There’s a new, and necessary, ordinance in the city of Santa Cruz that attempts to bring clarity to where homeless people are allowed to sleep.
But it’s a work in progress.
Last week, the City Council voted 5-2 to adopt the “Temporary Outdoor Living” ordinance (already acronymed into “TOLO” by some opponents). The new law would replace Santa Cruz’s defunct “camping ban” that was rendered inoperative and unenforceable by courts.
But, even though the city faces a growing problem with homeless encampments, with the most visible at the intersection of highways 1 and 9 near Housing Matters, enforcement of the new law has been tabled, awaiting further required readings of a number of amendments.
The ordinance bans people from sleeping outdoors or setting up tents and bedding at certain times and in certain locations. But it also calls for the city to hold off on enacting the law until a free storage program is created, until certain coronavirus pandemic thresholds are met – and until the establishment of managed public sleeping sites for at least 150 people are set up. The latter is an option that we have been advocating for. The council indicated that private individuals or organizations would be able to apply for permits to manage approved encampments.
Needless to say, the issue of regulating unsanctioned homeless camps is highly divisive in a liberal city that prides itself on its compassion for the down and out, and where enforcement is usually the last resort taken up by frustrated city officials.
Compassion, however, doesn’t just travel down a one-way street. We think newly elected City Councilmember Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson demonstrated consensus-building leadership when she addressed the subject during the long and contentious council meeting:
“… I want to say that doing nothing is not compassion and watching human suffering among those who are unhoused is not compassion and watching the negative impacts to our community members who are housed is not compassion.”
And make no mistake, doing nothing is not an option. The highway encampment seems to expand daily, and although there are trash receptacles placed along the road, the situation looks ugly for people coming into Santa Cruz, and is truly ugly for those living in squalid conditions. Meanwhile, the city is scheduled in April to work on improving the intersection, but needs state approval to clear out the encampment. The city’s hands have already been tied by a court order that protects the large-scale homeless encampment in San Lorenzo Park.
Santa Cruz Mayor Donna Myers has expressed frustration the state isn’t doing more to help, especially along the state highways corridor. But as we wrote last month, although Gov. Gavin Newsom last year vowed to apply state resources to solve this crisis, a scathing report by state Auditor Elaine Howle said the state’s cumbersome bureaucracy has been ineffective in helping communities deal with homeless encampments.
Also last week, the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors discussed plans for addressing the homelessness crisis, with a focus on providing help over the next six months. We were encouraged that supervisors Ryan Coonerty and Manu Koenig proposed the board explore a plan to create 120 safe parking and shelter bed slots in the county’s unincorporated areas.
We can debate the root causes of a social issue that has dominated Letters to the Editor of this newspaper in recent weeks. Drug and alcohol abuse, the ever escalating price of housing in the city and county, a lack of mental health treatment facilities – all these and more contribute. And Santa Cruz is hardly the only coastal city to find itself struggling to balance public safety concerns with wanting to provide shelter and hygiene needs for the unhoused.
But short term, the city and county will have to struggle to find solutions, however imperfect and unpopular. Moving toward opening up vacant spaces for sanctioned tent camps within a reasonable distance of services remains an option that will begin to make a difference, and we support elected leaders moving in that direction.
Commentaires