Speaker 1: Councilman Andrews. Motion carries. Item 2626.
Speaker 0: Please.
Speaker 1: Communication from Councilwoman Price, Councilwoman Manga Weiss, Mayor Andrews Councilman Austin Recommendation to adopt a resolution in support of Los Angeles County's amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to take up a challenge to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Martin versus City of Boise.
Speaker 0: I know this has been heard before. Let me go to public comment, Councilman Price, unless you first. You want to speak first?
Speaker 6: No, I'm good.
Speaker 0: Okay. Let me go to public comment. Is Jordan wine here? Please come forward. Stephan Burstyn. Swallow. And then is Dirk. Where? Here.
Speaker 10: Thank you, counsel. My name is Jordan Wynn. I am the lead organizer for the Everyone in Los Angeles campaign. I'm also a sitting member of the S.O.S. Board of Long Beach. I'm here today to urge you to oppose this resolution. Actually, the decision that was reached by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on this case, Martin versus City of Boise, was in the favor of residents who are experiencing homelessness within our cities. Lawmakers made some great strides this past year in helping aid our residents who are experiencing homelessness, most notably with the Everyone Home Task Force that assembled and gave a report in December of 2018. And there are some really great solutions that are in the works right now around housing service providing and really innovating and moving our approaches into the 21st century to request an appeal on this case and move this to try and overturn the decision that was made is frankly an affront, I think, to many of our homeless residents within the city. We are looking for the best and most innovative tools and to appeal this case and to having a decision that would be in the reverse of what the Court of Appeals decided on would make it much more difficult for us to find and help and assist residents who are experiencing homelessness. For those who don't know, this is essentially debating whether or not we can ban or cite people for sleeping on our streets. And this is kind of a conversation that comes toward civil rights as to who has access to our civil our public properties and more. So it also has to do with the way in which we're administrating services. If we're trying to create a path out of homelessness and fill the gaps and actually create a comprehensive way where we can take care of people, if we're going to start citing people for sleeping on our streets, that's just going to stand on our way. It's going to push the populations of people that we need to serve and have an obligation to serve further to the fringes. As I'm sure you are probably aware, it takes up to 17 times for our city to engage with people who are experiencing chronic homelessness before they accept services. And that number is just going to increase. If we make it harder for people to appear on our streets and receive those services and look for those services. So I urge you to oppose this resolution. The city of Los Angeles. I know this was a controversial decision that the Board of Supervisors had, and us up in L.A. have been talking about it a lot. So I really hope that Long Beach makes the better decision and better judgment and continues their steps forward to help aid our homeless residents. Thanks so much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Stefan.
Speaker 8: Stephanie. Well, there you go. Stefan Watson, Social Democratic Socialists of America, Long Beach chapter in November of last year at a Beer of Politics event and in response to an attempted anti-Islamist pogrom in the third district, Councilwoman Pryce spoke some hard truths to our residents concerning the effect of their rhetoric and behavior towards the homeless. I'm paraphrasing here, but she made a clear and unambiguous distinction between someone who is engaged in inherently criminal activity and someone who is sleeping rough. This was an incredibly brave stance for any politician to take against loud calls by wealthy homeowners to, among other things, lock them up with both the cold logic and sound reason of a seasoned attorney. Councilmember Price explained that our Constitution guarantees due process and equal protection under the law for everyone. She told them to their faces that the LGBT lacks the legal ability to detain a person on the street unless sufficient, probable cause or reasonable suspicion exists to do so. However, it seems today that the Council is being asked to blur that distinction and to instead declare our collective support for an amicus brief that explicitly rejects the same league. This exact same legal and moral argument. In Councilman Price's memo requesting this resolution, she uses the ambiguous term regulate regarding public camping. In practical terms, this means using the police to issue citations for infractions and misdemeanors against people sleeping in public. They mean stop and frisk and warrant checks against the homeless. And if you believe anonymous officials in the Trump administration, it could even mean concentration camps. And I'm not being hyperbolic here. On September 10th of this year in The Washington Post, an article was published entitled Trump Pushing for a Major Crackdown on Homeless Camps in California, with aides discussing moving residents to government backed facilities. Specifically from that article, top officials representing the White House and Department of Housing and Urban Development arrive in California this week for a round of meetings. The president is directly involved with the initiative, officials said, and has asked for updates. Officials representing the Justice Department were also there on the tour, according to two government officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share details they were not authorized to discuss. Among the ideas under consideration are raising existing tent camps for the homeless, creating new temporary facilities and refurbishing existing government facilities. Two other government officials said. The officials again spoke on the condition of anonymity because the planning hasn't been publicly revealed. The changes would attempt to give the federal government a larger role in supervising the housing and health care for residents.
