On March 18, 2024, State District Court Judge Joshua Allison ruled the landmark United States Supreme Court case of Grants Pass v. Johnson that gives cities the green light to enforce criminal laws against the homeless for living and sleeping outside on public property does NOT apply to the City of Albuquerque and it is “flawed.” On July 11, the City of Albuquerque filed with the New Mexico Supreme Court a “Petition for Writ of Superintending Control” against Judge Joshua Allison requesting the New Mexico Supreme court reverse Allison’s ruling to prevent the “proliferation” of homeless encampments within the city and other municipalities and towns in New Mexico.
This article in an depth analysis of the case giving a history of the case and where the case now stands.
CLOSURE OF CORONADO PARK AND RESULTING CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION LAWSUITE AGAINST CITY
It was on August 18, 2022, the City of Albuquerque closed Coronado Park because it had become a de facto city sanctioned homeless encampment with the city evicting up to 100 unhoused who camped there nightly. The city cited numerous reasons for closure of the park including lack of sanitation posing a severe health risks, overall damage to the park and extensive drug trafficking and violent crime, including rapes and murders at the park having reached crisis proportions. The city was spending upwards of $50,000 a month to clean up Coronado Park.
The city park had an extensive history lawlessness including drug use, violence, murder, rape and mental health issues. In 2020, there were 3 homicides at Coronado Park. In 2019, a disabled woman was raped, and in 2018 there was a murder. APD reported that it was dispatched to the park 651 times in 2021 and 312 times in 2022. There had been 16 stabbings at the park in 2 years. In 2023, APD had seized from the park 4,500 fentanyl pills, more than 5 pounds of methamphetamine, 24 grams of heroin and 29 grams of cocaine. APD also found $10,000 in cash. All the seized drugs were tied to a single bust that occurred at a nearby motel, not the park, though an APD spokeswoman said the suspect was “mainly doing all their distributions [at the park].”
On December 19, 2022 the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico, the NM Center on Law & Poverty, and the law firms of Ives & Flores, PA and Davis Law New Mexico filed a “Class Action Complaint For Violations of Civil Rights and for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief” against the City of Albuquerque on behalf 4 men and 4 women identified to be homeless. All 8, along with upwards of 100 unhoused, were evicted by the city from Coronado Park. Not one of the 8 plaintiffs allege they were charged nor arrested for refusing to leave Coronado Park on the day it was closed nor were they jailed. The lawsuit contends it is unconstitutional to punish or threaten to punish unhoused people for the “crime of being in an outdoor public space when there are inadequate indoor spaces for them to be.”
The Plaintiffs allege they were displaced from Coronado Park when the city closed it and that the city did not provide satisfactory shelter options to them. The city said it did give notice and offered shelter and services, including vouchers. According to the ACLU the lawsuit was filed to stop the City of Albuquerque from destroying encampments of the unhoused all over the city and preventing the city from seizing and destroying personal property and jailing and fining people for being unhoused.
The lawsuit alleges the city unlawfully seized personal property, denied due process of law, and violated constitutional rights by destroying property and forced all the unhoused at Coronado Park out with nowhere for them to go and with the city not providing shelter for them. The lawsuit sought court orders that required the city to cease and desist enforcement actions to stop the unhoused from camping in public spaces which include public streets, public rights of ways, alleyways, under bridges and city parks unless the city has shelter or housing for them.
STATUTES AND ORDINANCES ENUMERATED
The class action lawsuit against the city specifically enumerates New Mexico Statutes and City Ordinances that have been enacted to protect the general public health, safety, and welfare and to protect the public’s peaceful use and enjoyment of property rights. The lawsuit does not challenge the constitutionality of any of the state statutes nor city ordinances.
The lawsuit makes the very broad allegation that “the City regularly enforces City ordinances and state laws against unhoused people in a manner that criminalizes their status as homeless … [and] … Unhoused people who erect tents or makeshift shelters around the City are routinely cited and/or arrested for violations of [the state laws and city ordinances]. Violations of these statutes and ordinances are punished as misdemeanors.”
All the laws cited have been on the books for decades and are applicable and are enforced against all citizens and not just the unhoused. The specific statutes cited in the lawsuit are:
- NMSA 1978, Section 30-14-1 (1995), defining criminal trespass on public and private property.
- NMSA 1978, Section 30-14-4 (1969), defining wrongful use of property used for a public purpose and owned by the state, its subdivisions, and any religious, charitable, educational, or recreational association.
