Camping ordinance needs re-evaluation

When it comes to homelessness, city and county leaders want to focus on solutions. We agree: Curbing homelessness in the region—which includes everything from helping homeless veterans find housing to providing opportunities and care for homeless youth—is a challenge without a silver bullet, and everyone needs to work together and keep eyes on results.

To this end, we commend the work of Sacramento Steps Forward, under its new executive director Ryan Loofbourrow, for keeping tabs on the big picture. We also want to applaud Councilman Jay Schenirer, who has stepped up to lead on poverty and homelessness issues.

The city has also hired a full-time homelessness liaison, who is working with the Sacramento Police Department’s own homeless-outreach officer. These are important moves that show Sacramento is dealing with homelessness as a social issue, not a criminal one.

Still, there remain city and county laws on the books that criminalize homeless people. From prohibiting the sharing of food to bans on panhandling, the city and county need to rethink some of the policies that address homelessness’ mental-health and poverty issues with the blunt tool of law enforcement.

Consider the city’s illegal-camping ordinance. This law prohibits sleeping outdoors, the possession of “camping paraphernalia” and so on. In 2014, city police and county rangers issued 1,030 citations under the illegal-camping ordinance. That number is nearly half of the total number of homeless people in the area, according to the 2013 Sacramento Homeless Point-in-Time Count.

Violating the illegal-camping ordinance is a misdemeanor that comes with a $230 fine. Attorneys that help convert these fines into community-service hours say they encounter many of the same people being cited over and over again.

Is the illegal-camping ordinance curbing outdoor camping? Or is it discriminating against people who have nowhere else to go, and in turn creating a vicious cycle of repeat offenders?

More questions: Is enforcing the ordinance a misuse of police department and court resources? Are violators ending up with bench warrants that incur further judicial and law-enforcement expenses? Is the ordinance consistently and fairly applied?

According to Steps Forward, there are not enough beds to house the area’s homeless population. How do we justify misdemeanors for sleeping outdoors if there are not sufficient housing options?

We’re pleased that Councilman Schenirer is looking into some of these questions. In the meantime, we urge city council to enact a moratorium on its enforcement. We don’t know how much the law costs to enforce, or whether it’s making a positive impact in the community, so it’s time to put it on hold.

Meanwhile, it’s clear that the policy breeds distrust between the homelessness community and law enforcement.

We also worry, ultimately, that it’s ineffective policy—much like the war on drugs and its incarceration of nonviolent drug offenders.

We agree with state Senator Carol Liu: Homeless people have a “Right to Rest.” Law-enforcement tools like the illegal-camping ordinance should not be used to solve a social issue such as homelessness.