The homeless lady made famous by a picture that showed her holding up a sign saying she would kick Santa Ana Councilman Carlos Bustamante’s ass for food needs our help. The City of Santa Ana seized her personal cart today. Here is what one of our readers had to say about this:
Aloha’s personal cart, the one in the picture was taken by the city. Her cart is not a store cart, but one given to her by the Catholic Charities.
If anyone is up by the city yard, maybe you can check on what happened to her cart. On the side of the cart it says “Catholic Charities”, in the picture, it is under the jacket.
I remember a few years back, the city paid thousands of dollars to dozens of homeless people because the city took their personal property.
As to whether she is owed additional sums for her work as the model in the “photo“, It might be a good idea for the 4 principals who took, distribute, posted and reposted the photo, to get together and make just compensation, either in cash or renting her a motel room for a night so she can bath, change into new clothes and shake off the homeless smell.
She has no problem with signing a release in the whole photo-gate matter.
Her thinking currently is mailing a complaint to the city council and our local congresswoman.
(I told her just to go to the planning commission meeting Monday night and Sean may take care of everything and find out where her cart is located.)
I wonder if Bustamante tried to get revenge on this poor lady by having her cart seized? That is WRONG. So it is time to act.
Click here to email Bustamante.
Click here to email Santa Ana Mayor Miguel Pulido.
Click here to email Santa Ana Mayor Pro Tem Claudia Alvarez.
Click here to email Santa Ana City Manager Dave Ream.
Tell them to give Aloha her cart back and to leave her the hell alone!
[poll id=”49″]
Ahola has been living and walking on the streets of Santa Ana for years. On the way to work or dropping my kids off at school I would see her. I always wanted to stop and talk to her, but I am always on a schedule. So on the weekends I’m always on the look out for her but I never see her. I really feel bad for this lady. What is her story? It seems fishy that all of a sudden the city is worried about one lady when there are hundreds of homeless people in the street they should also be worred about. There is even a little lady that looks over 80 years old with a hunch back. She must be somebody’s grandma. How can the council people, and I mean ALL of them, drive around in their import cars or go home to their Floral Park home and not try to do something about this epidemic. But as long as their not in their neighborhoods or in front of their favorite restaurant it’s ok. We little folk drive by them everyday. Our kids walk by them on the way to school. I even saw one guy passed out on the sidewalk on 1st Street and the kids had to walk around him off the curb and into the street and back onto the sidewalk. Doesn’t our SAPD see this? My coworker said she called the police when we got back to work, and if they did anything or not we don’t know. I haven’t seen that guy their since. But it doesn’t mean he didn’t move on to another street. I’m sure Bustamante got his poor wittle feewings hurt and had her cart taken away from her. He is such a freakin’ baby. What is he scare of? He’s still on the City Council isn’t he. Is he afraid of bad publicity? It’s too late for that.
Get used to it everyone. I wonder how many of you lived in Santa Ana in the 1980’s. There were homeless people everywhere, particularly in North Santa Ana. Over the last 15-20 years we haven’t seen anything like that but it’s all coming back now.
You can thank Thomas Gordon for taking and posting the photo of Aloha.
So,
The liberal OC blog, Thomas Gordon, Phil and others use Aloha to criticize Bustamante and for amusement.
Nothing happens to these individuals that we know of.
But Aloha gets all her worldly possessions taken.
away.
Wonderful government the city of Santa Ana has, Huh?
LGID said: “You can thank Thomas Gordon for taking and posting the photo of Aloha.”
Get your facts straight LGID. Thomas did not post the picture.
That was done originally by Chris Prevatt of the Liberal OC and then by Sean Mill on the OJ Blog.
Lets get it straight Thomas set up and took the photo, phil poked prevatt with a stick to get him to post it, you sat back and laughed while prevatt took the heat, and you are responsible for aloha losing her possessions because now the city council is pissed off at aloha who is the only one they can take revenge on.
1. Chris Prevatt takes the bait and posts this picture on Liberal OC Blog. DUMB ASS
2. Thomas Gordon and his friends sit back and laugh their assess off. PENDEJOS
3. Aloha gets her shopping cart seized by the City of Santa Ana. VICTIM
This is a tragedy that is the direct result of sick humor and lack of morals. Taking advantage of this woman speaks loud and clear about who Chris Prevatt, Thomas Gordon and company really are.
This is a tragedy that is the direct result of sick humor and lack of morals. Taking advantage of this woman speaks loud and clear about who Chris Prevatt, Thomas Gordon and Phil Bacerra really are.
So basically her life was wrecked up over 5 bucks worth of photo.
Those three should go get her stuff back. Any chance of that?
The Planner and Red Vixen,
What about the city taking advantage of a poor woman and the city government’s morals?
“So basically her life was wrecked up over 5 bucks worth of photo” – The city participated in this too, allegedly, as a response to Bustamante being offended y her sign.
I find it very allarming and cowardly to attack a defensless poor homeless woman, deprive her of everything she owns because of being offended.
What possible political harm can come from the opinion of a poor homeless elderly woman.
