Source: http://voicesonhomelessness.blogspot.com/2018/05/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 12:35:06+00:00

Document:
Good morning, supervisors. Homeless Action would like to talk to you about safe encampments today. We agree with Jill Ravitch’s recent statement about Last Chance village, that your current approach of evicting and prosecuting homeless people essentially for not having enough money for decent housing is immoral, cruel, and expensive. We are sad and frustrated that you continue to support a policy of eviction when there is nowhere for the evicted to legally go. The needs of those who cannot go into shelters, which we think are roughly half the county’s homeless people, are constantly discounted and ignored.
Threading through our conversations with encampment residents are several important, underappreciated themes we volunteers have learned. First, the recognition that chance plays a hidden, large part in homelessness, especially now that rents have skyrocketed. You’ve heard them say that, but being around them helps us feel that truth. An injury, an argument, or a terrible boss starts a cascade downward in many lives. The flip side is also true: there are many situations where even a little help by a volunteer or the government can make a huge positive difference in their life.
Second, they teach us that even an unregulated, unslightly, crowded encampment is far, far safer than being alone on the streets. Even the present Joe Rodota Trail encampment is precious to them, though government took away the portapotty donated by charity, and they have no idea when the police will scatter them. Encampments tend to have a larger proportion of women because women can protect one another and enjoy the safety from predators provided by friends, neighbors, and volunteers. When arguments or domestic problems happen, friends rally to calm agitated people down. Things don’t spiral out of control like they can under bridges or in the woods.
Third, encampments allow them to develop and maintain the social and family ties that are so vital to success when there’s so much stacked against you. Friendship is fierce and fast when your neighbors face these same physical and psychological hardships. They speak of family when they talk about their fellow residents. Sickness, drugs, and thievery can take center stage for outsiders, and they are concerns for encampment residents, too. But we should never forget that our personal worth and meaning is found through our social lives– especially during hardship. If we have a strong support network of friends and personal cheerleaders, it’s much, much easier to succeed.
Homeless Action is asking you to immediately cease these evictions to nowhere. We volunteers have learned from our encampments that evictions and scatterings destroy the touchpoints we need for quality lives. People often lose the friends and family that gave their lives meaning, causing depression, instability, and the many health problems caused by loneliness and physical and mental stress. Medical monitoring becomes impossible. According to Public Health, diseases and illnesses and infections become slightly more likely in encampments– but that risk is more than offset by how it is far easier to track and treat such problems when the victims are in one place.
Volunteers can’t help scattered people with court cases, or get them to court or probation dates, or help with housing efforts. Aggressive police must be faced alone. Families can’t find children, or parents, or aunties. Pets can’t be identified or tracked or treated. Case workers or assigned volunteers become a pipe dream. Charity like clothes and food becomes impossible to deliver.
In an encampment, every single one of those problems goes away. Each of those tasks becomes a quantifiable goal that can be achieved through organization and teamwork.
A scattering causes a conflagration in the lives of innocent people who are already challenged greatly, like those whose voices you heard. Since April 17, desperate groups of residents have tried to form safe communities together on county, city, private, and park land. They were immediately scattered from all of them, causing sickness and the loss or theft of many possessions. They are thrilled to have been allowed to stay on the Joe Rodota Trail, along with about 75% of those who were at Last Chance and Remembrance villages.
Safe encampments now have a track record of years, in multiple locations. They are rapidly becoming common, because they can be a flexible, very cost effective way to grant homeless people their Constitutional right to a place where they are protected from needless government harassment and prosecution, and from predators and thieves. Oakland is going on four Tuff shed villages now, funded by government and citizens. Eugene, Oregon has four years of success with their Safe Spots, which combine public and private funding to house hundreds yearly in tents and oval roofed tiny homes. The homes are built by volunteers at a cost of little more than $1,000 each. Walla Walla successfully copy-catted a modest version of Eugene’s approach, and made a great success of it.
All these and others are very good projects. Safe encampments aren’t a utopian pipe dream, but a present success. They are a natural outgrowth of allowing healthy communities to form, with modest support by nonprofits or government.
We ask you to follow the lead of Walla Walla, Washington and Eugene, Oregon and allow Homeless Action to manage an emergency encampment for now, on allocated government land. Both those cities allowed moderately experienced charities to lead the way initially; neither had nearly the experience with homelessness that Homeless Action! has. We ask government to provide our friends with the bare essentials of water, portapotties, washing stations, and trash service, in an encampment area capable of growing from an initial size of about 80 people to the approximately 200 people we see as initially in need of safe encampments in Sonoma County. We propose operating 40 transitional homes per acre, which provides space for sheds or tents while allowing plenty of room for community space, fire lanes, roads, and auxiliary and mobile services. That means we are asking for two or more acres initially on one or more sites, with up to five acres allocated by October.
A person has to apply to join the encampment, and can be refused, since these encampments, like any other shelter choice, are not for everyone. The residents must be protected from the wrong people, who tend to cause the vast majority of major problems. Eviction is also possible if rules are disobeyed, as is common in unregulated encampments now.​ We estimate that about 15% of the residents of Last Chance and Remembrance would not be appropriate residents in our emergency encampment.
