College Media Network - Search the largest news resource for college students by college students Jobs and internships for students -

The Lumberjack > News

Police Disband City Hall Encampment

By Preston Drake-Hillyard and Satoshi Kondo

|

Published: Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Updated: Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Police/Homeless 1

Nathan holds the weeks-old kitten, Tolki Warfan, closely in the frigid air in the parking lot of the

Preston Drake-Hillyard

Police/Homeless

Kim Starr, better known as Verbena, talks about Peoples Project in an interview with the Lumberjack

Preston Drake-Hillyard

On Sunday night, Police raided a tent settlement at Eureka City Hall, an action that resulted in one arrest. The encampment had served as a makeshift homeless shelter, and sought to have the city recognize the needs of the homeless. The settlement had been in place since Dec. 4, and at the time of the raid there were less than 10 campers present, according to Lt. Murl Harpham of the Eureka Police Department. Health Code violations and the potential threat of litigation were cited as reasons for their removal.

Lt. Harpham arrived on scene around 10 p.m. with about 12 officers, closed down the block, and gave the campers 10 minutes to vacate the area. Those remaining were warned that they would be arrested. Over a loudspeaker Lt. Harpham told campers that the Rescue Mission, a Christian faith-based homeless shelter was standing by with 15 beds. While Most were compliant and quickly packed up their belongings to leave. Kim Starr, an activist for homeless rights, refused to leave and was arrested for interfering and trespassing. Once the area was cleared, officers dismantled the camp.

“They took their knives and slashed the tarps and snapped the trestles. They destroyed the whole fucking thing,” said local resident Jack Nounnan, who had been there earlier that night.

In a phone interview, Eureka Mayor Virginia Bass told the Lumberjack that it’s “time to start enforcing the ordinance.” She was referring to City Ordinance 93.02, which mandates that “no person shall camp in any public or private space.” City benches and sidewalks are considered public space under this law. “We are compassionate and want to do more. We can’t just go out and do what they want us [to do],” the Mayor said.

Lt. Harpham said, “The city bent over backwards to allow this.” Following a growing number of complaints by city employees and residents and a city council meeting on Dec. 1, the police department was prompted to react. The police issued a warning last Friday to the tent community, stating that action would be taken against them if they did not disband. The campers continued to occupy the parking lot at night, forcing police intervention.

The camp was set up by Peoples Project, a non-profit organization for homeless rights. According to their website, one of their goals is “to have a people-run, eco-sustainable campground” for houseless and traveling people. Starr alleged that there was a deliberate campaign in Eureka to “disappear homeless people” by targeting services that tend to their needs, such as public restrooms and shelters. Mayor Bass denied Starr’s charge, stating that there is no organized attempt to remove the homeless.

Starr quoted the First Amendment as justification for the camp, stating that they were exercising their freedom of speech and petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. Furthermore, she invoked the “necessity defense,” which is used in criminal law as justification for breaking the law in cases where it is more favorable to society than strict adherence. While recognized by the Supreme Court as part of the common law, there is no federal statute to uphold the defense. Starr remains incarcerated as of Tuesday.

For 33 nights, the city hall parking lot was a place for the homeless to congregate, seek shelter, and be served food. But as no public bathrooms were available, they had relieved themselves where they could on the property, creating a health and sanitation issue. “They treated us like dogs,” said Nounnan. “What were we to do?”

In reponse to Starr’s request for government-issued land where the homeless can settle, Mayor Bass said it would be great to give property to the homeless. But without funding, basic issues such as sanitation cannot be addressed, she said. She proposed that negotiations be held with Arcata and Fortuna, the rationale being that if the homeless issue was addressed on a regional scale, there would be more funding. Mayor Bass said that it started as an informal gathering. “It was mindful,” she said, “Calling attention to the plight of the people.”

 

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

4 comments

"HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
Thu Jan 7 2010 16:20
Lt. Harpham said, “The city bent over backwards to allow this.”

My Response = Yes, the city violated their own municipal code because of compassion? For camping? What about merely standing? Or, sitting? Let us see here, the city admits that homeless have really no place to go so they allow them to camp, in violation of a code, but then decide that they were wrong for violating the code and are open to "equal protection suits" for other codes that city officials circumvented for the benefit of one over another. Folks in Humboldt County better wake-up, and fast.

Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville - 5th District

K. Starr
Tue Dec 29 2009 19:53
[the rest of my comment]/The Times-StandardPosted: 11/17/2009 01:24:11 AM PSTDespite laws that prohibit such behavior, the city says it's not going to stop the camping as long as the campers keep a low profile. [from the Brown Act]CHAPTER IV.NOTICE AND AGENDA REQUIREMENTS4. Closed SessionsThere are three types of “notice” obligations that accompany the conduct of a closed-sessionas a part of a duly noticed meeting. First, each item to be transacted or discussed in a closedsession must be briefly described on an agenda for the meeting. (§ 54954.2(a).) Second, priorto adjourning into closed session, a representative of the legislative body must orally announcethe items to be discussed in closed session. (§ 54957.7(a).) This requirement may be satisfiedby merely referring to the relevant portion of the written agenda for the meeting. However, theAct contains specific additional requirements for closed sessions regarding pending litigationwhere the body believes it is subject to a significant exposure to potential litigation. (§54956.9(b)(3).) Third, once the closed session has been completed, the agency must reconvenein open session, where it may be required to report votes and actions taken in closed session.(§ 54957.1.) These requirements are discussed in detail below.A. Agenda RequirementAt least 72 hours prior to each regular meeting, legislative bodies must prepare anagenda containing a brief general description of each item to be transacted or discussed,including items which will be handled in closed session. (§ 54954.2(a).) A descriptionof each item generally need not exceed 20 words, although the description must besufficient to provide interested persons with an understanding of the subject matterwhich will be considered. (Carlson v. Paradise Unified School Dist. (1971) 18Cal.App.3d 196, 200.) In the case of pending litigation, the legislative body must makereference in the agenda or publicly announce the specific subsection of section 54956.9under which the closed session is being held. (§ 54956.9(c).) B. Oral Announcement Prior to Closed SessionsIn addition to the agenda requirement for regular and special meetings, the Act requiresa representative of the legislative body to orally announce the items to be discussed inclosed session prior to any closed-session meeting. (§ 54957.7(a).) This requirementmay be satisfied by referring to the item by number as it appears on the agenda.However, such a referral usually would not be sufficient in the case of a closed sessionconcerning significant exposure to litigation.Pursuant to section 54956.9, a closed session may be conducted in order to permit anagency to receive advice from its legal counsel. When the impetus for such a closedsession is the agency’s exposure to potential litigation, the Act carefully regulates thecircumstances under which a closed session may be called, and the types ofannouncement which must accompany such a meeting. (§ 54956.9(b)(3).) Theserequired disclosures may be made as a part of the written agenda or as a part of the oralannouncement made prior to any closed session. These requirements do not mandatedisclosure of privileged communications exempt from disclosure under the PublicRecords Act. (§ 54956.9(b)(3)(F).) A summary of the disclosure requirementssurrounding closed sessions based on an agency’s exposure to potential litigation is setforth below.• Where the agency believes that facts creating significant exposure tolitigation are not known to potential plaintiffs, the facts need not bedisclosed. (§ 54956.9(b)(3)(A).)• Where facts (e.g., an accident, disaster, incident, or transaction) creatingsignificant exposure to litigation are known to potential plaintiffs, thefacts must be publicly stated on the agenda or announced. (§54956.9(b)(3)(B).)• Where the agency receives a claim or other written communicationthreatening litigation, reference to the claim or communication must bepublicly stated on the agenda or announced, and the claim orcommunication must be available for public inspection pursuant tosection 54957.5. (§ 54956.9(b)(3)(C).)• Where a person makes a statement in an open and public meetingthreatening litigation, reference to the statement must be publicly statedon the agenda or announced. (§ 54956.9(b)(3)(D).)• Where a person makes a statement outside of an open and publicmeeting threatening litigation, the agency may not conduct a closedsession unless an agency official having knowledge of the threat makesa contemporaneous or other record of the statement prior to themeeting. Reference to the statement must be publicly stated on theagenda or announced, and the record must be available for publicinspection pursuant to section 54957.5. However, the record, or thedisclosable part thereof, need not identify the alleged victim of unlawfulor tortious sexual conduct or anyone making a threat on their behalf, oridentify a public employee who is the alleged perpetrator of any suchconduct, unless the identity of the person...
