ARTICLE
Last Friday, the U.S. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Grants Pass, Oregon case that the city’s ordinance to prohibit people who are homeless from sleeping or camping on public property does not violate the U.S. Constitution’s 8th Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Judge Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion (6-3) contending the 8th Amendment “serves many important functions but it does not authorize federal judges to dictate the Nation’s homeless policy.” He wrote that the task should fall to the American people or in most cases to the local jurisdictions where homeless people sleep on public property. Justice Sonja Sotomayor wrote the dissenting opinion arguing that the majority ruling ‘focuses almost exclusively on the needs of local government and leaves the most vulnerable in our society with an impossible choice: either stay awake or face the possibility of arrest.” Phil Kramer, the Executive Director of Housing Matters offered his perspective citing the dissenting comments from Judge Sotomayor, “Housing Matters is saddened and concerned by this decision, which comes amidst overwhelming evidence that criminalization strategies have failed to reduce unsheltered homelessness. These coercive and counterproductive policies are roadblocks in the process of helping people return to housing, adding more barriers to connecting people with resources and overburdens someone who may be fined or jailed for nonpayment of fines. While this decision allows for these punitive measures, it remains with local jurisdictions to focus on proven solutions like shelter, supportive services, and housing. I encourage our local leaders to continue to focus on these solutions, not fines and punishments.” Grants Pass, a city with just under 40,000 people, has as many as 600 people experiencing homelessness on any given night. In 2013, the city decided to increase enforcement of existing ordinances that bar the use of blankets, pillows, and cardboard boxes while sleeping within the city. Violators face steep fines: $295, which increases to $537.60 if it is not paid. When individuals receive two citations, police in Grants Pass can issue an order banning them from city property; anyone who violates such an order can be convicted on criminal trespass charges, which carry penalties of up to 30 days in jail and a $1,250 fine. In 2018, John Logan and Gloria Johnson, both of whom have been homeless in Grants Pass, challenged the constitutionality of the city’s ordinances. A federal district court agreed with them and barred the city from enforcing the ordinances at night and under some circumstances during the day. Friday’s decision was a major ruling on homelessness that is likely to have an effect well beyond Grants Pass. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, more than 600,000 people were homeless in the United States on a single night in 2023. In response to the increase in the number of people who are homeless, other state and local governments have passed similar bans on “camping” in recent years. As we know so well in cities along the West Coast, the 9th District Court decision in Martin vs. City of Boise has hamstrung how a city or county addresses the homeless population in an equitable way. The City and the County have worked to reduce the number of homeless persons who are on the streets, in our parks, sidewalks in other locations of our community. The 2023 annual Point-In-Time (PIT) count by Santa Cruz County, reflected a 21.5% decline in the number of people experiencing homelessness in our country. The overall number of people experiencing homelessness remained essentially unchanged between 2023 and 2024, with a slight 2.6 percent increase to 1,850. Compared to Grants Pass, Oregon — our numbers are exceedingly high for a small county. The report is here: https://housingforhealthpartnership.org/Portals/29/HAP/pdf/H4HP_PITcount_2024.pdf. I reached out to Santa Cruz Mayor Fred Keeley to get his observation about the current homeless strategy and the U.S. Supreme Court decision: Keeley said: "The City of Santa Cruz is making measurable progress in reducing street homelessness. In the last two years, the homeless count in Santa Cruz has been reduced by 30% and is holding. With the support of voters, we have funding to maintain existing shelter options, and our County partners are doing a very good job providing health and human services to those experiencing homelessness. There are no longer any unsanctioned large homeless camps in the City, and the Oversized Vehicle Ordinance has reduced illegal parking and waste dumping throughout the community, and especially in the coastal zone. The recent Supreme Court ruling may provide some communities with an additional tool regarding camping in public spaces, but our existing approach is providing results that are the envy of many cities in California. Whether or not this new tool is needed in Santa Cruz will be born out in time.” The U.S. Supreme Court majority has a differing opinion on the subject of homelessness in the Grants Pass v. Johnson decision. The Chamber has actively worked with our local jurisdictions and those entities that assist our homeless population, we are increasingly concerned that the current strategy, while appearing to curb the growth of our homeless population in the past two years, may need to be tweaked to provide more efficiency of services and increase the number of housing units for our most needy residents. The housing first model is the standard, but without wrap-around services, will we reach the goal set by the updated Three Year Framework for the County of Santa Cruz:(2024-2027)? https://housingforhealthpartnership.org/OurPlan/FrameworkDevelopment.aspx.