- Albuquerque City Ordinance 12-2-3, defining criminal trespass on public and private property.
- Albuquerque City Ordinance 8-2-7-13, prohibiting the placement of items on a sidewalk so as to restrict its free use by pedestrians.
- Albuquerque City Ordinance 10-1-1-10, prohibiting being in a park at nighttime when it is closed to public use.
- Albuquerque City Ordinance 12-2-7, prohibiting hindering persons passing along any street, sidewalk, or public way.
- Albuquerque City Ordinance 5-8-6, prohibiting camping on open space lands and regional preserves.
- Albuquerque City Ordinance 10-1-1-3, prohibiting the erection of structures in city parks.
All the above laws are classified as “non-violent crimes” and are misdemeanors. The filing of criminal charges by law enforcement are discretionary when the crime occurs in their presence. The City of Albuquerque and the Albuquerque Police Department have agreed that only citations will be issued, and no arrests will be made for violations of the 8 statutes and city ordinance as part of a court approved settlement in a decades old federal civil rights lawsuit dealing with jail overcrowding.
JUDGE ISSUES PRELIMINARY INJUCTION AGAINST CITY
On September 21, 2023 State District Court Judge Josh Allison entered a Preliminary Injunction against the City of Albuquerque from “enforcing or threatening to enforce” statutes and city ordinance to displace the homeless from public spaces. The preliminary injunction, which limited the circumstances under which the city could require people camping outside to leave or could seize their belongings, went into effect November 1, 2023.
The Court enjoined the city from seizing and destroying homeless belongings and mandated a warrant and post deprivation hearings regarding personal belongings seized. The injunction required that campers be given a 72-hour notice to vacate and be offered storage for belongings and transportation to a shelter. It also required an opportunity for belongings to later be reclaimed.
Judge Allison issued a preliminary injunction ruling that given a shortage of shelter beds, the city of Albuquerque cannot “punish” homeless people for their “mere presence” on public properties. The injunction, which was later modified, was put in place and restricted how the city can ask people camping on public property to move. The injunction cited both the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, and the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure of the United States Constitution.
Quoting the Preliminary Injunction, Judge Allison made the following 4 major rulings:
- CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT FOR OCCUPYING OUTDOOR PUBLIC SPACES RULINGS
“… [P]unishing a homeless person’s innocent behavior of merely existing in outdoor public spaces when there is insufficient shelter within the City of Albuquerque violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. For identical reasons, the City cannot threaten to arrest, cite, or otherwise punish unhoused people for their mere presence in outdoor public spaces in order to forcibly move them from one outdoor public place to another. Those threats of prosecution also criminalize otherwise innocent behavior. … As long as the homeless plaintiffs do not have a single place where they can lawfully be, the challenged ordinances, as applied to them, effectively punish them for something for which they may not be convicted under the eighth amendment—sleeping, eating and other innocent conduct.”
2. UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE RULINGS
Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution provides that “[t]he people shall be secure in their persons, papers, homes and effects, from unreasonable searches and seizures . . . .” This provision “guarantee[s] that people will not be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures.” Thus, a “seizure” occurs when the government deprives a person of (i.e., takes) their property. … However, a seizure also occurs when the government “meaningfully interferes” with a person’s possession of their property; a seizure may be nothing more than a “brief detention of [the person’s] personal effects.”
Simply put, the government cannot seize a person’s property just because that person is in a public space with their property. More is required for a seizure to be lawful. … [I]t is simply not reasonable for the City to seize the property of homeless people for the sole reason that they are living in outdoor public spaces, and it is even less reasonable that the City would not provide a process for those homeless persons to reclaim their property once it had been seized. … On balance, and without any additional reasons other than the homeless person is living in an outdoor public space when there are inadequate indoor spaces for them to be, the City’s interest is insufficient to allow for the seizure of homeless persons’ property just because they are occupying public spaces. … It is … unreasonable for the City to permanently deprive homeless people of their property solely because they are living in outdoor public spaces, without allowing them the opportunity reclaim that property after it has been seized.
- Due Process Rulings
Article II, Section 18 of the New Mexico Constitution provides that “[n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law[.]” …At best, the evidence shows that the City has, at times, provided at least some process, but at other times it has provided essentially no process at all. This is especially true with respect to the destruction of homeless persons’ personal property. … In sum, homeless people, just like people with homes, have a right against unreasonable seizures of their unabandoned property, even if that property is left in outdoor public spaces. … [T] the Court concludes that even if the City had complied with the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable seizures (and the evidence shows it has not), principles of constitutional due process require the City “to take reasonable steps to give notice that the property has been taken so the owner can pursue available remedies for its return.” … The City simply is not doing this for some number of homeless people living in Albuquerque.
