Guest opinion: Boise serves homeless citizens while protecting public health and safety
The city of Boise’s existing policy toward homeless camping on public property is crucial to protecting public health and public safety and better serving our homeless citizens. The case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court will define whether or not the city can continue to proactively stop public camping while we find alternate accommodations for the homeless. This is a complicated issue and it appears it will not be fully vetted during the mayor’s race. I believe citizens don’t yet have the information you need to fully understand this issue, and I feel compelled to weigh in.
At its heart, this issue is about compassionately serving our homeless population, while protecting public health and safety for all. Over 10 years ago, the city of Boise was challenged regarding the enforcement of its ordinance on not allowing overnight camping on public property, such as sidewalks and public spaces. In the last decade the courts have ruled in favor of the city on (most of) the ordinance. However, the most recent ruling, rather than fully affirming the direction the city has taken applied a new test to enforcement that makes it virtually impossible to determine whether there is a bed available for that person that night, the heart of our compassionate policy.
Previous court rulings pointed out areas where the ordinance was not acceptable, and the city changed the ordinance and its enforcement. Before law enforcement can issue a citation, there must be a shelter bed available for the individual that night. This requirement compels the city to better support area service providers. It also complements our community policing approach, requiring law enforcement to get to know the people they are policing and to treat them with dignity and respect. It requires that those police check on a bed for each individual every time they contemplate issuing a ticket. As a result, very few citations are issued, and they are only issued as a last resort. The goal is to find suitable accommodations and assistance.
We have also learned from experience that not enforcing the ordinance leads to encampments. The former encampment at Cooper Court is a good example of what happened when the city chose not to enforce the ordinance. The Cooper Court encampment quickly became unsafe, unsanitary and virtually impossible to police. The chronically homeless in the camp were preyed upon by criminals seeking to sell drugs and to commit thefts and acts of violence.
There are claims that enforcing the current ordinance is tantamount to “criminalizing” homelessness. The use of that language inflames the issue while failing to explain what’s working and what isn’t. I would argue that NOT enforcing the ordinance leads to more and more serious criminal charges. The anti-camping ordinance is proactive and allows for the issuing of a citation that is equivalent to issuing a parking ticket. Stopping camping once it begins requires a nearly full-time police presence, which in turn leads to more serious citations for public urination, defecation, disorderly conduct and more. And it isn’t the initial camping ticket that leads to criminal charges, it’s failure to appear.
To that end, the city of Boise has worked with the courts and service providers for these citizens on an intervention that schedules special consolidated court dates for who have failed to appear. They are provided transportation to court and receive additional assistance. At court, there is an opportunity to deal with the cases through interventions and accommodations rather than through an escalation of criminal charges. While this court solution is new, it holds promise for dealing with the root causes and avoiding criminalization of the charges. This is what “compassion” looks like.
This is a classic constitutional battle. Like free speech or gun rights, the question is where do individual rights end and the common good begin. The city of Boise has found the right balance on this issue. That balance allows the city to do its primary job – protecting the public health and safety of all citizens – including those who are experiencing homelessness. I support pursuing the case that has been brought to the Supreme Court. Abandoning that appeal now is not compassionate.
As a council member who is active in the National League of Cities, I can attest that many of my colleagues from cities across America agree. I have been strongly encouraged by my peers to see this case through so they can deal with the unsafe, unhealthy encampments that often define their cities. We don’t know how the Supreme Court will respond. If the court chooses to take the case, it may rule differently than we might hope. Regardless, we and other cities will know that the highest court has given us guidance. Rest assured that I will continue always to advocate for improving the services and outcomes for our citizens experiencing homelessness, while protecting public health and safety for all.