Manchester aldermen reject proposed changes to city's camping ordinance
Sep. 6—Manchester aldermen late Tuesday night spurned a change to the city's camping ordinance that the alderman backing it said would make it easier for police to remove homeless people from public property.
The board's vote "to receive and file" Alderman at Large Joe Kelly Levasseur's proposal effectively kills it.
The vote followed a protest outside City Hall against the proposal that drew 50 people. That was followed by nearly two hours of public comment at the start of this week's Board of Mayor and Aldermen meeting — with many opposed to the ordinance change.
In August, the request was tabled for a month to allow aldermen time to review similar regulations in San Diego and Los Angeles. The vote to table came after a lengthy nonpublic session at which aldermen huddled with City Solicitor Emily Rice behind closed doors. At that meeting, about a dozen people spoke for or against the proposed ordinance change.
Levasseur argued that Manchester city ordinance 130.13 (A), which prohibits camping on public property without advance written permission, should not have been amended to say police will enforce the prohibition "only when the individual is on public property and there is an available overnight shelter."
Levasseur had proposed striking the verbiage "and there is an available overnight shelter" and related language from the ordinance so it simply reads, "The Manchester Police shall enforce this camping section only when the individual is on public property."
Board Chairman Pat Long said before Tuesday's meeting that he didn't expect the ordinance to be taken off the table, with more research needed into language used in similar ordinances elsewhere. But near the end of the lengthy session that's exactly what happened.
The vote was 9 to 5 to receive and file, with Levasseur, Long, Ed Sapienza, Bill Barry and Crissy Kantor opposed.
Causes and effects
Ward 2 Alderman Will Stewart, a mayoral candidate, referred to the proposal as a "smokescreen."
"Last night, aldermen rejected a smoke-and-mirrors proposed ordinance amendment that pretended to address homelessness but would have done absolutely nothing to tackle the underlying causes of homelessness or even its sometimes unsightly effects," Stewart said on social media Wednesday.
"But voting down disingenuous proposals like this is not enough. As I said last night before the vote, Manchester residents and business owners deserve a solution, not a smokescreen. We need a goal and real plan to address and solve — yes, solve — homelessness in the long term."
On Wednesday, Levasseur called the vote a "slap in the face."
"Manchester is the only city or town that adds an entitlement to the state's camping statute," Levasseur said in a text. "It is a slap in the face to the businesses and residents to continue to put vagrants ahead of the honest hard working people who play by the rules."
Opponents of Levasseur's proposal claimed it would "enable sweeping of homeless encampments on public property even when shelters are full, violating Eighth Amendment rights of the unsheltered as outlined in (the) Martin v. Idaho" court decision. They said it would leave the city vulnerable to lawsuits "at taxpayer expense, due to the violation of the 8th Amendment rights of unhoused residents."
Brandon Lemay, a Ward 8 resident and the New Hampshire housing justice organizer for the nonprofit Rights and Democracy, said during the public comment period that unemployment and drug use are not the main drivers of homelessness.
"It's housing affordability," Lemay said. "My parents bought their home on the West Side in 1992 for $89,000. In today's money that's about $193,000 — not bad. Today it's worth $400,000 — twice the amount of inflation. That's a working class West Side home that a working class West Side person cannot afford anymore.
"We need to stop punishing people, we need to build housing."
'Stronger' rules in LA, SD
The city ordinance was amended in 2021 on advice from the city solicitor's office to help protect the city from lawsuits in response to a 2018 ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Martin v. City of Boise, Levasseur said.
In that ruling, the court determined a city cannot charge someone with a crime or give them a ticket for sleeping in a public space if shelter beds aren't available — in effect, if there's nowhere else for them to go.
Levasseur said new camping ordinances in San Diego and Los Angeles that aldermen spent a month reviewing are "1,000 times stronger than our city ordinance."
San Diego's ordinance, which took effect July 30, prohibits homeless encampments in public spaces throughout the city if shelter beds are available.
The ordinance also bans encampments at all times in so-called "sensitive areas" — within two blocks of schools or shelters and at all city parks, waterways, canyons and transit stations — regardless of shelter availability.
In Los Angeles, the city can designate specific areas for enforcement to prevent sitting, lying, sleeping, placing personal property or otherwise obstructing the public right-of-way.
Among other places, the ordinance prohibits those activities near fire hydrants, exits and entrances, loading docks, areas designated for handicap access, or anywhere within a street, including bike paths.
The law also prohibits encampments within 500 feet of a "sensitive" facility, including schools, day care facilities, parks and libraries.
