The County of San Diego gave initial approval to a close ban on homeless camps in parts not constituted in the region of the region, becoming the last local government to stimulate sanctions to sleep outside, because the country’s Superior Court gave more latitude to clean the streets and sidewalks.
However, the measure only allows deputies of ticking sheriff people whose campsites have an “imminent risk of death” or “serious injuries”, in particular with regard to the spread of “transmitted diseases” or forest fires.
Even having a lighter in a tent, whether lit, is prohibited.
“We do not want to penalize people to be poor,” said supervisor Joel Anderson on Wednesday, who has long put pressure on many of these changes. “But on the same token, we don’t want to allow people to burn neighborhoods or put their own lives in danger.”
The vote of the Council of Supervisors was notably unanimous – the body is uniformly divided between the Democrats and the Republicans – at a time when other proposals were suspended until the residents of the County South could elect a fifth tie supervisor in July.
The order must be elected on May 20 to become law. The rules would then take effect in 30 days.
A county campsite ban was discussed since at least at the end of 2023. At the time, a decision of the Federal Court said that the police could generally not launch people in public land if there was nowhere to go, which actually frozen a wide range of application. The shelters in the region are frequently full and the county of East especially has few options.
These limitations released through the window last year when the United States Supreme Court decided that cities can release tent camps, regardless of the availability of the refuge. Since then, Chula Vista, National City and Encinitas have either adopted new prescriptions, or an extended application of the old ones.
The County of San Diego was never going as far as possible.
A previous version of the proposal said that a homeless one that was not a fire could still be quoted if they were offered, then refused, an “available and accessible” refuge. The “accessible” part was the key: a top berth would not have counted, for example, if the homeless in question was in a wheelchair. Even then, there must also have been “sufficient shelter for all non -lottical people living in the area not formed in society” so that any tickets were delivered.
It could have been a major challenge. Last year, the punctual statement found around 200 people living outside or in their vehicles in communities not constituted in society, such as Fallbrook and Ramona, where there is often no shelter. The county has a program of vouchers which rent hotel rooms for residents of homeless, but which is also regularly at full capacity, and those responsible have abandoned shelters in Lakeside, Spring Valley and Santee after the neighbors opposed. (The county now hopes to build dozens of small cabins in Lemon Grove, although this effort is faced with similar repression.)
Nevertheless, the supervisors decided after a discussion of an hour on Wednesday to allow quotes only when there is a risk of public security.
The first speakers believe that around a tenth of all flames in several cities in the County East recently involved homeless, and that the suspected share of the city of San Diego is even higher: almost 20%. However, the real scope of the problem is unknown because these figures are sometimes only educated assumptions and Cal Fire, which operates in the county not constituted in San Diego Society, does not follow publicly when the fires start in the camps.
The order applies to managed, but not necessarily detained, the county.
It is not yet clear where the application of the law could be concentrated. The Board of Directors is expected to examine the areas in which areas face the highest fire risk on May 20.
There was surprisingly few public comments at the hearing on Wednesday. Camping ban proposals often attract large crowds, which may include the two owners angry with nearby tent camps and the defenders of the homeless concerned about the fact that new restrictions could criminalize poverty.
The low participation rate could have been affected by the fact that the hearing was delayed one day after the meeting of the Tuesday supervisors’ board. In addition, the county staff had already committed themselves with people from the plaid -free -free advocacy and leadership network, and these discussions resulted in a proposal that was much less radical than some in other municipalities.
The two public members who weighed on Wednesday were largely in favor of the measure. “Allowing people to stay in misery is not compassionate,” said Mary Davis.
Originally published:
California Daily Newspapers