A few days ago, a reader reached out to us because he was unhappy that we’d quoted some out-of-town attorneys in our story about the Martin vs. Boise case and its possible impacts on Chico.
Our explanation was this: They’re dealing with many of the same things as Chico, and it’s offering a view of where we might be going next — a view that cannot always be provided by people only within our city limits. We mentioned the homeless situation in Santa Cruz as an example.
The reply was “Then also report what has happened to these communities where the lawyers came from. (Like Santa Cruz).”
As it turns out, timing is everything.
These week, the Santa Cruz Sentinel — a newspaper owned by Digital First Media, which also owns the Chico Enterprise-Record — reported on the Santa Cruz City Council taking the first of two needed votes toward reinstating an overhauled city law that would restrict when, where and how people without homes sleep outdoors.
Sound familiar?
It should. In many places, you can substitute “Chico” for “Santa Cruz” in that story and it would be a pretty accurate reflection of what’s going on here, with apologies to those who continue to insist this homeless issue is “just a Chico thing.”
In the interest of comparison — and providing a glimpse of where Martin vs. Boise could someday lead Chico to following suit in some areas — we present the following excerpts from the Sentinel’s story:
— “There really is something in the proposal to alarm people in every corner of the political boxing ring known as Santa Cruz,” former Santa Cruz Mayor Don Lane wrote of the Temporary Outdoor Living law. “Perhaps this is an indication that it really is a decent effort at trying to balance a lot of needs and concerns.”
How “Chico” is that? Especially with recent progress on homeless-related issues here being derided by many conservatives and liberals alike (including a path to shelter for some at the Torres Shelter, and the $300,000-plus grant directed to the Chico Housing Action Team) as either “too much” or “too little.” That’s what still happens in democracies sometimes; the progress made by the current city council deserves more community-wide credit than it’s getting.
— “Councilman Justin Cummings asked city officials to clarify where people can sleep and if those locations will have easy access to bathrooms, refuse disposal and storage facilities. His request to slow the ordinance’s forward progress to allow the council to explore these issues, as well as to answer the question of where unsheltered people will go during daylight hours, went unheeded by the council majority.”
Sound like anything you’ve heard in our council chamber a few times?
— “The proposed new “Temporary Outdoor Living” law … allows limited single-night options for overnight tent encampments, under certain conditions, from an hour before sunset until 7 a.m., when tents must be packed up for the day.”
Well, that’s different than what’s been going on here, and it seems to recognize the “camping isn’t sleeping, and vice-versa” concern. It’s also something that wouldn’t make many people in Chico happy, since it (a. allows overnight camping and (b. doesn’t allow the campers to stay in the same place the next day. That’s a combination sure to please almost no one here.
However, there’s also this:
–“The law’s daytime camping restrictions would not be enforced until the city sponsors or arranges for the sponsorship of an unsheltered persons’ storage program within the city. The council also mandated the creation of a safe sleeping program of no fewer than 150 spaces no later than June 30 or within two months of the ordinance’s adoption at one or more sites.”
Contrary to popular opinion, such a site is something many members of the past two city councils, and staff, have tried to make a reality for a long time — so far, with no success. But they are trying.
— “Santa Cruz Police Chief Andy Mills said the ordinance’s requirement that people pack up their camps each night would prevent “entrenchment” of larger homeless camps. He added that his department’s enforcement efforts would initially focus on gaining compliance in the city’s downtown, parks and beaches.”
In other words, the most highly visible areas. Same deal here, minus our lack of an ocean-front beach.
“One person was quoted as saying ‘The City’s proposed anti-camping ordinance … creates new ways for unhoused persons to encounter the criminal justice system, strengthening the relationship between poverty and incarceration. It requires the frequent movement of large numbers of people, making it more difficult for individuals to maintain stability and connect to service providers.’ ”
Again, a comment we’ve heard often about policies in Chico.
We don’t present these examples as proof that Santa Cruz is doing something right that Chico is doing wrong, or vice-versa. We present them as a reminder that what’s happening here is happening in countless other cities, especially up and down the west coast — honestly, we could cite similar stories from dozens of towns, as mentioned on these pages just two weeks ago.
Sometimes, it’s good to seek the opinions of people who are living through the same things we are in Chico. Together, we all might learn something.
"story" - Google News
February 28, 2021 at 07:30PM
https://ift.tt/37VG2A9
Different city, familiar story | Editorial - Chico Enterprise-Record
"story" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2YrOfIK
https://ift.tt/2xwebYA
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Different city, familiar story | Editorial - Chico Enterprise-Record"
Post a Comment