Court fight against needle program continues
Plaintiffs in lawsuit against state of California seek to be heard at Chico City Council meeting
CHICO » The local controversy surrounding needle distribution programs could be reopened at city meetings next month, as some members of the community pursue a lawsuit against the state of California.
The lawsuit, filed in April, challenges state legislation decisions allowing such programs to operate within city jurisdictions. It reflects an ongoing local movement to ban the North Valley Harm Reduction Coalition, which the Chico City Council had asked for a report on in February.
The suit’s co-counsel Rob Berry stated “We filed the original case, only to have the state expand the program by administrative amendment far beyond the initial program, from two hours once a week in a fixed location to all of Chico, 24/7, individual delivery, including illegal campsites in the parks and under bridges, etc.
“This caused us to file a ‘First Amended Complaint’ on July 1, adding three additional causes of action. They must answer in 30 days.”
As the suit could take longer than expected and require more funds, Berry has been sharing a fund organized by one of the suit’s plaintiffs, Jody Galloway, online for financial help with the lawsuit.
“They (at California Attorney General’s office) made it obvious in conference they intend to fight this lawsuit fairly vigorously,” he said.
Berry cited another Orange County lawsuit which charged the California Department of Public Health’s approval of the needle exchange violated the California Environmental Quality Act, as precedent. Berry said he thinks pursuing this suit is the “best way to stop the program” if it proves the city can use power separate from the state to pass a land use ordinance to ban such programs, as the city of Oroville did.
However, “In the case of Chico, it looks like the majority is inclined to support the program,” he said.
“Both the City Attorney Andrew Jared and others on the council have said local jurisdictions can’t override a state law or program,” Berry said, claiming “That’s based on a misunderstanding of the law.”
Berry added he is disappointed the council has not yet added the needle distribution program discussion to its list of “essential city business” to be visited during the COVID-19 emergency shutdown order. He claimed such public health issues are intertwined with other city concerns such as people being allowed to camp in city parks.
“If she (Mayor Ann Schwab) is interested in hearing all sides of the issue like she claims, then why doesn’t she invite the attorneys filing the lawsuit to provide information to the city attorney (and) to present at the same time?” Berry said.
However, Schwab responded Wednesday this could take place at the next meeting of the council.
In February, the council directed the city attorney to report what options the city had in addressing the program and asked a representative from the Coalition “to give us a report and more information about their program,” Schwab said.
“That operation does not require a permit … The city is not directly permitting this,” she said. Meanwhile, the council had decided under the emergency shutdown order to hear only essential city business until members of the public could attend.
Schwab said when she later asked the council for direction on bringing the topic back, it reaffirmed the direction of only essential items being brought back to the table.
However, she said she thinks the topic could be heard at the next regular meeting on Aug. 4, which may be held in a facility will allow up to 80 members of the public to attend.
Schwab intends to have a report from the coalition and the city attorney as requested, as well as a requested presentation from the parties currently in litigation with the coalition, including Berry. The details of what that presentation would look like are still being worked on, she said.
“I want our options to be as transparent as possible,” she said, adding although it is “unusual” for a party involved in litigation to also present on the party they are suing, “If that’s what they want to do, they can.”
“On paper this needle distribution program sounds very beneficial, but as I understand it, it seems to be harming our community,” Schwab added.
“I want to hear all sides to this issue before I make a decision, even if that were to mean allowing parties on the other side to present. We want to resolve issues so we can move forward — that is why I wanted to bring it back in June, but the council wanted to make sure the public is involved in the decision.”
As for a possible use of a land use ordinance as an option the city could use against the program, Schwab said she hasn’t seen the city attorney’s report yet and will wait for the meeting.
“We have quite competent city counsel. If something is possible, it will be part of the report that is given to us.”