ACLU Utah speaks on behalf of homeless in lawsuit filed against Salt Lake City
ACLU Utah has filed an amicus brief with the Utah Supreme Court on behalf of people experiencing homelessness in response to a lawsuit alleging Salt Lake City has created a public and private nuisance by "inviting and fostering vagrancy" on its property "to the detriment of several neighborhoods and businesses."
The complaint, filed on behalf of nine residents and business owners in September, argues that Salt Lake City has allowed "homeless encampments to proliferate in violation of existing city ordinances and state laws." The plaintiffs ask the court to direct the city to abate "any and all nuisances caused by the unhoused" on any city property and that the city pay their attorneys' fees.
The residents and business owners outlined instances of human waste, theft, vandalism, acts of violence and use of illegal drugs. Attorneys for the group provided photographs of unsheltered people sleeping or camping in public spaces near residences or businesses, drug paraphernalia and public drug use, trash and property damage. When the incidents occur or are reported, the plaintiffs argued that "the police response is always inadequate."
In addition to the photographs, the complaint pointed to the number of homeless-related incidents happening around the residents' and business owners' property, as seen on Salt Lake City's interactive map.
"Although this is a nuisance case, it is also a plea for sanity and common sense, and a plea to address the humanitarian crisis that the city's intentional actions (and inactions) have caused and continue to cause," the complaint stated.
Salt Lake City has several ordinances that outlaw camping or sleeping on public land. Those arrested or ticketed for sleeping on the sidewalk, which is considered public land, can be charged with a class D misdemeanor that carries a maximum sentence of six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. The ordinance outlawing camping in the park has a provision reducing the penalty to an infraction with no possibility of jail time and a maximum fine of $299.
Salt Lake City Mayor Erin Mendenhall has said that the city does enforce a no-camping ordinance but often as a last resort. Homeless encampments are reported to and monitored by the city's Homeless Engagement and Response Team. Smaller encampments can be resolved by the rapid intervention team, which includes a professional outreach team that tries to resolve the camp through services.
Bill Tibbitts, deputy executive director of Crossroads Urban Center, released a letter shortly after the lawsuit was filed. Tibbitts pointed to the issues created by similar enforcement suggested by the residents and business owners in 2010. Crossroads Urban Center arranged a "sleep-in" at Washington Square to protest the enforcement of the ordinance, saying it denied them a place to sleep at a time when the city's overflow shelter was closed. The Salt Lake chief of police at the time, Chris Burbank, halted enforcement.
"Criminalization sounds like it's going to work, but it never does," said Tibbitts. "You can give people tickets, but if they need to sleep this is going to continue. They're going to find a place to sleep; that's just the human need. Maybe the police can get people to hide, but this isn't a problem that you can arrest your way out."
At the time of the protest, the population was smaller and jails had more capacity for those cited for camping but "that's not even a possibility now," said Tibbitts. Even so, opting to fine unsheltered individuals just pushes them further into poverty, he added.
This argument was outlined in the brief filed by ACLU Utah in partnership with the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, National Homelessness Law Center, Crossroads Urban Center and Salt Lake Legal Defender Association.
The brief filed on Nov. 21 urged the court to reject the request for an injunction arguing that, in part:
"The injunction would necessarily require dismantling campsites that unhoused people rely on to survive, forcibly relocating people experiencing homelessness to unknown and undetermined locations, and ramping up the enforcement of overbroad laws that have already been used by the city and other government officials to violate unhoused people's rights. These court-compelled actions would likely lead to further litigation against the city by unhoused residents who have had no voice in this litigation.
"Second, plaintiffs' requested relief would make the problem of homelessness worse, not better. Citing, fining, and imprisoning people experiencing homelessness entrenches poverty and makes it harder for people to find employment or housing in the future. Encampment sweeps move people away from much-needed services and often result in lost or destroyed property, including medications and important documents. Plaintiffs' approach to the homelessness crisis would exacerbate the problem and is decidedly against the public interest."
The case and injunction request remain pending before the district court.
