Council Passes Law Banning Encampments in City Parks

Despite pleas not to punish lost souls for the comfort of the affluent, the Santa Monica City Council voted Tuesday in favor of an anti-encampment law that forbids using the city’s parks, beaches and other public places as living accommodations.

The controversial ordinance, recommended in concept by the city’s citizen task force on homelessness, passed the council on a 5-2 vote with council members Judy Abdo and Tony Vazquez dissenting. The measure must return later to the council for a second vote.

In voting against the measure, Abdo was in sync with the majority of speakers who decried the proposed law at a public hearing as repressive, unconstitutional and cruel to those who have nowhere else to go.

“I believe this ordinance is no longer an encampment ordinance,’ Abdo said. “I think it can be interpreted to be an ordinance (saying) no homeless people can be in our city.”

Vazquez had similar reservations, saying the law was for those with homes, while ignoring those without shelter. “We’re just singling out a group of folks,” Vazquez said. “This is not the way to set policy.”

That is also the view of Santa Monica City Atty. Robert M. Myers, who refused to draft a law he disdainfully dismissed as oppressive, unconstitutional legislation.

The attorney who was hired by the city to write the law disagreed with Myers, finding ample legal precedent for communities to preserve the use of parks as recreational space for all. “We feel very confident the Constitution is open enough for you to take action,” Christi Hogin said.

Hogin is an attorney with Richards, Watson & Gershon, a firm that specializes in municipal law and acts as city attorney for 22 cities.

A majority of the council agreed with Hogin, emphasizing their allegiance to the task force’s recommendations and the group’s attempt to balance the needs of all segments of the community.

“I am going along with this because of the task force,” Councilman Kelly Olsen said, “but I don’t want people fooled into thinking this camping ordinance will solve homelessness in Santa Monica, because it (won’t).”

Though Myers removed himself from work on the encampment law in January, this week he issued an opinion to the council that the law recommended by Hogin was unconstitutional in that it resembled vagrancy laws that have been used against the poor for centuries.

“Homeless people out of necessity remain in public places for prolonged periods of time with their personal possessions,” Myers wrote. “The potential effect of the proposed ordinance is to make it unlawful for homeless people to live in Santa Monica unless they give up their personal possessions.”

Myers’ memo was not discussed at the meeting, except by Councilman Herb Katz, who asked Hogin if it changed her legal analysis. It did not.

The city attorney left the dais during a lengthy public hearing, despite a council chambers packed with many of Myers’ friends and allies and longtime Santa Monica activists who delivered accolades to him.

“I take my hat off to Bob Myers,” resident Leonard Kuras said. “I thank God there are men like that in public office.”

A number of attorneys and law professors added their legal judgment to the debate. UCLA Prof. Gary Blasi, past president of a national homeless group, said the anti-encampment movement was fueled by “prejudice and stereotyping, much of it tainted by racism.”

“If the council passes this ordinance, it will be remembered as a dark day in this community,” Blasi said. “History is watching what you do here.”

Another law professor, Karl Manheim of Loyola, said that even if the courts were to uphold the law as written, the council should take no solace. He said it would mean that the council shares the civil liberties philosophy of such conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices as Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

“Many unconscionable things are done in the name of public safety,” said Manheim, who used to work for Myers and was hired several months ago to work on a city legal brief filed in a rent-control case.

One homeless man reminded the council that homeless people are law-abiding citizens. “I never took anything from the city to speak of except six, seven hours of sleep,” Ronald Vaughan said.

Under the new law, Vaughan can continue to do just that, according to attorney Hogin. “It doesn’t prevent people from spending a long period of time in the park every day,” Hogin said. “It does not prevent someone who has nowhere else to go from staying days and days and days in the park.”

What the law does cover is staking out territory in the park and making it unusable for others. To violate the law, someone must “spend enough time and bring enough stuff” so that it “reasonably appears” the person is living there, Hogin said.

Hogin also defended the law against speakers’ criticism, saying homeless people, and everyone else, would continue to have full use of the parks for recreational purposes. “The intent of this law is not to discriminate,’ she said.

Two council members, Herb Katz and Robert Holbrook, who wanted a more stringently worded law based on one used by West Hollywood, joined three members of the renters’ rights majority in voting for the compromise measure. Katz asked for a future discussion on whether Myers will prosecute violators. Leaders of a citizens group, Save Our City, said they will go forward with a ballot initiative seeking a stricter anti-encampment law. According to group leader Jean Sedillos, they have raised $6,500 in a week’s time to mount a campaign. If the measure qualifies, it will be on the same November ballot as three incumbent council members seeking reelection. A fourth seat, held by veteran lawmaker Dennis Zane, who has announced plans to retire, will also be up for grabs.