HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-0501 Documents Submitted at Meeting Barbara Christensen
From: John Stromberg [john @council.ashland.or.us]
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 5:03 PM
To: Barbara Christensen
Cc: David Lohman; Dave Kanner; Diana Shiplet; Russ Silbiger; David Chapman; Michael Morris;
Carol Voisin; Greg Lemhouse; Dennis Slattery
Subject: Re Veto of 2 Ordinances approved on April 17th and Associated Message of Disapproval
Importance: High
To City Recorder, Barbara Christensen -
VETO
I hereby veto the following two ordinances that were approved at last Tuesday's (April 17,
2012) Council meeting:
"An Ordinance Amending the Definitions Chapter (18.08) and General Regulations Chapter
(18.68) of the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance."
"An Ordinance Establishing Provisions for the Keeping of Chickens within Residential
Districts, and Repealing Fence Provisions within the Health and Sanitation Chapter (9.08) of
the Ashland Municipal Code."
VETO MESSAGE
I vetoed both these ordinances because I do not believe a 75 foot separation requirement is
consistent with the intention of the Council in advancing the two ordinances to Second
Reading. I believe the Council's intention was and is to allow more people to legally raise
a moderate number of chickens without causing their neighbors health or safety problems or
public nuisances.
FURTHER EXPLANATION TO COUNCILORS
I voted in favor of Councilor Lemhouse's amendment reinstituting the 75 foot requirement
because I concluded the proposed 20 foot requirement was insufficient. I believe upon
reexamination we can institute a more workable buffer without unreasonably discouraging the
raising of a moderate number of chickens in residential areas.
If you sustain my vetoes, it will be necessary to bring both ordinances through the public
process (First Reading, Second Reading) again. It is my intention to give you the
opportunity to create a better way of regulating the placing of chicken coops in their
settings and also to address other issues for which there may not have been sufficient
discussion time at the meeting.
If you choose to do this, I ask that you give direction to staff as to the changes you wish
to consider when revised versions of the ordinances are brought back for your consideration.
John Stromberg
Mayor
541 552 2104 (direct)
541 488 6002 (secretary)
1
To: Ashland City Council
• Public Forum, May 1, 2012
From: Sandra Coyner, 1160 Fern St. sandra.covnernagmail.com
I am responding to the survey of downtown merchants presented by the
Chamber of Commerce at this Council's last two meetings.
Here's a report on a property in a different neighborhood:
--Christmas lights vandalized, bulbs removed and smashed in the street
--heavy wooden outdoor furniture stolen
--car broken into, belongings scattered
--dog excrement, rather a lot of it
--people urinating in bushes
--loud profanity
--noise that is truly excessive
--smoking harming air quality
The last five things might seem small, but they are all listed in the Chamber's
survey report as "bad behavior." * I didn't just make them up.
This den of"bad behavior," is not downtown. It is my yard, in a very nice
residential neighborhood.
I easily listed eight "bad behaviors," so the Chamber's responses are not
clearly exceptional. My list is longer than the average of problems cited by
businesses in the survey, so maybe the crime rate in my yard is higher than
downtown. How can that be?
I think some people worked hard on the Chamber survey, probably have good
intentions, and have shown that some merchants are very unhappy. But their
report is nowhere near what we need to understand what problems we have,
let alone which of multiple possible solutions we should try. More than
analysis, it reflects fear: about 20% of comments mention no behavior at all,
but just feeling insecure or afraid.
Let me be clear, because I don't want anybody to misquote me. My point is
not that nothing bad ever happens downtown. Only a fool would make such
a claim. I am perhaps a bit testy in because the Chamber alleges that Plaza
iWatch made such a claim, which is a patently false slander on a good study
with nuanced conclusions. The people behind Plaza Watch are not so stupid
or so malign.
My point is that unpleasant stuff happens a lot of places, and we should use
our brains to figure out where, why, and what we can do about it. Cut the
ranting. Surveying opinions, feelings and perceptions has limited value and
might even cause harm by inflaming people on both sides. Going around
town asking people to list all the awful things they experienced in Ashland
paints the wrong picture of our town. If we all did it, as I just did, we'd really
scare away the tourists. We are a smart town. We can do a lot better.
