SAN DIEGO (CN) – A federal judge has granted a partial victory to a group of homeless residents in San Diego after finding the city partially violated the conditions of the ea solution.
Classroom action goes backwards almost a decade after homeless residents claimed they were being unfairly targeted by the city for living in their vehicles.
Homeless residents, who live out of RVs and other large vehicles, claimed the city violated the terms of an agreement when police officers continued to cite them for parking violations under the city’s oversized vehicle ordinance, or OVO, when there was no space in the city’s secure parking lots.
Residents also said the city violated the terms of the settlement by not improving conditions at one of its 24-hour secure lots in Mission Valley, where many of the residents spend their days. The city agreed to spend $900,000 on improvements to the site.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Daniel Butcher found the city was not living up to its agreement to improve conditions at the Mission Valley safe zone.
Some of the improvement requests included water and electricity connections, shower and toilet connections, a sewage pumping station and shade structures or trees.
The city has spent only about $30,000 on expanding the site’s entrance and a security gate since reaching the settlement about 18 months ago. The city also said it rebuilt parts of the safe lot, which cost about $140,000, though it was unclear if that was part of the budget.
The city has argued that some of the improvements will far exceed the $900,000 budget.
Butcher ordered the city to provide a status report by the end of the month that includes a plan to complete the improvements, a budget and a schedule.
However, the judge disagreed with the plaintiffs’ contention that the city breached the agreement by continuing to cite class members in violation of the OVO.
The plaintiffs argue that they are often unable to move their vehicles to very safe because the lots are full or because they lack the financial means or ability to do so. As a result, some of the class members have collected thousands of dollars for parking violations.
In his ruling Wednesday, Butcher noted that officers continued to cite homeless residents after setting up Barrack H, a safe night-only site with 190 parking spaces located in the city’s Point Loma neighborhood. The city opened the vault a year ago.
Class members have presented frequently city police officerswith a preprinted form stating that they are unable to move their vehicles to H Barracks from their location during the day due to fuel costs or wear and tear on their vehicle. But Butcher ruled that form doesn’t give them veto power over the city’s ability to enforce its ordinances.
“City officers lack the ability to verify the class members’ claims that they cannot afford the five- to six-mile (10-12 mile round trip) commute to Barracks H,” Butcher wrote. “Additionally, plaintiffs recognized their financial challenges when they agreed to the settlement agreement, however, they agreed that they would have to move from their daytime locations to a safe area available during nighttime hours or risk receiving an OVO citation.”
Butcher also criticized residents’ advocates for distributing preprinted forms. The forms misled plaintiffs into thinking they were protected from citations, he wrote.
“Many members of the class have received tickets as a result,” Butcher wrote. “Second, the form seeks to deprive the city of the primary benefit it negotiated under the settlement agreement: the ability to clear vehicle encampments from city streets and parks and connect homeless individuals with available social services in safe areas and, ultimately, permanent housing.”
Butcher said he knows the various reasons why moving vehicles can be difficult, especially for people who suffer from disabilities or other personal challenges.
“Many class members also explain that a 24-hour secure lot would serve them better than an overnight-only park,” Butcher wrote. “Plaintiffs, however, did not bargain for a 24-hour secure lot. Plaintiffs therefore understood and agreed that, once the City provided reasonably secure parking, they would have to move there during the night hours or risk an OVO ticket.”
Many of the class members spend their day at Mission Bay Park, a popular beach area that offers free parking, running water, showers and trash pickup about five miles from H Barracks. But Mission Bay Park was never part of the deal, The butcher wrote.
“The court is sympathetic to the plight of the class members,” he continued. “Financial challenges, disabilities and other circumstances have caused them to live in their vehicles. But that reality became known when the parties entered into the settlement agreement.”
Neither party responded to requests for comment.
Subscribe to our free newsletters
Our weekly newsletter Closing arguments provides the latest on ongoing trials, major litigation and decisions in courts around the US and the world, while monthly Under the lights feeds legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.