Speaker 9: Given the cruel and unusual.
Speaker 8: Treatment that this administration has exhibited against immigrant families while utilizing remarkably similar terminology. It is worth taking the news of this latest sadistic policy very seriously. Martin versus Boise recognized that Anti-Camping laws that kick the homeless out represent an unconstitutional, unconstitutional form of cruel and unusual punishment by.
Speaker 10: Denying individuals.
Speaker 8: The right to sleep, by having the city of Long Beach officially endorse this effort to get a reactionary.
Speaker 10: Right wing Supreme Court to overturn this landmark.
Speaker 8: Decision. Instead, please affirm the legal status and human dignity of all of our residents by passing a local homeless Bill of Rights following an example set by the states of Rhode Island, Illinois, Connecticut and Colorado. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Is Derek where the police? Derek, come forward. Is Katie Jay here? Katie. Gerry, please come forward. Katie.
Speaker 13: My name's Derek, where I am born and raised right here in Long Beach. My father served in the United States Navy for 25 years and served stated for 20 years. I have a degree in sociology and I'm currently homeless. I'm the founder and CEO of Homeless of Possessed Land Homeless Solutions, in which we try to put homeless people to work for free of charge to any business or landlord who is willing to go into the fight of affordable housing and solve this homeless issue. For the city to adopt a resolution in support of the Martin versus Boise will be damaging to the city's reputation of being a leader in the homeless fight. I say that because as a resident of the city and in being homeless in this city, I know firsthand that. There is a criminal element that is put on homeless people because they're sleeping in public. If we, the courts say that homeless people or people sleep is a natural phenomenon. If we fall asleep in public, then we're all guilty of and we all need to be cited and go to jail, just like they do right here in Long Beach.
Speaker 9: They've been doing this for years, and a lot of homeless.
Speaker 13: People don't.
Speaker 2: Trust.
Speaker 13: Any offer of help from the city of Long Beach because they believe that if they go into the multi-service center, they're going to be cited in arrested for being homeless. That is counterproductive to what you're trying to establish as a city. So for YouTube to support that.
Speaker 9: That resolution will be counterproductive to what you're doing.
Speaker 13: Very counterproductive. You got people out here just working day in and day out, trying to do something to help alleviate this problem. And the problem is, is that not all homeless people have mental health issues. Not all of them is lazy and not all of them is uneducated. Many of those educated, many of them work for free. On a daily basis just to.
Speaker 9: Change the hearts and.
Speaker 13: Minds of people in this city. Because I know firsthand that a lot of gang leaders in this city didn't get this message, would they, getting from city hall exterminate the homeless? It's an American right to be protected, but for our possessions and be protected by the government in which we're under. And only place that we can find is protection that is on public land, because will we sleep in public and private land? The gang members are going to find this and they're going to do exactly what they've been doing, stabbing us and shooting us.
Speaker 9: While we're sleep.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, sir. Thank you very much, sir. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 2: Good evening. First, I would like to begin by sharing an excerpt from an article entitled Formerly Homeless MSW Alumna Giving Back to Ella's Homeless Katie J. MSW Class of 2016 experienced homelessness as a child. She now helps the homeless find permanent housing and access to mental health services. A Bay Area native. Katie did not have a traditional journey to the U.S.. Suzanne to work pick school of social work at the her parents divorce. Katie lived with her mother at the age of ten. They were evicted from their home, forcing Katie to sleep on couches and bounced between several homeless shelters. Finally, at 16, she was taken in by an aunt in Oakland. Despite attending 32 different schools, Katie received her high school diploma in 2003. Thanks to help from the East Bay College Fund. She went on to college and eventually pursued her master of social work. Katie spoke with us about her experience as a homeless youth and survivor of domestic violence, how she came to USC and her current work as a downtown Los Angeles emergency shelter. I say that because as an advocate and as a social worker practitioner, I stand before you in support of the entire homeless population community. The majority of the clients who sleep on the street are my current and former homeless clients. Shortly after this article was published in December 2017, I myself was forced into homelessness for doing what I was trying to do as a social worker practitioner. My daughter and I lost my residence of seven years where I relocated to Los Angeles from the Bay Area. During this time of homelessness, I myself had to sleep on the street as well as in my vehicle. I stand before you in support of my colleagues to oppose this ban? The homeless clients that we serve. They need the support of the county and the state to help them move forward, to become successful, to become a success story like myself. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes public comment. We're going to go ahead and go to a vote. And let's just count on one place to do everything else you comments.