K. Starr
Tue Dec 29 2009 19:51
Eureka City Council's Secret Agenda- CLEAR VIOLATION of the BROWN ACT On Tuesday, December 1, 2009, the Eureka City Counsel generated, in closed session, a plan to shut down the PEOPLE PROJECT Safe Sleep Zone protest at City Hall. At that time, the protest, which provided a safe haven for many unsheltered people, had been going on for almost 30 nights. Earlier in the day of Tuesday Dec 1, 2009, City Manager, Mr. David Tyson, informed a participant in the protest that the Council would probably address the protest in the closed session that evening. In addition, EPD Chief Nielsen told the media that the protest would likely address it during the Tuesday closed session. After downloading the agendas for the open and closed sessions for that night, I made two phone calls- leaving a detailed message for Mr. Tyson and speaking directly with a woman Eureka City Clerk. I pointed out that there was nothing on either Tuesday night agenda which referenced the protest at City Hall; and that if it were to be discussed at either meeting by the City Council, the Council would be violating open meeting acts (namely, the Brown Act). Sure enough, later on Tuesday, the City Council devised a plan in closed session, had failed to agendize it, and then failed to bring its decisions to the open meeting that evening. Whether the entire discussion was appropriate for a closed session, according to the Brown Act, is the first question that should be examined. Moreover, however, the City Council was in clear violation of the Brown Act due to its secret agenda and decision-making. The City Council began implementing the ill-gotten decisions several days later. Below are some excerpts from media articles wherein City officials are quoted referencing the Tuesday night decision(s). Below those excerpts are pertinent parts of the Ralph M. Brown Act. The Humboldt County District Attorney,both Mr. Paul Gallegos and Deputy DA Ms. Autumn Renshaw, have been informed of such crimes against transparency. On Wednesday, December 30, 2009, 8:30am, I will be in Humboldt Superior Court, fighting criminal charges arising from the large City action on December 6, 2009 at City Hall. Two motions are set to be heard: a suppression motion (which involves an evidentiary hearing) and a motion to compel discovery- both filed by me, the defense.End the Criminalization of Homelessness.--Kimberly StarrBagley-Keene Open Meeting Act Preamble, Section 11120 and Brown Act Preamble, Section 54950 It is the public policy of this state that public agencies exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business and the proceedings of public agencies be conducted openly so that the public may remain informed. In enacting this article the Legislature finds and declares that it is the intent of the law that actions of state agencies be taken openly and that their deliberation be conducted openly. The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created. Tent city: Issues with Eureka City Hall campers may go before councilDonna Tam/The Times-StandardPosted: 11/28/2009 01:24:11 AM PSTEureka Police Chief Garr Nielsen said the department has been receiving calls from city employees about the overnighters, an issue that will probably go before the council on Tuesday. In addition to the parking spots, there have been some concerns over sanitation. ”Essentially it's a policy decision on the part of the council, and the police department will act on the wishes of the council,” he said. Eureka breaks up city hall parking lot encampmentDonna Tam/The Times-StandardPosted: 12/08/2009 01:15:52 AM PSTHarpham said arrangements were made with the Rescue Mission in case any of the occupants needed an alternative location to sleep overnight. City Manager David Tyson said the encampment was beginning to impact city staff's ability to access the parking lot, and was starting to disturb neighbors. Chief Garr Nielsen said last month that the no-camping code would not be enforced as long as no problems occurred. He said police set up barricades and put up notices Thursday announcing that EPD would be enforcing the no-camping code. On Sunday night, about a dozen people chose to stay after a meal served by the People Project. Authorities waited until 9 p.m. to begin enforcement to allow those who came for just the meal to leave. Tyson said employees were also concerned about having their parking spaces blocked after leaving the office in the evenings and being accosted in the lot. Their concerns were discussed last week in a closed session City Council meeting regarding potential litigation. Homeless encampments temporarily set up at Eureka City Hall parking lotDonna Tam/The...
Jake
Thu Dec 17 2009 19:02
I think the first paragraph was suppose to say they had been there since Nov. 4. As it reads, the City Council meeting was three days before they set up camp - that doesn't make sense!!!






log out