SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) — Racing to erect an emergency shelter for its burgeoning homeless population, a quintessential college town in Northern California turned to an unused airport tarmac.
Like California’s largest cities, the city of Chico is struggling mightily in solving its homelessness crisis and giving unhoused people a decent place to stay. Frustrated by the increasing number of people sleeping near the university and pitching tents in the city’s renowned park during the Covid-19 pandemic, elected leaders decided to crack down on camping within city limits.
To legally enforce its anti-camping ban and comply with a recent landmark federal court ruling, the city needed to be able to offer violators a place to go. Kicking-off the official start of summer in a city accustomed to 100-degree temperatures, Chico last month chalked off sleeping spots at its municipal airport, hauled in concrete benches and erected gazebos in hopes of attracting homeless people away from downtown.
Problem solved — or so the city thought.
On Friday, a federal judge ripped the city’s lacking runway shelter and barred it from citing people sleeping on park benches or in homeless encampments.
As it turns out, all it took for U.S. District Judge Morrison England to make up his mind was his dictionary.
“Under none of these definitions is the airport site a ‘shelter,’” England wrote in a ruling. “It is an asphalt tarmac with no roof and no walls, no water and no electricity. It is an open space with what amounts to a large umbrella for some shade. It affords no real cover or protection to anyone.”
In a seven-page ruling, England sided with the eight homeless plaintiffs and granted their motion for a preliminary injunction against the city ordinances. As the civil case continues, the city cannot confiscate homeless people’s property or issue them citations.
The case stems from two ordinances adopted by the Chico City Council in December 2020, which permitted law enforcement to issue citations and arrest people for remaining in public spaces after dark.
The plaintiffs and their attorneys at the Western Center on Law & Poverty responded months later with a federal lawsuit in the Eastern District of California.
In court, the plaintiffs claim the city “methodically, location by location” began harassing unhoused people and threatening criminal penalties. They argue the policies violate the Eight and Fourteenth amendments and note they were enacted during a global pandemic when social services have been trimmed.
Chico has been plagued with homelessness for years and in 2018 the city declared a shelter crisis. Meanwhile, a recent point-in-time count found 571 unsheltered people, with 31% of respondents claiming to have lost their home in the 2018 Camp Fire that destroyed the nearby town of Paradise.
Located approximately 100 miles north of Sacramento, the city has an estimated population of 95,000 and is home to California State University, Chico, Bidwell Park and Sierra Nevada Brewing Company.
Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, Judge England granted the plaintiffs a temporary injunction and directed the parties to reach a solution. During the negotiation period, the city constructed the “temporary resting site” featuring over 500 camping spaces, 33 motorhome slots, resting tents, potable water and bus service to the city core.
Local news reports from the site’s grand opening last month found just one person taking advantage of the public services offered six miles north of downtown.
The city apparently felt the site brought it into compliance with the Ninth Circuit’s Martin v. City of Boise ruling, which found anti-camping ordinances were only enforceable if a municipality could offer temporary or permanent shelter. However, it hasn’t yet been able to convince England, a George W. Bush appointee.
“Since Chico’s ordinances prohibit homeless persons from resting on all public property and there is not enough practically-available shelter within the city, plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success under Martin, such that the city cannot resort to arresting people or imposing criminal penalties like fines on homeless persons in violation,” England said.
The city’s lawyers at Alvarez-Glasman & Colvin did not immediately respond to emails regarding England’s order.
England goes on to write the plaintiffs have “shown a likelihood of irreparable harm in the form of the potential violation of their constitutional rights,” meaning for now, the tents will remain until the city ditches the airport site for a more compassionate setting.
Follow @@NickCahill_5
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
