Enough already — just open the shelter site

Earlier this week, we received a phone call from a reporter in another city asking about the Pallet shelter site. Turns out the company that builds those shelters was going to place a few in her town, and she wanted to know how they were working out for C

“Great,” came our reply. “Those Pallet shelters still look as good as new. It’s almost as if nobody has ever lived in them.”

There’s a reason for that, of course. Three months after they were constructed — and, nearly three months after we ran a story saying the site was expected to be open within a couple of weeks — the noncongregate housing site has yet to welcome its first resident.

So what’s the holdup? That’s been the question asked by us, and thousands of residents of Chico, ever since. Of course, because of the gag order that remains in place for negotiations between the city and plaintiffs, nobody has been able to tell us.

But now, thanks to some public court filings this week, we know — it’s because of a handful of disputes over the future operation of the site. And like a lot of mysteries in life, the final answer leaves us with a feeling of “Really? That’s what it is?”

Plaintiffs in the Warren vs. Chico homeless lawsuit filed a brief Wednesday with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California listing several disputes with the city of Chico over operation of the Pallet shelter site — disputes that, in a way, leave us wondering how serious these lawyers actually are about getting their clients off the streets and into a shelter. (That was, after all, the reason behind all of this in the first place.)

We’ll begin with what seems to be one of the biggest sticking points — the shelter’s low-barrier status.

The city wants its police department to check for outstanding warrants for unhoused individuals expressing interest in the housing site and the ability to deny admission for outstanding warrants for specific crimes.

According to the court filing, the plaintiffs argued warrant checks are in violation of a “low-barrier” requirement; are not necessary to maintain safety; and violate California fair housing law.

Really?

We’ve done a lot of reporting from these homeless encampments the past couple of years, and if there’s one message we’ve heard repeatedly from many of the unhoused people themselves, it’s this: They do not feel safe because there are so many criminals in their midst. There are no locked doors, which is a big reason many of the unhoused individuals have told us they would rather stay in a shelter site.

And now the plaintiffs’ attorneys are arguing that police shouldn’t be allowed to check the warrant status of people who will be living on a city-owned site? Where’s their concern for the well-being of unhoused, law-abiding clients with this one?

We’ll review their other complaints in a moment, but for now, let’s pause and remember one thing: The plaintiffs got almost everything they wanted out of this settlement. Even many of our area’s most ardent homeless advocates have told us they were surprised by this. In one turn of events, they got the housing site at the exact site they’ve wanted for years — complete with food, showers, numerous on-site services and even a dog run.

Yet the site still isn’t open, and this is one of the reasons — why?

Let’s look at the other issues. The city wants to limit each occupant to three storage bins of possessions; the plaintiffs’ attorneys say that’s not enough. The city wants a curfew barring entry and exit from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m.; the plaintiffs say no. The city wants to issue notices of violations and a possible termination of shelter services based on behavior that occurs offsite; the plaintiffs say no. The city wants to allow only one pet at a time in the pet run area; plaintiffs say that is unnecessarily restrictive.

And so there you have it. Millions of dollars of litigation, the sheltering future of hundreds of unhoused people who are still living in the rain and mud this week, and the ability of the city to enforce its ordinances comes down partially to the fact the attorneys aren’t happy about the number of dogs allowed in the pet run area at the same time.

Enough already. Open the doors, and trust the judge to review these filings and get the rest of this right. The citizens of Chico — housed and unhoused alike — have waited far too long as it is.