I guess these tactics are consistant with Team Pulido as was seen in the November election.
It is OK for them to participate in character assasination (Nov. Election) but will ruin your life, in this case a homless elderly woman, if you are so brazen to criticise them. OMG!
I know aloha would not leave her cart by itself, how did they take it from her. Santa Ana passed an ordinance about shopping carts and fining the owners money for abandoned carts, but I don’t believe they should have confiscated it, because it was not abandoned. Maybe an ACLU lawyer should get in contact with her, and should file a complaint against the city for taking her property from her. I always see Aloha with her shopping basket sitting on the edge of the flower beds at the OCTA Bus entrance on Santa Ana Blvd.
What is the City going to do now to help the homeless? They have banned motels from letting people stay more than 15 days. It will start raining soon and getting cold, I see more and more people with children. When will they start salvaging homes for people to live in instead of destroying them for redevelopment?
Can we take up an Orange Juice collection for Aloha? I’ll give something; Sean and Thomas definitely should. This could be the start of helping other homeless around OC too or at least fostering more awareness of them.
Isn’t it kinda paranoid though to think Busty really had anything to do with it?
I think Thomas, Chris Prevatt and their friends should go down to the city yard and get the shopping cart back for Aloha.
I personally don’t think Sean posting this picture to highlight the crass behavior of those three should make him responsible for the retrieve cart.
Sean’s aim was to show how cruel and insensitive these three are towards this woman and homeless in general. I would expect that kind of attitude from a Republican like Thomas. But Phil is a Democrat and should have known better. Chris Prevatt, in my opinion, was used by his manipulator Phil to publish this crass photo.
Art, I would suggest creating a countdown for when Thomas and Chris help Aloha retrieve her cart and possessions.
I will commit to 20 Dollars to any costs associated with the retrieval of the cart. I call on all OJ and Lib OC Readers to commit to the associated costs. And I also call on the Blogosphere Community to demand that the three individuals responsible for drawing the City’s ire to Aloha to go down there and physically retrieve the cart an return it to Aloha.
Shame on you guys ! I believe that this is the season to give not to take .. And i hope that someone will step up to plate and help this woman out ..
Vern,
Carlos should take correcting this issue as a proirity in order to do away with the perception of his involvement.
In any case it is good damage control.
On the other hand COMLINK association members have a real strong opinion of ridding the city of the homeless. I have been to meetings dealing with this and their opinions and suggesteion of the homeless is somewhat irrational.
The perception that he is involved with this homeless elderly woman would enhance his stature in that cicle of residents. So, I don’t know.
Vern,
Bustamante is THE most petulant whiner on the Santa Ana City Council. Only Claudia Alvarez comes close to Busty’s vindictiveness and crying.
And Busty has NO good ideas, period. Last year he proposed making human signs illegal and banning doorstep handbill delivery. He is also an affirmed backer of gentrification.
I have no doubt that Busty was behind the seizure of Aloha’s cart and belongings. It is just like him to go after a defenseless, homeless abuelita.
I am in Sacramento today. When I return I plan to start a countdown as to when Aloha will get her stuff back. I am also starting a Thanksgiving donation drive for Aloha.
Art or anyone out there; can someone find out how we can go about getting Aloha’s cart and possessions back?
I sense a strong agreement that a donation drive to pay any fees associated with this retrieval among the blogosphere. But I also think that we need to hold those responsible for this humiliation of a sentient being accountable.
So I do not trust Prevatt, and Gordon to step up to the plate and retrieve Alohas possessions and cart I think we need to do it ourselves.
That being said, we are all consumers of this blog and others as readers. Some consumers laughed at this most crass display of insensitivity. Some consumers condemned it. Never the less, this medium has evolved into a self policing entity which is evident by the recent removal by popular demand of a post.
I suggest that we self police ourselves now and take the necessary steps to return Aloha’s cart and possessions. And hold those responsible; Gordon, and Prevatt for the financial obligations, and physical retrieval and return of said cart and possessions to Aloha.
The behavior of certain individuals the past week on this blog has be disturbing the vindictive attitude taken by the few in their personal war has caused a innocent homeless woman to lose her belongings.
Yes she was not against having the photo taken (and you can argue the point of its tastelessness but thats not really the point) but if it had not been posted here this week in their vicious battle she would still have her belongs. She has those to thank here that thought it necessary to bring her into their juvenile high school b*tch fight for losing everything. The photo was months old and should have never been posted on any blog regardless of the photo actually being taken.
The finger pointing towards who took the photo is mute. It was the posting here and the war of words that ensued that cause all of this.
Sorry Aloha.
Em,
With all due respect that is a ridiculous notion. the blame falls squarely on four parties: those that seized the cart, those who ordered the seizure, those who took the picture, and those who posted it on the Liberal OC. The primary blame falls on the party that ordered the seizure.
Blaming this on Sean is ridiculous. By the time he wrote about this the cat was well out of the bag.
