Tensions ran high at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday morning as the City Attorney’s Office and counsel for the Coalition on Homelessness met in federal court regarding an injunction that limits the city’s ability to sweep encampments off the streets.
The city’s representatives have claimed that the injunction, imposed by U.S. District Court Judge Donna Ryu in December 2022, is overly broad, and has resulted in the city “being unable to enforce these laws” regarding homeless encampments.
The Coalition, meanwhile, has countered that the city, for years, looked the other way when Public Works employees destroyed or even stole homeless people’s property, and has neglected to build or obtain nearly enough shelter or housing for the unhoused. It has filed a lawsuit to that effect, which prompted the federal injunction to stop sweeps.
This legal clash derives from the 2018 Ninth Circuit case Martin v. Boise, which established that cities cannot forcefully remove street campers without offering them available shelter or housing.
Neighborhood and merchant groups gathered outside to protest the injunction and were met by demonstrators supporting the parties suing the city, the Coalition and the ACLU of Northern California.
Inside the James R. Browning Courthouse, Deputy City Attorney Wayne Snodgrass and Coalition lawyer Joseph Lee made their respective cases to San Francisco Ninth Circuit Judges Lucy Koh, Patrick J. Bumatay and Roopali H. Desai.
The roughly 50-minute hearing included attorneys and members of the panel interrupting one another at times, and attempting to speak over one another.
“This is a crisis,” exclaimed Snodgrass, in a courtroom so packed that officials positioned a TV monitor a few rooms over to serve additional attendees.
Much of the debate at Wednesday’s hearing focused on the term “involuntary homelessness” — which is the language in the July injunction describing those who have no means of adequate shelter or relief.
Lee, who appeared on behalf of the Coalition on Homelessness, argued that “the injunction must be defined consistent with the definitions of involuntary homelessness.”
Should the term “involuntary homelessness” be determined to be overly vague and inconsistent, it would potentially undo the validity of the initial injunction.
Lee pointed out that labeling homeless people with terms like “involuntary” or “voluntary” is irrelevant, given that the city doesn’t possess the resources to shelter them.
While San Francisco’s streets are undoubtedly experiencing a crisis, there are also studies whose findings are concerning when it comes to the involuntary displacement of homeless people.
One study found that the involuntary displacement of homeless people could contribute to mortality spikes of between 15.6 percent and 24.4 percent over a 10-year period.
City officials countered that the temporary injunction will only worsen the issue of homeless populations crowding the streets, as opposed to making way for affordable solutions that will address the lack of shelter and mental health resources at hand.
Both Snodgrass and Lee called for a clarification of who the injunction applies to.
“The injunction must be defined consistent with the definitions of involuntary homelessness,” said Snodgrass. “We ask the court to clarify, in this case.”
Neither counsel disputed that the city has far from enough shelter beds to accommodate every person sleeping on the city’s streets.
“We’re not five beds short, 10 beds short; we are, certainly, thousands of beds short,” said Lee.
His impassioned claims emphasized that the issue did not simply take root with street encampments, but with the lack of resources driving their proliferation.
“The number of shelter beds is less than the number of individuals experiencing homelessness. Therefore, the city is not able to enforce any of these laws.”
“The counsel’s remarks on what may or may not constitute a threat or force just drives home the point that the preliminary injunction is excessively vague,” said Snodgrass.
At times during the session, arguments aligned, with all parties agreeing that Ryu’s temporary injunction was too vague, and that the issues surrounding encampments required far more urgent attention applied, such as long-term sheltering solutions.
Another topic of discussion was the fate of the permanent injunction, which is anticipated to unfold within a months’ time, according to Judge Koh.
After the arguments, the courtroom emptied onto the steps of the courthouse, where a few protesters still lingered, carrying their signs.
One, speaking to a reporter, held a sign that read, in all caps, “taxpayers have rights.” Using it like a pointer stick, he gestured to an encampment that sat just a stones’ throw from the hearing that attempted to deliberate its fate.
Under the injunction, every junkie in the world who can hitchhike or carjack their way to San Francisco is entitled to a free apartment, or else none of them can be asked to move away from apartments that people pay rent for.
I hope there is some sanity in the justice system to overturn this.
I agree with DK. ‘ Not sure why there should be shelter beds available for everyone to enforce the law rather than having enough available for those offered (and willing!) to accept them – a much smaller number’ .
Many homeless people do not want to stay at a shelter for a myriad of reasons, including they can’t do drugs, have their dogs with them, can’t have weapons, etc. this is a reported fact. Build more permanent affordable housing now! Fast track City permits and construction with already earmarked funding. Homeless who choose to live indoors would have a place to be. Many want to camp outside. Several media reports interviewed some homeless who came to SF because of ability to camp out and access the generous services here. We also need more psychiatric and addiction hospital beds, for which there is also money available.
I know a person working at the City Homeless agency who knows that the department is not interested in solving what is a clear and feasible solution. They receive $$$ funding and create short term band aid solutions- none of which have worked in decades of City officials saying they have a solution .
