No excuses #2: Court decision allows Bay Area cities to clean up homeless camps--right now
Image by Richard Masoner.
Despite howling protests from hard-left mayors and non profit advocates, the SCOTUS Grant's Pass decision is indisputable: Cities have clear rights to enforce camping bans to relieve inhumane and dangerous conditions caused by unhoused camping. The only question: will the cities have the will to act? The inestimable Evan Symons at CA Globe explains.
All eyes have been on the Grants Pass case this year. While advocates hoped that the court would rule in favor of Johnson like lower courts to set up such encampment bans on public property as “cruel and unusual punishment,” supporters of Grants Pass, including most city leaders in the state, wanted the court to side with the city. If ruled that way, supporters said that not only would the current city bans in California be solidified, but that other cities could more easily pass such laws.
This led to the court to rule 6-3 on Friday in favor of the city ordinances. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority opinion, said, “Homelessness is complex. Its causes are many. So may be the public policy responses required to address it. A handful of federal judges cannot begin to ‘match’ the collective wisdom the American people possess in deciding ‘how best to handle’ a pressing social question like homelessness.”
“People who have no choice but to sleep outdoors could raise that as a necessity defense, if they are ticketed or otherwise punished for violating a camping ban.”
In California, the ruling has had a mixed response. Some city lawmakers came out against it, citing concerns that some cities will only see an influx of homeless people as a result. This includes Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass:
“If it’s OK for other cities to ticket and shoo people away, I will be very concerned that the number of people moving into L.A. from other cities will increase,” said Bass Friday morning during a press conference. “I also do not believe that it is ultimately a solution to homelessness. How are they supposed to pay for their ticket, and what happens when they don’t pay? Does it go into a warrant and give us an excuse to incarcerate somebody?”
However, other lawmakers lauded the decision. Senator Brian Jones (R-San Diego), whose SB 1011 bill was killed off earlier this year, saw the ruling as something of a vindication of his recent efforts:
“Today’s decision rightly empowers state and local officials to compassionately clear encampments,” said Jones. “Californians should not have to tolerate the encampments that have taken over our communities. This is not about criminalizing homelessness—it’s about ensuring the safety of both the community and homeless individuals. With this decision, Democrat politicians can no longer justify allowing this severe public health and safety crisis to persist on our streets. It’s time to clean up California.
“The ruling also reaffirms that my bipartisan Senate Bill 1011 from this year is a compassionate and legal approach to addressing homeless encampments. I am committed to continuing to work on this measure to ensure the safety of the community and the dignity of homeless individuals.”
Surprisingly, Governor Gavin Newsom also came out in favor of the ruling, saying in a statement Friday:
“Today’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court provides state and local officials the definitive authority to implement and enforce policies to clear unsafe encampments from our streets. This decision removes the legal ambiguities that have tied the hands of local officials for years and limited their ability to deliver on common-sense measures to protect the safety and well-being of our communities.”
Others were more indifferent on the ruling, instead touting how other local homeless plans would not be disrupted by the new ruling. San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria, who has defended the San Diego ban, said:
“This ruling brings much-needed clarity to how the city can enforce our laws against unsafe encampments; however, it will not change our strategy on homelessness. It is clear that the 1,000 new shelter opportunities we’ve added in the past three years is working to reduce street homelessness, and we intend to continue to pursue additional beds like those planned for Kettner and Vine to help people off the street and get them connected to care and resources.”
Overall, however, city leaders tended to agree with the ruling, as it gives local cities more power in deciding how to tackle homeless issues in their respective cities, from large cities like Los Angeles down to small towns.
“Homeless advocates have a lot more tricks up their sleeves in trying to stop these ordinances from going into place,” said Francesca Russo, a researcher on homeless ordinance cases, to the Globe on Friday. “But the Grants Pass ruling is huge. It allows for anti-camping ordinances once and for all, and perhaps more critically, that the U.S. Supreme Court will weigh down this way into at least the near future. Cities in California, Oregon and other Western cities who have tried and tried again for these ordinances, can finally bring them up. For many, cites can start to go back to being cities again.”
Read the whole thing here.
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity
Opp Now enthusiastically welcomes smart, thoughtful, fair-minded, well-written comments from our readers. But be advised: we have zero interest in posting rants, ad hominems, poorly-argued screeds, transparently partisan yack, or the hateful name-calling often seen on other local websites. So if you've got a great idea that will add to the conversation, please send it in. If you're trolling or shilling for a candidate or initiative, forget it.