- CITY’S ENCAMPMENT POLICY RULINGS
“The Encampment Policy allows for the City to destroy at least some homeless persons’ items of personal property when the City, in its sole discretion, does not have the capacity to store them. …The evidence … shows that the City has in fact destroyed homeless persons’ property without storing it as the Encampment Policy provides. Thus, the Encampment Policy may provide no actual or constructive notice to a homeless person that the person’s property will be destroyed, and it most certainly provides no opportunity for a homeless person to reclaim property that the City already threw away. … Although the Encampment Policy applies by its own terms to a singular tent or other structure used as a dwelling on outdoor public property, the evidence in the record shows that the City has not applied the notice and storage provisions of Encampment Policy in many situations involving the relocation of just a few homeless people from one outdoor public place to another. The Encampment Policy is not being applied consistently and is therefore insufficient as a matter of law.”
EDITORS NOTE: A link to a related article is provided in the postscript below. The article is entitled in part “Judge Enjoins City From “Enforcing Or Threatening To Enforce” Laws Against Homeless To Displace Them From Public Spaces, Seizing And Destroying Homeless Belongings Without Warrant, Mandates Post-Deprivation Hearings”. The article provides Judge Allison’s complete finding of Fact and Conclusion of Law rulings against the city as to cruel and unusual punishment, unlawful seizure, procedural due process and injunctions against the city.
In May 2024, the District Court lifted the preliminary injunction pending United States Supreme Court ruling in the case of Grants Pass v. Johnson which was anticipated to impact the case regarding the homelessness and public camping bans. The city said even though the injunction was dropped in May, it has been giving campers appropriate notice and offering resources. The city said it would continue to send staff to conduct welfare checks at encampment sites and offer a list of services for campers. A trial date was scheduled for August of 2024, but it was vacated as a result of the pending United States Supreme Court case Grants Pass v. Johnson.
US SUPREME COURT CASE GRANTS PASS V. JOHNSON
On June 28, 2024 the United State Supreme Court announced its ruling in the case of Grants Pass v. Johnson where the court held that local laws effectively criminalizing homelessness do not violate the U.S. Constitution and do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The link to the Supreme Court opinion is here:
Click to access 23-175_19m2.pdf
The case challenged a municipality’s ability to bar people from sleeping or camping in public areas, such as sidewalks and parks. Local governments wanted to enforce ordinances making it a crime to sleep on public sidewalks, streets and alleyways, camp on public property as a temporary place to live, or camp or park overnight in the city’s parks. The case is strikingly similar in facts and circumstances and laws to the case filed against the City of Albuquerque over the closure of Coronado Park.
The case came from the rural Oregon town of Grants Pass, which appealed a ruling striking down local ordinances that fined people $295 for sleeping outside after tents began crowding public parks. The homeless plaintiffs argued that Grants Pass, a town with just one 138-bed overnight shelter, criminalized them for behavior they couldn’t avoid: sleeping outside when they have nowhere else to go.
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over the nine Western states, ruled in 2018 that such bans violate the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, in areas where there aren’t enough shelter beds. Municipalities across the western United States argued the court rulings hampered their ability to quickly respond to public health and safety issues related to homeless encampments. The United States Supreme Court considered whether cities can enforce laws and take action against or punish the unhoused for sleeping outside in public spaces when shelter space is lacking.
In a 6-3 decision along ideological lines, the Supreme Court reversed the ruling by the San Francisco-based appeals court that found outdoor sleeping bans amount to “cruel and unusual punishment” under the United States Constitution. The majority found that the 8th Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment does not extend to bans on outdoor sleeping in public places such as parks and streets. The Supreme Court ruled that cities can enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outdoors, even in West Coast areas where shelter space is lacking.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority:
“Homelessness is complex. Its causes are many. So may be the public policy responses required to address it. … A handful of federal judges cannot begin to ‘match’ the collective wisdom the American people possess in deciding ‘how best to handle’ a pressing social question like homelessness. … Cities across the West report that the 9th Circuit’s involuntary test has crated intolerable uncertainty for them.”
