[Attachment(s)from Robert included below]
Santa Cruz for decades (since 1978) has enforced its “sleep in a vehicle at night, get hassled and fined” law in spite of repeatedly-declared Housing Emergencies by the City Council. A pittance of relief was made in 1995 by “allowing” churches to shelter three vehicles of sleepers, in 1999 by “allowing” businesses and non-profits to shelter two vehicles of sleepers and in 2010 by asserting that all Sleeping Ban citations (including vehicles) would be dismissed for those on the waiting lists of the HLOSC–the Homeless (Lack of) Services Center and/or the River St. Shelter. All of this was done in response to activist pressure where many people risked fines and jail to bring this to public view.
Yet the bucks-and-bigotry-backked riptide against poor people outside has swept forward. Over the same period, the use of “permit parking” restrictions banning vehicles at night without permits was used to drive away homeless vehicles (explicitly). “Loitering” in public parking lots was made a crime–in spite of constitutional findings back in the Larson case in the 80’s that barres such anti-homeless laws (a special gift of Supervisorial candidate Ryan Coonerty when he was Council member). The harsh and erroneous demonization of homeless people (in spite of rhetorical “concern”) along with sweeps and crackdowns by the Rotkin, Lane, Bryant, and now Robinson City Councils with no meaningful expansion of shelter space has further heightened the emergency.
Local activists and attorneys failed to effectively mount a legal challenge using arguments like those that overturned the L.A. law against sleeping and sitting in L.A. in the Jones decision and subsequent settlement. Local ACLU remaining deafeningly silent in spite of repeated pleas to supposed homeless sympathizers on their Board of Directors Steve Pleich.
Still, the waves in Los Angeles and Palo Alto coming on the heels of homeless hypothermia centers are a wake-up call to activists who have in the past used winter weather and Xmas sentiments to expose the toxic abuses. Charity drives aren’t enough. Should protests take place in places like the Metro Center (where reportedly ‘No Loitering” signs have recently been posted) to open up warming centers at night? We’ll see.
Thanks to Palo Alto activists Tony Ciampi and Chuck Jagoda for forwarding the attachment and article.
|
|
|
Jae C. Hong / Associated Press
A federal appeals court panel appeared skeptical about a Los Angeles city ordinance that bans people from living in their car. Above, a homeless resident pushes a cart along a downtown street.
December 5, 2013, 5:35 p.m.
“It’s very hard to figure out what you’re talking about,” Judge Marsha Berzon told the lawyer for the city.
The city’s ordinance dates back to 1983, but came under fire in 2010 when a special Los Angeles police task force, responding to neighborhood complaints, began aggressive enforcement in Venice.
A group of homeless car dwellers filed suit in 2011 challenging the law. U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner dismissed the suit, and the plaintiffs appealed.
Unlike other cities, which bar sleeping in vehicles or overnight parking, Los Angeles prohibits using cars as “living quarters” both overnight and “day-by-day, or otherwise.”
Deputy City Atty. Blithe Bock told the court that police determined a vehicle was lived in by the “totality of circumstances,” including whether it appeared to be operating.
Drivers were ticketed if police found things in their car such as bottles of urine, clothing and open food that suggested it was a “living quarters,” she said.
“You’re using your car as a living space, you’re using your car as a toilet, you’re using your car as a kitchen,” Bock said.
Sobel said there were no clear standards for what property or items you could keep, or for how long you could rest in your vehicle.
“So you can’t just sit in your car and nod off?” Judge Harry Pregerson asked Bock.
“He was wrapped in a blanket,” Bock responded, referring to one of the plaintiffs.
“What’s wrong with that?” Pregerson said.
Judges also questioned the rationale for the stepped-up enforcement. Bock said it came in response to a spike in crime by young transients and complaints of trash being dumped on neighbors’ property.
“People were coming home and finding refuse on their front lawn,” Bock said.
Sobel suggested that gentrification and tension between new and old residents were the real drivers of the heightened enforcement, and Pregerson seemed to agree.
“Tell me if I’m wrong,” Pregerson told Bock. “You had a task force of police officers who were told their job was to clean up the Venice area of all these homeless people because people in the neighborhood didn’t like it.”
Pregerson also suggested there are better ways to handle homeless people than rousting them from their cars.
“Long Beach treats people differently,” he said. “If they find a family, they take the kids and get them in a facility and make sure they’re enrolled in school…. The next thing they do is try to find housing for them…. Why can’t the city of Los Angeles do that?”
“The situation is heartbreaking,” Bock answered. “But it is a question for legislators.”
“That’s a cop-out,” Pregerson shot back.
After the hearing, Bock said police referred car dwellers to shelters and other services that could help them get off the streets.
“Homelessness is a horrible problem, we’re all aware of that,” she said. “But we have a whole city to take care of.”
A police spokeswoman said the department is continuing to enforce the vehicle habitation ban. Outside court, some of the homeless plaintiffs and their supporters accused the city of trying to drive them out of town.
“They’re intimidating people, driving up and making a lot of noise,” said plaintiff Steve Jacobs, who lives in his SUV in Venice. “There are fewer and fewer RVs there all the time.”
The court is likely to rule on the case in the next few months