Last Friday, the U.S. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Grants Pass, Oregon case that the city’s ordinance to prohibit people who are homeless from sleeping or camping on public property does not violate the U.S. Constitution’s 8th Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
Judge Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion (6-3) contending the 8th Amendment “serves many important functions but it does not authorize federal judges to dictate the Nation’s homeless policy.” He wrote that the task should fall to the American people or in most cases to the local jurisdictions where homeless people sleep on public property.
Justice Sonja Sotomayor wrote the dissenting opinion arguing that the majority ruling ‘focuses almost exclusively on the needs of local government and leaves the most vulnerable in our society with an impossible choice: either stay awake or face the possibility of arrest.”
Phil Kramer, the Executive Director of Housing Matters offered his perspective citing the dissenting comments from Judge Sotomayor, “Housing Matters is saddened and concerned by this decision, which comes amidst overwhelming evidence that criminalization strategies have failed to reduce unsheltered homelessness. These coercive and counterproductive policies are roadblocks in the process of helping people return to housing, adding more barriers to connecting people with resources and overburdens someone who may be fined or jailed for nonpayment of fines. While this decision allows for these punitive measures, it remains with local jurisdictions to focus on proven solutions like shelter, supportive services, and housing. I encourage our local leaders to continue to focus on these solutions, not fines and punishments.”
Grants Pass, a city with just under 40,000 people, has as many as 600 people experiencing homelessness on any given night. In 2013, the city decided to increase enforcement of existing ordinances that bar the use of blankets, pillows, and cardboard boxes while sleeping within the city.
Violators face steep fines: $295, which increases to $537.60 if it is not paid. When individuals receive two citations, police in Grants Pass can issue an order banning them from city property; anyone who violates such an order can be convicted on criminal trespass charges, which carry penalties of up to 30 days in jail and a $1,250 fine.
In 2018, John Logan and Gloria Johnson, both of whom have been homeless in Grants Pass, challenged the constitutionality of the city’s ordinances. A federal district court agreed with them and barred the city from enforcing the ordinances at night and under some circumstances during the day.
Friday’s decision was a major ruling on homelessness that is likely to have an effect well beyond Grants Pass. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, more than 600,000 people were homeless in the United States on a single night in 2023. In response to the increase in the number of people who are homeless, other state and local governments have passed similar bans on “camping” in recent years.
As we know so well in cities along the West Coast, the 9th District Court decision in Martin vs. City of Boise has hamstrung how a city or county addresses the homeless population in an equitable way. The City and the County have worked to reduce the number of homeless persons who are on the streets, in our parks, sidewalks in other locations of our community. The 2023 annual Point-In-Time (PIT) count by Santa Cruz County, reflected a 21.5% decline in the number of people experiencing homelessness in our country. The overall number of people experiencing homelessness remained essentially unchanged between 2023 and 2024, with a slight 2.6 percent increase to 1,850. Compared to Grants Pass, Oregon — our numbers are exceedingly high for a small county. The report is here: https://housingforhealthpartnership.org/Portals/29/HAP/pdf/H4HP_PITcount_2024.pdf.
I reached out to Santa Cruz Mayor Fred Keeley to get his observation about the current homeless strategy and the U.S. Supreme Court decision: Keeley said: "The City of Santa Cruz is making measurable progress in reducing street homelessness. In the last two years, the homeless count in Santa Cruz has been reduced by 30% and is holding. With the support of voters, we have funding to maintain existing shelter options, and our County partners are doing a very good job providing health and human services to those experiencing homelessness. There are no longer any unsanctioned large homeless camps in the City, and the Oversized Vehicle Ordinance has reduced illegal parking and waste dumping throughout the community, and especially in the coastal zone. The recent Supreme Court ruling may provide some communities with an additional tool regarding camping in public spaces, but our existing approach is providing results that are the envy of many cities in California. Whether or not this new tool is needed in Santa Cruz will be born out in time.”
The U.S. Supreme Court majority has a differing opinion on the subject of homelessness in the Grants Pass v. Johnson decision. The Chamber has actively worked with our local jurisdictions and those entities that assist our homeless population, we are increasingly concerned that the current strategy, while appearing to curb the growth of our homeless population in the past two years, may need to be tweaked to provide more efficiency of services and increase the number of housing units for our most needy residents. The housing first model is the standard, but without wrap-around services, will we reach the goal set by the updated Three Year Framework for the County of Santa Cruz:(2024-2027)? https://housingforhealthpartnership.org/OurPlan/FrameworkDevelopment.aspx.