We encourage staff to take up KBBF and other initiatives aggressively, like safe parking initiatives, RV programs, and tiny house projects. In the meantime, emergency encampments will cost the government about $100 a month per person, with likely minimal initial infrastructure expense. We have inspected several county properties that are more than adequate for this 6-month proposal. By late October, when the weather turns, we can either perform responsible upgrades to the emergency encampments to face the winter safely, or other projects can come to the fore and take on the residents of the emergency encampments.
We are confident that this is the right path to take short-term. Homeless Action! and advisors in its Technical Advisory Group have the internal experience and community contacts to make this a success, as well as a small, experienced set of villagers who are getting used to managing sanitation, chores, security, and the other aspects of a successful community.
4) and a page of research commentary concerning some encampment results, mostly in Oregon.
Thank you for the opportunity to share this vision. We look forward to discussing the details with you.
Homeless Action has been trying to place a porta-potty near the homeless encampment on the Joe Rodota Trail in Roseland. We placed one on the trail two weeks ago, and the County ordered the company which supplied it to remove it. We received an email recently from the County Counsel's Office (Board of Supervisor's Lawyer).
"The Joe Rodota Trail is not an appropriate place for people to camp, and Parks cannot place services to facilitate people camping there. The County has met and continues to meet its legal responsibility to offer housing alternatives to the people who are currently occupying the Trail, and there are sufficient housing alternatives available to the people who choose to access them. There is not a derogation of the County’s legal responsibility to provide services to people, and the County is deeply concerned about the public health and safety risks that have arisen on the Trail as a result of people illegally camping there.
We hope to work with you to ensure people are encouraged to access the homeless system of care, and that they not continue to gather to camp in large numbers which create more danger and risks to public health and safety as a result. "
Apparently denial of toilets to homeless encampments isn't limited to Santa Rosa.
In one of the trials conducted by Judge Anthony Wheeldin this past Thursday, Peter Lee was found guilty of a California Vehicle Code Section which Homeless Action! counsel argued did not prohibit the activity he conducted on a freeway on-ramp in Santa Rosa.
On Friday, the Santa Rosa City Attorney's Office provided the Court with an Appellate Court decision last year which supports the position taken by Homeless Action! The City is to be commended for its actions in support of open and fair treatment of those it charges with criminal conduct.
You will recall that this matter was on your trial calendar on Thursday, May 10, 2018. As it involved the violation of a California Vehicle Code, and not a Santa Rosa City ordinance, the Court found that it was not appropriate for me to appear. Officer Gregory Yaeger testified and the Court ruled, subject to appeal, against the defendant.
Following the trial, it has come to my attention from one of our officers that there is authority on the very issue that was before the Court. This was not known to Officer Yaeger; it was not known to me. I should have researched the matter more thoroughly. This was my mistake.
The Court may wish to review People v. Pina (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th Supp. 1. This is a decision of the Los Angeles County Superior Court Appellate Division and addresses the very issue of the meaning of “solicit” with which the Court wrestled. It appears to support the argument Ms. O’Neal was making. By copy of this letter, I am alerting her to this as well.
Again, I want to stress that Officer Yaeger was not aware of this authority. He would have, had the Assistant City Attorney whose job it is to know the law and advise the Santa Rosa Police and the Court, more properly prepared.
My apologies to the Court, Mr. Lee and his counsel.
Appellate Division, Superior Court, Division OF, California.
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VINCENT PINA, Defendant and Appellant.
Medvei Law Group and Sebastian M. Medvei for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
We hold here Vehicle Code section 22520.5, subdivision (a), which makes it a crime to “solicit, display, sell, offer for sale, or otherwise vend or attempt to vend any merchandise or service” in designated locations on and near freeway on-ramps and off-ramps, does not prohibit begging or panhandling.
Defendant Vincent Pina appeals the judgment following his conviction of violating Vehicle Code section 22520.5, subdivision (a), contending there was insufficient evidence presented at trial that he violated the statute. He further contends the statute violated his First Amendment rights. The People have not filed a brief disputing defendant's position. As discussed below, we agree with defendant's first contention, and reverse solely on that basis.
Defendant was originally charged with a misdemeanor violation of Vehicle Code section 22520.5, subdivision (a). The court reduced the offense to an infraction on the People's motion, and the matter proceeded to a court trial.
City of Long Beach Police Officer Michael Demarco testified that, on June 10, 2016, he was in a patrol vehicle, exiting the 405 Freeway at the Bellflower off-ramp. Demarco noticed cars were stopped and traffic had built up on the off-ramp. A person, subsequently identified as defendant, was walking in lanes of traffic on the freeway off-ramp accepting money from motorists whose vehicles were stopped for the red light. In one instance, defendant walked up to a vehicle, accepted money from a driver, put the money in his pants pocket, and returned to the curb.
