Camping rules could face lawsuit
CHICO » Growing local controversy over the enhancement of Chico’s existing ordinance for rules about park use has led to a request to reconsider enforcing parts of the ordinance which affect people camping in the parks.
A letter to the Chico city attorney from Legal Services Northern California has asked the city to reconsider the ordinance’s increased punishments for prohibited camping and sleeping on public property.
The nonprofit firm’s Supervising Attorney Cory Turner cites various legal grounds in other cities for the request, on behalf of his client Joel Castle who he said is “a community member who does not have adequate shelter.” He also cited the COVID-19 emergency as limiting “the ability of indigent unsheltered people to find a place to rest or sleep,” particularly as the city currently lacks sufficient shelter beds for its unhoused population.
The letter ask that the city “cease and desist” any plans to enforce ordinances that punish involuntary camping and sleeping on public property.
Turner claimed enforcement of the city’s park ordinance would violate prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment in the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, per cases such as Martin v. City of Boise. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found in the 2019 case “‘so long as there is a greater number of homeless individuals in (a jurisdiction) than the number of available beds (in shelters), the jurisdiction cannot prosecute homeless individuals for ‘ involuntarily sitting, lying, and sleeping in public.”’
Turner also alleged some city ordinances already in place — “sit and lie,” citywide camping prohibition and limited hours for public sleeping — create “a city-wide web of civil and criminal punishments for involuntary camping and sleeping that is indistinguishable from the ordinances
in Martin v. City of Boise and the ruling by the U. S. District Court in Blake v. City of Grants Pass.” In that case, multiple ordinances (which included prohibiting camping in parks) that combined to create a citywide prohibition against involuntary camping and sleeping, punishable by civil fines, were found to be unenforceable due to a lack of sufficient shelter beds.
The 2019 Point-in-Time Survey found 389 unsheltered people in Chico and estimated the actual number is higher, “due to ongoing challenges in locating homeless individuals, especially those who are displaced and unhoused due to the Camp Fire.” And, currently the only emergency shelter, Torres Shelter, is closed to new guests due to the increase of COVID-19 cases (averaging more than 128 new infections per day according to Butte County Public Health COVID-19 dashboard) in the city.
Turner also added the city declared a shelter crisis in 2018 prior to the Camp Fire, during which thousands of units of affordable
housing in Butte County were destroyed.
“(Legal Services Northern California) demands that the city of Chico suspend any efforts to enforce (the city’s park ordinance) and any of the other ordinances that combine to create a city-wide ban on involuntary camping and sleeping on public property,” Turner wrote.
The city was asked to respond by the end of Tuesday. However, city staff did not confirm Wednesday if there will be any response. City Attorney Andrew Jared and Mayor Andrew Coolidge declined to comment. Homeless Solutions Coordinator Suzi Kochems also declined to comment and said, “Legal matters will be handled by the city attorney.”
But Chico City Councilor Scott Huber (formerly on Butte Countywide Homeless Continuum of Care) said, “My personal belief is that the cease and desist is completely warranted.
“I believe the decision to displace those people without an adequate alternative is not only ethically wrong but legally wrong as well.”
Huber said there is state and federal money available to use for emergency alternatives like a sanctioned
campground, but said. “The city does not seem to have the ability or the political will to secure either covered shelter or campground facilities. They just keep finding reasons that the various pieces of property are not usable.”
While not eager for possible litigation to result if the city doesn’t respond to the
letter, Huber said he hopes it convinces city staff and other members of the council to find an alternative location for people camping in the park.
“It shows there’s a precedent for assuring that people have a place to go before you tell them you can’t be where they are,” he said.
“If the county would
step up and provide county property for our purposes, that would be delightful,” Huber added.
The city’s Public Information Officer Lynda Gizzi added, “The city park ordinance is an enforcement of rules and regulations that already existed,” and said to her knowledge even if the letter moved to an official
pending litigation against the city, it would be handled in closed session by the city and Chico City Council. Huber added the city attorney could always call for a special meeting if the request is determined worth special legal attention.