Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-10-2012 B1 JenkinsSTEW JENKINS ATTORNEY C `f afnw y ' & rate '� -JA laitnieay 1336 Morro Street, San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Phone: (805) 541 -5763 FAX: (805) 547 -1606 July 10, 2012 Mayor Marx Council Members Carter, Ashbaugh, Smith & Carpenter City Hall, 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 By Hand Delivery RECEIVED JUL 10 2012 SLO CITY CLERK AGEMA CORRESPONDENCE ®atq -? + 0, Item #_Li- Reference: July 10, 2012 "Emergency" Ordinance — Agenda item B -1 SLO Homeless Alliance, Et Al. v City of San Luis Obispo, Et Al., Case #CV120204 Dear Mayor Marx & Council Members, On March 20, 2012, I warned the Honorable Council that municipal code § 17.16.015 was illegal and unconstitutional, and that it had resulted in an inhumane enforcement practice against the poor. You were urged to suspend enforcement on the public streets. Your staff advised you that the ordinance was constitutional and lawful. On July 3, 2012, the Superior Court overruled the City's demurrer. Before ordering that the City be enjoined the Court found not only that the Homeless are likely to prevail in their civil suit against the City, but also that the potential damage to the City from issuing an injunction paled in comparison to the damages that would be done to homeless vehicle residents if the injunction was not issued. "Locus poenitentiae" (the point of repentance) is the moment when a wrong can be called back before it is given full effect. Adding item B -1, to the City Council Agenda Friday after the Court's ruling is but a transparent threat to flout the Court's order. The proposed resolution and ordinance expresses the intent to evade the order of the court. The City threatens by this ordinance to immediately recommence its illegal, unconstitutional and inhumane targeting of the homeless by repackaging the ordinance under public peace, morals and welfare. Your staff advises you, as you were advised on March 20, 2012, that this is a lawful and constitutional move. It is not. This time your staff advises you that there is no fiscal impact. By flying in the face of the Superior Court order adoption of the recommended ordinance guarantees higher litigation costs to the City, higher costs for enforcement, and opens the City to sanctions, contempt and other financial remedies. More importantly, adopting the recommended ordinance subjects the City's employees to risk if they take action to enforce in this obvious attempt to controvert the Court's order. This is the City's one chance to put itself in locus poenitentiae by rejecting the proposed ordinance under Agenda item B -1. There is no emergency. The sky has not fallen since issuance of the court order. Attached are copies of photos taken this morning showing only a few RVs and campers [5 our 6] on the streets targeted since February 2012. Moreover, there is no evidence in the agenda report supporting any of the other findings proposed. Particularly lacking is any evidence to show that the readopting the ordinance will promote the success of the "safe parking program." AStew'Jenkins y Exhibit SLO Homeless Alliance Case #CV 120204 Prado Rd. / 7/10/12 Prado Rd. SLO - Picture taken at 8:31am on 7/10/2012 by Diane Jenkins rado Rd., SLO - Two Homeless vehicles across from Sewer Plant - Picture taken at 8:33am on 7/10/2012 by Diane Jenkins Exhibit SLO Homeless Alliance Case #CV 120204 Prado Rd. /South view: 7110112 Prado Rd., SLO - South side Prado Road- Picture taken at 8:34am on 7/10/2012 by Diane Jenkins 1 i Short St. & Suburban Rd., SLO - Picture taken at 8:20am on 7/10/2012 J by Diane Jenkins Short St. & Suburban Rd., SLO - Picture taken at 8:21am on 7/10/2012 by Diane Jenkins