On Aug. 15, the Lompoc City Council received an informational presentation from the city attorney concerning “the constraints on addressing homelessness faced by the City, including legal constraints and staffing and operational needs.”

The information they received points out the political/legal difficulty of dealing with this issue in a productive way.

A number of people thought that people were homeless because of situations thrust on them by society at large; but as time passed, they found out this probably wasn’t always the case.

As time passed the “unhoused” came out of the shadows and began setting up their camps in public spaces such as sidewalks, parks, and other spots, including in front of retail properties and apartments.

Since many of these folks tend to toss their trash near their camps and relive themselves without regard to the presence of children and adults on the streets and in front of retail outlets, this has become a more serious public health issue.

When cities, towns and counties tried to step in to fix the problem, do-gooders and Sacramento politicians stepped in to save the vagrants.

The city staff explained: “At the broadest level, addressing homelessness means addressing at least three separate but related issues: 1. addressing the impacts of homelessness on homeless individuals; 2. addressing the causes of homelessness to prevent people from becoming homeless; 3. addressing the impacts of homelessness on a community in which homeless people live.”

This is an accurate assessment of the task governments face. They have been trying for the last few decades — spending billions of tax dollars — to resolve these issues with varying levels of success.

The staff goes on: “There are very few, if any, legal constraints on addressing the impacts of homelessness on homeless individuals or addressing the causes of homelessness. Cities may pass laws to provide for the welfare of the public and use public money and resources to support programs that benefit the public.

“Most of these programs and services, and funding, are traditionally the responsibility of the county and state rather than cities, and also are provided by nonprofit organizations.  The more serious constraints on addressing these issues are usually practical and financial, not legal.”

So, they accurately say, it’s not Lompoc’s fault that our streets are becoming occupied by sometimes violent/mentally ill people and the number of camps is increasing.

And, even if Lompoc passes laws to address the issue, in 2007 the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said: “The City could not expressly criminalize the status of homelessness by making it a crime to be homeless without violating the Eighth Amendment (to the U.S. Constitution).”

In its defense, the city is working on an anti-camping ordinance, but “an anti-camping ordinance should not enforce criminal penalties on individuals if there is no other shelter reasonably available to them.”

When Councilman Jeremy Ball asked if there was a problem finding beds, the community development director said they never have a problem finding a bed if a homeless person wants one.

So, Ball asked why are so many still sleeping on the street? Because, the director said, they simply won’t use the beds and prefer staying on the street.

She said a recent example occurred when eight people were offered shelter; only one accepted the offer. In other cases, they were either intoxicated or under the influence of drugs and weren’t eligible.

In summary, the staff said, “A city may not punish someone merely for being homeless, and may not punish the actions of a homeless person that are the unavoidable consequence of being homeless.

“Furthermore, cities must respect the personal property rights of homeless people and can only prohibit homeless people from entering onto and staying on public property based on regulations that apply to the public at large.

“Finally, city regulations aiming to address homelessness must clearly describe any prohibited conduct and city regulations cannot be selectively enforced in ways that intentionally target homeless people.”

Since the city is risk averse, according to the city attorney, they’ll be handling this problem with kid gloves.

I can’t disagree with this approach because as Councilman Ball pointed out, a prolonged legal fight, or a settlement could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

This begs the question: How much sales and bed tax money is the city losing from tourists and loss of businesses that generate taxes? Sure, we have a few new businesses popping up, but how long will they stay if the homeless have their way — and it appears that they do.

Recently, some new homeless individuals came into our city. After they set up their camper, a resident asked what brought them to Lompoc. Their response was that they found out via the internet, that you can pretty much park where you want, camp where you want, and panhandle where you want.

So, there you have it, report given; there is little that can be done because Sacramento politicians have given the homeless a right to refuse housing, pollute our environment, remain under the influence of drugs or alcohol, steal from businesses, and harass business owners.

And pretty much, according to one man living in his camper, anything goes in Lompoc.
 
All you taxpayers will just have to get used to it.

Staff report: https://www.cityoflompoc.com/home/showpublisheddocument/38333/638273676998500000