Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Local ACLU Appeals for Legal Assistance to Challenge Camping Ban
ACLU of Northern California Considering Request for Legal Resources
October 9, 2015
To: Michael Risher
Staff Attorney
ACLU of Northern California
Re: Allocation of Affiliate Legal Resources
I am writing at the request of the Santa Cruz County Chapter to urge the ACLU of Northern California to consider allocating available legal resources to challenge the existing camping and sleeping bans in the City of Santa Cruz which continue to criminalize people experiencing homelessness in our community.
Initially, we note that the ACLU Foundation of Southern California in the case of Glover v. City of Laguna and more recently in American Civil Liberties Union of Florida v. City if Sarasota, Florida have commenced actions to challenge the camping bans in those municipalities on the basis of, inter alia, a violation of the Eighth Amendment proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. In our opinion, even in light of the dismissal of the Bell v. City of Boise action, the question of whether enforcement of camping bans in cities where the available emergency shelter space is insufficient to provide shelter to the number of homeless individuals in that city criminalizes homelessness on the basis of “status” in violation of the Eight Amendment continues to be ripe for adjudication. We are asking that the Northern California affiliate engage on this issue on behalf of the homeless in Santa Cruz because the situation in our community presents substantively relevant and procedurally actionable facts on which such an action could be successfully based.
The City of Santa Cruz has one of the highest per capita homeless populations in the country. Fully 1,500 of our approximately 60,000 residents are chronically homeless or continue to experience significant period of homelessness on a continuing basis. More distressing still is the wholly inadequate availability of emergency shelter space. Indeed, the already insufficient number of emergency beds (approximately 300) has this year alone been reduced by 150 beds due to a shift in federal and state funding priorities. Moreover, our city government has been wholly unresponsive to the need for emergency shelter even in the face of the recently released Santa Cruz County Grand Jury report which roundly criticized both the city and county for the paucity of shelter space and the lack of commitment to provide funding for emergency shelters of any kind.
Advocates for people experiencing homeless have been conducting weekly Community Sleepout protests at Santa Cruz City Hall to demand that the City Council revise or completely repeal their decades-old camping ban in light of the Statement of interest filed by the United States Department of Justice in the Boise case. The council remains unwilling to consider any revision of the ordinance and the continuing actions, though gaining increasing support, seem unlikely to move council to action. The Santa Cruz County Chapter of the ACLU has issued a Statement of Support for these actions and believes that a federal court action challenging the camping ban would have a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits and create the legal foundation for the issuance of a Preliminary Injunction restraining the operation of the ordinance pending disposition of the main case.
Know that it is not only the Santa Cruz County Chapter that makes this appeal. Local activists, some of whom sit on our local board, and the homeless community itself, 84% of whom were Santa Cruz residents at the time they became homeless, are looking to us and to you for support in this time of trial. We have an unparalleled opportunity to forever change the landscape of homelessness in our community. I am sure you will agree with us that the daily and continuing criminalization of people experiencing homelessness on the basis of status clearly constitutes justice denied. We ask your help so that the justice they so richly deserve will not much longer be delayed.
Steve Pleich
Vice Chair, Board of Directors
ACLU of Northern California
Santa Cruz County Chapter
To: Michael Risher
Staff Attorney
ACLU of Northern California
Re: Allocation of Affiliate Legal Resources
I am writing at the request of the Santa Cruz County Chapter to urge the ACLU of Northern California to consider allocating available legal resources to challenge the existing camping and sleeping bans in the City of Santa Cruz which continue to criminalize people experiencing homelessness in our community.
Initially, we note that the ACLU Foundation of Southern California in the case of Glover v. City of Laguna and more recently in American Civil Liberties Union of Florida v. City if Sarasota, Florida have commenced actions to challenge the camping bans in those municipalities on the basis of, inter alia, a violation of the Eighth Amendment proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. In our opinion, even in light of the dismissal of the Bell v. City of Boise action, the question of whether enforcement of camping bans in cities where the available emergency shelter space is insufficient to provide shelter to the number of homeless individuals in that city criminalizes homelessness on the basis of “status” in violation of the Eight Amendment continues to be ripe for adjudication. We are asking that the Northern California affiliate engage on this issue on behalf of the homeless in Santa Cruz because the situation in our community presents substantively relevant and procedurally actionable facts on which such an action could be successfully based.