Speaker 6: First of all, I want to thank everyone who came out tonight and taking time out of your schedule to be here. Just a few things here. Public camping is illegal in the city of Long Beach. If we want to change the law and we want to have a discussion about whether it should be illegal or not, that's a conversation that we should have. And I encourage my colleagues who are opposed to this item to bring such a discussion forward. I don't believe that my personally I don't believe that people should be able to sleep in public places when those spaces are closed. The reason for that is because residents also want to use the parks and or the beaches, and we don't have the resources to clean up these public spaces from encampments and do a sweep for public health impacts or threats every morning before kids and parents go to the park or to the beach. The police should be able to enforce the laws as they exist. If we don't agree with the laws, then we as a city council have the power to change those laws. But unfortunately, in the five years that I've been here, I've heard a lot of support for our police officers not enforcing the law. But not once have I heard a council colleague bring an item to say this particular conduct shouldn't be illegal at all. Right now it is illegal and our police officers are not able to enforce the laws that exist on our books today. They are in a difficult spot. When we have it is not illegal to be homeless. Absolutely not. And the city should do everything in its power to help support our homeless community. We should offer services. We should offer housing. We should offer as our quality of life division does in the East Division. They bring people to the courthouse that I supervise. And Mr. Stephan knows this. I don't know where he went. I actually walk those individuals into court and I have the judge recall their warrants so that the quality of life officers can drive them to a facility so they can start rehab. I've done that probably about ten or 15 times so far, and that's something that gives people an opportunity to move forward. But it's because of their warrants that they can't get in the system. They're not being arrested on those warrants by our quality of life officers. They're having those warrants recalled. If you don't leave or accept services and it's illegal to be in a particular place, you should be cited and you should be given the opportunity to accept the services that the city provides. Living in a public space is illegal because the very things associated with living can cause unintended dangers. When bathrooms are closed, the only place where human feces can go is on the public space. When we don't have access to areas where people can. Relieve themselves. It impacts neighborhoods unintentionally, but it does impact neighborhoods. If people are using drugs. Not that all homeless individuals do, but if people are using drugs, there is always a risk of needles being left behind or drug residue being left behind. We recently had an incident where pets were being rushed to the emergency room because they had consumed methamphetamine that had been left behind in an area where there was a homeless encampment. So there are a lot of public health dangers and risks associated with camping and public property. The city does not have the resources to clean those areas as efficiently as I wish we could. I think some of the controversy that has been stirred up as a result of this discussion and certainly was the subject of the L.A. County discussions, is exactly the reason why we need the Supreme Court to clarify this issue. Every city is dealing with this issue, which is why multiple cities and multiple jurisdictions have signed on to file the amicus. We are not joining in the amicus. We're just passing a resolution to support our colleagues in L.A. County who have weighed in on this issue because of the impacts that they've seen throughout the county. So I ask my colleagues to support this item, and again, I urge my colleagues who are opposed to this item. If you don't think that camping in public parks when those parks are closed should be illegal. Please, let's have that discussion. But that's not what tonight's item is about. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Vice Mayor Andrews.
Speaker 3: Yes. You know, I listen to my counsel wrestling with this item and it kind of gets me very close because the fact that, you know, we talk about public parks and things of that type, this is where most of my homeless people in my district, that's where they camp out. I know we don't have enough room to incarcerate these individuals because the fact that they're homeless. We know that we're in a crisis. But this crisis has to be where we have to take responsibility ourselves to help these individuals. And as much as I respect my colleagues with this, we have to find a way we know we in a crisis also. But to say to incarcerate someone because of a situation of being homeless, I can't go along with that. I know we are that. We are what we call we are the keepers of our city. We have to sit up and make decisions. And our decisions, I don't think, has to be in for any form of incarceration, because that's not what brought them to become homeless. Homeless came about not because of them, you know, wanting to be homeless because of the fact that other issues came about to make them homeless. So now we're going to have to come with a situation where we can help these individuals. And I know what those individual could be as individuals, you start losing a few paychecks and see what happened. So I'm just I just can't really go along with this as much as I you know, I respect my colleague and I hope we can come up with something even better. Thank you very much, Councilman.
Speaker 0: Councilman Austin.