Many of us from the compassionate side of Ashland support improving the
quality of life downtown. But let's not blunder about. In particular, do not
imagine that an exclusionary ordinance is an effective one-size-fits-all
solution to an over-generalized problem.
• I have a long, growing list of specifics we might infer from the Chamber
survey, the Coalition's Plaza Watch, and its homeless count. You don't give
time here to mention them. In fact, you have no venue for such input. You
have commissions on water, on sewage, and on homelessness—but of course
you say constantly that this "behavior" problem is not targeting
homelessness. You have no organized way to learn from citizens of our town
who know and care about crime, behavior, and surveys, including why even I
would support a certain kind of exclusionary procedure. City Leaders really
should commit to the hard work of using your brains and our brains on this
issue. To do less trivializes an issue that is clearly important to many people
in our wonderful town.
* These things did not all occur within the last three months. Only the break-in of my car, on the
one day I didn't lock it; occurred very recently. But the Chamber's survey is not recent either.
The time frame is never stated, but you know it wasn't recent when one of the complaints was
how awful it is to have to see the headless statue of Abraham Lincoln.
•
S A 41. -pwl�ll� Fon, rn
Decriminalizing Poverty :
Reform of Ashland ' s
Camping Ordinance
A Report of the Southern Oregon Chapter
of the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon
By Paul Moss, David Berger and Ralph Temple
October 13, 2008
r
' ►
Erg"
AMERICAN rIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
ofOREGON
Decriminalizing Poverty :
Reform of Ashland 's
Camping Ordinance ,
A Report of the Southern Oregon Chapter
of the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon
By Paul Moss, David Berger and Ralph Temple
October 13, 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS J
Introduction .......................................:............................. 1
I. A Brief History of the Use of the
Law to Persecute the Poor ................................................. 2
II. Homelessness in America .................................................. 3
III. Punishing.Homelessness is Cruel, Uncivilized, and
Violates the U.S. Constitution and International Law ................ 6
A. Principles of Constitutional,
International and State Law
B. Defects in Ashland's
'Prohibited Camping' Ordinance
IV. Recommendations ..........................................................11
V. Appendices ...................................................................13
A. Full Text of Ashland's
'Prohibited Camping' Ordinance
B. Text of Jones v. City of Los Angeles
Settlement Agreement
C. Text of Oregon's Statewide
Camping Law
DECRIMINALIZING POVERTY:
REFORM OF ASHLAND'S CAMPING ORDINANCE
A Report of the Southern Oregon Chapter of
the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon
October 13, 2008
By Paul Moss, David Bergen and Ralph Temple3
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep
under bridges [and]to beg in the streets ..."
—Anatole France, Le Lys rouge ch.vii (1894) (S.H.transl.)
"Think it over, one side of the city of Dallas people pay$69 for a margarita and
on the other side of town the homeless scrounge for scraps in garbage cans.
What would be the civilized response to such a disparity?"
—Bill Moyers'commencement speech, SMU 2007
Fact: Homeless adults have an age-adjusted mortality rate nearly four times that
of the general population(See studies at
htto://www.medscaoe.com/viewarticle/411781).
I. INTRODUCTION
Poverty has been a chronic problem in the United States, as in most
nations, from its birth. With today's burgeoning current economic crisis, it is likely
that the ranks of the poor will grow rapidly, and, with them, the number of
homeless persons on the streets of America's cities and towns.
The Southern Oregon Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union of
Oregon calls upon the City of Ashland to convert its Prohibited Camping
t Pau[ Moss is a semi retired businessman, a certified co-leader with the Mankind
Project --an international men's growth organization, a former Court Appointed
Special Advocate, and a trained mediator and volunteer at Folsom prison
working with maximum security inmates.
2 David Berger is a practicing trial attorney, and a member of the Board of
Directors of the Southern Oregon Chapter of the Oregon ACLU.
