Charges Against Four Occupy Bank Takeover Protesters Thrown Out by Judge

Apr 25, 2012 Full story: Patch.com 490

A Santa Cruz judge Wednesday threw out charges against four Occupy protestors accused of trespassing and vandalizing the vacant Coast Commercial Bank at 75 River St.

Full Story

“Pearls before swine”

Since: Mar 08

Santa Cruz, CA.

#227 Aug 18, 2012
DONNY B:
BJ is well known for her lies, distortions, hyperbole, fabrications, and fraudulent claims.

BECKY: No, I am not. If I was, Bob Lee would have sued me for libel.

DB: She also forgets to mention that the City of Santa Cruz is also paid $39,700+ in annual property taxes for 75 River Street.

BECKY: Which the City has to share with the State. WF comes out ahead after 2 months! Our downtown blighted so WF can profit? Actually it is worse. Banks have assets so they can make loans. 75 River Street's value can be used again and again as banks loan money to each other, artificially pumping up their perceived value. The result is they become landhoards not landlords.

“Pearls before swine”

Since: Mar 08

Santa Cruz, CA.

#228 Aug 18, 2012
Jessica Pasko has a pretty good article in the SENTINEL about Judge Burdick threatening to dismiss ALL charges in the case of the Santa Cruz Eleven. Bradley Stuart does an even better job @ indybay.org/santacruz
Donny B

Falls Church, VA

#229 Aug 18, 2012
Becky Johnson wrote:
DONNY B:
BJ is well known for her lies, distortions, hyperbole, fabrications, and fraudulent claims.
BECKY: No, I am not. If I was, Bob Lee would have sued me for libel.
DB: She also forgets to mention that the City of Santa Cruz is also paid $39,700+ in annual property taxes for 75 River Street.

BECKY: Which the City has to share with the State. WF comes out ahead after 2 months! Our downtown blighted so WF can profit? Actually it is worse. Banks have assets so they can make loans. 75 River Street's value can be used again and again as banks loan money to each other, artificially pumping up their perceived value. The result is they become landhoards not landlords.
Your hype-filled distortions of reality (much like you post 213 as well) continue to prove you have no idea what you're talking about. You also conveniently failed to support your claim in post 218 that Wells Fargo can "take a write-off for $28,790/mo. for an empty building". That was a load of BS you were slinging, wasn't it?
The original DBS

Foster City, CA

#230 Aug 18, 2012
Becky Johnson wrote:
Jessica Pasko has a pretty good article in the SENTINEL about Judge Burdick threatening to dismiss ALL charges in the case of the Santa Cruz Eleven. Bradley Stuart does an even better job @ indybay.org/santacruz
I thought that was an excellent article!

No matter what happens on Monday, the DA has made such an idiot out of himself, there's no turning back for Bob Lee!

Good luck on Monday, Becky!

You're awesome!

You are making these trolls look like the idiots they are!

Thank you for everything you have done for our community!
The original DBS

Foster City, CA

#231 Aug 18, 2012
Donny B wrote:
<quoted text>
Your hype-filled distortions of reality (much like you post 213 as well) continue to prove you have no idea what you're talking about. You also conveniently failed to support your claim in post 218 that Wells Fargo can "take a write-off for $28,790/mo. for an empty building". That was a load of BS you were slinging, wasn't it?
Are you an attorney?

Aren't you slinging BS right now?
The original DBS

Foster City, CA

#232 Aug 18, 2012
Becky Johnson wrote:
DONNY B:
BJ is well known for her lies, distortions, hyperbole, fabrications, and fraudulent claims.
BECKY: No, I am not. If I was, Bob Lee would have sued me for libel.
DB: She also forgets to mention that the City of Santa Cruz is also paid $39,700+ in annual property taxes for 75 River Street.
BECKY: Which the City has to share with the State. WF comes out ahead after 2 months! Our downtown blighted so WF can profit? Actually it is worse. Banks have assets so they can make loans. 75 River Street's value can be used again and again as banks loan money to each other, artificially pumping up their perceived value. The result is they become landhoards not landlords.
The idiots in here think that the small amount the county receives in property taxes is comparable to the possible revenues the building would have generated for the city if there were a real commercial tenant, or on the other hand, the good the building would do for the community if it was transformed into a community center.

They always look at things with a small view, instead of paying attention to the larger picture.