Gorsuch suggested that people who have no choice but to sleep outdoors could raise that as a “necessity defense,” if they are ticketed or otherwise punished for violating a camping ban.
A bipartisan group of leaders had argued the ruling against the bans made it harder to manage outdoor encampments encroaching on sidewalks and other public spaces in nine Western states. That includes California, which is home to one-third of the country’s homeless population.
Homeless advocates argue that allowing cities to punish people who need a place to sleep would criminalize homelessness and ultimately make the crisis worse. Cities had been allowed to regulate encampments but couldn’t bar people from sleeping outdoors.
Progressive Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketangi Brown Jackson dissented. Sotomayor read from the bench the dissent and said this:
“Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime. … Punishing people for their status is ‘cruel and unusual’ under the Eighth Amendment. … It is quite possible, indeed likely, that these and similar ordinances will face more days in court. … It is possible to acknowledge and balance the issues facing local governments, the humanity and dignity of homeless people, and our constitutional principles. … [But the majority instead] focuses almost exclusively on the needs of local governments and leaves the most vulnerable in our society with an impossible choice: Either stay awake or be arrested.”
Attorney Theane Evangelis, who represented Grants Pass before the high court, applauded the ruling, saying the 9th Circuit decision had “tied the hands of local governments.” Evangelis said this:
“Years from now, I hope that we will look back on today’s watershed ruling as the turning point in America’s homelessness crisis.”
The Supreme Courts ruling comes after homelessness in the United States had peaked and grown 12% the year before to its highest reported level, as soaring rents and a decline in coronavirus pandemic assistance combined to put housing out of reach for more people. More than 650,000 people are estimated to be homeless, the most since the country began using a yearly point-in-time survey in 2007. Nearly half of them sleep outside. Older adults, LGBTQ+ people and people of color are disproportionately affected, advocates said. In Oregon, a lack of mental health and addiction resources has also helped fuel the crisis.
The Link to a quoted and relied upon news sources are here:
https://www.abqjournal.com/news/article_d708fdd6-3593-11ef-bb6d-8350d9880c72.html
https://www.koat.com/article/supreme-court-oregon-homelessness/61453397
DISTRICT JUDGE RULES UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT RULING FLAWED AND DOES NOT APPLY TO CITY
The city of Albuquerque’s handling of what District Court Judge Allison described homelessness as one of the most challenging social problems in the past 40 years is at issue in the three-year-old civil rights lawsuit pending in Allison’s court in the 2nd Judicial District. The lawsuit contends it is unconstitutional to punish or threaten to punish unhoused people for the “crime of being in an outdoor public space when there are inadequate indoor spaces for them to be.”
The lawsuit was filed two years before the U.S. Supreme Court in the Grants Pass vs. Johnson case concluded in June 2024 that the protections of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution against cruel and unusual punishment do not prohibit local governments from enforcing certain ordinances against involuntarily unhoused people.
Plaintiffs contend their claims against the city are not made under the U.S. Constitution and that Grants Pass is not controlling law. They sought to bar the city from enforcing certain criminal laws against them because they violate the New Mexico Constitution, which plaintiffs argue provides them more protection than the U.S. Supreme Court determined was available in the Grants Pass case.
On March 18, 2024, District Court Judge Joshua Allison ruled the United States Supreme Court case of GRANTS PASS V. JOHNSON that gave cities the green light to enforce criminal laws against the homeless for living and sleeping outside on public property did not apply to the City of Albuquerque. Judge Joshua Allison specifically found the high court ruling was “flawed”. Judge Allison concluded and ruled the New Mexico Constitution provides greater protections against such cruel and unusual punishment than the U.S. Supreme Court considered in its decision.
In his March 18 ruling, Allison wrote that the plaintiffs are challenging what they say are the city of Albuquerque’s unconstitutional practices of relocating them, and involuntarily unhoused people like them, from “place to place, taking and destroying their belongings in the process.”
Plaintiffs in their class action lawsuit against the City allege that the city intentionally deprived them, as involuntarily unhoused people, of the belongings they need to survive. In his March 18 ruling, Judge Allison wrote the allegations, if proven during the course of the case, would be “sufficient to demonstrate the City’s deliberate indifference” to the precarious existence of homeless individuals when they live outside.
Judge Allison wrote:
“Accepting Plaintiff’s allegations as true, as the Court must at this stage in the proceedings, the City’s alleged actions of destroying the means that homeless people need to survive outside, actions that are taken in the course of seeking to enforce criminal laws against homeless people, shock the conscience of the Court.”