3 Ralph Temple is an ACLU of Oregon volunteer attorney, is a member of the
board of the ACLU of Oregon, and is the Vice-Chairperson of the board of its
Southern Oregon Chapter.
1
ordinance4 from a law which punishes poverty and homelessness into one which
prods the City to provide housing for the homeless. We submit this report to
place the problem of homelessness in its historical and sociological context; to
identify ways in which this anti-camping law is inconsistent with the values of the
Ashland community, inhumane and unlawful; and to recommend changes in that
law.
I. A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE USE OF THE LAW
TO PERSECUTE THE POOR
In Western societies, homeless people historically have been punished for
their economic disadvantage, and have consistently been subjected to
unfavorable treatment, such as restrictions on physical mobility or liberties,
particularly with the advent of"workhouses," and brutal punishments have been
meted out to people not tied to a particular place. Laws were passed during the
14th century to keep laborers tied to their masters during times of labor shortage.
By the 16th century, however, they had been applied more generally against the
homeless. An English variant, for example, required that any arrested "idle
person" found guilty of vagrancy should be whipped in the marketplace until he
was bloody.5
This law marked a changed attitude towards people who were unattached
to a particular place or position. Beggars and vagrants who were once respected
4 See Appendix A.
5 Submission to the Standing Committee on Justice and Social Policy (Province
of Ontario) with Respect to Bill 8 [Safe Streets Act(November 29. 1999), at
www.equalityrights.org/cera/docs/Bill8Submission.htmll
2
as the children of God in more religious times, quickly came to be seen as a
threat to a society becoming increasingly loyal to the secular values of
productivity and material wealth. Examples of the criminalization of
homelessness also start to appear by the 18th century in North America, one of
the forerunners being New York's anti-transient poor law.6
II. HOMELESSNESS IN AMERICA
The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, in a recent
study, estimated that there are approximately 3.5 million people in the United
States, 1.35 million of them children, who are likely to experience homelessness
in the course of any given year.7 But conflicts over how to define
"homelessness" complicate the estimates. Federal law has for many years
regarded people as homeless only if they are living on the streets or in shelters.
Congress is now considering legislation to broaden the definition to
include those doubled up with friends and relatives or living short time in motels.
With insufficient funds to house those living on the streets, advocates of the
homeless are divided over whether to broaden the definition to include those who
at least have a roof over their heads.8 According to federal housing officials,
6 1d.
7 National Coalition for the Homeless, How Many People Experience
Homelessness, NCH Fact Sheet#2 (June 2008), citing National Law Center on
Homelessness and Poverty (2007), at
www.nationalhomeless.or-q/publications/facts/How-Manv.pd .
8 Rachel L. Swarns, The New York Times, September 16, 2008, p. A-15.
3
about 700,000 live on the streets or in shelters, but federal dollars pay for only
170,000 beds.9
The numbers of the homeless increased in the late 1970s, due to de-
institutionalization of the mentally ill, and broken promises to provide outpatient
psychiatric and social services. Another dramatic increase occurred during the
Reagan Administration when the federal government cut back on building and
subsidizing housing for low-income people, and reduced social assistance
programs. Further, urban renewal and gentrification forced many people out of
low rent housing onto the streets.10
Consistent with the arc of Western history, cities across the United States
have for generations subjected the poor to the criminal law, thus leaving them to
the mercies of the police. This includes targeting homeless persons by making it
illegal to perform life-sustaining activities in public, such as sleeping or camping,
eating, sifting, and begging. The police in many communities oppress the -
homeless with constant harassment, enforcement of anti-panhandling laws, and
occasional sweeps of areas where homeless persons are living, often resulting in
the destruction of personal property, including important documents and
medications. One journalist recently described the impact as follows:
9 Id.
10 Martin Donohoe, MD, Homelessness in the United States: History,
Epidemiology, Health Issues, Women, and Public Policy, from Medscape
Ob/Gyn & Women's Health (July 2004), at
www.medsGape.com/viewarticle/481800.
