City officials ready to adapt to Grants Pass v. Johnson decision – Red Bluff Daily News

Pallet shelter units are arranged in neat, clean rows on the grounds of a shelter in south Chico, Calif., Saturday morning, Jan. 21, 2022. (Photo by Ed Booth/Enterprise-Record)

The United States Supreme Court on Friday ruled in favor of jurisdictions enforcing anti-camping laws, regardless of whether adequate shelter is available in cities, in its decision in Grants Pass v. Johnson.

Butte County courts have long held that interpretations of court decisions, both in this case and in Martin v. Boise, limited the immediate power of law enforcement when removing people from public property, leaving their hands tied.

Cities like Oroville have adjusted their code enforcement operations to accommodate these past court rulings by tapping agencies like Butte County Behavioral Health to assist code enforcement officers in their outreach and commitment and giving at least 48 hours’ notice to people before eviction.

Chico has become even more attuned to previous court rulings: For the past two and a half years, it has been barred from freely exercising its camping laws because of its settlement with eight homeless people who sued the city in 2021 in Warren v. Chico, when the plaintiffs argued that Chico violated the homeless people’s constitutional rights.

After settling the lawsuit in January 2022, city officials built pallet shelters, meticulously counted the camps to ensure adequate space was available at the Torres Community Shelter or Genesis Housing Site, and provided two notices before proceeding with enforcement.

Now that previous court decisions have been overturned, municipalities would have more leeway and tools to combat public camping, as long as their actions are not deemed cruel and unusual.

The reaction to the lawsuit has brought relief from local jurisdictions, which are eager for greater enforcement autonomy; and fear and anxiety from service providers, who directly address cycles of homelessness and say increased evictions could make it harder for them to house people.

City officials

Officials in Oroville and Chico in Butte County; and Red Bluff in Tehama County; We look forward to seeing how this decision will affect their enforcement of laws on illegal camping in public spaces.

Chico City Administrator Mark Sorensen said in an email Friday that the city is reviewing aspects of the court’s opinion and its relevance to Chico’s restrictions with the settlement agreement in Warren v. Chico.

“The current federal court order (AKA: Warren Settlement Agreement) substantially restricts and delays the City of Chico’s ability to enforce a variety of historically normal, reasonable, and common laws to achieve public safety and public health goals, and to properly maintain public spaces. This federal court order will remain in effect until modified or vacated by a court,” Sorensen wrote.

Chico Mayor Andrew Coolidge said the council will meet in closed session at 5 p.m. July 9 in the city council chambers.

Red Bluff Police Chief Kyle Sanders wrote in an email Friday morning, before the court ruling, that a reversal would allow police to return to the pre-2019 era, “in which we could enforce city ordinances that prohibit camping in our parks at all times,” without regard to available bed space at the PATH Navigation Center.

Oroville Mayor David Pittman said in an interview Friday that city staff is studying the decision’s impacts on future applications.

“We want people to enjoy their public spaces. Because of the interpretations of previous decisions, that just hasn’t happened,” Pittman said.

Whether Oroville, or other jurisdictions, will be required to provide notices to people living on public property is still being determined, according to Oroville City Administrator Brian Ring.

He said no one had been arrested recently for trespassing; and people always move when asked.

“We tried to approach the Grants Pass case very cautiously because we didn’t want to find ourselves in a similar situation, frankly, to what Chico found himself in,” Ring said.

Pittman said the city is primarily trying to connect people with shelter. But for people who refuse to be housed, Pittman said the answer may lie in enforcement.

“(Shelters) always seem to have rooms. This tells me that it is this hidden population that does not follow the rules. … If they have rooms, maybe the fact that they are excluded from the parks will give them a better alternative to use the services available,” Pittman said.

He said that for people refusing housing, “the only success anyone has had is simply making this population uncomfortable to be here.”

Representative Doug LaMalfa also weighed in.

“In California, we’ve seen firsthand what happens when people are allowed to ‘camp’ in public spaces: open-air drug deals and threats to nearby residents,” the Richvale Republican said. “Local governments have the right to fight the takeover of public spaces and do what’s necessary to preserve public safety.”

Chico’s settlement

Northern California Legal Services, which settled the Warren v. Chico in January 2021 responded to the Supreme Court’s decision.

“While the lawsuit that prompted the settlement agreement was based in part on Martin v. Boise, the Supreme Court’s decision today in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson does not negate the Chico settlement agreement or interfere with the rights of homeless people, or anyone else, to be lawfully present in public spaces.

“LSNC is confident that the City of Chico intends to honor its commitments to all Chico residents to improve access to safe shelter and to respect the rights of homeless individuals to protect their persons and property when they are unable to access shelter.

The law firm also expressed disappointment that the Supreme Court did not clearly define the rights of unhoused people and feared that “the decision could result in some localities going too far with anti-homeless ordinances that seek to degrade the rights of unhoused Californians and further criminalize homelessness.”

Service providers

Service providers and city officials disagree over whether there is enough space in shelters, but the Supreme Court has ruled that should not be a factor in enforcing city ordinances.

Even though cities can now more freely enforce illegal camping laws, the answer to homelessness remains up in the air, according to Ed Mayer, director of the Butte County Housing Authority and a member of the Butte County Homeless Continuum of Care.

“The good news about this decision is that we, as a society, cannot rely on our justice system to bail us out during difficult decisions,” Mayer said. “We need to go back as a people and have these discussions.

“Do we really want homeless camps like the one we have on the corner of Eaton and Cohasset streets? Do we really want unmonitored homeless camps to exist in and around our community? …But that’s what we’ve arrived at collectively. We said, ‘OK, if we’re going to have a camp somewhere, this is what it should look like,'” Mayer said.

Mayer said the problem of keeping public spaces clean and open to the public can now be solved, but an underlying problem of shelter and housing remains.

Safe Space Chico, a nonprofit that works directly with homeless people, often with mental or physical disabilities, could see increased demand and obstacles in its outreach operations, according to director Hilary Crosby.

For homeless clients who can’t stay in a traditional shelter, whether because of post-traumatic stress or other reasons, there still isn’t an adequate shelter in Chico, Crosby said.

“The lanes that we’re in; the people that we’re serving and helping are really the hardest to serve. They’re seeing increased engagement with law enforcement and mobilization teams, and they’re not staying in shelters anymore,” Crosby said. “They may go to shelters, but they’re not staying in shelters for a variety of reasons, and that seems to be who we’re connecting with. Without a permanent site, there’s only so much we can do to make that happen.”

That, as well as efforts to conduct outreach by regularly visiting people’s camps, could be hampered, which could be the result of this decision, she said.

“Many service providers will likely hold their breath. Because I mean, every time they do a sweep, we’re just re-traumatizing that population,” Crosby said. “It is extremely difficult for service providers to stay in touch with people, but it is even more difficult for people who frequently lose their belongings or who feel constantly monitored and under pressure. »

Now what?

Homeless rights activist Patrick Newman, who has been distributing food at Chico’s City Plaza for 8 years, expressed disappointment with the decision in a statement Friday, suggesting a failure by society to address fundamental economic problems that result in a cycle of criminalization of the homeless.

“Many people in Chico will sleep better tonight knowing that the Supreme Court has made sleeping a criminal activity for the poorest people in our city. … The homeless are the canaries in the coal mine,” Newman said.