Correspondence - CS #2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

offered. There will be many who will choose to stay on the streets when the option is to be locked inside a warehouse while that same person may, over time and with the right relationships, accept housing and services in a motel type environment where they are more likely to rest, recover, and become more self-sufficient all while improving their physical and mental health. The City likely is in a position that it is legally not allowed to enforce its anti -camping ordinances. Now, you may argue that if someone wants a bed, that you will find a bed for them, but that is not what the settlement agreement indicates. Instead, the city agreed to provide 450 beds in addition to locating and offering an "available and appropriate placement in the City" prior to enforcement of anti -camping ordinances. In the recent Amended Civil Minutes from May 81h, Judge Carter reminds all of us that "Therefore, the City may not enforce until they have complied with the terms of the Settlement and have 450 bed spaces available." (emphasis added) There has been interpretation as to what the City's responsibility is in providing emergency shelter beds per the settlement but it certain appears that the Judge had made it clear that there must be 450 beds available prior to enforcing even if you can have a single bed found for a single person. This effectively means that currently, our city is likely unable to enforce its anti -camping ordinances which some may say is a good thing while others want the city to have that tool in their enforcement tool kit. See attached for relevant case documents #388 and #390. I believe that the council has an obligation to inform the residents that due to the current lack of availability of shelter beds that it is unable to enforce its anti -camping ordinances. There are many residents who may see an unhoused individual who is residing on public property who call the police and are expecting our anti -camping ordinances to be enforced. The city should set the expectation for these individuals so they know that our police and other service providers are doing the best they can but are unable to arrest or site due to the lack of housing available in the city as referenced by Judge Carter. By the way, it is easy for someone to read Judge Carters Amended Civil Minutes as a City victory because he did not stop the order of abatement but he makes it very clear that the abatement enforcement is not related to the OCCW Settlement as long as the City was not enforcing its anti -camping ordinances (unless it found 450 bed spaces). The two, as you know and Mr. Funk argued in his response, are unrelated to each other. In fact, Mr. Funk indicates that "exercising the abatement warrant will not involve ticketing, citing, or arresting anyone for any anti -camping or similar violations". This seems to be important for the residents to understand and know ... our city appears to be unable to enforce its anti - camping ordinances until such a time that it is in compliance with the settlement agreement including having 450 beds available. Again, although this is a closed session item, there is nothing prohibiting the council or the City Manager to providing an update as to the current status of this case as well as the city's ability to provide beds to the unhoused and an update on this case in general. Specifically, please inform the public on the number of beds currently available both inside the city as well as outside (i.e. the Fullerton replacement location for The Link) along with an update on the timing of opening of Carnegie. Further, I urge you to not focus on those that turn down the offered bed but instead find out what their need is and try your best to meet that need. There are many who will continue to decline a bed in what they may view an incarceration facility because of the lack of ability to exit/enter or live in close quarters in a noisy and sometimes dangerous environment while they will be willing to accept more suitable housing. In the private sector, if I have a product that I know would help people, but no one is buying, then I need to adjust the product, the marketing methodology, and/or the delivery of that product so that there is a demand for it. If I sit on a product that will help, neither myself or my potential customer will benefit. The same is true with helping those on the streets... we know that they need help but they are not accepting the product being offered to them so it is time to respond to that information and provide them a product that will both help them and be accepted. We need to adjust for the betterment of all parties. City of SA vs OC, Cross -Complaint (8:18-cv-00155-DOC)