Well, I just returned from a VERY interesting #Indivisible #SantaFe (ISF) meeting. Santa Fe’s new mayor was summoned to the meeting by a #NewMexico state legislator in attendance. This led to me having to supply the meeting with an impromptu presentation on First Amendment law and why the City of Santa Fe cannot lawfully charge ISF $25,000+ for a closed streets permit for #NoKings on March 28. 1/
Post
Replies:
16
@heidilifeldman We're seeing similar problems in Walnut Creek, California, where just to issue a public park permit (not even to close the streets) for No Kings 3 the city is demanding $9800, AND payment to rent 8 portapotties, AND the Indivisible chapter must purchase event insurance. That total could easily run to $15K or $20K.
I put them in touch with the regional National Lawyers Guild for consultation about speech-muzzling permitting practices. Do you have other recommendations?
@bhahne Do you have contacts with the local ACLU?
@heidilifeldman I could direct them to ACLU Norcal, however based on ACLU Norcal's web site it looks like they prefer to focus on impact litigation. My NLG contact did suggest that he'd reach out within his contact circles.
@bhahne keep me posted, good to compare notes
Am I misreading this, or is the mayor being a dick?
Dude, if something costs $25K and people find an alternative approach that doesnt cost $25K, that's *normal*, and not at all like building a house without a permit.
This is a story about a city government doubling down on what I regard as a poor choice and a grassroots group doing what it can to act responsibly in the face of that. 2/
From early February, ISF started inquiries with the city as to how to get a “special event permit” to have streets closed for a No Kings march following musical events and readings from the Declaration of Independence at the Roundhouse, the #NewMexico state capitol building. The state has jurisdiction over the grounds there, and has been fine to work with. ISF has booked the grounds, following procedure, all good. 3/
The city is in charge of special event permitting, including events requesting street closure. After being told that ISF should make formal application for a permit, I, on behalf of the group, did so, including the route for the street march. The city’s special event official told me the police department would have to approve the route, and would decide the fees it would charge ISF. She asked me to attend a meeting with her and the police:to discuss. 4/
At that meeting a police officer talked me through the department’s approach to fees, which meant charging ISF for all traffic officers and any other officers required for security in the discretion of the police department. He said these costs would run at least $11,000 but that the ultimate charge to ISF would be billed after the event based on what the PD said it cost them. 5/
The city said we had to pay for a traffic plan, all equipment needed to block off intersections and signs to direct traffic, which we had to get from a vendor they specified, a special event insurance policy, and a general permit fee.
When I informed the ISF No Kings steering committee of these expenses, esp the PD charges, they asked me to arrange another meeting to see if we could adjust the march’s length and/or route to find a more cost effective approach. 6/
I arranged another meeting, this time attended by me, another ISF representative, and the city special event planner, who invited one of the original police officers and another, more senior officer, as well as some other participants whose roles were not identified. 7/
I won’t belabor all the happenings at the second meeting. Suffice it to say that when we said we had thoughts about a route that should, based on their information provided at the first meeting, reduce costs, the police said that actually the cost for the original route was not a minimum of $11,000, it was minimum of $25,000. Moreover, police said, that would be minimum cost for ANY street closures. 8/
At this point, I explained that these fees were, IMO, an unconstitutional burden on ISF’s freedom of expression. If the police would not take a more reasonable approach, ISF would revert to announcing a recommended route for a sidewalk march, something which does not require a permit. This, by the way, was what the city special event official kept mentioning as an alternative to closing the streets. 9/
This seemed to be something the police were not expecting me to say.
I said ISF would be retracting its request for a permit for street closures.
At this point, the city event planner said that ISF could not do this. I said that of course ISF could. No permit had been granted, ISF had not paid any permitting fees, and I would write a formal letter of retraction. 10/
On Friday, after the meeting, I sent a letter, copying attendees, the Mayor, and the entire City Council. I explained we would announce a sidewalk march, highlighting the city ordinances applicable to it. The city event planner replied promptly, noting all the relevant regulations.
Between Friday midafternoon and the ISF general meeting tonight, nobody else from the city, nor the Mayor, nor any city councilor got in touch with anybody from ISF or in any way acknowledged the email exchange. 11/