4
"Some of Sacramento's homeless spend entire nights walking in order to
avoid illegal camping citations that turn into warrants, then arrests. But
most risk curling up in front of the mission, in the shadowy doorways of
downtown shops or along tree-lined banks of the American River. .... The
chronic homeless tend to be people with addictions, mental illnesses or
physical disabilities. Their social support systems are fragile or broken,
their finances long since shot. They have lived on the streets a year or
more, or cycled in and out of homelessness for years."'1
Fortunately, although such inhumane practices are too common in the
United States, they still appear to be the approach of only a minority of
communities. In a survey of 224 cities, the National Conference of Mayors
found:
• Only 21% prohibit begging citywide, and 43% in particular public
places;
• 16% prohibit "loitering" citywide, 39% prohibit loitering in particular
public areas, and 27% prohibit sifting/lying in certain public places;
• Only 16% had citywide prohibitions on camping, and 28% on camping
in particular public places.12
The criminalization of poverty in general and homelessness in particular is
cruel and counterproductive. It intensifies the problem by moving people away
from social services, and by imposing criminal records on the poor thus making it
even more difficult for them to obtain employment or housing. To use Bill
11 Jocelyn Wiener, "Ticket to Nowhere," The Sacramento Bee, June 24,
2005, at htt(L/parkwayblog.blogspot.com/2005/09/ ap rkway-camoina-
citations.html.
12 National Coalition for the Homeless, A Dream Denied: The Criminalization of
Homelessness in U.S. Cities (June 2008), at
www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/facts/criminalization.pdf.
5
Moyers' standard, quoted at the beginning of this report, this is an uncivil and
uncivilized response to an economic and social issue.
III. PUNISHING HOMELESSNESS IS CRUEL, UNCIVILIZED, AND VIOLATES
THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND THE SPIRIT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
A. Pr. inr_iples of Constitutional. International and State Law.
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly declared unconstitutional those
laws that punish poverty. As stated in the dissent of Justice Douglas in Hicks v.
District of Columbia, 383 U.S. 252, 255 (1966), "1 do not see how economic or
social status can be made a crime any more than being a drug addict can be."
"[T]he freedom to loiter for innocent purposes is part of the 'liberty' protected by
the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment," Chicago v. Morales,
527 U.S. 41, 53 (1999), and includes the "'right to remove from one place to
another according to inclination' as an 'attribute of personal liberty' protected by
the Constitution." Id. (quoting Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274 (1900)):
Moreover, "an individual's decision to remain in a public place of his choice is . . .
a part of his liberty". Id. at 54
Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, whose
jurisdiction includes Oregon, declared that a city that does not provide adequate
shelters for the destitute cannot constitutionally enforce against them a law
prohibiting sitting, lying or sleeping in public places. Jones v. City of Los
Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118 (9t' Cir. 2006), vacated as moot, 505 F.3d 106 (9°i Cir.
6
2007).13 The lawsuit challenging the Los Angeles ordinance was filed in 2003 on
behalf of six homeless persons by volunteer lawyers of the National Lawyers
Guild and the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. The U.S.
District Court dismissed the suit, but the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
and remanded the case to the District Court. In 2007, all of the parties agreed to
a settlement of the case, which included amending the ordinance and vacating
the 9th Circuit opinion as "moot." The 9th Circuit approved the agreement
and,pursuant to the agreement, vacated its opinion.
The Jones opinion concluded that the anti-sleeping ordinance, as applied
to homeless persons, violated the 8th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which
prohibits "cruel and unusual,punishments." Over time, constitutional law has
evolved to distinguish between voluntary conduct, which may be deemed
criminal, and involuntary conduct, which, like status, cannot be deemed criminal.
As the 9th Circuit stated in Jones, "the conduct at issue here is involuntary and
inseparable from status—they are one and the same, given that human beings
are biologically compelled to rest, whether by sitting, lying or sleeping." 444 F.3d
at 1136. And again, "Nor may the state criminalize conduct that is an
unavoidable consequence of being homeless -- namely sitting, lying, or sleeping
on the streets . . ." Id. at 1137.
