Updated: Court Refuses to Block Anti-Camping Laws

Former Newport Beach resident Pam Bowers uses crutches because of a broken leg. Though she’s been homeless in Laguna Beach for the last year, new rules that restrict who can store belongings at the city’s homeless shelter have proved onerous. Bowers, 46, says she can’t manage her things as well as crutches to travel to an alternate shelter or to take a bus anywhere. So she hides her sleeping bag and clothes in the creek to avoid their seizure by police.

Leonard Porto, who lived in his car for two years before obtaining housing in Laguna Beach, visits friends in the amenity-bare parking lot of the city shelter that closes during the day. People used to collect water for drinking there from a leaking water valve. Last September, city officials replaced the valve and surrounded it with a padlocked cage. Now desperate people collect condensation dripping from an air conditioning unit, Porto says in court papers.

The sworn statements by Bowers and Porto were filed last month in support of a lawsuit filed on behalf of a group of disabled homeless people against the city of Laguna Beach.

Last week, a federal judge denied a request for a preliminary injunction to halt enforcement of anti-camping laws in Laguna, a motion sought as part of the suit that seeks class certification.

The suit contends that because Laguna’s year-round overnight shelter lacks adequate capacity, disabled individuals are denied a safe, legal alternative and instead are subject to police enforcement. The lawsuit alleges these practices are a violation of the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the suit last August on behalf of five homeless people. The group filed a suit against Laguna Beach that raised similar grievances in 2009, which resulted in a settlement and the opening of the only year-round shelter in the county, known as the Alternative Sleeping Location, in Laguna Canyon.

In an order issued Wednesday, Feb. 10, U.S. District Court Judge Andrew J. Guilford wrote, “plaintiffs don’t show how enjoining the city from enforcing the anti-camping provisions would make the ASL more accessible or appropriate for disabled persons.”

In a statement, Mayor Steve Dicterow said “while the ACLU’s claims unfortunately are misinformed, the city shares Judge Guilford’s recognition of the problems associated with homelessness, and we remain committed to the provision of robust programs and services to support and assist our homeless residents in need.”

Asked if the city would file a motion seeking to dismiss the suit altogether, City Attorney Phil Kohn said no decision had yet been made. Dicterow’s statement said the city will continue to vigorously defend itself through the remainder of the legal process.

A preliminary injunction would have prevented police from enforcing municipal codes that prohibit camping, sleeping or storing belongings on public or private property while the lawsuit is pending. In the earlier ACLU settlement, the city agreed to limit enforcement of anti-camping laws for two years. The agreement lapsed in 2011.

Police have since issued 380 citations between 2011 and 2014 for violation of the anti-camping provisions, the judge’s order noted. Another 160 were issued last year, Captain Jason Kravetz says in a court filing.

While the judge’s ruling seemed to cast doubt on the likelihood that the lawsuit could succeed on its Eighth Amendment and ADA claims, ACLU attorney Belinda Escobosa Helzer disagreed with that conclusion. She interpreted the judge’s ruling as saying more facts are needed to demonstrate the necessity of court-ordered intervention. “The burden is very high to get interim relief,” she said. “We will continue to build a case.”

The judge also ordered both sides to begin settlement negotiations, according to Escobosa Helzer, who said talks took place though none are now scheduled.

“The story the city is painting – that the city is doing a fine job — is not the reality of people’s lives. The city is acting unlawfully,” Escobosa Helzer said in an interview Wednesday.

In a hearing last month, she argued that the city’s practice of ticketing and rousting homeless people sleeping outdoors due to over-capacity at the shelter violates the “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibition of the Eighth Amendment.

“I also made it clear how significantly damaging it is for people with deteriorating mental health to be under scrutiny when they have no place to go,” said Escobosa Helzer, recounting her testimony at the earlier hearing.

Since 2009, Laguna has spent $350,000 annually on homeless services that include the emergency shelter, a van shuttle and a community outreach officer and case worker to connect people with their families and services, City Manager John Pietig said in a sworn statement filed.

“The ACLU’s attempt to turn the voluntary efforts of the city and its community partners into a legal mandate to provide permanent supportive housing is misguided,” he said in a statement issued in response to the judge’s ruling. “Not only does the law not support such a mandate, but the ACLU’s position will disincentivize other local agencies from offering the type of shelter provided by Laguna Beach.  In any event, the city will continue to look for opportunities to address the needs of the homeless on a cooperative and regional basis.”