The City of Santa Cruz has one of the highest per capita homeless populations in the country. Fully 1,500 of our approximately 60,000 residents are chronically homeless or continue to experience significant period of homelessness on a continuing basis. More distressing still is the wholly inadequate availability of emergency shelter space. Indeed, the already insufficient number of emergency beds (approximately 300) has this year alone been reduced by 150 beds due to a shift in federal and state funding priorities. Moreover, our city government has been wholly unresponsive to the need for emergency shelter even in the face of the recently released Santa Cruz County Grand Jury report which roundly criticized both the city and county for the paucity of shelter space and the lack of commitment to provide funding for emergency shelters of any kind.
Advocates for people experiencing homeless have been conducting weekly Community Sleepout protests at Santa Cruz City Hall to demand that the City Council revise or completely repeal their decades-old camping ban in light of the Statement of interest filed by the United States Department of Justice in the Boise case. The council remains unwilling to consider any revision of the ordinance and the continuing actions, though gaining increasing support, seem unlikely to move council to action. The Santa Cruz County Chapter of the ACLU has issued a Statement of Support for these actions and believes that a federal court action challenging the camping ban would have a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits and create the legal foundation for the issuance of a Preliminary Injunction restraining the operation of the ordinance pending disposition of the main case.
Know that it is not only the Santa Cruz County Chapter that makes this appeal. Local activists, some of whom sit on our local board, and the homeless community itself, 84% of whom were Santa Cruz residents at the time they became homeless, are looking to us and to you for support in this time of trial. We have an unparalleled opportunity to forever change the landscape of homelessness in our community. I am sure you will agree with us that the daily and continuing criminalization of people experiencing homelessness on the basis of status clearly constitutes justice denied. We ask your help so that the justice they so richly deserve will not much longer be delayed.
Steve Pleich
Vice Chair, Board of Directors
ACLU of Northern California
Santa Cruz County Chapter
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
"Boise Homeless Case Dismissed, What Happens Next?"
"...the decision in Bell v. Boise was not rendered on the merits"
(but on a technicality because the judge removed two no longer homeless plaintiff's 'standing'. See below)
...Sara Rankin directs the Homeless Rights Advocacy Project at Seattle University’s School of Law. She says the case may have been dismissed, but the issue of homeless people in downtown Boise has not been resolved.
A tent city has popped up downtown, where homeless people are camping along a public alley. A city spokesman says that situation is “unsustainable,” and the city is working on the “next steps.”
Rankin says Boise needs to be extremely careful with its next moves. She says if Boise tries to clear out the tent city, it could run into constitutional and logistical problems.
“Where is the city going to move them? How is the city going to move them? What are they going to do with all of these individuals is a huge question. It’s not going to be an easy issue for the city to handle from a legal standpoint,” Rankin says.
She’s been watching the Bell v. City of Boise case closely. She said other cities should be careful about using the outcome of this case when making their own laws about homelessness.
“Cities would be very ill-advised to interpret the Bell v. Boise case as carte blanche to enact broad anti-camping ordinances. The reason for that is the decision in Bell v. Boise was not rendered on the merits.”
http://boisestatepublicradio.org/post/boise-homeless-case-dismissed-what-happens-next
"Advocacy Group Responds To Dismissal Of Boise Homeless Case
...Attorney Eric Tars says he’s disappointed and surprised by the dismissal. Tars is with the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, one of the groups that brought the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs. He says one of the reasons the judge dismissed the case is because all but two of the plaintiffs are no longer homeless, so they don’t have a fear of being arrested for camping in public.
But Tars says Boise’s anti-camping laws still have the potential to criminalize homeless people when shelters are full, and that would be a violation of the Eighth Amendment.
“For the city to be criminally punishing people for the basic life-sustaining act of sleep is criminalizing their status as a homeless person, which violates our protection against having cruel and unusual punishment.”