The court was careful to point out that it was not confronted with a facial
challenge to the ordinance, nor with an ordinance that prohibited "sitting, lying, or
13 See Appendix B.
7
sleeping only at certain times or in certain places within the city," nor"the
constitutionality of punishment when there are beds available for the homeless in
shelters." As summarized by the court:
"All we hold is that, so long as there is a greater number of
homeless individuals in Los Angeles than the number of available beds,
the City may not enforce section 41.18(d) at all times and places
throughout the City against homeless individuals for involuntarily sifting,
lying, and sleeping in public. Appellants are entitled at a minimum to a
narrowly tailored injunction against the City's enforcement of section
42.18(d) at certain times and/or places." Id. at 1138.
Although the Jones opinion is no longer binding, and is not a legal
precedent, it does lay out in clear language the reason why municipal
prohibitions on sleeping on the streets or camping on public property are cruel
and perhaps unconstitutional. The opinion contains a thorough discussion of this
issue in judicial decisions across the country as well as by the United States
Supreme Court. Thus, the Jones opinion, though vacated as moot, warns
against the justice, soundness, and legal vulnerability of such laws.
The Jones Settlement Agreement implements these principles with three
key features:
• First, it provides that the Los Angeles ordinance shall not be enforced
between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. until a substantial number of additional
permanent supportive housing units are constructed within the city.
• Second, it provides that the ordinance may be enforced at any and all
times at certain locations, e.g. within 10 feet of a driveway or loading
dock.
• Third, it provides that no person shall be arrested for a violation of the
ordinance unless the person has first received a warning from a Los
Angeles peace officer and has been given a reasonable time to move.
8
Any ordinance restricting camping and sleeping in public places should be
guided by the principles of the Jones opinion, and by the implementation of those
principles in the "Jones v. City of Los Angeles Settlement Agreement."
International law also argues against punishing the poor. The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, of which the United States is a signatory, provides:
"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and
well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing
and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security
in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or
other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."14
Finally, the law of Oregon75 also sets limits on how far counties and cities
can go in regulating camping by the homeless. ORS 203.077 requires all
municipalities and counties to: (1) "Develop a policy that recognizes the social
nature of the problem of homeless individuals camping on public property;" and
(2) "Implement the policy as developed, to ensure the most humane treatment for
removal of homeless individuals from camping sites on public property." ORS
203.079 provides specific requirements that must be included in the policies. As
noted below, Ashland's current ordinances are not in compliance with all of those
requirements.
14 United Nations General Assembly Resolution 217A, Article 25 (December
1948), at www.un.org/Overview/rights.html.
15 See Appendix C.
9
B. Defects in Ashland's "Prohibited Camping" Ordinance
Ashland's Prohibited Camping ordinance, Municipal Code Section 10.46,
violates United Nations Resolution 217A by punishing homeless persons for
sleeping or camping in public places, rather than providing shelter for them. It
violates Oregon's state law, ORS 203.077 and 203.079, by not "recogniz[ing] the
social nature of the problem," by not requiring camp closing notices to be posted
in Spanish as well as English, by requiring confiscated property to be stored for
only 14 days instead of the State law required 30 days, and by not restricting the
issuance of citations within 200 feet of the required notice and within 2 hours
before or after the posting of a camp closing notice.
Most importantly, the Ashland ordinance fails to comply with the principles
taught by the 9th Circuit's Jones opinion and implemented by the Jones case
settlement. The key principle in the Jones opinion and in the settlement is that
anti-camping and sleeping laws not be enforced against homeless persons
unless the city provides adequate housing for such persons. According to the
Ashland Police Department, at least 100 citations have been issued since 2003
for violation of the Ashland Prohibited Camping ordinance. Yet currently, there is
no operating housing or shelter for the homeless in Ashland.
It has been suggested that declaring a violation of Ashland's Prohibited
Camping ordinance simply an "infraction" or a "violation" and not a misdemeanor
or a crime would relieve the ordinance from any requirement of compliance with
the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This analysis is invalid.
