An ordinance which would prohibit protests within 300 feet of residential homes in Long Beach was tabled for future discussions following community opposition Tuesday night.
The ordinance was brought forward by the previous city council body in 2021, following multiple incidents of protests outside of public official’s homes. Over a dozen residents stayed in the council chambers until almost 11 p.m. to protest the law once it was brought forward.
Cities such as San Jose and Los Angeles have similar laws in place. The proposed ordinance would allow Long Beach police to charge protestors who “target” a residence with a misdemeanor or infraction and impose penalty fees up to $1,000.
“…We come here and we come here and we come here and we talk to you … we email you, we want you to hear us and you don’t. Somebody needs to be held accountable. I don’t care that it’s not comfortable for you when we protest outside your homes, it’s not comfortable for me to be here at 10:47 [p.m.].”
Long Beach resident Jaqueline Sheher.
Residents who lined up for public comment all shared the same sentiment—that a law of this kind would be an infringement upon freedom of speech. Multiple residents said that the fines would disproportionately affect low-income people who may be protesting issues.
“You chose to represent these folks, your constituents, and you need to exercise that power,” said Erik Garcia. “When you don’t, we organize, we disrupt until a change is made. This has been the case historically as long as people have been resisting unjust systems and conditions.”
Councilmember Daryl Supernaw cited an incident in 2020 when people protesting the COVID-19 regulations placed moving vans in front of government officials’ homes. He said he had to cancel his Thanksgiving plans with his family out of fear of there being explosives in the moving vans.
Supernaw said he was reminded of the 1995 bombing in Oklahoma City, when an ex-Army soldier planted a rented-out moving van filled with explosives. The incident killed 168 people. Residents shouted disagreements from the chambers as Supernaw said he feared for his life when the moving vans showed up in front of his house.
One of three men responsible for the moving vans had pictures up on his social media wearing a “Make America Great Again” beanie and holding an automatic rifle.
“There was nothing that can be done about this,” Supernaw said. “I have no problem with people meeting with me, in this case it was the unknown that was the big issue here.”
In 2020, a resident protesting rent increases in front of Suzie Price’s home was attacked by one of Price’s neighbors, one resident recalled during public comment. He went on to say that “violent protesting is already illegal, so this policy is not necessary.”
Resident Anna Christensen cited peaceful protests where community members organized in front of Cal State Long Beach President Jane Close Conoley in 2019 to sing Indigenous songs, dance and pray as a form of protest.
“This is an honor for you to be here and have people taking a role in democracy,” Christensen said. “If democracy comes to your front yard, you don’t have to be scared, you don’t have to be intimated … Don’t assume that protestors are threatening, it’s people trying to protect democracy and public health.”
District three Councilmember Kristina Duggan supported the item at first, saying that residents can state their opinion through social media, email, voicemail or schedule a time to speak with public officials.
“I am against this. Why is protesting important? Because we come here and we come here and we come here and we talk to you … we email you, we want you to hear us and you don’t,” said Long Beach resident Jaqueline Sheher. “Somebody needs to be held accountable. I don’t care that it’s not comfortable for you when we protest outside your homes, it’s not comfortable for me to be here at 10:47 [p.m.].”
Council support for the law came to a halt with Councilmember Al Austin, who said that in 2020 “the protests that went on during that time were an outlier, and I don’t know if we should necessarily create policy based on what happened at that time.”
“I think the spirit of this was, ‘Let’s do something before someone gets hurt.’” Austin suggested a motion to table the law to “come back at a separate time and talk about the safety of the public.”
The majority of Long Beach officials quickly supported Austin’s item, citing “ambiguous language” and the need to protect freedom of speech.
District one Councilmember Mary Zendejas said she felt it would be wrong to support the item on the same day that the council recognized Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta day in Long Beach. Both historical figures were notorious for civil disobedience in order to advance education and worker’s rights for Mexican-Americans.
“Thank you for everyone staying late and sharing their thoughts and I did want to share with you that you made an impact,” Zendejas said. “I feel that today, particularly on the day we’re celebrating Dolores Huerta and Cesar Chavez, it would not feel right in my heart to support this.”
The decision to file and table the law passed 7-1. Supernaw was the only vote against tabling the item.
1 comment
Comments are closed.