Em,
As much as it disturbs me, I have to agree with Art. Sean posted the original story with the theme of showing the depths of absolute cruelty, disregard for a sentient being, and depravity that Thomas and his friends showed in staging the photo.
We have laid out a methodology to rectify the situation by returning the cart and possessions to Aloha. It is incumbent upon Thomas Gordon and his friends to follow through and make sure that amends are made. Prevatt to a lesser extent since I truly believe that he was unable to resist being manipulated. However, he should play some role in returning Aloha’s belongings for his role of posting the photo to the Lib OC.
However, I do not hold out much hope for any of these people doing the right thing on their own accord even with the steps I laid out. I suggest you call Thomas and Chris and talk to them individually to express your opinions and feelings on this issue.
In the end, a homeless woman was used as a pawn in a joke against a candidate. The fact that she may or may not have been a willing participant is irrelevant. I’m sure if I lived on the streets, had nothing or little to eat for days, have not bathed for who knows how long, would be willing to take 5 bucks for a photo. At least I would eat for that afternoon off the dollar menu.
That does not make it ok. To take advantage of someone in that position for your own amusement is disgusting. Thomas Gordon and Prevatt and their friends should all apologize for it. I would expect this kind of crass behavior from a Republican like Gordon. But I am disgusted that Democrats like Chris Prevatt did this. I said it then and I say it now. Very poor representation of Democrats in OC.
Oh Art I am not stupid so in all due respect this happened because of the bs pissing match between a bunch of grown men. Poor judgement is being passed around like and STD lately.
I never blamed Sean never even once and I am pretty sure that he is not the only one that is in control of what is posted on this blog.
Her belongings are gone, she had them when the photo was taken, even after it was posted on the LIberal OC she still have them. The photo was out of circulation and now here it is again on the Juice and her things are gone. It never should have been used or taken or anything else but please see the light you can not lay the blame only on those who took the photo.
Em,
Again you are assigning blame to everyone EXCEPT the parties who ordered the seizure and who conducted the seizure.
I realize that conservatives like to blame the media for everything, but in this instance the blame falls squarely on whoever ordered the hit on Aloha’s belongings. I believe this trail of crumbs will lead directly to Carlos Bustamante. If you want to continue to overlook that, be my guest.
May I add also that I know your family has a beef with Sean Mill. That is a separate issue. In this instance it is a non sequitur. The bad guy in THIS story is whoever decided to take Aloha’s belongings, period!
Em is right, nothing happened in August when the photo was posted on the LOC. Nothing happened until it got posted here three days ago in the service of making Tom and others look like jerks. If this is such a horrifying photo (listen to silly Lucas go on: “depths of absolute cruelty, disregard for a sentient being, and depravity” after some of the stuff he’s written) and if the constant publicizing of the photo is what led to the cart theft, then more people than Tom, Chris and Busty are to blame.
Oh I wrote that before I saw Art’s latest. Of course he’s right in his last comment. I’m just arguing I guess mainly with Lucas pretending it was all due to the original LOC post and nothing to do with re-posting here. Too many people are just using this as a stick to thwack their own personal enemies.
Vern,
You cannot deny any culpability to the original procurers of the photo. For the record, I know Sean is willing to put in effort to have Alohas belongings back. If you look above you will see that I called on the community as a whole to help her get her possessions back as I feel it was a mistake on the blogosphere at large to take responsibility in the complicity that was shown when the photo was originally published.
Some members laughed. And some members like myself expressed disappointment in such an action. Sean pointed out the crass nature of the original post. The outrage that should have been expressed at that time was lost in the flurry of campaigns going on around town.
The fact that her belongings were taken is of issue here. They were taken probably for nothing to do with this post. And then again they may have been taken because of the post. The bottom line the post was originally done by Prevatt, who was likely manipulated into posting Thomas Gordo’s photo.
If you want to be all inclusive, then place blame on Busty, Thomas Gordon, Chris Prevatt, their friends, and Sean. But someone should step up and help Aloha get her stuff back. So kick into the pot to help pay any fees and drive down to the city yard and get her cart.
You cannot deny any culpability to the original procurers of the photo.
STRAWMAN. Now you go to the other extreme.
For the record, I know Sean is willing to put in effort to have Alohas belongings back.
I am glad to hear that. Is he going to mention that commitment here?
Some members laughed. And some members like myself expressed disappointment in such an action.
I laughed and felt I was laughing with Aloha, not at her.
If you want to be all inclusive, then place blame on Busty, Thomas Gordon, Chris Prevatt, their friends, and Sean.
There you go. If indeed the theft had anything to do with the blogs at all, sometimes we think we’re more important than we are here.
Now let’s all make sure she gets her stuff back. And let’s keep the energy going to do more for the homeless here, that’s probably something we can all agree on.
Vern said: “If indeed the theft had anything to do with the blogs at all, sometimes we think we’re more important than we are here.”
Junior says: Amen
Art if it had been yourself, Vern, Red Vixen, Larry, the Winships or any of the bloggers that posted the photo my response would have been the same, it was not because it was Sean.
