by Alex de Marban
Things
picked up in
1996 right where they left off, with the city council passing an ordinance that
seems destined for lengthy and costly court challenges. In addition to those
flaws, critics say the mayor’s new “anti-homeless” ordinance may tie up the
city municipal court docket with scores of new Class C offenders, creating
additional taxpayer burdens. Indeed, the ordinance is so awash with problems
that half the councilmembers responsible for it admitted that it wasn’t a
solution.
“I don’t feel comfortable with this ordinance. There’s a better solution
somewhere,” said Gus Garcia, who nonetheless joined Max Nofziger, Ronney
Reynolds, and of course, Mayor Bruce Todd last Thursday in voting to make it
illegal to sleep and camp in public places. Jackie Goodman voted “No,” Eric
Mitchell abstained, and Brigid Shea was absent.
Former transient and flower trafficker Nofziger also said the ordinance wasn’t
the “solution.” In fact, in an attempt to defend his vote, Nofziger served up a
list of points that seemed more like arguments against the ordinance: “We have
a housing shortage. We are in a situation where you may not be able to find
housing. [This ordinance] is not very satisfying, frankly. This is a negative
enforcement approach.”
So why do it? “I heard from the community,” said the outgoing councilmember.
The community to which Nofziger refers probably watched Thursday’s council
meeting from their homes or workplaces; two representatives of the Downtown
Austin Alliance (DAA) were the only supporters of the encampment ordinance who
appeared to speak at last week’s meeting. Jose Martinez, head of the DAA,
promised that the ordinance would keep businesses from fleeing the central
city. The other DAA rep called the new law a “moral victory” for Austin’s
business community.
On the other side of the debate, a homeless woman called “Mother Love” and
another two dozen homeless or homeless supporters wielded protest signs and
angry faces. They charged the council with class discrimination and
unconstitutional tendencies. Many speculated on the law’s potential costs to
the city’s enforcement system — when it goes into effect on January 15,
thousands of Austin’s homeless will be subject to arrest. Since the city has
less than 500 shelter beds, that means as many as 5,500 homeless could get
treated to a $70-a-day-jail stay. The San Francisco Coalition on Homelessness,
which opposes a similar law recently passed in its city, estimates that
authorities there have spent 5,280 hours and $160,000 a month enforcing it.
But the mayor didn’t let such figures squelch his determination. “We don’t
back down from law enforcement because it costs money,” he said after the vote.
“And we will enforce the law.”
Opponents promised it would be challenged. Carl Hickerson-Bull, who intends to
vie for Nofziger’s seat this spring and is a flower salesman himself, summed it
up best: “The ordinance is impossible to enforce equally, which is the test of
all laws in our society.”
Similar “anti-homeless” laws that criminalized sleeping in public, passed in
1992 in Miami and in 1994 in Dallas, have already flunked that test — both
were found unconstitutional at the district court level. (The Miami case is on
its way to an appellate court.)
The courts ruled that, as in Austin, the cities didn’t enough have enough
homeless shelters to serve the entire homeless population. Thus, many homeless
had no choice but to live in public, and of course, carry out life-sustaining
acts, like sleeping, in public.
Austin’s new law, however, while it prohibits sleeping in public, focuses on
homeless camps and laying down bedding to sleep. That’s the key difference,
says Deborah Thomas, a city attorney who wrote the law. “Our new one attempts
to narrow in on not just sleeping. It’s a living accomodations test.”
Still, a ruling on whether such materials are essential to sustaining life has
not been made and Thomas acknowledges that a case against the city could go
either way. “We don’t have anything to say, one way or the other,” says
Thomas.
A legal challenge could come soon. “We’ll defend ourselves,” said Richard
Troxell, president of House the Homeless. “If it takes a lawsuit, that’s what
we’ll do.” The group has already drafted a defense packet to present to the
homeless when they’re arrested, but is short on the cash needed to create
more.
If the law is challenged, a proposition by Nofziger could remove Troxell’s
argument that the city doesn’t have enough facilities to shelter the homeless.
Nofziger’s ordinance would allow religious organizations to be exempt from
Drainage Utility fees if they provide sleeping quarters for the homeless.
Nofziger pulled the proposal from last week’s agenda, however, perhaps because
Shea’s absence may have meant a deficiency of “Yes” votes.
n
The council also unanimously agreed to accept a $175,000 grant from
Public/Private Ventures, a non-profit that seeks to encourage positive youth
development. The city and Austin Interfaith, a coalition of religious groups,
will participate in a joint venture that will spend the funds according to a
Youth Charter, developed last year by neighborhood residents of East and South
Austin. It calls for 500 youth to do community service and neighborhood
improvement projects, such as installing security lights on the homes of
elderly residents. The target neighborhoods are represented by the school zones
of Zavala, Metz, and Sanchez elementaries.
The grant money wasn’t even accepted before Lori Renteria, of the United East
Austin Council, demanded that six neighborhood-appointed reps sit on the
steering committee that will implement the plan. Garcia, sponsor of the motion,
said he’d amend the ordinance to have the city manager “look into” to
Renteria’s request. She shouted from the audience that that wasn’t acceptable.
The mayor fired back that yes, it was. Eric Mitchell requested that she explain
her reasoning. She argued that the committee is stacked with representatives
who were hand-picked by Austin Interfaith. Garcia agreed to amend the
resolution, adding three additional slots to the committee.
n
This week in council: Mitchell will call for a moratorium on at least $2
million in funds from the city’s housing department that haven’t yet been
authorized for spending by the council. Mitchell says the housing department
needs direction. Also, Nofziger’s proposal to cut Drainage Utility fees for
churches providing housing for the homeless will return.
This article appears in January 12 • 1996 and January 12 • 1996 (Cover).