Food Not Bombs and other nonprofit groups sued City Hall over law designed to discourage outdoor homeless feedings
FEDERAL COURTHOUSE — A panel of federal judges was expected to hear oral arguments today over whether a law designed to limit homeless feedings in Santa Monica tramples on the First Amendment.
City Hall was sued in January of 2003 after passing an ordinance that made it illegal for groups to feed more than 150 people in public without city and county permits. The lawsuit was thrown out at the trial level in August of 2003 and appealed to the Ninth District Court of Appeals.
A handful of individuals and nonprofit groups — including Food Not Bombs and International Answer, both organizations that promote peace — claims the city ordinance is rife with conflicts.
The suit alleges the law is unenforceable, even though it has been repeatedly tailored in an attempt to address a host of First Amendment issues.
“The city’s administrative regulations are a little bit like Jell-O — they change at whim, they have no force or effect,” said Carol Sobel, a civil-rights lawyer who represents the plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit.
“The city’s administrative regulations are a little bit like Jell-O — they change at whim, they have no force or effect.” — - CAROL SOBEL Civil-rights attorney
“It’s just crazy,” Sobel added during a Friday telephone interview. “If you had somebody standing on Pacific Palisades Park with a sign that said, ‘Feed the homeless, Santa Monica,’ if 150 people stopped to look at it, you’d need a permit. Even if you’re just standing there. It’s a little crazy.”
A range of other First Amendment issues was expected to be raised in the oral arguments today at the federal courthouse in Pasadena. Presiding over the hearing will be U.S. Court of Appeals Judges Marsha S. Berzon, Andrew J. Kleinfeld and Kim McLane Wardlaw.
Officials at City Hall said they were confident the judges would uphold the feeding law. The ordinance was designed to force inside the large homeless feedings that are regularly hosted in front of City Hall, and in Palisades and Reed parks. Officials said they have had some success in getting the groups, most of which are from outside of Santa Monica, to partner with local social-service providers, but a handful continues to regularly host the large feedings.
“We feel we have the arguments that will prevail,” City Councilman Richard Bloom said last week. “It (the law) doesn’t hamper free speech in any meaningful way. We have a wide variety of events and activities that take place in our parks and in other public properties throughout the city that involve the expression of various different groups and individuals, and this law doesn’t impair their rights or any other group’s right significantly.”
Among Sobel’s challenges were that the law, in conjunction with a community-events ordinance, illegally requires groups to pay for insurance or waive City Hall of all liability; that there are no exemptions spelled out, and any exemptions would therefore be arbitrarily chosen; that exceptions for spontaneous speech only allow congregations on the steps of City Hall; and that a requirement that other non-spontaneous assemblies give notice within 48 hours is not always practical, given City Hall’s hours.
“The city has basically put this extraordinary price tag on the First Amendment,” said Sobel, who attributed her clients’ loss at the trial level to the judge’s bias. “(U.S. District Judge Manuel L. Real) is famous for this. The man has no respect for the law.”
Deputy City Attorney Barry Rosenbaum, who has handled the case for City Hall, spent much of last week preparing for today’s hearing.
“I don’t really have any comments,” he said Friday afternoon. “The arguments are on Monday, and we’re confident that the ruling will be upheld. I’m busy preparing.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on February 14, 2005. Read the original PDF.