FREMONT — Fremont’s controversial tenting ban has been briefly placed on maintain, in line with metropolis officers and the lawyer suing the town to repeal the ordinance.
In a court docket submitting, U.S. District Choose Maxine Chesney beneficial placing the ban on ice till the town finalizes an modification the Fremont Metropolis Council authorised on Tuesday to take away an “aiding and abetting” clause from the ordinance.
Anthony Prince, the lead lawyer representing a number of homeless residents and several other religion based mostly organizations, stated Fremont Metropolis Lawyer Rafael Alvarado Jr. as of Thursday beneficial that the town pause enforcement of the ban. Prince stated his purchasers agreed to pause the lawsuit, which was filed Tuesday in federal court docket, however added that this received’t be the tip of their authorized battle.
“The whole thing has to go,” Prince stated in an interview. “You cannot amend this thing. We think it needs to be repealed. There’s no way to repair it.”
Alvarado Jr. and Metropolis Supervisor Karena Shackelford didn’t reply to requests for touch upon Friday. However Fremont Spokeswoman Geneva Bosques stated by way of e-mail the town will maintain off on enforcement till council meets once more on March 18 to finalize amending the ban.
“The City believes it makes sense to temporarily stay enforcement until the amendment is considered by the Council,” Bosques wrote. “This also allows briefing to be deferred in a recently filed lawsuit challenging the City’s camping ordinance until after consideration of the amendment.”
The council on Tuesday voted 6-1 to take out an “aiding and abetting” clause that will criminalize folks for providing help equivalent to meals, clothes or tents to homeless folks. However Prince stated that amending it nonetheless doesn’t handle the problems homeless folks will face beneath the tenting ban.
“We don’t support removing the aiding and abetting clause and leaving everything else intact,” Prince stated. “At the same time, it has diverted attention away from the key issue, which is the expanded criminalization and intensified criminalization of the homeless.”
A number of council members have insisted at public conferences that many opposing the ban are spreading “misinformation” or “fear mongering” — or are confused with the intent of the ban.
Councilman Raymond Liu, who was elected in November, stated critics of the ban have been spreading an “absurd amount of misinformation, deliberate lies and outright untruths that are surrounding this ordinance.”
Mayor Raj Salwan beforehand informed this information group that “changes to the ordinance were meant to “reassure our service providers and set the record straight.”
However Prince disagreed.
“We think there’s deception going on here,” Prince stated. “They’re making these comments and they’re trying to reassure some of these charitable organizations that they’ll be able to continue what they’re doing. But that’s not what’s in the ordinance.”
Violating the ban might lead to a misdemeanor cost with a effective as much as $1,000 and as much as six months in jail.
Vice Mayor Want Campbell, the one council member who voted twice in opposition to the ban, requested if the council could be keen to decrease the penalties for violating the ban to a easy infraction and $100 quotation. When her request was denied, Campbell voted in opposition to the modification earlier than the council on Tuesday.
Fremont had over 800 homeless folks in 2024, in line with the most recent homeless census knowledge, 612 of whom have been residing unsheltered, with 62% in a automobile or RV and 20% in a tent or makeshift shelter.
The plaintiffs suing the town embody a number of folks at present residing in tents and different makeshift camps. Amongst them are José Arroyo, a disabled former grasp technician, Corrine Griffith, a disabled lady who suffers from a number of persona dysfunction and epilepsy and Michael Austin, a homeless handyman who lives in a tent with a spring mattress to assist his arthritic again.
All of them might face jail time or fines, Prince argues within the lawsuit, as a result of they possess “camping paraphernalia,” or objects equivalent to tents, tarps and instruments in violation of the tenting ban. The ordinance was beforehand anticipated to enter impact on March 13.
“What is the distinction? How can you give someone clothing, but then say you can’t have a tent. The clothing is supposed to sit out there, exposed to the elements, get moldy?” Prince stated. “It makes no sense on its face. If a homeless person has personal property and they set it down in a public place, then that’s a violation of the ordinance.”
Initially Printed:
