{"id":24823,"date":"2023-01-18T11:45:08","date_gmt":"2023-01-18T19:45:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/?p=24823"},"modified":"2023-01-18T12:57:53","modified_gmt":"2023-01-18T20:57:53","slug":"s-f-legal-case-examines-questions-about-homelessness","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/2023\/01\/18\/s-f-legal-case-examines-questions-about-homelessness\/","title":{"rendered":"S.F. legal case examines questions about homelessness"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<ul><li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.sfexaminer.com\/users\/profile\/Adam%20Shanks\">By Adam Shanks | Examiner staff writer |<\/a><\/li><li>Jan 17, 2023&nbsp;Updated&nbsp;14 hrs ago (SFExaminer.com)<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com\/sfexaminer.com\/content\/tncms\/assets\/v3\/editorial\/4\/9d\/49d20c90-564d-11ed-815d-1bc0ba3dcfdf\/635b115e7146c.image.jpg?resize=400%2C267\" alt=\"Homeless on Willow Street near Polk Street\"\/><figcaption>A homeless encampment on Willow Street near Polk Street in San Francisco. The City is embroiled in an&nbsp;ongoing battle over its homeless encampment sweeps..Craig Lee\/The Examiner<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>Under what circumstances is a person \u201cinvoluntarily\u201d homeless? And exactly how many shelter beds must a city provide in order to enforce anti-camping laws?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>If a judge answers these questions, raised in the ongoing battle over San Francisco\u2019s homeless encampment sweeps, it could prove to be a key evolution in an ongoing legal battle playing out across the country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>A 2018 ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Martin v. Boise established that cities can not punish involuntarily homeless people for simply doing things to stay alive \u2014 like resting on a sidewalk \u2014 if they\u2019re not offered an alternative form of shelter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Sign up for updates!<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Get a link to the latest San Francisco Examiner E-Edition sent to your inbox as it&#8217;s published!Email<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: San Francisco Examiner, 465 California Street, San Francisco, CA, 94104, US, https:\/\/www.sfexaminer.com. You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the SafeUnsubscribe\u00ae link, found at the bottom of every email.&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.constantcontact.com\/legal\/service-provider\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Emails are serviced by Constant Contact.<\/a>Sign up!<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>But critics of the decision have called the ruling vague and difficult to apply in practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In San Francisco, The City\u2019s policies comply with Martin v. Boise, but its actions haven\u2019t haven\u2019t lived up to those promises. At least, that\u2019s the take of Judge Donna Ryu, who ruled last month that The City has failed to follow its own laws when sweeping homeless encampments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Citing a dearth of shelter bed availability, Ryu issued a preliminary injunction that bars The City from enforcing several laws, including those that ban camping or sitting and lying on public property.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>If Ryu\u2019s stance in the preliminary injunction holds, San Francisco could be another Boise, serving as a constitutional litmus test of cities\u2019 response to homelessness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>A ruling could back up, clarify or even expand the precedent set by Martin v. Boise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Or not. The City and homeless advocates who oppose aggressive sweeps could reach a settlement before trial, or the court\u2019s ruling could leave the same unanswered questions as have decisions before it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Both sides of the battle have the resources and incentive to see this fight through.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The lawsuit was brought forward last year by a number of high-profile organizations, including the San Francisco Coalition on Homelessness and ACLU of Northern California. The City \u2014 where officials face political pressure to rein in encampments \u2014 has dug its heels in and already contested Ryu\u2019s ruling.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\">What happens in San Francisco<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>San Francisco law requires The City to offer the homeless a safe place to stay before ticketing them for pitching a tent on city property.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>But Ryu\u2019s position \u2014 issued in the form of a preliminary injunction in December \u2014 could prove consequential because it not only looks at what The City says it should do, but what it actually does.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cI think one thing that does make this preliminary injunction order potentially unique is its analysis of the policies that were written on the books versus how it\u2019s playing out in practice,\u201d said Lily Milwit, an attorney with the National Homelessness Law Center, a nonprofit that advocates for the rights of the homeless.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>That\u2019s a crucial distinction to advocates for the homeless who, like numerous cities across the Western United States, continue to try to navigate the legal landscape left in the wake of Martin v. Boise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cWe\u2019re very much seeing in real time organizations and plaintiffs sort of testing the bounds of Martin, and that\u2019s sort of what\u2019s happening with this most recent case,\u201d Milwit said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Those who have fought on cities\u2019 behalf believe Ryu\u2019s stance \u2014 and those of judges who have made similar rulings \u2014 unfairly ratchets up pressure on city officials.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cNow, local governments in the western United States face tremendous risk of liability at every turn as they try to solve the homelessness crisis. These court decisions have caused paralysis at a time when we urgently need action,\u201d Theane Evangelis, the lead attorney who represented The City of Boise in Martin v. Boise, wrote in an email to The Examiner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.sfexaminer.com\/news\/san-francisco-asks-judge-to-define-involuntarily-homeless\/article_29f33b26-8c6a-11ed-9814-dfb5524b8bf5.html\">San Francisco asks judge to define &#8216;involuntarily homeless&#8217;<\/a><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>A federal court ruling issued last month sparked questions about exactly what San Francisco must offer the homeless before citing them<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Martin v. Boise and how cities have responded<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>In its Martin v. Boise ruling, the court declared \u201cthe government cannot prosecute homeless people for sleeping in public if there \u2018is a greater number of homeless individuals in (a jurisdiction) than the number of available\u2019 shelter spaces.