10
The 8th Amendment reads, in its entirety, "Excessive bail shall not be
required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments
inflicted." Even if the offense is characterized as only a "violation" or "infraction"
the offender would be subject to a fine of up to $500 for "each and every day
during any portion of which" a violation occurs. The proposed amended
ordinance goes on to provide that "such person shall be punished accordingly."
The imposition of such a fine on persons who had no means to afford shelter
would constitute both an "excessive fine" as well as "cruel and unusual
punishment", either of which would violate the 8th Amendment.
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS
The City Council should adopt revisions to the Prohibited Camping
ordinance, Municipal Code Section 10.46, and to the related "Sleeping
Prohibited" ordinance, Section 10.68.230, which include the following:
1. Section 10.46.020 ("Camping Prohibited") should be amended to
provide that, except as set forth in Section 10.46.030, the prohibitions in this
ordinance shall not apply between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., unless
and until at least 50 units of permanent supportive housing are created within the
City of Ashland, at least 50 percent of which are centrally located. These units
must be created for current or chronically homeless persons.
2. Section 10.46.030 ("Sleeping on Benches or Within Doorways
Prohibited") should be amended to eliminate present Subsections A and B, and
to provide that camping and sleeping shall be prohibited within 10 feet of any
operational and usable entrance, exit, driveway or loading dock, as measured by
the provisions of Section 3 of the Jones case Settlement Agreement.
3. Section 10.46.040 ('Removal of Campsite") should be amended to
provide that: (a) it shall not be enforced except under the terms of amended
Sections 10.46.020 and 10.46.030, above; (b) the notice to close a camp site
must be posted at least 48 hours, instead of only 24 hours in advance, and must
11
be in Spanish as well as English; (c) arrests may not be made and citations may
not be issued within 200 feet of a campsite nor within 2 hours before or after the
posting of a closing notice; and (d) confiscated property must be stored for at
least 60 days.
4. Section 10.46.050 ("Penalties") should be amended to lower the
offense in Subsection A to a "violation," to correct the erroneous reference in
Subsection B to Section 1.08.010, and to correct the next to last word in
Subsection B from 'rebuttal' to 'rebuttable."
5. Section 10.68.230 ("Sleeping Prohibited") should be repealed.
12
APPENDIX A: Full text of Ashland's "Prohibited Camping" Ordinance
10.46 Prohibited Camping
10.46.010 Definitions
Unless the context requires otherwise, the following definitions apply:
A. "To Camp" means to set up or to remain in or at a campsite.
B. "Campsite" means any place where bedding, sleeping bag, or other material
used for bedding purposes, or any stove or fire is placed, established, or,
maintained for the purpose of maintaining a temporary place to live, whether or
not such place incorporates the use of any tent, lean-to, shack, or any other
structure, or any vehicle or part thereof.
10.46.020 Camping Prohibited
No person shall camp in or upon any sidewalk, street, alley, lane, public right-of-
way, park, or any other publicly-owned property or under any bridge or viaduct,
unless otherwise specifically authorized by this code or by declaration of the
Mayor in emergency circumstances.
10.46.030 Sleeping on Benches or Within Doorways Prohibited
A. No person shall sleep on public benches between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and
8:00 a.m.
B. No person shall sleep in any pedestrian or vehicular entrance to public or
private property abutting a public sidewalk.
10.46.040 Removal of Campsite
Upon discovery of an unattended campsite, removal of the campsite by the city
may occur under the following circumstances:
A. Prior to removing the campsite, the city shall post a notice, 24-hours in
advance.
B. At the time that a 24-hour notice is posted, the city shall inform a local agency
that delivers social services to homeless individuals where the notice has been
posted.
C. The local agency may arrange for outreach workers to visit the campsite
where a notice has been posted to assess the need for social service assistance
in arranging shelter and other assistance.
13
D. All personal property shall be given to the police department whether 24-hour
notice is required or not. The property shall be stored for a minimum of 14 days
during which it will be reasonably available to any individual claiming ownership.