Speaker 13: Thank you very much. I want to, first of all, thank those who came out and commended every one of your your words were very heartfelt and taken seriously by this council member. So I want to just just say, Derrick, I've got your outreach on Messenger a couple of weeks ago. I look forward to following up on the conversation with you and certainly empathize and and feel that the stories. I think there's a lot of hypotheticals being thrown out here. And this is a resolution about an amicus brief on the Supreme Court that may go to the Supreme Court or may not be heard by the Supreme Court . I've heard hypotheticals about people being incarcerated for being homeless. I don't think we've. Oh. Gotten there yet? I would have. And I did hear that, you know, Long Beach is making great strides. I know we're going to continue to make great strides. I mean, there's nothing. Oh. In what's being proposed tonight that says that we're going to turn the course in terms of our, ah, our approach to homelessness. I think we are looking at a multi-pronged approach. I think we need to, to, ah, to be very, very assertive in terms of solving this, this crisis. I think Long Beach is also going to be very continue to be very compassionate when it comes to dealing with our population experiencing homelessness. I know our law enforcement officers are doing that. The city council has put forth resources to try to put public safety. Officers and firefighters. Through our hard team and quality of life officers who are doing outreach on a daily basis and complimenting our health department outreach workers. I think it was noted. And I'm sorry I forget your name, but it was noted that it takes up to 17 contacts to bring somebody into services. Right. And the way I look at this is that we should be using tools to you to bring that number down. Right. 17 contacts is too many times. But if somebody experiencing homelessness knows that, hey, you know what? There is a carrot and a stick. You know, I might do better going into talking to somebody or going into a shelter and getting help. That is where we should be really working to motivate individuals to go toward. And so I don't see the harm here in supporting this amicus brief. Our county supervisor, Janice Hahn, is somebody who is extremely compassionate, somebody who's worked very diligently on this issue throughout her district. Mark Ridley-Thomas is somebody who I have a great deal of respect for. These individuals voted in support, right? They led the effort and they are leading voices, not just in the county but also in the state on this issue of homelessness. And and for that, I'm going to support this. Again, I think we need to have the tools. I think we need to have a multi-pronged approach. I don't support incarcerating anybody for being homeless. That's not what this proposes to do. I don't see that as going in that direction, and I don't think this council would support that type of activity or that type of action. We're saying that we need to have more tools. We need to have a little bit more enforcement and and motivation for for individuals to get off the street and get into services. And that's one way that we're going to help solve this issue of homelessness.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Turanga.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mary. You know, we had a discussion last week and we talked about the tools. We have the tools. And this what this abacus does basically is puts us on the level of trying to criminalize homelessness. I totally oppose that. I would be. I will be opposing this resolution when I drive around the city, when I drive to L.A. or when I drive to Santa Ana. I see the big problems there. We don't have that here in Long Beach is one of those things where, like, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. What we're trying to do here is trying to work with homeless people. I agree with Councilmember Austin. We have to have a multi-pronged approach. This approach right here is not part of that solution. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilwoman Price. And then we'll go to the vote.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Okay. So a couple of questions. Here are a couple of comments here. And I agree with Councilman Austin. I mean, the goal isn't to incarcerate anybody. For those of us who work in the criminal justice system, I cannot begin to tell you how many collaborative programs are available collaborative court programs, rehabilitation programs, mental health diversion programs. I, I have never seen somebody incarcerated and in my experience for like a trespass on a public property, the prosecution's office, I know there's a lot of misconceptions about what prosecutors do, but we work hand in hand with the public defenders on people that have homelessness issues to try to work with them on that . The the point of this is that we shouldn't. It. If people are sleeping in public spaces, we should have tools as a city to be able to enforce our laws. Now. Most of the time that enforcement means a citation and a admonishment to the person that it's a public park and they can't be there if the individual happens to have warrants. There is a possibility that they would get arrested, but that's up to the discretion of the officer. And in that case, they would be taken to the Long Beach jail, where they would have the opportunity to interface with our jailhouse clinician and further get advice and guidance on options for rehabilitation and services. And that's all before any cases even presented to the district attorney's office for review. But I'm hearing from my colleagues and I understand where we're at as a counsel, I respect the fact that we may not all see this issue from the same perspective. That's one of the things I love about our city. It's very diverse and we have different perspectives. What I'd like to do is instead of a resolution, the motion that I'd like to make is just to write a support letter as opposed to a resolution, because I think a support letter supporting L.A. County's vote is. L.A. County's actions perhaps sits better with some council colleagues, and maybe not. Maybe that difference doesn't matter to them. But I would like to request that this item be a support letter as opposed to a resolution.
Speaker 0: Okay. Members, Castro voted to change this from a resolution to a support letter of the L.A. County action. Please cast your votes.
Recommendation to adopt resolution in support of Los Angeles County's Amicus Brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to take up a challenge to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Martin v. City of Boise.