CITY FILES “PETITION FOR WRIT OF SUPERINTENDING CONTROL” AGAINST DISTRICT JUDGE JOSH ALLISON
Rule 12-504 NMRA of the rules of Appellate Procedure governs the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of New Mexico, specifically in cases of writs of mandamus and superintending control. Writs of Superintending Control are considered an extraordinary measure. A Writ of Superintending Control is a legal tool used by the Supreme Court to oversee lower courts and ensure the proper administration of justice. It allows the Supreme Court to correct errors made by lower courts, particularly when those errors cause significant harm or when there is no other adequate remedy available.
On July 11, the City of Albuquerque filed with the New Mexico Supreme Court a “Petition for Writ of Superintending Control” against Judge Joshua Allison requesting the court to reverse Allison’s ruling to prevent the “proliferation” of homeless encampments within the city and other municipalities and towns in New Mexico. A city spokesperson said this in a statement:
“We filed this appeal because we dispute the judge’s ruling. This is the only judge in the country to make this ruling, and we are the only city in America having to live under these rules. … The city will keep doing everything in its power to get people the support they need and to manage illegal encampments promptly. We will continue sending staff to conduct welfare checks at encampments and offer support services.”
John Anderson, a Santa Fe lawyer who is a former United State Attorney for New Mexico, is defending the city of Albuquerque in the class action lawsuit, states this in the petition:
“[The issues involving the prevention of illegal encampments have] serious public safety implications and, the district court’s decision flouts the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent guidance. … The City needs this Court’s direction in weighing how to enforce its laws … to resolve legal questions of statewide importance. If allowed to stand, the district court’s decision will leave the City of Albuquerque and cities and towns throughout New Mexico, with no means to prevent the proliferation of encampments within their borders.”
In its “Petition for Superintending Control” filed with the New Mexico Supreme Court, the city of Albuquerque contends that nearly two years ago, “a large group of cities and states put out a clear and forceful call” by asking the U.S. Supreme Court “to relieve them of the burdens imposed by a misguided interpretation of the Eighth Amendment by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which left cities unable to clear encampments from, or otherwise maintain order in, public property.”
The “Petition for Superintending Control” asserts in part:
“[Judge Allison’s] novel and unprecedented standard cannot stand. The City simply does not know, at this time, when or how it can enforce its laws.”
CLASS ACTION LAWSUITE STILL PENDING
The class action lawsuit against the city is still pending and it still may go to trial, unless the parties settle the case. Lawyers representing the City of Albuquerque want the New Mexico Supreme Court to rule on District Court Allison’s legal ruling that the United States Supreme Court Ruling in the case of GRANTS PASS V. JOHNSON does not apply to the city before money is spent to defending the rest of the case.
The link to the quoted or relied upon news article is here:
COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS
The City is correct in seeking a Writ of Superintendent Control against Judge Allison to compel him to apply the principals announced in the Supreme Court case of Grants Pass vs. Johnson. With the filing of the Writ of Superintendent Control, the New Mexico Supreme Court will likely be forced to address head on the issue if the banning of outdoor camping by the unhoused is “cruel and unusual punishment” and to what extent all municipalities can enforce state and municipal laws.
It is very difficult to understand or even try to comprehend Judge Joshua Allison’s ruling that the Supreme Court case of Grants Pass v. Johnson does not apply to the class action lawsuit filed against the city given the fact that the case is essentially identical to the issues the US Supreme Court decided in GRANTS PASS V. JOHNSON. Judge Allison essentially bends over backwards to declare that the Supreme Court Ruling is “flawed” in order not to apply it to the case brought against the city and to prevent the city from enforcing state law and municipal ordinances.
District Judge Josh Allison’s injunction and ruling that the city “cannot threaten to arrest, cite, or otherwise punish unhoused people for their mere presence in outdoor public spaces in order to forcibly move them from one outdoor public place to another” is a clear usurpation and interference with the city’s legitimate law enforcement authority. Judge Allison usurped and interfered with the city’s right to take necessary action to protect the public health, safety and welfare with the enforcement of public safety laws, both state laws and city ordinances.
Judge Allison’s rulings and findings simply do not make sense on many levels and needs extensive clarification. The Preliminary Injunction he issued is confusing and contradictory. Judge Allison’s orders were sweeping in nature and enjoined the city “from enforcing, or threatening to enforce as a means of seeking compliance with, any statutes and ordinances against involuntarily unhoused people that prohibit a person’s presence in, or the presence of a person’s belongings on, outdoor, public property”.
