The agenda for the upcoming March 5 meeting contains the following item 1C regarding Ordinance 2019-21:
The City Council will meet in closed session with the City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2) with respect to one matter of potential litigation. The City Attorney has advised the Council that, in his opinion, a point has been reached in which there is a significant exposure to litigation involving the City based on existing facts and circumstances: On December 5, 2019, the City Council introduced Ordinance No. 2019-21 that would prohibit certain conduct on public property, including prohibiting camping, living in vehicles, hindering free passage of pedestrians, and bodily functions, and regulating the storage and removal of personal property on public property; on December 19, 2019, Desiree Sanchez of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California appeared before the City Council at a public meeting and stated that the ACLU believed the proposed ordinance violated the US Constitution and that the City would be sued in State or Federal court if it adopts the proposed Ordinance; on January 23, 2020 Council Member Chris Barajas, City Manager Rod Butler, Sheriff’s Lieutenant Danny Young, and Deputy City Attorney Brendan Kearns met with Ms. Sanchez and ACLU attorneys Tiffany Bailey and (via teleconference) Adrienna Wong to discuss the proposed ordinance; at that meeting Ms. Wong stated that the ACLU believed the proposed ordinance violated the US Constitution and that the ACLU would sue the City to invalidate the proposed ordinance should it be adopted as introduced.
Jurupa Valley City Council met last night, on Thursday, December 19, with a strong turnout of community members and organizations present to oppose the camping ban, including folks from Riverside All of Us or None, Jurupa Valley Advocates, Starting Over Inc., California Partnership, Inland Empire Harm Reduction, and ACLU of Southern California.
The council announced at the beginning of the meeting that the ordinance had been removed from the agenda, meaning it would not be approved, voted on, or officially discussed that night. This is probably because the Martin v. Boise decision was upheld by the Supreme Court earlier this week, making the unconstitutional nature of the ordinance even more clear. They mentioned needing to consult further with their city attorney and gather more information.
Many people spoke during the general public comment period on our ethical and legal concerns with the ordinance, vicious cycles of criminalization, and personal experiences with living outside and being criminalized. The council said they could not respond in depth as the item had been removed from the agenda. They did say they will be establishing a homelessness task force with meetings open to the public. We'll have to keep an eye out for what comes next.
On December 5, 2019, the Jurupa Valley City Council gave preliminary approval to Ordinance 2019-21, a camping ban and sit-lie ordinance. This law attacks unhoused people by making many ways of existing in public spaces illegal. It’s also probably unconstitutional. You can learn more about it in this Press-Enterprise article, and read the ordinance text (PDF) on the city website (starts on page 364).
Around the country, homeless people and their friends and supporters have fought back against unjust laws like this and won. It’s time to speak up to support the rights of unhoused neighbors in Jurupa Valley.
In 2018, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Martin v. Boise that enforcing a camping ban is unconstitutional when a city doesn’t have enough shelter beds available to house people: it’s cruel and unusual punishment.
It is not clear how Jurupa Valley plans to enforce this law without violating the Martin v. Boise ruling. In fact, Jurupa Valley doesn’t even have a shelter – they contract with Path of Life in Riverside. At the most recent point in time count, there were at least 139 unhoused people in Jurupa Valley. According to Path of Life’s website, their Riverside shelters have a total of 114 beds. So even if they didn’t serve multiple other cities, Path of Life wouldn’t have the capacity to house everyone from Jurupa Valley.
The current text of the ordinance only says that it shall not be enforced in a manner that violates the constitution. Neither the ordinance or its associated Administrative Procedure specify how shelter availability will be verified, or how law enforcement will be held accountable for constitutional violations.
Yeah, the part where it's illegal to “walk, stand, sit or lie upon any monument, vase, [or] decorative fountain.”