[Noisebridge-discuss] Sleeping at NB

[Dr. Jesus]

On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Gian Pablo Villamil
<gian.pablo at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dr. Jesus looked into this a while ago, and posted to the list. In a
> nutshell, living at NB is not against our lease, it is a planning code
> violation. Our space is not zoned residential. However, the inspectors
> who show up every month to look at the elevator probably don't care,
> as long as there are no obvious signs of long term residential use.

An addendum to the story is that the planning department set me on a
chase throughout the city bureaucracy, and at the end of it I received
an answer: the government does not regulate naps, but the city can and
does regulate where people may make their residences.  The planning
department's final but non-researched answer to me was that "there is
no way people can live [at Noisebridge]."  The other city agencies all
categorize this situation as a civil problem and everyone I talked to
has been amazed that we've let this happen at all, let alone continue
to happen.

I also went spelunking through findlaw to see what the California
courts say in similar situations, and I didn't find any cases which
address our situation.  My guess is that the common law of conversion
applies to our situation and most normal leasees would have just
kicked out the offending individuals by this point by claiming either
conversion or nuisance.  It's interesting how the judgements all
assume that hobos occupying a space are prone to commit crimes there,
but I'm pleasantly surprised at how little practical effect our
occupants seem to have had on the space.  That being said, Martin
performed a similar experiment with a small hackerspace in Austin
organized along similar lines to Noisebridge, and after a few months
he found that someone had locked everyone else out and had smeared
shit all over the walls.  They now have a new space and different
rules.

The bottom line is that the membership is divided on whether we should
allow people to sleep at the space at all, so conversion may not apply
here.  This is an either/or decision which leaves no room for
compromise.  Either sleeping overnight is possible or it is not.  Jof
is the president of the corporation and represents us as the leasee,
and he was appointed with the understanding that he would implement
the will of the membership and nothing more.  It seems to me that
divining that will and implementing it is up to him.  If it were up to
me I'd have the sleeping / not sleeping camps both decide on a
representative and have them sit down with Jof to reach a consensus,
but I know there's no way that's going to happen.