I have in fact no beef with Sean and he knows this. Just because you post it here does not make it fact, its way off base. We may not agree on every issue but we do agree on more than you think. This one incident is what I was addressing and nothing more.
The losers who took her cart are just as much to blame although blaming them here is useless because they will not respond. But the truth is what it is. But thanks for trying to turn this into something it isn’t. More than just conservatives have voiced their concern over the photo posted on this site by the way.
Vern,
Art and I discussed this earlier on. A thanksgiving event is being discussed to help Aloha and others. Art was thinking about doing it in cinjunction with getting Alohas cart back but I convinced him that they hsould be seperate in order to get more traction and resources for the homelss in Santa Ana.
But the bottom line is that the original picture and post was promoted by Prevatt and Gordon. They all need to pony up and make right on this injustice ignited by them.
Em,
I understand you have a personal grude against Sean for his exposure of your father making a very homophobic remark. Your faux outrage is transparent. That incident does not take away from the humiliation wrought upon Aloha.
Looks like my ignoring Paul has not worked, little gnat just won’t go away. Faux outrage really you don’t know me so I don’t care what you think. So this was my one comment to you.
I wonder if Sean would like to remark on Pauls comment? Sean really did you have my dad outed on the Liberal OC? Cause thats what Paul Says…oh boy everyone is throwing accusations around such big boys here.
Don’t try and make this about myself or my family this is about what its always been about poor judgement in reguards to Aloha’s photo.
Em,
I agree about helping aloha get her stuff back. I will inquire about it at city hall. I assume there is some storage area at the city yard for these kinds of things.
Anon 10:27,
Your consistent telling of a myth with no substance is losing its power. Remember it is you who are neck deep in the Janet Nguyen camp; the new Van Tran. It is you who keeps inviting Republican activists to OCYD Meetings.
I would suggest that you use your relationship with Janet Nguyen to help Aloha get her possessions back. Seems reasonable doesn’t it?
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE Member, City Council
Number To Vote For: 2
Completed Precincts: 100 of 100
Vote Count Percentage
STEVE JONES 16,123 20.3%
ANDREW DO 12,326 15.5%
ROBIN PEACE MARCARIO 11,160 14.1%
LINH HO 9,822 12.4%
TRUNG NGUYEN 9,343 11.8%
PAUL LUCAS 6,537 8.2%
There are plenty of sections on Shopping Cart Regulations, If you want to review the municodes go to http://www.ci.santa-ana.ca.us, then clerk of council links Municodes.
ARTICLE IX. SHOPPING CART REGULATIONS
Sec. 33-210. Definitions.
The definitions set forth in this part shall govern the application and interpretation of this article.
(a) “Abandoned shopping cart” means any shopping cart that has been removed, without written consent of the owner, from the owner’s business premises and is left unattended or discarded on either public or private property other than the premises of the business establishment from which the shopping cart was removed For purposes of this article, any shopping cart which is properly identified as required by this article, located on any public or private property other than the premises of the retail business establishment from which such shopping cart was removed, shall be presumed to be abandoned, even if in the possession of any person unless such person in possession is either (1) the owner, employee or agent of the owner, (2) the owner, employee or agent of a shopping cart retrieval service hired to retrieve shopping carts from the city, or (3) has written permission or consent to be in possession of the shopping cart from the shopping cart’s owner.
(b) “Shopping cart control plan” means a document submitted by the owner of the shopping cart pursuant to section 33-216 of this article.
(c) “Agent” means the person or persons designated in the shopping cart control plan who the owner of the shopping cart authorizes as the person(s) to perform or provide retrieval services on behalf of the owner. The agent may be the owner if so designated in the city approved shopping cart control plan.
(d) “Shopping cart” means a basket which is mounted on wheels or a similar device generally used in a retail or commercial establishment by a customer for the purpose of transporting goods of any kind. The word “shopping cart” includes laundry carts, which are shopping carts used in a laundromat or retail dry-cleaning establishment by a customer or attendant for the purpose of transporting textile goods.
(e) “Director” means the executive director of planning and building for the City of Santa Ana, or such other director or officer designated by the city manager to administer this article.
(f) “Owner” means any person or entity, who in connection with the conduct of a business, owns, leases, possesses or makes a shopping cart available to customers or the public. For the purposes of this article, owner shall also include the owner’s agent.
(g) “Plan” means the approved mandatory shopping cart control plan required by this article.
(h) “Premises” means the entire area owned, occupied, and/or utilized by an owner which provides shopping carts for use by customers or other persons, including any parking lot or other property provided by or on behalf of the owner for customer parking or use.
(Ord. No. NS-2725, § 2, 10-2-06)
#37,
Ill kick in a twenty for that reward. maybe we should start a countdown to see when the city gives Aloha back her cart?
That being said, is anyone else willing to kick in a few bucks for the Aloha fund to get her possessions out of the city’s grip?
Let’s refocus on what this post is about, Aloha having her belongings taken. There will be plenty of time to hate on those named here, but let’s focus on getting her stuff back in the meantime.
Thanks.
