Freeze put on Pajaro River levee camp cleanup

PAJARO » A federal judge that oversaw the halt of Santa Cruz’s largest homeless camp dispersal earlier this year is considering instating a similar injunction to project a major Pajaro River-area encampment.

After granting an emergency restraining order last week against the Monterey County Water Resources Agency-organized cleanup on the border between Santa Cruz and Monterey counties, U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen heard arguments Monday on issuing a longer-term stay against continued camp dismantlement.

During the hearing, attorneys from plaintiff Pajaro/Watsonville Homeless Union and Monterey County agencies on issues such as the population size of the targeted camp, spread for about 1 mile along the Monterey County side of the Pajaro River levee, the number of motel vouchers offered during the Nov. 17 and 18 clearout and whether greater danger would be posed to occupants if they stayed or left the riverbank.

Monterey County Counsel Marina Pantchenko, who characterized the affected levee encampment as having between 25 and 40 occupants, said this case differed from other cities’ homeless lawsuits in that there was not a related ordinance “criminalizing homelessness” and barring outdoor sleeping elsewhere, nor is the property a public park. Santa Cruz’s encampment, first formed at the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, is located in the city-owned San Lorenzo Park. Van Keulen dissolved the injunction against Santa Cruz’s planned cleanup in July.

Pantchenko said Monterey social services officials had offered to provide as many as 25 short-term motel vouchers to those who would relocate from the site, even though the county does “not concede that we’re legally obligated to offer shelter.”

Safety concerns

The individuals being evicted are “unlawfully trespassing into a restricted and dangerous levee area owned and controlled by the Water Resources Agency,” Pantchenko said. She cited garbage, debris and waste collecting in the riverbed ahead of the rainy season and/or potential flooding and that tunnels dug into the riverbed as public safety concerns related to the camp.

“This area has never been open for public access, much less camping, and … as noted… it is a very dangerous area for plaintiffs and other individuals to be staying in, because of floodcontrol issues,” Pantchenko said.

Van Keulen asked if the county’s arguments were undermined by the length of time such encampments have existed in the same levee area, historically. Pantchenko replied that individuals contacted to relocate during previous cleanup efforts had been “very compliant” in leaving.

Attorney Anthony Prince, representing defendants and the general counsel for

the California Homeless Union/Statewide Organizing Council, said his primary defendant, Monike Tone, had lived in a camp at the levee for the past decade and counted some 200 individuals living in the affected area. He also alleged that officials offered fewer motel vouchers than they claimed. Prince said he felt the seven-day eviction notice did not provide camp occupants sufficient time to relocate and that occupants were not given information on the location of and the length of motel stays or transportation to get there.

Best option

Van Keulen asked attorneys to address concerns that individuals displaced from the levee encampment would be in a worse position camping elsewhere.

“We were told this repeatedly, by the campers, that they couldn’t comply,” Prince said of what he described as a “woefully inadequate” cleanup notice period. “If there’s no other place to go, realistically, such that they could bring the things that they need to survive with them, then that notice is ineffectual, it’s illusory.”

Pantchenko said the move-along notice did not prohibit occupants from locating elsewhere and argued that there was “far greater danger staying in the levee area than relocating.”

“One of the risks are these tunnels being dug into the riverbank,” Pantchenko said. “There’s a critical risk of flooding. We are already in the midst of the rainy seasons and anticipating storms and the conditions of the levee are unsafe.

Van Keulen ultimately said Monday that the temporary restraining order would remain in place while she considered arguments and made a final ruling.