Any personal property that remains unclaimed for 14 days may be disposed of.
For purposes of this paragraph, "personal property" means any item that is
reasonably recognizable as belonging to a person and that has apparent utility.
Items that have no apparent utility or are in an insanitary condition may be
immediately discarded. Weapons, drug paraphernalia and items that appear to
be either stolen or evidence of a crime shall be given to the police department.
E. The 24-hour notice required under subsection D of this section shall not apply:
1. When there are grounds for law enforcement officials to believe that illegal
activities other than camping are occurring.
2. In the event of an exceptional emergency such as possible site contamination
by hazardous materials or when there is immediate danger to human life or
safety.
10.46.050 Penalties
A. Any person violating section 10.46.020 or 10.46.030 shall be guilty of an
infraction as set forth in Section 1.08.010. (ORD 2841, S1 1999)
B. The court shall consider in mitigation of any punishment imposed upon a
person convicted of prohibited camping whether or not the person immediately
removed the campsite upon being cited. For purpose of this section, removal of
the campsite shall include all litter, including but not limited to bottles, cans,
garbage, rubbish and items of no apparent utility, deposited by the person in and
around the campsite. All litter in and around the campsite shall be presumed to
be deposited by the person convicted of prohibited camping. Such presumption
shall be rebuttal, however.
10.46.060 Application outside city
This chapter applies to acts committed on property owned by the city that is
located outside the city.
14
APPENDIX B: Text of Jones v. City of Los Angeles Settlement Agreement
JONES V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES
Settlement Agreement
It is hereby agreed among Appellants and Appellees (collectively, "the
Settling Parties") in Jones v. City of Los Angeles, Case Number 04-55324 in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit:
1. The Los Angeles Police Department will issue a policy directive stating that
it will not enforce Los Angeles Municipal Code ("LAMC") section 41.18(d)
between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., except as set forth in Paragraphs
2 and 3 below. The Los Angeles Police Department will keep this policy in effect
and operate according to this policy until an additional 1250 units of permanent
supportive housing are constructed within the City of Los Angeles, at least 50 per
cent of which are located in Skid Row and/or greater downtown Los Angeles.
These units shall be constructed as housing for current or formerly chronically
homeless persons and shall not include housing units already existing as low
income housing units and/or occupied as low income housing within the past 6
months.
2. LAMC section 41.18(d) will be enforceable at all times at locations within
ten (10) feet of any operational and utilizable entrance, exit, driveway or loading
dock.
3. Measurement of Distance
a) Entrance/Exit to Building: 10 feet measured perpendicularly from the.outer
edges of the opening, along the exterior wall of the building, and from those
points the area encompassed by the measurement shall extend to the curb line.
b) Entrance/Exit to Parking Lot: 10 feet measured perpendicularly from the
outer edges of the driveway, and from those points the area encompassed by the
measurement shall extend to the curb line.
c) Loading Dock: 10 feet measured perpendicularly from the outer edges of
the opening, whether raised or not, and from those points the area encompassed
by the measurement shall extend to the curb line.
4. No person shall be cited or arrested for a violation of LAMC section
41.18(d) unless a peace officer for the City of Los Angeles has first given the
person a verbal warning regarding such section and reasonable time to move
and the person has not complied with that warning.
5. The Settling Parties agree that this Settlement Agreement is limited to
LAMC section 41.18(d) as presently codified and will not apply to any ordinance
enacted by Appellee City of Los Angeles in the future, nor will this Settlement
Agreement serve to limit Appellee City's right to repeal or amend said section.
15
6. Upon the Settling Parties' execution of this Settlement Agreement, the
Settling Parties shall file a joint motion in the Ninth Circuit pursuant to Federal
Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 42(b) seeking to:
vacate the Ninth Circuit opinion (Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118
(9th Cir. 2006)) as moot; and
remand to the District Court for further proceedings in accordance Paragraph 7 of
this Settlement Agreement.
