SELMA – In line with other Valley communities, the city of Selma is taking advantage of the Supreme Court’s ruling that allows cities to ban camping in public spaces.
The Selma City Council voted 4-0 at its meeting Aug. 19 to initiate a broad anti-camping ordinance for the city; Councilmember Blanca Mendoza-Navarro abstained. With residents increasingly tired of seeing homelessness in the area, council members said they were glad to have the chance to better address the issue.
“Everyone’s going to do it, because we need to protect our city,” Councilmember Sarah Guerra said. “We need to protect our businesses, our citizens that are upset about these homeless going and peeping through their windows. You know, it’s sad. It’s sad that you see this … so in order for us to get this situated, we really need to implement this.”
The city’s newfound ability to do this comes from the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Grants Pass v. Johnson. In that case, the Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling that said anti-camping ordinances were unconstitutional because they criminalized the status of being homeless and violated the 8th Amendment, which protects against cruel and unusual punishment.
In disagreeing with that ruling, the Supreme Court said that because anti-camping ordinances would apply to any person regardless of whether or not they were homeless, they did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Further, it said the 8th Amendment specifically looks at the form of punishment given for a crime, and the ordinance in question — similar to many anti-camping ordinances — merely imposed a fine or jail time for violators.
Following a presentation from City Attorney Megan Crouch on the matter that outlined the city’s options, the council said it would like to see an ordinance that mirrors what the city of Fresno put into its own camping ban. Selma currently has an anti-camping ordinance in its municipal code, but it only restricts people from camping in any park or recreation area without first receiving a permit from the council.
The city of Fresno’s new anti-camping ban instead prohibits camping in public places including alleys, streets and on sidewalks, as well as areas deemed “sensitive use” places such as parks, youth recreation areas, schools, childcare facilities, libraries and government facilities. It also establishes homeless encampments as “public nuisances,” which allows the city to clear them and sets out guidelines from the removal and storage of personal property when clearing encampments.
Guerra made a motion to direct Crouch to draft an ordinance that would mimic the city of Fresno’s. After some discussion between the council and city staff over what punishments the ordinance would impose or how closely it would mirror Fresno’s ordinance, the council decided it would tailor the ordinance to fit Selma’s needs once it has a draft that resembles Fresno’s.
At a later time, the council will also need to discuss what the penalties for violating the ordinance will be. In general, Selma municipal code violations are treated as misdemeanors, punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or imprisonment not to exceed six months. Violations may also be treated as infractions, and are punishable by a fine of up to $100 for a first offense, a fine of up to $200 for a second offense and a fine of up to $500 for any additional offenses within the same year.
Crouch said the council could decide to implement different, more specific punishments in the anti-camping ordinance itself as long as they are not punishing the specific status of being homeless.
Resident perspective
Many residents who spoke on the item said they were in favor of the anti-camping ordinance because they want to see people get off the streets and out of public parks; some told stories of encountering unhoused individuals doing drugs out in the open or urinating in a public place. Residents said that while they do not want to make homelessness out to be a crime and they are concerned about people getting the resources they need, they also do not want to see as many unhoused people in their city.
Still, one resident named Tonya, who did not provide a last name, spoke up to say that the conversation was “disheartening” for her to hear because she said it sounded like “instead of actually responding to crime, we’re just going to round up the unhoused and make their life harder by taking their little possessions that they have.”
“People who are homeless aren’t like, ‘Yay, this is a party,’ some people are on drugs because they’re homeless,” Tonya said. “I just feel a callousness that keeps getting washed over with, ‘No, we’re not being callous, but here’s the callous thing we’re doing,’ and it’s just very saddening, disheartening, and I think that the community can do better.”
Mendoza-Navarro, who works as the executive director of the Madera Housing Authority, said she agreed that the council needs to enforce an anti-camping ordinance, but at the same time the city needs to make sure it has the resources to help people experiencing homelessness. She said many homeless people have nowhere to go, especially as more camping bans are enforced and shelters fill up.
“Before we start making these rules about trying to put people in jail, think about who you’re doing that to, and think about how you can get resources to them, because we do really need to have those resources,” Mendoza-Navarro said.
Following Mendoza-Navarro’s comments, Mayor Scott Robertson said that of course people need treatment, but thinking on the part of “the citizens who’ve been tyrannized over for so many years now,” if there are people who do not want to get help, they need to leave the city.
“What we need to do for those folks who don’t want the help and won’t leave and are a problem and want to do their drugs and buy their drugs here, they need to leave,” Robertson said. “We don’t want them in our town. They need to go because they’re just making life harder, and they’re breaking laws here, and they’re making life miserable for all of us.”
Robertson said he thinks that on a third violation, the person should be required to get drug tested and go to mandatory drug testing if they test positive so that they can get better and be a productive citizen.
“Those folks who lost their homes, they want their homes again,” Robertson said. “They’re not going to get their homes if they’re strung out on meth. They’re going to get their homes again if they get help and become productive citizens again, and to me, council member, that’s showing true love and true concern for somebody to care enough to show that love, to get them the help so they can help themselves.”
Moving forward, the ordinance process itself will still take some time. Once the council has an ordinance it wants to implement, it must conduct two readings on it, hold a public hearing and then wait 30 days after it passes to begin enforcement.