Another fact is homeless or anyone- may not block pedestrian right of way on sidewalks. It’s the law. Wheelchair users others with disabilities and children should NOT have to walk in the street with cars flying by. Also some camps set up against buildings have started cooking fires, displacing those people most of whom are low income families There are many vacant lots away from residential areas for tents, all over the city. The best compassion the City can act on is to build more affordable housing now and allow those who don’t want to camp to move in.
Not sure why there should be shelter beds available for everyone to enforce the law rather than having enough available for those offered (and willing!) to accept them – a much smaller number
There is a path forward. SF spends $423M/year on permeant housing for those who used to be homeless.
We can simply cut all that spending and build massive shelter sites on the far south side to comply with the order.
https://sf.gov/data/our-city-our-home-fund-6-month-report-fiscal-year-2022-2023#:~:text=The%20revised%20budget%20for%20FY22,million%20for%20Homelessness%20Prevention%20programs.
Doubt the Ninth panel is going to strike down the injunction, the City’s just bullshitting around politics they will, since the Coalition quite literally did the legal representation of redirecting SF’s fist onto itself by catching San Francisco policies into a 970 page prima facie lie in court, leading to the injunction.
Aptly to what I call a “self-own.”
All I can see the Court clarifying the injunction with is some mish-mash with SF’s policy, Johnson v Grant’s Pass, and Ryu’s order since SF doesn’t have a good case to fight its own lies on following its own policies.
And only god knows what the Coalition has for Ryu come Thursday, that may have the city go under federal oversight, not lagging behind LA’s own experience with its own injunction.
Nothing’s going to get solved on the streets though, either way on who wins.
Unless Congress starts going on a low income building spree like the early 1950s.
Lee (attorney for homeless) conceded the key points and made this an easy one. He agreed (1) if you offer a homeless guy a shelter bed and he refuses, he is not “involuntarily homeless” and SF can enforce the laws and clear him out, and (2) the bed offer can be made at the moment of enforcement. City Attorney was clearly delighted (and shocked) at this.
For anyone who hasn’t actually read Martin v Boise, or even the injunction, sure.
Chiu’s playing up the obvious for the politics.
That was never in dispute, the fact SF didn’t follow this basic principle in the first place, is.
I would like to know how an encampment presence is allowed to impact my rights to access and egress to safety walk down the sidewalk?
Really disturbing to see the mayor and supes rallying to brutalize our most vulnerable residents. I mean really really sick stuff. Sweeps result in all of the belongings of a unhoused individual being stolen, how is someone supposed to get back on their feet of they are victims of state-sponsered robbery on a regular basis. Every study and every expert will tell you that sweeps are counterproductive and arresting drugs addict’s is deadly.
Please tell me the air conditioning in the courtroom was out of order and absolutely everyone involved was sweltering
“We’re not five beds short, 10 beds short, we are certainly thousands of beds short,” said Snodgrass. ”
While they argue semantics, the bottom line is we do not have enough low income housing, do not have enough Residential beds with clinicians who can help mentally ill and addicts. All they can do is move people from one corner to another until they address the main issue.
Pretty much.
All anyone wins are brownie points for politics, nothing in reality.
I think that I’ve figured out why the Coalition on Homelessness injunction has exercised so many conservative San Franciscans. As a 34 yr resident of the North Mission, part of SFPD’s containment zone, we suffer the pain of 1000 cuts being so close to 16th BART. No one social ill dominates; we get them all in small doses randomly–psych, homeless, substance, violence.
Since the injunction, however, the prevalence of encampments in our neighborhood has declined significantly. I just came to realize that this is because SFPD are enjoined from enforcing the Containment Zone policy.
During the injunction, when an encampment is either against a building or totally blocking the sidewalk, I’ve called into the city and the encampment has been relocated per fire safety and the Americans with Disabilities Act. It is a lie that the injunction prohibits the city from doing anything.
Now that the “nice” parts of the city outside of the containment zone have been subject to a fraction of what we’ve dealt with for decades, now, all of a sudden, there is outrage. The injunction has been a win for east side neighborhoods that bear the burden of social ills because it has democratized the problem.
And it has highlighted the outrage of those “constituencies that count” who think that their San Francisco should be insulated from the social problems that are the flipside of their economic good fortune.
Yes, that’s indeed the bigger picture here.
The richer parts of the City have always historically swept people into areas where there’s little political power, because simply, it’s a easy way out.
I’m glad someone actually read the injunction.
But to add to that, when London Breed did her Tenderloin speech, she pushed them all out and that started all this, then continued to do it.
But the Coalition has already been doing preparing this for two years before suing, so I doubt it’s some grandiose political strategy.
Now that the Marina suffers from it, and parts of the West side, they’re all angry yet would like nothing more than shove the problem into Bayview or Tenderloin.
You can’t simply close Pandora’s box.