SM laws safe for now
DOWNTOWN — Santa Monica’s policy of fining or arresting homeless people for lying or sleeping in public doorways and on the Promenade is nowhere near as restrictive as a Los Angeles law struck down by an appeals court last week, and therefore, can continue to be enforced, City Attorney Marsha Moutrie said.
Those who wish to take a nap on a city sidewalk can do so, Moutrie said, but only at certain times of the day and only if their activity does not prohibit others from walking by.
This is significantly different from the Los Angeles law, which was considered the most restrictive in the nation by a judge from the U.S. 9th Circuit of Appeals. In her ruling, Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw said LA officials “can secure a conviction under the ordinance against anyone who merely sits, lies or sleeps in a public way at any time of day.”
Because there is a significant population of homeless in Los Angeles and not enough places for them to find shelter, Wardlaw said enforcing the law is essentially criminalizing the state of homelessness, a violation of the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits against cruel and unusual punishment.
With nearly 2,000 homeless in Santa Monica and only 712 beds, the city looks to be in a similar situation as Los Angeles.
However, Moutrie said the city’s laws allow for those without shelter to at least find a place to rest, whereas in Los Angeles, no place was safe from prosecution.
“We do not think the 9th Circuit Court’s decision necessitates changing any laws in Santa Monica, but I will add that this is a reminder that in regulating public spaces locally, government has to consider and respect individual rights,” Moutrie said.
Carol Sobel, a Santa Monica-based attorney who represented six homeless persons in the Los Angeles case along with the American Civil Liberties Union, said Wardlaw’s decision was very narrowly tailored to the LA law, and therefore, would most likely not affect Santa Monica.
“This decision was very fact-driven and very specific to Los Angeles,” Sobel said. “I know some people will think that this ruling means you can never deal with these issues. Hardly. All the court said is you have to carve out some part of the day (for people to rest) because they can’t move 24 hours a day.”
Sobel said she has not studied the Santa Monica laws regulating sitting and sleeping in public and private spaces, but views them as “totally different” from the law ruled unconstitutional by the court.
In 2003, the City Council enacted two laws that were viewed as anti-homeless. One such law placed limits on public feedings, which is being challenged in court, and the other prohibited people from sitting or lying in a business entrance.
A sign citing the “no sleeping” law must be posted in view for the Santa Monica Police to enforce the code.
City officials passed the law to protect business owners from the unsanitary conditions created by sleeping and defecating in the doorways. The law was also passed to protect the homeless, who, at the time, were increasingly becoming victims of violent crimes. The doorways provided little protection or light and were deemed unsafe places to sleep.
Kathleen Rawson, executive director of Bayside District Corp., a public-private management company that works in partnership with the City of Santa Monica on issues impacting downtown, said the law has been very effective in cleaning up areas in front of those businesses that post signs citing the law.
“Those who have posted have reaped the benefits,” said Rawson, who estimated that about 275 businesses have posted signs citing the law. “The police have been fantastic about enforcement. They have been very proactive and have responded to those who have complained when someone has slept in front of their business, and police have been good about keeping an eye on those spots. Without enforcement, the fines would really have no impact.”
Those who violate the law are subject to a fine of up to $1,000 or imprisonment in jail for up to six months, or a combination of both, according to the ordinance.
Rawson and Kathy Dodson of the Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce both said they would have liked the ordinance to have been written so that businesses would not be required to post signs citing the law.
“A lot of people don’t want to post those kind of signs in their front windows because they think it makes them seem unfriendly, and some corporations have policies against posting signs,” Dodson said. “But, all In all, I think it has been helpful. We might be next in line of cities (the ACLU) targets. I certainly hope not, but it has happened with other things. It happened with the feeding ordinance.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on April 22, 2006. Read the original PDF.