\u201d And although the judges described the ruling as narrow, its implications have been broad and its parameters unclear to the cities responsible for adhering to it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In the case of Johnson v. City of Grants Pass, which is currently being appealed, the Ninth Circuit \u201cdoubled down\u201d on Martin\u2019s standard,\u201d Evangelis said. \u201cRulings like this one from a San Francisco federal court will further tie governments\u2019 hands until the Ninth Circuit reverses course or the U.S. Supreme Court steps in,\u201d she added.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Of course, cities didn\u2019t respond to Martin v. Boise by quickly building enough shelter beds and housing for everyone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Many adopted policies that attempted to skirt Martin\u2019s limits. Some set aside a certain number of shelter beds so that, at the moment they were enforcing camping laws, they could ensure that there was a bed available \u2014 even if the total population of unsheltered homeless people, in reality, far surpassed the number of beds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Other cities took the approach of declaring certain areas off-limits to camping, while in others it was allowed. Citing the risk of fires associated with encampments, the city of Sacramento adopted a law in 2020 that prohibited camping near what it deemed \u201ccritical infrastructure\u201d and wildfire risk areas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>San Francisco\u2019s encampments are addressed by its Healthy Streets Operations Center, which is supposed to offer people living on the street a place to stay before forcibly moving them. The City is also required to collect and store the items it clears from encampments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Homeless advocates are arguing not that those policies violate the standards under Martin v. Boise, but that The City is failing to comply with them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Is unsheltered homelessness proliferating?<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>When the Supreme Court declined to take up an appeal to Martin v. Boise, many cities and business groups warned that it would allow encampments to proliferate on City streets and sidewalks unabated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In San Francisco, at least, that hasn\u2019t quite happened. The City\u2019s unsheltered homeless population actually declined slightly, between 2019 and 2022 according to its Point in Time Count.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Still, The City is operating from a massive structural deficit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>To house all of its unsheltered people, San Francisco would have to massively expand its shelter and permanent supportive housing offerings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The cost of doing so within the next three years would exceed $1.4 billion, according to a recent report authored by the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.sfexaminer.com\/news\/why-and-how-an-idaho-city-impacts-sfs-homeless-policies\/article_03814b38-87e0-11ed-8e59-cfe083b2c8f3.html\">How Boise impacts S.F&#8217;s homeless policies<\/a><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>In 2018, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a pivotal ruling that established protections for people experiencing homelessness<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\">The future<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>Much of Ryu\u2019s preliminary injunction relies on simple math \u2014 The City has thousands fewer available shelter beds than it does unsheltered people experiencing homelessness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The City conceded \u201cthe existence of long-standing shelter bed shortfalls, as well as the fact that homeless San Franciscans have not been able to voluntarily access shelter beds since April 2020,\u201d Ryu wrote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It still left key questions for city officials, like when is a person \u201cinvoluntarily\u201d homeless?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cThe Ninth Circuit has decided it\u2019s unconstitutional to enforce a camping ordinance against anyone who is \u2018involuntarily homeless,\u2019 but it\u2019s impossible to figure out who falls into that category. Homelessness is a complex problem,\u201d Evangelis wrote. \u201cConstitutional rules can\u2019t depend on facts that are impossible to assess and constantly subject to change.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>To homeless advocates, such questions are moot until The City actually has as many beds as it would take to shelter the homeless population.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Unable or unwilling to dramatically expand shelter, The City will look to continue its current approach to enforcing laws against camping and sitting or lying on a sidewalk \u2014 hence the legal battle at hand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It will likely take a while to resolve.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Barring a settlement, the case isn\u2019t set for trial until 2024. And no matter what the court decides, it could be appealed, as was the case in Martin v. Boise, which could take years.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>By Adam Shanks | Examiner staff writer | Jan 17, 2023&nbsp;Updated&nbsp;14 hrs ago (SFExaminer.com) Under what circumstances is a person \u201cinvoluntarily\u201d homeless? And exactly how many shelter beds must a city provide in order to enforce anti-camping laws? If a judge answers these questions, raised in the ongoing battle over&#8230; <a class=\"continue-reading-link\" href=\"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/2023\/01\/18\/s-f-legal-case-examines-questions-about-homelessness\/\"> Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr; <\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24823"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24823"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24823\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":24837,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24823\/revisions\/24837"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24823"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24823"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24823"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}