People Experiencing Unsheltered Homelessness Must Stay Away from Schools, Parks, Libraries, Daycares, and More
Despite strong opposition from members of the public, Fresno City Council has just approved a new set of strict ordinances aimed at controlling where homeless people can and cannot be seen within the city. The new rules prohibit impeding sidewalks within 500 feet of schools, childcare facilities, public parks, libraries, shelters, warming/cooling centers, and shelters. Does that remind you of anything?
What it means to “impede sidewalks” would include “sitting, lying, or sleeping, or by storing, using, maintaining, or placing personal property in a manner that impedes passage.”
Beyond sidewalks, these rules also apply to bike lanes and paths, streets, public right-of-ways, driveways, loading docks, fire hydrants, building entrances, overpasses, underpasses, freeway ramps, tunnels, bridges, pedestrian bridges, active railways, or anywhere “that has been posted with signage prohibiting sitting, lying, sleeping, or storing, using, maintaining, or placing personal property.”
That’s quite a list!
Where Can We Go?
The extreme restrictions undoubtedly have many unhoused people in Fresno wondering where they can go. Somehow I doubt that anyone in charge of instituting these rules mapped out all the restricted areas and ensured that there was enough room left to allow the homeless population of Fresno to abide by these restrictions. More likely, they realize what an impossible task they’ve set and are just waiting to arrest people when they inevitably fail to jump through their hoops.
Councilmembers Arias, Bredefeld, Luis Chavez, Nelson Esparza, and Mike Karbassi ignored Fresno residents, homeless advocates, LGBTQ groups, and local faith leaders urging them to remember their compassion when they cast their “yes” votes. Council Vice President Annalisa Perea was the sole dissenter, and the ordinance passed 5-1.
Will It Last?
Local advocates anticipate this ordinance to face a lawsuit and likely be struck down by a judge, similar to last year’s attempt to restrict the public’s access to encampment sweeps carried out by the city.
The ACLU of Northern California has already expressed serious concerns with the ordinance and urged the council to reject it ahead of the vote.
In a 7-page letter, the ACLU lays out nine separate areas where the ordinance is unlawful and vulnerable to a legal attack. Specifically, the letter state that Fresno’s new ordinance violates the equal protection claim of the 14th Amendment since it is “based on animus toward unhoused people.”
It also restricts the right to free movement and is vague enough to invite discriminatory enforcement that targets only unhoused people.
Councilmembers either didn’t read it or just wanted to be seen having their public temper tantrum before this goes to the courts. Regarding the future, the ACLU has expressed a willingness to discuss the concerns in their letter with Fresno City Council as an alternative to legal action.
Councilman Bredefeld has unfortunately already shown himself incapable of understanding the material contained, though, so it doesn’t look promising. Garry’s response to the ACLU’s nuanced explanation of the inhumane effects of his new ordinance boiled down to “nuh-uh.”
What’s The Excuse This Time?
We all know by now that the real reason behind ordinances like these is simple bigotry. But since it’s fallen somewhat out of fashion to come out and say, “I hate homeless people and wish I never had to see them,” we also know that there’s always a thin veil of a cover story trying to paint things with a brush of benevolence.
In this case, councilmembers in favor of the ordinance called it a “forward-thinking measure,” a poor choice of words for a draconian attempt at criminalization that’s been tried repeatedly and seems pretty backward to anyone paying attention.
Then, everyone’s favorite scapegoat for concern trolling, disabled people, get dragged into this argument while they are just minding their own business.
Abiding by a long tradition of only considering the needs of disabled people when you think you can use them to make a point, city leaders tout the benefits of clear sidewalks for improving accessibility for disabled people with mobility aids. They fail to consider the burden their ordinance places on disabled homeless people who now have virtually nowhere to sit, rest, or store their belongings.
They’re truly all operating from the same playbook. I just need a “think of the children,” and my NIMBY Concern Trolling Bingo card will be complete!
Why These Locations?
The restrictions in the ordinance cover a vast range of different locations, from driveways to daycares. But what’s missing is any logical justification for why unhoused people shouldn’t be present in these places.
The justifications offered don’t make much sense and are sometimes even contradictory. No one can articulate exactly why we need these ordinances, why we need them for these specific places, and how any of this makes anyone any safer.
We’re just meant to take it for granted that, of course, we should be scared if someone who’s homeless is seen near a school – never mind if they work there!
There’s no non-nefarious reason for a homeless person to sit in a public park. We’re supposed to accept without questioning the narrative: “Isn’t it spooky when a homeless family has to camp near their child’s daycare to get them dropped off and still make it to work on time in the morning?”
But of course, these aren’t the people we’re meant to be thinking of. The politicians passing this ordinance are counting on us picturing the generic stereotype of a homeless boogeyman, not a fully actualized person with complex needs, responsibilities, and children of their own to worry about. If that were who we pictured, we’d have to face the fact that the monster in that story is us.