Tars says his organization is not alone in its concern, citing the Department of Justice statement this summer over potential Eighth Amendment violations. He says his organization may appeal the judge’s dismissal in the next 30 days."
http://boisestatepublicradio.org/post/advocacy-group-responds-dismissal-boise-homeless-case
"...the decision in Bell v. Boise was not rendered on the merits"
(but on a technicality because the judge removed two no longer homeless plaintiff's 'standing'. See below)
...Sara Rankin directs the Homeless Rights Advocacy Project at Seattle University’s School of Law. She says the case may have been dismissed, but the issue of homeless people in downtown Boise has not been resolved.
A tent city has popped up downtown, where homeless people are camping along a public alley. A city spokesman says that situation is “unsustainable,” and the city is working on the “next steps.”
Rankin says Boise needs to be extremely careful with its next moves. She says if Boise tries to clear out the tent city, it could run into constitutional and logistical problems.
“Where is the city going to move them? How is the city going to move them? What are they going to do with all of these individuals is a huge question. It’s not going to be an easy issue for the city to handle from a legal standpoint,” Rankin says.
She’s been watching the Bell v. City of Boise case closely. She said other cities should be careful about using the outcome of this case when making their own laws about homelessness.
“Cities would be very ill-advised to interpret the Bell v. Boise case as carte blanche to enact broad anti-camping ordinances. The reason for that is the decision in Bell v. Boise was not rendered on the merits.”
http://boisestatepublicradio.org/post/boise-homeless-case-dismissed-what-happens-next
"Advocacy Group Responds To Dismissal Of Boise Homeless Case
...Attorney Eric Tars says he’s disappointed and surprised by the dismissal. Tars is with the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, one of the groups that brought the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs. He says one of the reasons the judge dismissed the case is because all but two of the plaintiffs are no longer homeless, so they don’t have a fear of being arrested for camping in public.
But Tars says Boise’s anti-camping laws still have the potential to criminalize homeless people when shelters are full, and that would be a violation of the Eighth Amendment.
“For the city to be criminally punishing people for the basic life-sustaining act of sleep is criminalizing their status as a homeless person, which violates our protection against having cruel and unusual punishment.”
Tars says his organization is not alone in its concern, citing the Department of Justice statement this summer over potential Eighth Amendment violations. He says his organization may appeal the judge’s dismissal in the next 30 days."
http://boisestatepublicradio.org/post/advocacy-group-responds-dismissal-boise-homeless-case
Eighty four percent were "Santa Cruz Residents" when they became homeless? Baloney. What source did you cherry pick THAT number from? How many of them were ever employed in Santa Cruz, and had established a residence of their own for any significant amount of time? And how many of them would openly admit they came here with no means to support themselves, because they'd already failed somewhere else?
No Steve, you're NOT a "Resident who became homeless here", if you scammed a ride, and couchsurfed for a few days until getting booted out, or managed to panhandle enough for a Motel for a day or two.
No Steve, you're NOT a "Resident who became homeless here", if you scammed a ride, and couchsurfed for a few days until getting booted out, or managed to panhandle enough for a Motel for a day or two.
The 2015 Santa Cruz County Point-In-Time Homeless Census & Survey is the source of the 84% figure.
"84% were housed in Santa Cruz when they became homeless"
See:
2015 Census Results Show Major Decline in Homelessness in Santa Cruz County
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/06/24/18773908.php
From year to year, the figure is always high.
Take Back Santa Cruz types hate the truth about local homelessness for one simple reason: most of the homeless in Santa Cruz are locals, and most TBSC members are NOT locals, they are transplants.
"84% were housed in Santa Cruz when they became homeless"
See:
2015 Census Results Show Major Decline in Homelessness in Santa Cruz County
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/06/24/18773908.php
From year to year, the figure is always high.
Take Back Santa Cruz types hate the truth about local homelessness for one simple reason: most of the homeless in Santa Cruz are locals, and most TBSC members are NOT locals, they are transplants.
And maybe something to follow up on. Then you have another study. The Longer term UCSC study claims that 65% came to the county homeless. I don't believe either number.
http://blog.civinomics.com/2015/04/07/the-reality-of-homelessness-in-santa-cruz/
http://blog.civinomics.com/2015/04/07/the-reality-of-homelessness-in-santa-cruz/
"Civinomics..." When the science of ECONOMICS just doesn't give you the answer you want, you make shit up and give it a cutesy name.