Lisanmartinez,
did you see anything in the Muni code that describes what happens to a cart that is a catholic Charities cart that is impounded by the city and how to go about getting it back?
http://www.bkc.org/
The Korean Bethel Church of Irvine fed 300 to 400 people of the homeless population a thanksgiving dinner for breakfast in the parking lot of the county administrate building today.
I talk to Aloha for a bit, but being a loner she took her food to go.
Besides food, there were hair cutters, massage therapists, accrue-puncher (sp) and live music.
I learned something, I heard about the OCTA bus terminal being redeveloped and permanently being closed. What I didn’t know was the closing is going to shut down the only public restrooms that are opened on Sundays in downtown Santa Ana.
Who dropped the ball on this one? Closing the only public restrooms in the downtown area?
Cook,
You already know the answer. Santa Ana City Manager Dave Ream and Mayor Miguel Pulido. Thanks for exposing this!
Sec. 33-211. Findings and purpose.
(a) Many retail establishments provide shopping carts for the convenience of customers while shopping on the establishment’s premises. However, shopping carts removed from the premises of these establishments and left abandoned on public or private property throughout the city constitute a public nuisance and a potential hazard to the health and safety of the public. The proliferation of lost, stolen, wrecked or abandoned shopping carts on public and private property:
(1) Create conditions that reduce property values, and promote blight and deterioration of the city neighborhoods, tending to lead to declining property values and increases in crime;
(2) Obstruct the free passage along public and private streets, sidewalks, parking lots and other rights of way and/or interfere with pedestrian and vehicular traffic on streets;
(3) Impede emergency service; and
(4) Clog storm drain channels reducing their ability to function properly, by trapping debris and trash and thereby creating flooding hazards, and constitute violation of the city’s waste discharge requirements.
(b) For the above-referenced reasons, such lost, stolen, wrecked or abandoned shopping carts are hereby declared to be a public nuisance, which shall be subject to abatement in the manner set forth in this article or in any other manner provided by law.
(c) The purpose of this article is to set forth regulations to ensure that reasonable measures are taken by owners of businesses which provide shopping carts on their premises for the convenience of their customers to prevent the removal of shopping carts from business premises and parking lots, and, when removed despite the owner’s implementation of its control pan, to provide for the prompt retrieval of such shopping carts.
(d) The purpose and intent of this article is additionally to ensure that measures are taken by owners to prevent the removal of shopping carts from a business premises, to make removal of shopping carts a violation of the law, and to facilitate the retrieval of abandoned shopping carts in a manner that supplements and complements state law, but is not preempted with state law.
(Ord. No. NS-2725, § 2, 10-2-06)
Sec. 33-212. Applicability/prohibition.
(a) This article shall apply to all owners of business establishments or other commercial services within the city that provide more than five (5) shopping carts for customer use.
(b) It shall be unlawful for an owner and/or owner’s agent to cause or permit any shopping cart to be abandoned upon any sidewalk, street or other public place in the city or upon any private property other than the premises owner of such shopping cart.
(Ord. No. NS-2725, § 2, 10-2-06)
Sec. 33-213. Shopping cart identification required.
(a) Every shopping cart owned or provided by any owner must have a sign permanently affixed to the shopping cart that contains all of the following information:
(1) Identity of owner, or owner’s business establishment, or both;
(2) The address of the owner of the business establishment for shopping cart return and a phone number at which a person may contact the owner to retrieve the shopping cart; and,
(3) Notification to the public that the removal of the shopping cart from the premises is a violation of state and local law.
(b) Any shopping cart found abandoned that does not have the identification and information required by this section may be removed and disposed of by the city in accordance with state law.
(c) No owner shall provide any shopping cart for customer use that does not contain the signage required by this section.
(Ord. No. NS-2725, § 2, 10-2-06)
Sec. 33-214. Premises signage.
Signs shall be placed and maintained on the premises, at all customer store entrances and exits, and in the parking area, warning customers that removal of shopping carts from the premises is a prohibited by state and local law. Any and all posting of signs shall comply with the provisions of the Code, except that the number and placement of such signs may be in excess of those limits found in chapter 41.
(Ord. No. NS-2725, § 2, 10-2-06)
Sec. 33-215. Unauthorized removal prohibited.
It shall be unlawful for any person:
(a) To remove a shopping cart from a premises, either temporarily or permanently, which is properly marked in conformity with this article, without the written consent of the owner; or
(b) To be in possession of a shopping cart that has been removed from a premises, which is properly marked in conformity with this article, without the written consent of the owner; or
(c) To detach the sign or deface the name or address marked on a sign, which is properly marked on a shopping cart in conformity with this article.
(d) This section shall not apply to shopping carts removed as authorized by the owner for the purposes of repair, maintenance or disposal.
Sec. 33-216. Mandatory shopping cart control plan.
(a) Every owner subject to this article shall prepare, submit, implement and comply with the terms and conditions of a shopping cart control plan to prevent the unauthorized removal of any shopping cart from the owner’s premises and, if removed, retrieval of the shopping cart within time periods set forth in subsection (b)(8). The focus of the plan shall be on means to confine shopping carts to the owner’s premises.