That's why they are trolls!
Eileen and Bob

Santa Cruz, CA

#233 Aug 18, 2012
The original DBS wrote:
<quoted text>
The idiots in here think that the small amount the county receives in property taxes is comparable to the possible revenues the building would have generated for the city if there were a real commercial tenant, or on the other hand, the good the building would do for the community if it was transformed into a community center.
They always look at things with a small view, instead of paying attention to the larger picture.
That's why they are trolls!
Louden Nelson has been a Community Center since I was a child and watched my first movie in a public place. In fact, there are a few community centers throughout town that are serving the public in various ways. Why can't you people be honest and say, "we want this building for the homeless to sleep in." AA/OSC say it's a protest against Big Banks, then it's a community center that pays no rent, insurance, or has any sort of plan - except, make it up as you go.

Rather then work with systems, government, and entities that are currently serving the public, you folks are demanding freebies. Yin and yang I 'spose, both extreme sides are wrong. Try to find a middle ground, with a positive approach.
The original DBS

Benicia, CA

#234 Aug 18, 2012
Becky Johnson wrote:
DONNY B:
BJ is well known for her lies, distortions, hyperbole, fabrications, and fraudulent claims.
BECKY: No, I am not. If I was, Bob Lee would have sued me for libel.
DB: She also forgets to mention that the City of Santa Cruz is also paid $39,700+ in annual property taxes for 75 River Street.
BECKY: Which the City has to share with the State. WF comes out ahead after 2 months! Our downtown blighted so WF can profit? Actually it is worse. Banks have assets so they can make loans. 75 River Street's value can be used again and again as banks loan money to each other, artificially pumping up their perceived value. The result is they become landhoards not landlords.
See post# 219.
Buzz

Foster City, CA

#235 Aug 18, 2012
Eileen and Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Louden Nelson has been a Community Center since I was a child and watched my first movie in a public place. In fact, there are a few community centers throughout town that are serving the public in various ways. Why can't you people be honest and say, "we want this building for the homeless to sleep in." AA/OSC say it's a protest against Big Banks, then it's a community center that pays no rent, insurance, or has any sort of plan - except, make it up as you go.
Rather then work with systems, government, and entities that are currently serving the public, you folks are demanding freebies. Yin and yang I 'spose, both extreme sides are wrong. Try to find a middle ground, with a positive approach.
I'm more for permanent housing for the homeless, as opposed to another homeless center, but I'd take that over the building being empty for 3 1/2 years.

Why don't you be honest and admit that Wells Fargo is hurting our community by keeping the building vacant. No one believes that they haven't been able to rent it out for 4 years. They just aren't trying, and it really hurts our community.
Buzz

Foster City, CA

#236 Aug 18, 2012
The original DBS wrote:
<quoted text>
See post# 219.
No one is going to look at that lol
Eileen and Bob

Santa Cruz, CA

#237 Aug 18, 2012
Buzz wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm more for permanent housing for the homeless, as opposed to another homeless center, but I'd take that over the building being empty for 3 1/2 years.
Why don't you be honest and admit that Wells Fargo is hurting our community by keeping the building vacant. No one believes that they haven't been able to rent it out for 4 years. They just aren't trying, and it really hurts our community.
I'm not going to get in an argument, or admit anything FOR Wells Fargo since I'm in no way, shape, or form even connected to them. They have every right to do what they please with the property they own. I don't think the property, it's possible revenue, or use has any detrimental effect on this community. I'm not going to play that game to get something for nothing.

How about this? What about that property next to Lulu's? That property has to do with banks, litigation, and red tape. It's hurting downtown, and is more of an eyesore than an empty building. That empty lot has been empty since '89. Not once have I seen any of you HUFF, OSC, Indybay people say a word about it.

On top of that question, I see you dodged the fact that we have Community Centers that serve the public already.
Buzz

Foster City, CA

#238 Aug 18, 2012
Eileen and Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not going to get in an argument, or admit anything FOR Wells Fargo since I'm in no way, shape, or form even connected to them. They have every right to do what they please with the property they own. I don't think the property, it's possible revenue, or use has any detrimental effect on this community. I'm not going to play that game to get something for nothing.
How about this? What about that property next to Lulu's? That property has to do with banks, litigation, and red tape. It's hurting downtown, and is more of an eyesore than an empty building. That empty lot has been empty since '89. Not once have I seen any of you HUFF, OSC, Indybay people say a word about it.
On top of that question, I see you dodged the fact that we have Community Centers that serve the public already.
I think we need more community centers in general. People have a lot of needs and our country and local community can afford them.

Also, I agree with you that there are other vacant and abandoned buildings and properties downtown that are damaging our community as well, such as the Rittenhouse building which has been empty for five years now.

In many communities it is illegal to leave properties vacant for so long because it causes crime and other problems, such as lowering an adjacent property's value.
Donny B

Falls Church, VA

#239 Aug 18, 2012
Eileen and Bob wrote:
<quoted text>How about this? What about that property next to Lulu's? That property has to do with banks, litigation, and red tape. It's hurting downtown, and is more of an eyesore than an empty building. That empty lot has been empty since '89. Not once have I seen any of you HUFF, OSC, Indybay people say a word about it.
Nor has anyone mentioned buying or renting the River Street property (or any other vacant property for that matter). Thus far, it's essentially about theft of the property.

BTW, excellent post.
Buzz

Foster City, CA

#240 Aug 18, 2012
Donny B wrote:
<quoted text>
Nor has anyone mentioned buying or renting the River Street property (or any other vacant property for that matter). Thus far, it's essentially about theft of the property.
BTW, excellent post.
The property has essentially been abandoned, and it is up to the community to prevent this.

You support blight in our community, I don't think you really care about anything but yourself.

Do you even live in this area?
endless bummer

Santa Cruz, CA

#241 Aug 18, 2012
Buzz wrote:
<quoted text>
The property has essentially been abandoned, and it is up to the community to prevent this.
No, it's for lease:
http://www.rofo.com/listings/CA/Santa-Cruz/75...

You may even remember the for lease sign that once read "available" that was defaced to read "occupied" during the aborted bank occupation.
Donny B

Falls Church, VA

#242 Aug 18, 2012
Buzz wrote:
<quoted text>
The property has essentially been abandoned, and it is up to the community to prevent this.
You support blight in our community, I don't think you really care about anything but yourself.
Do you even live in this area?
Again, you show your ignorance. The property is not abandoned. Santa Crus receives $39,700+ in property taxes. The building and grounds are maintained and utilities are turned on.
Eileen

Santa Cruz, CA

#243 Aug 18, 2012
Buzz wrote:
<quoted text>
I think we need more community centers in general. People have a lot of needs and our country and local community can afford them.
Also, I agree with you that there are other vacant and abandoned buildings and properties downtown that are damaging our community as well, such as the Rittenhouse building which has been empty for five years now.
In many communities it is illegal to leave properties vacant for so long because it causes crime and other problems, such as lowering an adjacent property's value.
Thank you for this response. I think there's more common ground that can be made if people can communicate it in more effective ways. Properties being vacant is not just greed oriented, it's risk oriented. It's a very complex issue that can't be addressed with such extreme behavior from both sides. Like I said, Yin and Yang, finding the middle ground with a positive approach would bring better results.
endless bummer

Santa Cruz, CA

#244 Aug 18, 2012
Buzz wrote:
I agree with you that there are other vacant and abandoned buildings and properties downtown that are damaging our community as well, such as the Rittenhouse building which has been empty for five years now.
You may remember that the city council wanted to take Louis Rittenhouse's lot by eminent domain if he didn't build there, which he was hesitant to do without any confirmed tenants. The city council effectively forced his hand, and the empty building stands as a great big fuck-you to the city council, as Louis told 'em so before.

You don't care much for the city council, do you, John?
Donny B

United States

#245 Aug 18, 2012
endless bummer wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it's for lease:
http://www.rofo.com/listings/CA/Santa-Cruz/75...
You may even remember the for lease sign that once read "available" that was defaced to read "occupied" during the aborted bank occupation.
I assumed the building was listed as being available to lease. That doesn't mean that Wells Fargo is acting in good faith to find a tenant.
Donny B

United States

#246 Aug 18, 2012
Donny B wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you show your ignorance. The property is not abandoned. Santa Crus receives $39,700+ in property taxes. The building and grounds are maintained and utilities are turned on.
Well first, we don't know that Barry Swenson is current with all of his bills, so we don't know for sure if the county has received money for property taxes in relation to 75 River since it has been vacant.

We do know, however, that a much larger sum would go to the city if Wells Fargo would do their part and find a good commercial tenant for the space.

3 1/2 years of an empty building means it has been abandoned by them.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Santa Cruz Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
TBSC Legal Disclosure 3 hr DBS 7
DBS/TMC was raised on welfare 5 hr DBS 11
Good Hive vs Bad Hive 6 hr anon 3
Man faces charges for dangerous reptiles (Mar '08) 7 hr Ethel 7
Caught DBS Lying Again (Apr '14) 7 hr WooF 46
On the 9th day of X-mas (DBS version) (Dec '13) 7 hr WooF 14
SV Teacher "Buzz" still stalking topix users (Jan '14) 7 hr WooF 614
Santa Cruz Dating
Find my Match

Santa Cruz Jobs

Santa Cruz People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Santa Cruz News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Santa Cruz

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]