Are you sure you want to report this content?
The council’s “211 motel vouchers” plan for a “zero-tolerance” anti-vagrancy policy was the subject of multiple public hearings, the last of which was on Oct. 16. The proposal was presented to the council at its meeting last Tuesday.
The plan is intended to “provide relief to the large number of complaints the city receives regarding transients, panhandlers and beggars” and to “protect businesses and property owners and provide relief to the homeless people in our community.”
The plan calls for adding two new officers to the department’s Downtown Enforcement Team and institute daily checks of the city’s public restrooms during business hours for adults with no business being there.
The plan would also add motion activated lights at city parks, prohibit sitting and lying on city sidewalks and prohibit sitting and lying on public patios.
The plan also calls for the creation of a “transient impact fee” to be assessed on businesses that profit from the homeless.
The plan is the result of a “holistic approach” to addressing the vagrancy issue, the city’s Public Works Director Craig Malin told the council last week.
The plan is a “proactive approach to address the issue,” he said.
The plan has drawn strong criticism. In its two-page letter to the council on Monday, the ACLU of Utah said the “zero-tolerance policy is an attempt to make the problem of homelessness go away by making the homeless people go away.”
The organization cited recent research from the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty showing that most homeless people are not actually homeless by choice.
“It is well documented that the majority of homeless people suffer from mental illness, substance abuse and/or chronic health problems,” the ACLU wrote. “Punitive ordinances that criminalize homelessness are, therefore, counterproductive.
“The large number of homeless individuals in Provo indicates that the current system for assisting the homeless is inadequate. The existing shelter is crowded and many people cannot get the necessary treatment. The current approach to addressing the problem is failing,” the letter goes on to say.
The ACLU urges the council to develop a “proactive approach” to addressing the issue instead.
What that means, according to ACLU Legal Director John Mejia, is finding “humanitarian solutions” to the issue.
Mejia said the organization “recognizes the city’s efforts to address the problems that arise when homeless populations move into a given community.”
“But, the city should not view its homeless population as the problem. Penalizing homeless people for being homeless is counterproductive and does nothing to address the root causes that result in homeless populations.”
He said the city should focus on finding “humanitarian solutions” that provide “sufficient resources to meet the needs of the homeless, to provide adequate shelter and to address the underlying causes that result in homelessness.”
The ACLU’s letter was sent to the council on Monday, the same day three community members filed a lawsuit against the city, claiming the city’s Downtown Enforcement Team is unconstitutional.
Among other things, the suit alleges that the city’s willingness to enforce ordinances “in the absence of any illegal conduct,” and its willingness to “enforce ordinances and laws in an arbitrary and capricious manner” is “unconstitutional on its face.”
The suit cites an instance where the Downtown Enforcement Team stopped a homeless man who was riding his bicycle and ticketed him because his bike had no light. The man, who is a plaintiff in the suit, was then ordered to pay a $50 fine.
The suit also cites an instance where a homeless man was ticketed for using a bench in a park as a pillow and ordered to pay a $50 fine. The man was also ordered to pay a $350 fine for sleeping in the park.
The suit demands that the city “stop arresting, detaining and/or citing individuals for conduct that should not be criminalized.”
The city has until Nov. 14 to file a response to the suit, which was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah, the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty and the law firm of Horrocks & Horrocks.
The ACLU’s letter was sent to the council on Monday, the same day three community members filed a lawsuit against the city, claiming the city’s Downtown Enforcement Team is unconstitutional.
Among other things, the suit alleges that the city’s willingness to enforce ordinances “in the absence of any illegal conduct,” and its willingness to “enforce ordinances and laws in an arbitrary and capricious manner” is “unconstitutional on its face.”
The suit cites an instance where the Downtown Enforcement Team stopped a homeless man who was riding his bicycle and ticketed him because his bike had no light. The man, who is a plaintiff in the suit, was then ordered to pay a $50 fine.
The suit also cites an instance where a homeless man was ticketed for using a bench in a park as a pillow and ordered to pay a $50 fine. The man was also ordered to pay a $350 fine for sleeping in the park.
The suit demands that the city “stop arresting, detaining and/or citing individuals for conduct that should not be criminalized.”
The city has until Nov. 14 to file a response to the suit, which was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah, the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty and the law firm of Horrocks & Horrocks.
48 Launches
Part of the Society collection
Published on May 07, 2022
(0)
Characters left :
Category
You can edit published STORIES
Are you sure you want to delete this opinion?
Are you sure you want to delete this reply?
Are you sure you want to report this content?
This content has been reported as inappropriate. Our team will look into it ASAP. Thank You!
By signing up you agree to Launchora's Terms & Policies.