Laws and Ordinances Enacted Specifically to Discriminate Against the Homeless~ From Tucson, Arizona 61). On March 4, 1996, the Tucson City Council, in a 4-3 vote, passed Resolution Number SS/MARCH4-96-102, entitled A-Mountain Homeless Campground and Other Homeless Encampments (City-Wide). The Resolution provided: 1. That the Community Services Department, in coordination with other appropriate City departments, work with persons currently camping on City property to inform them of all sources available to assist them in finding employment and housing. 2. That appropriate City officials provide a minimum of 72 hours’ notice to persons illegally camping on City property that they will need to vacate that property or else face enforcement action. 3. That after the City has provided notice, and if individuals do not vacate City property on which they are illegally camping, that the Tucson Police Department take appropriate enforcement action for violation of the State trespassing statutes. 62). Since 1996, Defendant City of Tucson has embarked upon an all-out assault on the homeless individual. Defendant City has enacted a laundry list of anti-homeless laws and customs barring behavior such as: Closure of public places the homeless frequently visit; construction of statutes prohibiting obstruction of sidewalks/public places to bar the carry or temporary storage of personal property, or the laying of one’s body in a public place; strict enforcement of loitering/loafing in public places; denying individuals the right to sit or lay down on sidewalks or in other public places; denying individuals the right to sleep in public places; strict enforcement of City park curfews against individuals who patently appear homeless; prohibiting panhandling or begging in public areas where such activity is most lucrative; and making basic human functions such as bathing, urinating and defecating in public a criminal offense while utterly failing to provide a public means for individuals without homes to comply with the law. 63). On information and belief, Defendants City of Tucson, Sharon Allen, Durkin, Gottschalk, Webb, Timpf, McNitt, Rizzi, Teague, Gross, Gray, Weber and Hayes are aware of and condone the imposition of anti-homeless laws and customs to restrict the homeless’ right to travel into the jurisdiction, and have taken no action to prevent the violation of Plaintiffs right to travel. 64). On information and belief, Defendants City of Tucson, Sharon Allen, Durkin, Gottschalk, Webb, Timpf, McNitt, Rizzi, Teague, Gross, Gray, Weber and Hayes condone and support these ordinances to erect direct barriers to travel, to impede travel, and penalize migration of indigent individuals into the jurisdiction. 65). On information and belief, Defendants City of Tucson, Sharon Allen, Durkin, Gottschalk, Webb, Timpf, McNitt, Rizzi, Teague, Gross, Gray, Weber and Hayes condone and support ordinances that proscribe public sleeping and are aimed solely at homeless transients and not at the act of public sleeping. 66). On information and belief, Defendants City of Tucson, Sharon Allen, Durkin, Gottschalk, Webb, Timpf, McNitt, Rizzi, Teague, Gross, Gray, Weber and Hayes maintain this custom of prohibiting sleeping not because of any evil associated with the conduct itself, but rather to elevate concerns regarding the homeless by business owners and wealthy citizens—called “stake holders” by Defendants. 67). In addition, Defendants City of Tucson, Sharon Allen, Durkin, Gottschalk, Webb, Timpf, McNitt, Rizzi, Teague, Gross, Gray, Weber and Hayes are aware of the overwhelmingly disproportionate effect such laws have on Plaintiffs and others similarly situated. Because few people who have access to safe, sanitary shelter regularly sleep in outdoor public areas, the vast majority of those arrested are homeless. These Defendants know this, and have failed to take action to mitigate the disproportionate effect of these laws. 68). On information and belief, Defendants City of Tucson, Sharon Allen, Durkin, Gottschalk, Webb, Timpf, McNitt, Rizzi, Teague, Gross, Gray, Weber and Hayes are aware of and condone the application of laws making basic human functions such as bathing, urinating and defecating in public a criminal offense and utterly fail to provide a public means for individuals without homes to comply with the law, for the sole purpose of encouraging indigent individuals currently living in the jurisdiction to leave the City of Tucson. 69). As a result of Defendants’ custom, Plaintiffs’ and the other 8,000 homeless who live in the City of Tucson face a daily Hobsons choice: they must exclude themselves from the jurisdiction or face arrest and prosecution for violating its antihomeless ordinance. Plaintiffs’ are forced to live as criminals, violating Defendants antihomeless ordinance whenever they succumb to the need to sleep, bath, urinate or defecate. This barrier effectively prevents Plaintiffs’ from entering or remaining in the jurisdiction for longer than they can remain awake, clean, and without need of restroom services.
Posted on: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 06:04:05 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015