March 23, 2017 City & County of San Francisco BOARD OF APPEALS 1650 Mission Street, Suite 304 San Francisco, CA To the Members of the Board of A

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "March 23, 2017 City & County of San Francisco BOARD OF APPEALS 1650 Mission Street, Suite 304 San Francisco, CA To the Members of the Board of A"

Magdalen Newton
5 years ago
Views:

63 March 23, 2017 City & County of San Francisco BOARD OF APPEALS 1650 Mission Street, Suite 304 San Francisco, CA To the Members of the Board of Appeals: Thank you for taking the time to review our response to Appeal # I. Introduction The Arts Commission requires as part of its application for a Street Artists permit that the applicant provide an actual residence address (in addition to a mailing address) and an address where the artist creates the art to be sold. See San Francisco Police Code Art. 24, Sec. 3(a) ( [t]he applicant's residence address, place of employment where the work of art is produced and the mailing address of a person through whom the applicant may always be reached shall appear on the application. ) Not only does the voter-adopted ordinance explicitly require that an applicant provide this information, the purposes behind the requirement generally, and especially with respect to applicant Paula Datesh, 1 justify the Commission s denial of a Street Artists

64 March 23, 2017 Page 2 permit in this instance. 2 After the Commission notified Ms. Datesh that it was denying her application because she put down a post office box as a residence address she filed this appeal. She also put down sidewalk as the location where she creates her art. Then, as part of the appeal, she informed the Board that she is homeless. The Commission lacked the opportunity to address this issue directly with her. However, even assuming that her representation is true, which seems doubtful, the Board should deny the appeal and require that Ms. Datesh provide a location where she resides, even if it is not a dwelling place. Given her long history of inaccurate representations, particularly as it relates to her location as set forth in more detail below, the Board should not automatically accept as true her statement that she is homeless. Ms. Datesh has studiously avoided providing a real address for many years. She has taken advantage of the confusion regarding her address to avoid enforcement of street artists rules and regulations, and to avoid service of restraining orders related to her treatment of Commission staff, which at times raises to the level of obsessive and frightening harassment that the Commission must address to protect staff and the viability of the street artists program. And, it defies logic to believe that 1 The applicant has used at least five names (Paula Grundman, Paula Datesh, Ann Datesh, Ann Treboux, and Paula St. Claire) during her interactions with the City, but Paula Datesh is the most used, and therefore the Commission will refer to her by that name. 2 Section 5 of the ordinance also allows the Commission to reject the application if there are charges of deception resorted to in obtaining the certificate.

65 March 23, 2017 Page 3 she does not have at least temporary residence, as the physical property that she owns must be stored somewhere when she is not selling items on the streets. Even if Ms. Datesh s representation that she is homeless is true, she should be required to provide information as to where she resides, meaning a place to which she regularly returns and sleeps. Pursuant to legal precedent, the government may require that an applicant provide a physical location where the applicant stays, even if there is not an actual address associated with the location. See, e.g., Collier v. Menzel, 176 Cal.App.3d 24 (1985) (City may require homeless to put down physical location on voter application, even if it is a City park); see also People v. North, 112 Cal.App.4th 621 (2003) (interpreting sex registrant statute to lawfully require transient to indicate where he or she is located. ) The Commission has not demanded that Ms. Datesh provide a dwelling address, but to provide information as to where she may be found. Cf. Nelson v. Board of Supervisors, 190 Cal.App.3d 25 (1987) (county cannot avoid obligations to pay general assistance by requiring an applicant to provide a valid address of a dwelling where the applicant resides). Here, the Commission requires an actual physical address in order to properly investigate Ms. Datesh s compliance with the program. This is not a purely academic or petty concern. The new changes that the Commission is implementing in the program, and Ms. Datesh s long history of violations justify enforcing compliance with this requirement.

66 March 23, 2017 Page 4 II. The Purpose of the Street Artists Program and the Plan for Programmatic Changes After clashes between the Police Department and craft artists in the 1970s, the crafts community placed on the ballot an initiative to create a program to legitimize and legalize the selling of crafts on the streets in the City. Then, as today, San Francisco as a City seeks to attract and support artists. Artists enhance the beauty and character of the City, and they remain an integral part of the City s unique bohemian spirit. Public art, including art markets, make art accessible to all, improving general quality of life. Public art has helped create part of the City s profound cultural legacy, and it draws many people, both residents and visitors, to San Francisco. The City values art and artists. The Arts Commission s role is to support art programs, including those that provide artists the opportunity to live as artists by creating and selling their work locally. The street artists program in San Francisco seeks to serve those purposes. The ordinance creating the program was designed for and requires that the persons the Commission licenses sell the art they make. This fundamental requirement separates the street artists program from other street peddlers. Unfortunately, the program continues to struggle with its mission to ensure that the program promotes the sale of locally-made high-quality unique crafts. Some of the artists sell imported and massproduced items. The Commission receives regular complaints regarding the low quality of the items sold by the licensed street artists. The program includes requirements designed to ensure that the artists produce what they make. But these procedures need to be further enhanced to allow the Commission to

