City Hall defends its law against a challenge from Civil Rights groups
PASADENA — A panel of federal judges on Monday questioned lawyers about a Santa Monica law designed to discourage large outdoor food lines for the homeless.
United States Court of Appeals Judges Marsha S. Berzon, Andrew J. Kleinfeld and Kim McLane Wardlaw indicated City Hall’s law likely could withstand the Civil Rights challenges it faces, but may need to be clarified or reworked in a few key areas.
It could take up to 90 days for the judges to issue a written decision in the case, which was appealed to the Ninth Circuit in 2003 after it was tossed out at the U.S. District Court level.
The law in question requires groups of more than 150 people that gather in public places to obtain an event permit from City Hall and, if food is served, a health permit from Los Angeles County. A handful of Civil Rights activists sued City Hall in January of 2003, claiming the law treads on the First Amendment in a number of ways, and therefore was unenforceable.
“This ordinance applies not just to parks, but to every public place in the city,” argued attorney Carol Sobel, who represents the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Sobel specifically took aim at a part of the law she said unfairly forces large groups to release City Hall from any liability and another portion that she argued impeded the constitutional right to quickly organize protests.
What’s more, Sobel said the public couldn’t be expected to understand the law, which city attorneys have amended several times to address First Amendment concerns.
“The ordinance itself is woefully deficient,” Sobel told the panel of three judges at the Richard H. Chambers United States Court of Appeals Building in Pasadena.
Deputy City Attorney Barry Rosenbaum, who conceded the intricacies of the law had been tailored several times, countered that City Hall’s motives were pure. He added officials carved out as narrow a set of restrictions as possible to protect First Amendment rights.
“The city doesn’t turn down events, I think that’s clear from the record,” Rosenbaum said.
Rosenbaum argued City Hall deserved to know about large gatherings ahead of time so it could, among other things, prepare for changes in traffic and take safety precautions.
Each of three judges asked probative questions that might indicate how they might rule on the issue.
Judge Kleinfeld seemed to favor the law and interrupted Sobel just moments into her 20-minute arguments to point out that City Hall apparently had never denied a group permit.
“I don’t get it,” Judge Kleinfeld said. “What’s the problem?”
Judge Kleinfeld also defended City Hall’s requirement that large groups either pay for insurance or sign a waiver releasing the city of any liability. Sobel had targeted that portion of the law as unconstitutional and overly broad, arguing it also was arbitrary because it allowed for exceptions but didn’t say under what circumstances they would be granted.
Judge Kleinfeld disagreed.
“It’s just routine, neutral and used in most municipalities in California,” he said.
Judge Wardlaw expressed concern over how residents were expected to stay abreast of the changing law. She also repeatedly asked how the city picked 150 people as its threshold, and questioned why an exception for spontaneous gatherings only allowed for events in front of City Hall.
“I am familiar with Santa Monica, I’ve spent a lot of time in Santa Monica,” said Judge Wardlaw, adding last-minute protests and other gatherings could occur on the Santa Monica Pier, in parks, on the beach or elsewhere. “Why are you limiting this to City Hall?”
Rosenbaum replied that the city didn’t feel compelled to add an exception for spontaneous gatherings and did so only to quell First Amendment issues raised by the plaintiffs.
The exception, which allows group permits for gatherings on 48 hours’ notice, also raised questions from Judge Berzon, who wondered how quickly the city could process such requests. The ordinance requires groups to apply for permits 48 hours before a large gathering, but the ordinance also gives City Hall up to 48 hours to process those requests.
Despite its being tied up in a federal lawsuit, officials said the food line law already has made an impact on large outdoor homeless gatherings in Santa Monica. Only a handful of groups still host food lines in Palisades and Reed parks, and on the lawn in front of City Hall. Most of the groups that conduct the feedings come from outside of Santa Monica. At least one group has partnered with a local social service provider to move its event indoors, something city officials strongly encouraged.
The law was passed in 2002 after the business community applied pressure on City Hall to discourage food lines, which they argued attracted homeless people to downtown and created an unfriendly environment for residents and tourists. The City Council cited health concerns and large groups dominating public spaces as reasons for passing the law.
Though Sobel pointed out that the city of Los Angeles doesn’t require large groups to obtain permits, each of the three judges appeared convinced that City Hall had a legitimate interest in knowing ahead of time about large gatherings. The question, they said, was how to determine at what point a gathering becomes one that City Hall deserves notice of.
“There are a lot of things you do for a big crowd that you don’t do for a small group around a picnic table,” Judge Kleinfeld said.
“There are a lot of things you do for a big crowd that you don’t do for a small group around a picnic table.” — JUDGE ANDREW J. KLEINFELD United States Court of Appeals
Judge Berzon apparently agreed. “If you had 10,000 people,” she said, “you might want to know in advance if you had to deal with them.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on February 15, 2005. Read the original PDF.