ACLU challenges Ashland's no-camping rules

[chrise...@hotmail.com]

John Darling...October 17, 2008

ASHLAND — Homeless people caught camping within city limits will be
charged with a violation, not a crime, under changes proposed by city
staff to clarify the law.

But the local American Civil Liberties Union chapter says the
ordinance still will leave the city vulnerable to lawsuits charging
violation of the U.S. Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual
punishment.

The issue was raised last May by City Councilman Eric Navickas, who
said arresting and imposing fines or community service on homeless
campers, while at the same time failing to provide them shelter, is
criminalizing homelessness.

A Los Angeles law similar to Ashland's was struck down in 2006 by the
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Jones v. City of Los Angeles,
Navickas said in an interview Tuesday.

He said the revised city ordinance "still allows a homeless person to
face penalties of community service, so it doesn't escape the
constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment."

The Los Angeles ruling was vacated, so it does not serve as a legal
precedent. But a report issued by the Southern Oregon ACLU this week
said it "lays out in clear language why municipal prohibitions on
sleeping on the streets or camping on public property are cruel and
perhaps unconstitutional ... (it) warns against the justice, soundness
and legal vulnerability of such laws."

Proposed changes to Ashland's ordinance would require evictions to be
bilingual, ban multiple citations in the same area, give campers 60
days (instead of 14) to reclaim seized property, allow private
property owners to provide camping and allow the city to sentence
campers on city park land to 48 hours of community service, which can
include cleaning up campsites.

The City Council will consider the changes at 7 p.m. Tuesday in
Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main St.

In his explanation of the changes to the council, City Attorney
Richard Appicello wrote, "This resolves any issue concerning cruel and
unusual punishment based on the now vacated and withdrawn opinion in
Jones v. City of Los Angeles."

Ralph Temple, a volunteer attorney and vice chairman of the local ACLU
chapter, said, "That's not sufficient."

Temple and attorney David Berger and mediator Paul Moss wrote an 18-
page report on Ashland's camping ban called "Decriminalizing Poverty:
Reform of Ashland's Camping Ordinance."

The report recommends the camping ban not apply from 9 p.m. to 8 a.m.
unless the city builds permanent homeless housing in a central
location.

Oregon ACLU Executive Director David Fidanque said in the report, "The
poor should not be punished simply for being poor and that's what this
law does in Ashland. The city ... should seek to address the
underlying issues of homelessness and poverty, rather than enacting
and enforcing laws that target those who are homeless."

Ashland's camping ban, passed in 1995, prohibits camping on sidewalks,
streets, alleys, parks and under bridges on any city-owned property.
It requires the city to post notice 24 hours before eviction and to
notify a social services agency of the notice.

Most of the citations for illegal camping are given to transients who
flock to the city in the summer, said Police Chief Terry Holderness.

A small number of homeless campers are here year-around, Holderness
said, noting there is no census of their numbers. They camp mostly in
the forested watershed and are ordered out during fire season.

Homeless people interviewed in downtown Ashland this week said they
supported the ACLU proposal and would use homeless shelters mostly
during bad weather or when they needed a shower and food.

"What the city is doing is ridiculous," said Jonathan Nelson, a street
musician who sleeps under bridges in town. "It's a violation of my
rights as a human being and an American. We do need a shelter. I would
use it if the weather is bad. The world is my home. I should have
rights, too."

Daniel Sims, who sleeps in Lithia Park, said citations are appropriate
if a camper is trashing the area. He would gladly use a shelter,
especially when it's cold and rainy.

Homeless for 10 years, Robert Johnson said he would use a shelter for
showering and food.

Navickas said he will "push for what the ACLU is supporting, which is
to completely lift the camping ban, because it's unconstitutional."

Faulting Ashland for its "facade of progressiveness," Navickas added,
"It would be a healthier solution to deal with the homelessness issue
instead of criminalize it. The concept is silly, to give homeless
people a ticket and expect them to pay it."

Navickas said a shelter in Ashland would bring little social change to
the town and that "cost is the big issue, but living in a society has
costs and we have to accept that."

City Administrator Martha Bennett said the city has no current plans
to build any homeless shelters. City Planner Brandon Goldman said
Ashland could apply for funds to build shelters under the Community
Development Block Grant program, about $200,000 a year, but they would
compete with affordable housing plans.

John Darling is a freelance writer living in Ashland. E-mail him at
jdar...@jeffnet.org.


Proposed changes to Ashland's illegal camping ordinance would:

Require evictions to be bilingual
Ban multiple citations in the same area
Give campers 60 days (instead of 14) to reclaim seized property
Allow private property owners to provide camping
Allow the city to sentence campers on city park land to 48 hours of
community service, which can include cleaning up campsites

http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081017/NEWS/810170328