I wouldn't believe those numbers either. All you have to do is attend one of their 'seminars' and you can see EXACTLY the kind of people making those numbers up. Businesspeople.
I wouldn't believe those numbers either. All you have to do is attend one of their 'seminars' and you can see EXACTLY the kind of people making those numbers up. Businesspeople.
The data came from the 2015 PIT count. 60% of the people in Santa Cruz without stable housing have lived here more than 10 years, 84% at least a year.
http://static1.squarespace.com/static/5176dcd7e4b0e5c0dba41ee0/t/5594617ae4b02d4647cbd7e6/1435787642677/ExecutiveSummary_SantaCruzCounty_FINAL.pdf
http://static1.squarespace.com/static/5176dcd7e4b0e5c0dba41ee0/t/5594617ae4b02d4647cbd7e6/1435787642677/ExecutiveSummary_SantaCruzCounty_FINAL.pdf
For more information:
http://static1.squarespace.com/static/5176...
Civinomics is a business, not a non-profit, which serves the agenda of its angel investors. Civinomics won't disclose what that agenda is. Consequently I don't trust their work. I believe they operate parallel to Take Back Santa Cruz — akin to a rightwing think tank — whose members cite their work.
Because the much more truthful study is the the one that is done one day every two years for the group that takes that data, hat in hand, as they try to get federal funding.
Anton and the other Take Back Santa Cruz troll on this thread would rather deceive people than be truthful.
Nothing Civinomics does is statistically valid. Their study on homelessness is anecdotal at best, however even their figure shows how high the number of homeless people that are local to Santa Cruz is.
Civinomics CMO Robert Singleton's dayjob is policy analyst for the Santa Cruz County Business Council, by the way, and Civinomics is a very conservative organization with a pro business/development bias.
From the Civinomics study on homelessness:
"Keep in mind that unlike the biannual homelessness census, this data was collected over the course of 7 months, not one day. It is not meant to meet the data requirements of a federal agency"
http://blog.civinomics.com/2015/04/07/the-reality-of-homelessness-in-santa-cruz/
From the homelessness census:
"Based on the Point-in-Time count of homeless persons with all attempts at a randomized survey sampling process, the 344 valid surveys represent a confidence interval of +/- 5% with a 95% confidence level when generalizing the results of the survey to the estimated population of homeless individuals in Santa Cruz County"
https://www.indybay.org/uploads/2015/06/24/santacruzcounty_homelessreport_2015.pdf
Nothing Civinomics does is statistically valid. Their study on homelessness is anecdotal at best, however even their figure shows how high the number of homeless people that are local to Santa Cruz is.
Civinomics CMO Robert Singleton's dayjob is policy analyst for the Santa Cruz County Business Council, by the way, and Civinomics is a very conservative organization with a pro business/development bias.
From the Civinomics study on homelessness:
"Keep in mind that unlike the biannual homelessness census, this data was collected over the course of 7 months, not one day. It is not meant to meet the data requirements of a federal agency"
http://blog.civinomics.com/2015/04/07/the-reality-of-homelessness-in-santa-cruz/
From the homelessness census:
"Based on the Point-in-Time count of homeless persons with all attempts at a randomized survey sampling process, the 344 valid surveys represent a confidence interval of +/- 5% with a 95% confidence level when generalizing the results of the survey to the estimated population of homeless individuals in Santa Cruz County"
https://www.indybay.org/uploads/2015/06/24/santacruzcounty_homelessreport_2015.pdf
https://www.linkedin.com/in/singletonrobert
Government Affairs Director at Santa Cruz County Association of REALTORS®
in addition to
Policy Analyst
Santa Cruz County Business Council
that should tell you what you need to know about civinomics.
though, truth is he's not the worst of the worst.
Government Affairs Director at Santa Cruz County Association of REALTORS®
in addition to
Policy Analyst
Santa Cruz County Business Council
that should tell you what you need to know about civinomics.
though, truth is he's not the worst of the worst.
or maybe the strategy should be to encourage the other group that's aware of the SC situation.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$75.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network