Demarco drove up to defendant, who was sitting on the curb of the off-ramp. Defendant was holding a sign that said, “Lost my job. Lost my home. Lost my car. Please pray for me and my family. Thank you. God bless.” Demarco ordered defendant to exit the off-ramp, but defendant refused, asserting his right to stay. Demarco arrested defendant for panhandling on the freeway off-ramp, and found $51.35 in dollar bills and change in his front pocket.
The court found defendant guilty of violating Vehicle Code section 22520.5, subdivision (a). The court ordered defendant to pay a fine which, when penalty assessments and other fees were added, amounted to $530.
Contrary to defendant's argument, the question of the statute's applicability is not governed by Xiloj-Itzep v. City of Agoura Hills (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 620 (Xiloj-Itzep). In that case, the Court of Appeal found Vehicle Code section 22520.5, subdivision (a), did not preempt a local anti-solicitation ordinance. (Id. at p. 634.) The Court of Appeal stated, “Vehicle Code section 22520.5 prohibits vending” on or near freeways (i.e., freeways, freeway ramps or areas within 500 feet of a ramp), whereas the city ordinance “regulates solicitation on sidewalks, streets, driveways and highways within the City's jurisdiction.” (Id. at pp. 642-643.) Yet, Xiloj-Itzep did not consider the question of whether Vehicle Code section 22520.5's prohibition against solicitation applied to solicitation of alms, begging, or panhandling, and therefore the opinion is not controlling on the issue before us. (See People v. Scheid (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1, 17 [‘ “an opinion is not authority for a proposition not therein considered’ ”].) We proceed to examine the law to determine whether it applies to the present case.
However, “solicit” in the statute is followed by the words “display, sell, offer for sale, or otherwise vend or attempt to vend any merchandise or service.” The word “vend” means “to sell especially as a hawker or peddler” ( [as of June 15, 2017] ), and to “[o]ffer (small items) for sale, either from a stall or from a slot machine” ( [as of June 15, 2017] ). A “sale” or “to sell” necessarily involves a transaction involving valuable consideration. (See, e.g., Rev. & Tax Code, § 6006 [for tax purposes a sale must be accompanied by consideration]; Civ. Code, § 1605 [consideration requires exchange of something of value].) Hence, for present purposes, if the word “solicit” were qualified by the phrase “or otherwise vend or attempt to vend any merchandise or service,” only solicitations where the purpose is to provide merchandise or services in exchange for some form of consideration would be proscribed by the statute. Begging and panhandling would not be so prohibited.
Further, the statute's use of the words “or otherwise” indicates an intent that the enumerated activities that precede the phrase “or otherwise vend or attempt to vend any merchandise or service” must be similar vending activities. “The term ‘or otherwise’ is a relative term. ‘When so used as a general phrase following the enumeration of particular things, such words are usually interpreted in a restricted sense as referring to things or matters of the same kind [ejusdem generis] as those specifically enumerated.’ [Citations.]” (Biggers v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 431, 440.) Thus, the text of the statute indicates the kind of solicitation targeted and proscribed by the statute is commercial, rather than charitable, in nature.
The legislative history of SB 494 reveals a legislative intent to address and remedy the problem related to the sale and attempted sale of merchandise and services on and near freeway ramps. Outlawing begging and panhandling in the specified locations was not contemplated.
The wording of Streets and Highways Code section 225.5 shows that when the Legislature intends to criminalize solicitation of money for purposes unrelated to vending in areas frequented by motorists, “ ‘it clearly knows how to do so.’ ” (People v. Cole (2006) 38 Cal.4th 964, 980.) To bar all forms of solicitation in a designated area, including solicitation of donations, the Legislature could specifically delineate, as it did in Streets and Highways Code section 225.5, subdivision (b), that solicitations are criminalized “for any purpose.” The fact that the Legislature did not separately address solicitations in this manner in Vehicle Code section 22520.5 is indicative of an intent to only criminalize solicitations done for the purpose of vending and attempted vending.
Lastly, construing the statute to exclude begging and panhandling on and near freeway ramps is consistent with the subject matter's statutory scheme. Pedestrians are generally prohibited to be on roadways and freeways (Veh. Code, §§ 21956, 21960), they must yield the right-of-way to motor vehicles unless in designated crosswalks (Veh. Code, § 21954, subd. (a)), and, even while in crosswalks, they must not unnecessarily delay traffic (Veh. Code, § 21950, subd. (b)). An interpretation of the statute excluding begging and panhandling leaves this regulatory framework intact and still allows public safety to be maintained on off-ramps and on-ramps, as provided by these statutes. There are also ordinances regulating some forms of begging and panhandling in public places. (See, e.g., Long Beach Mun. Code, § 9.35.010 [barring aggressive solicitation of money or items of value]; Los Angeles Mun. Code, § 41.59 [same].) Nothing in this opinion invalidates local ordinances.
We concur: KUMAR, Acting P. J. RICHARDSON, J.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 6006
 § 1605
 v. 
 v. 
 § 21954
 § 21950
 § 9
 § 41