(b) The shopping cart control plan shall be designed to effectively prevent the removal of all shopping carts from the premises. The owner shall have the obligation to provide demonstrable evidence to the director that the elements proposed will be effective. The plan shall include the following elements.
(1) Sign affixed to cart. Every shopping cart shall have a sign permanently affixed to it fully compliant with the requirements of section 33-213 of this article.
(2) Premises signage. Signs shall be placed and maintained on the premises, as required by section 33-214.
(3) Shopping cart inventory. The plan shall include a complete list of all shopping carts maintained on or in the premises.
(4) Community education plan. A description of a community education and outreach program to be carried out by the owner that will effectively inform customers that the removal of shopping carts from the premises is prohibited and is a violation of state and local law. This program may include, but is not limited to, flyers distributed at the premises, warnings on shopping bags, supplemental signage, direct mail, announcements using intercom systems at the premises, web site or other means demonstrated to be effective to the reasonable satisfaction of the director.
(5) Shopping cart identification. Signs and shopping cart identification requirements which conform to state and local law.
(6) Shopping cart containment plan. The plan shall describe the specific measures that the owner shall implement to prevent shopping cart from being removed from the premises. These measures may include, but are not limited to.
(i) Electronic or other disabling devices on the shopping carts so they can not be removed from the premises; or,
(ii) Bollards, chains or other physical barrier to prevent transporting shopping carts out of the store or off the premises; and/or,
(iii) Effective management practices including use of (A) courtesy clerks to accompany customers and return the shopping carts to the store, (B) security personnel assigned the responsibility to prevent removal; (C) or other measures acceptable to the director that the owner can demonstrate will effectively prevent shopping cart to be removed from the premises.
Where physical improvements such as (i) and (ii) above are not proposed, the plan shall include justification for such omission.
(7) Employee training. The plan shall include a description of an annual ongoing employee training program that shall be implemented by the owner designed to educate new and existing employees on the shopping cart control plan and conditions contained therein.
(8) Mandatory shopping cart retrieval element. The plan shall include provisions for retrieval of abandoned shopping carts. The plan shall ensure that all of owner’s shopping care removed from the premises shall be recovered within twenty-four (24) hours, or in the case of shopping carts abandoned at or around a bus stop, within twelve (12) hours.
The retrieval element shall identify the streets and bus stops which shall be patrolled; the manner, frequency and times of such patrols; and the procedures to be employed by the owner to retrieve abandoned shopping carts, including but not limited to the number of trucks and hours of operation of retrieval activities. In addition, the retrieval element shall detail a telephone notification program, whereby persons may notify the owner of an abandoned shopping cart and request retrieval of any shopping cart properly identified as belonging to the owner; and provide that each vehicle used to retrieve shopping carts shall bear conspicuous signs identifying the name of the owner or the retail business name and, if applicable, the name of the contract shopping cart retrieval service.
(9) Daily cart confinement. A plan for storing shopping carts during non-business hours, for any business which is not open twenty-four (24) hours per day, to prevent theft when closed.
(10) Collaboration with other businesses. Two (2) or more retail establishments located within the same shopping or retail center or sharing a common parking area may collaborate and submit a single shopping cart control plan.
(11) Monthly reports. The owner shall provide a written report to the director specifying the number of abandoned shopping carts retrieved on the owner’s behalf during the preceding calendar month. The report may be provided by an owner’s contract shopping cart retrieval service.
(Ord. No. NS-2725, § 2, 10-2-06)
Sec. 33-217. Fees.
Every owner subject to this article shall submit with its initial proposed plan and thereafter annually with its annual report a fee in the amount set forth by resolution of the city council adopted from time to time. The fee shall not exceed the city’s reasonable cost to administer and manage the activities mandated by this article, and shall not include the city’s cost of retrieving shopping carts, except as provided for in Business and Professions Code section 22435.7.
(Ord. No. NS-2725, § 2, 10-2-06)
Sec. 33-218. Plan approval or denial and penalties.
(a) Upon this article becoming effective, all owners shall submit a shopping cart control plan in compliance with section 33-216 to the director. For the initial plans, the director shall establish a schedule for submittal of plans. The director shall give written notice to each owner of its deadline for submittal of a plan, provided that all plans must be submitted no later than March 1, 2007 The schedule shall provide at least sixty (60) days from notice to submit a plan. The director may approve or deny the proposed plan and shall notify the owner of such decision. If approved, the shopping cart control plan shall be implemented by the owner no later than time specified in the approval, which shall not be thirty (30) days less than the date of the director’s notice.
(b) Notwithstanding the foregoing, the obligations imposed by this article in sections 33-213 and 33-214 shall be fully implemented no later than ninety (90) days from the effective date of this article.
(c) Thereafter, each owner must amend or update its plan at the earlier of (1) any substantial modification of an owner’s business or premises that would adversely affect an approved plan or (2) on the fifth (5th) anniversary of approval of its initial plan, and each fifth (5th) year thereafter. All new businesses established after January 1, 2007 must file a plan prior to issuance of a business license for that new business.