If the Ninth Circuit does not grant the joint motion in its entirety, this Settlement
Agreement is rendered void in its entirety.
7. Upon remand from the Ninth Circuit pursuant to Paragraph 6 of this
Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs-Appellants will dismiss the action with prejudice
against all defendants.
.8. The Settling Parties reserve all rights regarding recovery of attorneys'
fees.
Carol A. Sobel, Esq.
For Plaintiffs-Appellants
Mark Rosenbaum, Esq.
For Plaintiffs-Appellants
Richard H. Llewellyn, Jr., Esq.
For Defendants-Appellees
16
APPENDIX C: Text of Oregon's Statewide Camping Law
ORS 203.077 - Camping by homeless on public property; local
governments required to develop policy for removal of camps.
All municipalities and counties shall:
(1) Develop a policy that recognizes the social nature of the problem of homeless
individuals camping on public property.
(2) Implement the policy as developed, to ensure the most humane treatment for
removal of homeless individuals from camping sites on public property.
[1995 c.121 §1]
ORS 203.079 - Required elements of local government policies on camping
by homeless
(1) A policy developed pursuant to ORS 203.077 shall include, but is not limited
to, the following:
(a) Prior to removing homeless individuals from an established camping site, law
enforcement officials shall post a notice, written in English and Spanish, 24 hours
in advance.
(b) At the time that a 24-hour notice is posted, law enforcement officials shall
inform the local agency that delivers social services to homeless individuals
where the notice has been posted.
(c) The local agency may arrange for outreach workers to visit the camping site
where a notice has been posted to assess the need for social service assistance
in arranging shelter and other assistance.
(d) All unclaimed personal property shall be given to law enforcement officials
whether 24-hour notice is required or not. The property shall be stored for a
minimum of 30 days during which it will be reasonably available to any individual
claiming ownership. Any personal property that remains unclaimed for 30 days
may be disposed of. For purposes of this paragraph, "personal property" means
any item that is reasonably recognizable as belonging to a person and that has
apparent utility. Items that have no apparent utility or are in an insanitary
condition may be immediately discarded upon removal of the homeless
individuals from the camping site. Weapons, drug paraphernalia and items that
appear to be either stolen or evidence of a crime shall be given to law
enforcement officials.
(e) Following the removal of homeless individuals from a camping site on public
property, the law enforcement officials, local agency officials and outreach
workers may meet to assess the notice and removal policy, to discuss whether
the removals are occurring in a humane and just manner and to determine if any
17
changes are needed in the policy.
(2) The 24-hour notice required under subsection (1) of this section shall not
apply:
(a) When there are grounds for law enforcement officials to believe that illegal
activities other than camping are occurring.
(b) In the event of an exceptional emergency such as possible site contamination
by hazardous materials or when there is immediate danger to human life or
safety.
(3) A person authorized to issue a citation for unlawful camping under state law,
administrative rule or city or county ordinance may not issue the citation if the
citation would be issued within 200 feet of the notice described in this section and
within two hours before or after the notice was posted.
[1995 c.121 §2; 1999 c.761 §1]
ORS 203.081 - Sites not subject to ORS 203.077 to 203.081
As used in ORS 203.077 to 203.081, "camping site" does not include:
(1) Public property that is a day use recreational area.
(2) Public property that is a designated campground and occupied by an .
individual under an agreement with a municipality or county.
[1995 c.121 §3]
ORS 203.082 - Camping by homeless on property of religious institutions;
required elements of policies of local governments and religious
institutions
(1) Any political subdivision in this state may allow churches, synagogues and
similar religious institutions to offer overnight camping space on institution
property to homeless persons living in vehicles.
(2) In addition to any conditions or limitations imposed by a political subdivision, a
religious institution located within the political subdivision and offering camping
space described under subsection (1) of this section must:
(a) Limit camping space at the institution site to three or fewer vehicles at the
same time; and
(b) Provide campers with access to sanitary facilities, including but not limited to
toilet, hand washing and trash disposal facilities.
[1999 c.319 §1]
18