Culver City City Council approves anti-camping ordinance with 3-2 vote
By Dolores Quintana
On Monday, February 12, Culver City’s City Council approved a homelessness ordinance that prohibits camping in public places throughout the city.
Tavis Barnes, Housing and Human Services Director, began the discussion and stated that the ordinance is intended to protect public health and safety and access to city public parks and public places. Of course, the ordinance would not affect any camping that takes place in official camping areas. The ordinance doesn’t prohibit the use of blankets, pillows, sleeping bags and other types of bedding while sleeping on public property. She went on to explain that the ordinance would only prohibit camping and leaving or storing personal property in public places.
The ordinance would also allow the city council to establish one or more areas known as safe camping sites and would defer enforcement of the ordinance until the city opens Project Homekey, open the safe camping site, and enter into agreements with local hotels to provide additional housing.
Several members of the public spoke out strongly against the measure, making note of their belief that the ordinance would criminalize being unhoused and sleeping on the street. Others pointed out that even after the city makes an effort to provide housing or space for camping in the city, it is likely that there will still be unhoused people who have no place to go.
Newly elected city council member Freddy Puza spoke first about the ordinance, which he opposed, and brought up that the administrative fees for breaking the ordinance are $100 for the first offense, $200 for the second offense and $500 for all other offenses when asking for enforcement to be stricken from the ordinance to get his vote. He stated that obviously, unhoused people cannot afford to pay such penalties and don’t have other options, so charging them large administrative fees and putting them in jail for trying to survive isn’t a strategy that is going to work.
Councilmember Dan O’Brien asked where those numbers for administrative fees come from and was told that the default rules for ordinances in Culver City applied when fees are not specified in the ordinance. While questioning staff about how the program would work, he brought up that six people from our unhoused community died on the streets last year in Culver City. He said that he believes that we can’t have people waiting for housing on the streets and that he wanted to introduce a motion at the end in regards to citations and suspending that process in enforcement.
Councilmember Göran Eriksson stated that he thought it was more important for the council to do some things to help the situation rather than talk about it. He feels that safe camping is fantastic and the speed at which it is happening is good. He said that when Culver City starts doing its part and when they do, it can start asking the county for help. He stated that mental issues and drug rehab are the responsibility of Los Angeles County.
Vice Mayor and councilmember Yasmine-Imani McMorrin asked city staff for the numbers on capitol A affordable or naturally occurring affordable housing that is currently available in Culver City. Staff answered that the city has 500 units available. McMorrin also asked what the number of generally affordable housing units was and staff could not answer without reviewing the numbers and how many hotel vouchers the city was using. Staff responded that 15 vouchers were currently being used, although more had been used in the past, and some people using vouchers have been sheltered using vouchers for a year. McMorrin stated that her formal remarks would not be much different from those she had already aired but she said that there is absolutely no data that enforcement creates better outcomes for our unhoused neighbors and that she has never heard one unhoused person request enforcement which makes her ask who is being centered in our policy processes.
Councilmember Albert Vera said we have to start somewhere, “we’re increasing interim housing and once we get this up and running, I’m not opposed to having a conversation about permanent housing. He said we need to take baby steps and we can’t just take one giant bite of the apple and expect it to work out perfectly.”
He continued by saying, “Is this a perfect ordinance? No, but I think as we learn, as we move forward I believe that this is a humane option. He also mentioned the issue of fines, suggesting that there should be a sunset on any fines.”
The ordinance passed on a voice vote of three yes votes and two no votes, with the dissenting votes coming from Councilmember Puza and Vice Mayor McMorrin. Councilmember O’Brien made a motion to suspend the issuance of any other citations and related fines regarding this ordinance until otherwise directed by the city council. This motion did not change McMorrin and Puza’s no votes.
