SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — A federal judge extended a temporary restraining order that will stop the Bay Area city of San Rafael from enforcing an ordinance restricting the size and location of homeless encampments in the city.
Senior U.S. District Judge Edward Chen said Wednesday he needs more specific information from the city about proposed sites for new encampments, such as estimates on how many homeless campers could be accommodated.
“The record does not indicate with any specificity where folks would go if Camp Integrity has to be closed or limited,” Chen said.
Camp Integrity is the nickname given to an encampment along Mahon Creek Path, which has grown to more than 30 tents. Residents of the camp filed a complaint against the city in August, and Chen granted the temporary restraining order on Aug. 16.
The temporary restraining order will now run through Oct. 2.
Mark Austin, counsel for the city of San Rafael, showed a preliminary map of new encampment locations, most of which appeared to be on the perimeter of the city limits. The new locations cover an estimated 100 to 150 acres in total.
Pickleweed Park and a site near City Hall were proposed as new sites, but no details were given about how many campers could be accommodated at either site under the ordinance’s density limits. The ordinance limits campers to a 10-foot by 10-foot space and does not allow campers to congregate within 200 feet of one another. Violators of the ordinance can face a $500 fine and six months in jail.
Most city parks would allow camping, according to Michael von Loewenfeldt, counsel for the city.
In ordering the continuation of the temporary restraining order, Judge Chen asked for a more detailed, street-level map and expressed concern for how the city plans to accommodate vulnerable campers, such as those with disabilities or medical issues. Chen said there might be legitimate reasons why people would need to live in clusters and the city would need to accommodate that.
“What does [the city] suggest is a reasonable accommodation that can be met?” Chen said.
Lifting the temporary restraining order right now would cause “chaos,” Chen said, because people need to know in advance where to go and to be able to make accomodations.
Two residents of Camp Integrity said the city’s proposed map was “vague,” and another said that the proposed sites on the map might pose safety issues. All campers who spoke at the hearing mentioned amenities as the biggest issue.
“Where we’re at now is very close to Ritter Center, which you know, they provide showers and things of that nature, medical care, health care,” said Brian Nelson, a Camp Integrity resident.
Nelson said the Ritter Center is a seven-minute walk from Camp Integrity, and there is also a Safeway, a transit center, and other amenities near Camp Integrity that the proposed sites lack.
Nelson said the map doesn’t show essential information like locations of grocery stores, phone charging stations, access to therapy, and other amenities that he currently relies on near Camp Integrity.
“What I heard from the plaintiffs was a lot of speculation that maybe they’re not close to these things, maybe there isn’t a bathroom, et cetera. No one has shown that there is not proximity to bathrooms or proximity to services or supermarkets, the things that they claim they need access to,” Austin shot back.
Anthony Prince, counsel for the plaintiffs, said that areas on the map were on the periphery of the city, away from where services are located, bringin an “increased risk of harm” to campers.
“They are further away and would bring with them increased inconvenience, which can become something more serious than simply an inconvenience in the event of having emergency service access to them, access to food and whatnot,” Prince said. “When you disperse these encampments, push them to the periphery, you find that people who are otherwise able to get water and food, basic necessities, their work is greatly encumbered.”
Merely claiming that there is not adequate access to services “doesn’t override police power to designate certain areas for health and safety reasons as being off limits,” Austin argued.
“The city is allowed to impose its regulatory authority based on its legislative determination that these large encampments present health and safety risk,” Austin said.
The biggest risk of larger encampments like Camp Integrity is fire, Austin said, but trash and biohazard issues such as used needles also pose public safety risks.
Prince called the ordinance is “extreme” and said it would take away all of the advantages that people at Camp Integrity have.
“It’s an unreasonable creation of separation and diminution of what already exists,” Price said.
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.
Additional Reads
-
-
Taxing timeshares April 24, 2024