(d) The director may deny a plan based upon any of the following grounds:
(1) Implementation of the plan violates any provision of the building, zoning, health, safety, fire, police or other provision of this code or any county, state or federal law which substantially affects public health, welfare, or safety;
(2) The plan fails to include all of the information required by this article;
(3) The plan is insufficient or inadequate to prevent removal of shopping carts from the premises;
(4) The plan fails to address any special or unique conditions due to the geographical location of the premises as they relate to shopping cart retention and prevention efforts.
(5) Implementation of the plan violates a term or condition of a plan or other requirement of this Code;
(6) The owner knowingly makes a false statement of fact or omits a fact required to be revealed in an application for the plan, or in any amendment or report or other information required to be made.
(e) If the plan is rejected as incomplete or inadequate, the director shall indicate areas of incompleteness or inadequacy, and the owner shall have an additional thirty (30) days in which to resubmit a complete and adequate plan.
(f) An owner who fails to submit a complete plan to the satisfaction of the director, or fails to implement approved plan measures or fails to comply with the approved plan measures will be subject to enforcement of these requirements through any lawful means available to the city, including without limitation institution of the administrative remedies process pursuant to Chapter 1.
(g) The director’s decision shall be final.
(Ord. No. NS-2725, § 2, 10-2-06)
Sec. 33-219. Plan modification and annual report.
(a) At any time after the director’s approval of any abandoned shopping cart plan, the owner may submit to the director a modification of the previously approved plan to address a change in circumstances, address an unanticipated physical or economic impact of the plan, or modify an inadequate or ineffective plan.
(b) Each year, on or before the anniversary of the director’s approval of the plan, each owner (or multiple businesses that have collaborated on a single approved plan) shall submit an annual report to the director (1) certifying its compliance with the approved plan and each item specified in section 33-216, (2) detailing compliance with each provision of its approved plan over the prior year, and (3) summarizing its monthly cart retrieval statistics for the prior year. The director may, based upon review of the annual report, initiate modification or revocation proceedings.
(Ord. No. NS-2725, § 2, 10-2-06)
Sec. 33-220. Modification or revocation of plan.
An approved plan may be revoked by the director, or modified in lieu of revocation in the exercise of the director’s sound discretion, upon any of the following occurrences:
(a) The owner is operating, or is permitting operation, of the retail business in violation of one or more provisions of the plan and has failed to correct such violations for a period of at least fifteen (15) calendar days following date of receipt of written notification of such violation(s) from the city.
(b) The plan is inadequate to either reasonably prevent the removal of shopping carts from the premises, or reasonably ensure the prompt retrieval of abandoned shopping carts.
(c) The owner has failed to comply with any of the provisions of this article.
(d) The owner knowingly makes a false statement of fact or omits a fact required to be revealed in an application for the plan, or in any amendment or report or other information required to be made.
(Ord. No. NS-2725, § 2, 10-2-06)
Sec. 33-221. Notice of intended decision.
(a) Upon determining the existence of any of the grounds for revocation of a plan in accordance with section 33-220, the director shall issue to the owner a notice of intended decision to revoke or modify the plan.
(b) The notice of intended decision shall state all the grounds upon which the revocation or modification is based.
(c) The notice of intended decision shall advise the owner that the revocation or modification shall become final unless the owner files a written request for hearing before the director within ten (10) calendar days of the date of service of the notice of intended decision to revoke or modify the plan.
(d) The notice of intended decision shall specify the effective date of the revocation or modification of the plan.
(Ord. No. NS-2725, § 2, 10-2-06)
Sec. 33-222. Procedure for hearing before the director.
(a) The written request for a hearing before the director must be received by the director within ten (10) calendar days of the date of service of the notice of intended decision to revoke the plan or deny the renewal application for an exemption.
(b) Upon timely receipt of a written request for a hearing, the director shall schedule a hearing which shall be held no later than thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of a timely request for hearing.
(c) The director shall serve a notice of hearing on the owner at least ten (10) calendar days prior to the scheduled date of the hearing.
(d) At the hearing before the director, or before a hearing officer at the director’s option, the owner shall be given the opportunity to present witnesses and relevant documentary evidence.
(e) The hearing will be conducted informally and the technical rules of evidence shall not apply. Any and all evidence which the director or hearing officer deems reliable, relevant and not unduly repetitious may be considered.
(Ord. No. NS-2725, § 2, 10-2-06)
Sec. 33-223. Decision of the director.
(a) The director or hearing officer shall serve on the owner a written decision sustaining, reversing or modifying the director’s intended decision.
(b) The decision by the director or hearing officer after hearing shall become final unless the owner files an appeal within the time period specified in section 33-224.
(Ord. No. NS-2725, § 2, 10-2-06)
Sec. 33-224. Chapter 3 appeal.
(a) If an owner is dissatisfied with the written decision of the director, the owner may file a written appeal to the city.