67 March 23, 2017 Page 5 obtain evidence to revoke the permits of those that do not make what they sell but have avoided revocation under the current system. Program staff spends considerable resources to investigate these matters. In fact, staff has previously refused permits to Ms. Datesh (as well as others) because investigation results show that they do not actually make the items they sell. The Commission s attempts to ensure compliance have not entirely ensured the robustness of the program. Among other things, over the years, artists have changed how they interact with the buying public. Access to the internet, and the proliferation of crafts fairs and other arts markets have increased interaction between artists and customers. The street artists program has changed also. Fewer artists now seek permits. The program is not currently self-sustaining, as the ordinance requires, in part because of the time required to continue to ensure that the artists sell what they make. Yet raising fees does not seem like a viable solution. The program needs further accountability and transparency. Because of these continuing issues, the Commission recently completed a feasibility study that discussed ways to improve the street artists program. As part of the implementation, the Commission hired a Market Manager who is tasked with spending more time in the market to get to know the artists, and who will be developing methods for better investigation of the artists to ensure program compliance.

68 March 23, 2017 Page 6 Having a valid residence address or locality, and a valid address where an artist creates the works, are critical to proper, efficient investigation to ensure that the artists sell what they make. Having accurate information, as the law requires, will allow the Market Manager to spot-check the artists, and facilitate all of the necessary administration of the program. When someone tries to hide their actual location, as Ms. Datesh has done, the Market Manager must expend an inordinate amount of time to do the most basic of investigations. This time takes away from other valuable tasks, and can work to limit the effectiveness of the Market Manager s role. Thus, the Board should uphold the Commission s decision, and require Ms. Datesh to reapply, using valid addresses. III. Ms. Datesh s History of Hiding Her Location Mandates Enforcement of the Law Requiring Actual Addresses. A. Address and Name Changes Make it Difficult to Ensure Ms. Datesh Receives Proper Notices Ms. Datesh first applied for a street artists permit in the early 2000s, under the name Paula Grundman. She used a post office box address in Berkeley. Within approximately a year, the Commission sent her warnings and eventually a complaint stating that she was not making the art work she sold. Ms. Datesh tore up the document and threw it at a member of the Street Artists staff.

69 March 23, 2017 Page 7 Shortly thereafter she began a long history of falsifying her actual location, and made the first of many assertions that she could not appear at various scheduled hearings to address her violations because she was out of town and/or in the hospital. In February 2001, she used a return address label of someone named Nicholas at 870 Broadway in New York. In January 2002 she listed her address on a police report as the Gates Hotel at 140 Ellis St. In February, 2002, she sent a letter on stationary from the Town House Motor Lodge in Reno, Nevada, claiming she was in New York. At that same time, she used the return address of 129 W. 60th St. in New York (which a few years later she changed to 129 E. 60th St.) This appears to be the back of Lincoln Center, and the zip code does not match the street address. This was also the first time that she used the name Treboux on her return address. She also sent letters to the Commission in 2002, claiming that others were harassing her so she was leaving town. In late 2002, she sent correspondence on stationary from the Holiday Inn and the Grand Hyatt Hotels in San Francisco, listing her address as 706 Kearny, which is a storefront. In 2003, Ms. Datesh reported that she could not appear at various scheduled hearings because she was in a hospital in New York. (See Attachment A.) The Commission received a phone call, and in January 2004 a letter from a lawyer, indicating that she was in fact incarcerated during that time. (See Attachment B.) She continued to send correspondence using her Berkeley Post Office box, and sent and received mail through Nicholas Gregatos at 555 7th St., which turned out to be the address of Prisoner Legal Services. (See Attachment C.) Ms. Datesh has continued this history of claiming she is out of town and in the hospital even at the same time other program stakeholders report they have seen her in San

70 March 23, 2017 Page 8 Francisco, and her changes of address, and changes of name, when she interacts with the Commission throughout her entire history. She has even sent in what appear to be falsified hospital records claiming that she is in the hospital in Pennsylvania during the same time that others have seen her in the area. Even Ms. Datesh s use of the name Ann Treboux appears to be another attempt to hide her identity and prevent physically locating her (a 2012 restraining order obtained against her in New York uses the name Paula St. Claire, which may or may not be her actual name). (See Attachment D.) On at least three occasions, Ms. Datesh has claimed that she did not receive proper notice of hearings and other matters because paperwork was sent to the wrong address. Obviously, having a physical address will facilitate ensuring that Ms. Datesh gets actual notice of required hearings, in addition to allowing the Commission to make surprise inspections to determine if she is actually making what she sells. The time required to keep accurate records, to determine where and to whom information should be sent, and to expend resources arguing about proper notice of hearings and rescheduling such hearings, has consumed many hours of staff time and has interfered with efficient administration of the program. Having a location will allow, when necessary, personal service and removal of any concerns regarding proper notice. B. Restraining Orders Against Ms. Datesh and Difficulty in Serving Requiring an actual address will also save significant government resources related to restraining orders obtained against Ms. Datesh regarding her street artists license. The City has three