The order did not make it clear that “outdoor, public place” includes vacant, open space land owned by the city, county, state or federal government nor if it includes outdoor open space areas of government owned buildings such as city hall and the various courts. As examples, the Second Judicial Court had to fence off the outside of the District Court House entry way to stop the homeless from encamping there at night and the city repeatedly has to take action to have the homeless removed from outside of City Hall and Plaza Del Sol.
The court order provides the city is not enjoined from “enforcing any statutes, ordinances, or other laws affecting private property or the rights of others”. The city has property rights that are equal to private property rights when it comes to real property it owns and manages including government buildings such as city hall and court houses, as does the county and state, yet Judge Allison makes a distinction and gives preference in enforcement of private real property rights. The court also ruled that the city is not enjoined from enforcing any statutes or ordinances concerning any other criminal acts of the unhoused people, but that is very limited because APD has a no arrest policy when it comes to the misdemeanor crimes of trespass and camping on public property.
The Albuquerque Police Department is currently under a court approved settlement in the federal lawsuit of McClendon v. City of Albuquerque wherein the city has agreed not to make arrests for nonviolent crimes, such as trespass on public and private property, illegal camping on all city parks and streets, rights of way, alleyways and open space. As a result, APD is relegated to merely encouraging or telling the homeless to move on and camp elsewhere falling short of making an arrest and taking them to jail. Judge Allison enjoined such conduct.
The glaring defect of the injunctions issued by Judge Allison against the city is that the Court essentially ruled that the unhoused, because of their status of being unhoused and because there is insufficient housing available and offered by the city, they have the right to violate the law and illegally camp wherever they want for how long as they want without government interference or threat of arrest. While Judge Allison says “the City is not constitutionally obligated to provide housing for homeless people” he rules the city cannot “threaten” to enforce the laws against the homeless until the city provides sufficient satisfactory shelter and housing to them implying the city is not doing much of anything, which is completely false.
CITY’S MULTIFACED APPROACH TO DEALING WITH UNHOUSED
According to the most recent “Point in Time” survey, which is the annual federal count of the unhoused, the total count of PERSONS determined to be experiencing homelessness in Albuquerque is 2,740 reported in 3 categories:
- Emergency Shelters: 1,289
- Transitional Housing: 220
- Unsheltered: 1,231
According to the latest Point in Time survey the biggest problem the city encounters when it comes to the chronic unhoused is that 75% of them absolutely refuse to accept services offered by the city.
According to the City budgets for the years 2021 to 2024, the Keller administration has spent a staggering $200,000,000, or upwards of $60 Million a year, to operate shelters and provide homeless services.
The city is taking a multifaceted, all-in approach to get more people into houses and off the streets. The city’s Metro Homelessness Initiative has the goal to provide the unhoused staying at shelters with the opportunity of employment. The city has also overhauled its voucher program and improving collaboration with the nonprofits that do the work.
The city will has a total of 5 centers to deal with the homeless that is intended to be operated as an integrated system:
- The Gibson Gateway Shelter
- The Gateway West Shelter
- The Family Gateway Shelter
- The Youth Homeless Shelter
- The Recovery Shelter
The Gateway Center which is the former Lovelace Hospital on Gibson is the largest investment the city has ever made in health and homelessness with the goal of providing immediate help and a pathway into housing. The Gateway West shelter is the old westside jail being reshaped with no barriers to entry and wraparound services. The city is adding the Youth Gateway a Recovery Gateway, and the Family Gateway has already helped get 1,200 into permanent housing. The Recovery Gateway is for the unhoused who are struggling with drug abuse. The Family Gateway is a reworked hotel to house more than 50 families a night.
FINAL COMMENTARY
The City has the obligation and every right to enforce its criminal laws on behalf of its citizens, whether it be felony or misdemeanor. The city cannot simply ignore those laws that have the purpose of preserving and protecting the public health, safety and welfare and the rights of all its citizens.
Unlawful encampment homeless squatters who have no interest in any offers of shelter, beds, motel vouchers from the city or alternatives to living on the street and who want to camp at city parks, on city streets in alleys and trespass in open space give the city no choice but to take action and force them to move on or for that matter make arrests for other crimes identified other than vagrancy crimes.
Links to related articles are here: