Familiar story, but a different city

The Feb. 28 E-R editorial “Familiar story, different city” defended their recent story which quoted exclusively certain “out of town” lawyers, all of whom represent homeless clients.

I expect self-serving attorneys to interpret Martin v. Boise to suit their narratives, but I object to the complete lack of balance to that narrative.

Homelessness is not unique to either Chico or Santa Cruz. Both are college towns with campuses near to downtown and the “woke” cultures of each have had a disproportionate impact on policy formulation.

If we are going to learn from other cities, we should devote at least as much time and effort looking at differences as well as similarities. Likewise, it doesn’t serve the reader to repeat only the homeless advocate’s interpretation of case law, especially when it’s wrong.

What is the full extent of our freedom to enforce anticamping ordinances under Martin v. Boise? That answer would serve policymakers in Chico or any city within the 9th Circuit to deal with the “unsheltered” homesteading in our parks.

Those limits have yet to be explored properly. Sadly, there appears to be no compelling desire to do so by either reporters or the editorial board of the E-R.

Santa Cruz can choose their policies, and we can choose ours. We don’t need to be hemmed in by those who chose a narrative over facts, or where facts are not that clear, acting as if there is only one correct way to understand the Martin case, the wrong way.

— Rob Berry, Chico