71 March 23, 2017 Page 9 times obtained temporary restraining orders to protect its employees and officers from her harassment related to the street artists program. Lack of a proper address, along with Ms. Datesh s extreme attempts to hide herself by falsifying where she is actually located, has interfered with the Commission s obligation to protect its employees and other street artists. In 2005, the City obtained a restraining order against Ms. Datesh on behalf of a Commission staff member due to her harassment. She began communicating with the Commission through various lawyers, and again avoided hearings and other requirements due to uncertain addresses. She eventually was charged with violating the restraining order. The Court issued a bench warrant for her arrest in 2008 for failing to appear. In 2009, the City obtained a temporary restraining order against Ms. Datesh on behalf of a number of City employees because she had threatened them. Although the City expended many hours in trying to locate Ms. Datesh to serve her, she avoided service and eventually the restraining order expired. In 2013, Ms. Datesh filed a small claims case against the Program Director, Howard Lazar, claiming that his actions with regard to investigating her permit caused her to lose work. She lost.

72 March 23, 2017 Page 10 Also in 2013, the City obtained a restraining order against Ms. Datesh on behalf of Howard Lazar. Again, the City was unable to serve the restraining order on Ms. Datesh. In 2015, the City obtained a restraining order against Ms. Datesh on behalf of one the Arts Commissioners due to her constant harassment. (See Attachment F.) The City had considerable difficulty in serving Ms. Datesh with the order, and expended many hours in resources attempting to locate her. Eventually, the City served her through substituted service. Although the City has obtained only four restraining orders, Ms. Datesh s constant harassing behavior could have supported additional restraining orders. Within the last three years, Ms. Datesh has followed staff during their off duty (and on-duty) hours, and berated them on numerous occasions, and torn up documents and thrown them at staff. She fills up employee s voic with rants, and regularly sends more than 20 incomprehensible s per day to staff. In 2015, she harassed staff by following them, yelling at them, making multiple phone calls one right after the other after she hangs up, at least once a week. But the difficulty of serving her has caused the City to refrain from expending the time to obtaining them. An actual location for her will allow the City to take appropriate action to protect its employees and program stakeholders. IV. Ms. Datesh s Inconsistent Positions as to Whether She Wants a Street Artists License The street artists program is designed to provide an attractive, accessible space for artists to sell their art to the public. Ms. Datesh s ability to make a living by selling on the street does not appear to be

73 March 23, 2017 Page 11 dependent on obtaining a street artists license, as she continues the same activities by setting up her table in a location not designated for street artists. Ms. Datesh has not had a valid street artists license for a number of years. She nevertheless continues to sell items from a table on the street. For example, during the recent presidential campaign she set up tables at various locations to sell political buttons. It is the police code peddler permit that governs her activities with respect to those items, not the street artists ordinance. See San Francisco Police Code Sections 869 through Obtaining a street artists permit will allow Ms. Datesh to enter the lottery for a space in Justin Hermann Plaza or other street artists locations, and require that she sell only items that she personally makes. Her prior actions prove ambivalence, if not downright disdain, towards the street artists program. Since 2001 she has submitted an application and withdrawn it, or turned in her identification badge, at least 20 times. Approximately six months ago, she submitted an application with a money order, then demanded the money order back, then submitted it again and demanded it back again. (The Commission has in the past had difficulty in ensuring the return of her payment because of a lack of address.) (A copy of some of the correspondence related to her changes of mind about the permit is attached hereto as Attachment E.) Thus, even without a street artists license, she continues to sell her items on the streets of San Francisco.

74 March 23, 2017 Page 12 Ms. Datesh should not be allowed to diminish the value of this program for other artists, take up huge amounts of resources that can be better spent on the program, nor should she be allowed to continue to flout the clearly-defined and critical requirements for an application. V. CONCLUSION Granting Ms. Datesh s appeal will adversely impact the Arts Commission s positive progress with its strategic plan to professionalize the street artists program, as the voters intended when they adopted the ordinance. Also, if others realize that the Commission cannot enforce the requirements of the ordinance, it could encourage them to also fail to provide necessary information to the Commission. A residence address or location, and a location where the artist makes the art, is a critical component to this program. The Board should therefore deny the appeal. Thank you again for your time and attention to this matter. We look forward to appearing before you at the Wednesday, March 29 th hearing. Sincerely, Tom DeCaigny Director of Cultural Affairs

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

Artist Code of Conduct

Artist Code of Conduct The Art Vendor program is a program of the San Francisco Arts Commission. As a participant in this program, the Arts Commission expects each artist to uphold and embody the mission,