(b) The appeal must be in writing on a form provided by the city and must be received by clerk of the council within ten (10) calendar days of notification of the director’s decision.
(c) The appeal, including its hearing, shall be conducted in accordance with chapter 3.
(Ord. No. NS-2725, § 2, 10-2-06)
Sec. 33-225. Enforcement.
Every owner shall comply with the provisions of this article and every provision of the owner’s approved shopping cart control plan.
Any owner who violates any provision of this article or any provision of the owner’s approved shopping cart control plan shall be subject to enforcement procedures for each violation through any lawful means available to the city, including without limitation institution of administrative remedies in accordance with chapter 1.
(Ord. No. NS-2725, § 2, 10-2-06)
Sec. 33-226. Retrieval notification.
The city may notify the owner of an abandoned shopping cart as identified on the signage information permanently affixed to the shopping cart. The city notification shall be documented and provided either by telephone or by written notice. The notification shall require that the identified shopping cart(s) be retrieved pursuant to the conditions for retrieval as set forth in the owner’s abandoned shopping cart retrieval plan.
(Ord. No. NS-2725, § 2, 10-2-06)
Paul,
The rest of the codes are on post 38.
(e) “Director” means the executive director of planning and building for the City of Santa Ana, or such other director or officer designated by the city manager to administer this article.
What bothers me is she is not a business owner, it is her personal cart, but she has to register it with the city and post her name as owner and place of business. If she leaves it around the bus depot while she uses the facilities the city will pick it up. But how do they notify her to pick it up? I wonder if she can post her address as a park bench, like when you register to vote? These people have to have rights, when it comes to personal property like Carts with their belongings!
I just can’t understand that the City can build a multi-million dollar home for an anteater that is an animal and meant to be in the wild open spaces. And take away the possessions of one old lady to let her live in the wilds of Santa Ana. She is a human being, and this City has it’s priorities all wrong.
Stop and think about it….what ever makes money, tax us fine us criminalize us, program us what ever brings in the federal bucks, and corporate dollars. Why can’t we all have a little bit of love in our hearts for humanity?
Lisann,
Thanks for the info. I spoke to a city council memebr today (Not Bustamante) about this situation and the meber is going to assist me in getting her cart back. If there are any fees or other red tape involved i will see it through with help of the memebr and anyone who wants to assist.
Paul
#31. Ok we get it. YOU don’t like Paul.
Paul thank you for following up on Aloha’s cart and bringing it to the attention of a SA Council Member.
Paul – You are blessed hero – NOT !!
SA City Council members were contacted concerning Aloha’s cart at noon on Sunday. What time is it now? Oh, you posted at 8:29 pm on Sunday night.
Nice trying to take credit for something you had little if anything to do with.
Paul,
PS: I know for a fact that it was Thomas Gordon who first contacted two SA City Council members concerning getting Aloha’s cart back to her.
Junior,
It is entirely likely that Paul and Thomas spoke to different council members. Thomas is allied with Benavides. He likely also called Michele Martinez.
Paul on the other hand most likely spoke to Vince Sarmiento or Sal Tinajero.
One thing we can all agree on – Bustamante won’t be a part of the solution to this problem. Most likely he was the one who ordered the seizure of the cart.
In either case I expect that the cart situation will be resolved today.
Thanks Paul for being such a leader in this effort to help Aloha. Several of my friends as well asmyself feel that you should come move to Santa ana and run for the council here.
We would love to talk to you and host your first Fundraiser!
Ana Gonzalez
To all,
I was not aware of any actions that Thomas Gordon took on this issue. I did not speak to David Benavides or Vince Sarmiento.
That Thomas Gordon made an effort is not surprising to me. Nor is the lack of effort by his pal.
Ana, thank you for your kind words. I do not have plans to run for the City Council in Santa Ana.
I sit here and read all these posts and can’t stop chuckling about who is a hero…who is a jerk. I see Aloha pretty much everyday and talk to her. She can’t believe how much of a fuss everyone is making about this sign. She said she wasn’t humiliated. As far as she is concerned, it was all in fun. Get over it.
I feed her almost daily and give her clean clothes. And when she lost her cart, I gave her blankets, a pillow and some clothes. On holidays, I always make sure she has a big festive dinner. My husband tried to get Aloha her cart back, but all he got was the big run around. Hopefully someone with some kind of pull can get Aloha her cart back. BTW…Aloha is an interesting person to talk to…maybe you all should sit down and talk to her yourselves. Even my grandkids (ages 4 & 5) like visiting with her when she comes by.
Just my two cents
Janet C-
I like your two cents!
I went tot he city yard today to try and lcate he cart after getting the run around at the city hall and police departments, the public works, code enforcemtn etc. No department is claiming responsibilty for taking her crat or telling me where to locate it.
I went to St Columban Catholic Church in GG to inquire about Catholic Charities for a new one. No one at Catholic Charities was much help in that regard. They are very overwhelemed with the caseload of assistance they are providing and are falling short of the needed demand and what they are able to provide. Very depspairing indeed.
If anyone knows how to get Aloha a new cart please post here and we will see it through.