to end up on the street. The effort to stigmatize and outright vilify an economic circumstance that all waged workers must constantly struggle to avoid is a very useful strategy for keeping labor in line. In Santa Cruz a worker's existence is primarily *defined by* the constant struggle to maintain legal housing where over half of one's monthly wages may go towards rent. The criminalization of the condition of being unable to pay rent functions as a very real demand that workers remain ever-grateful for current employment, regardless of conditions or pay. By securing access to a subdued and fearful service-industry workforce supporters of anti-homeless legislation (almost entirely bosses) seek to simultaneously