Agenda Item # 9.9 - Jan Bernstein Chargin | Received 06/19/2023CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
From:Jan Bernstein Chargin
To:City Clerk; Erik Chalhoub; allcitycouncil@cityofgilroy.org
Subject:EXTERNAL - For your consideration
Date:Saturday, June 17, 2023 8:04:42 PM
At Monday’s meeting, you are planning to pass the ordinance that prohibits
sleeping/sitting/laying and using/storing/placing personal property in the areas most likely to
used by unhoused people.
Please remove the item from the consent agenda, reconsider, and take a separate vote.
The City is not making additional shelter beds available, and is not creating a safe space for
unhoused people to sleep. The majority of land not covered by the ordinance consists of
private residences and commercial properties. The city has not shown that there is sufficient
PUBLIC space remaining in the city that is not affected by the ordinance.
Downtown business owners already recognize that this action is likely to have a negative
impact on downtown, relocating people from the mostly hidden areas where they have been
living to the only area of the city with wide sidewalks.
It is likely that costly legal action will be taken against the city, as was made clear by attorneys
for the Law Foundation at two council meetings.
Other cities attempting similar ordinances (for example, San Diego) will not be attempting
enforcement until additional shelter and legal camping sites come online. Gilroy is alone in
taking an approach that defies Martin v Boise without taking any mitigating action.
There is still time to reconsider and prevent a costly mistake, either by delaying
implementation until sufficient alternatives exist, or scaling back the amount of property
designated, so that demonstrable options exist. Show that people really have alternative places
to go and are not being criminalized for the lack of stable housing.
I will point out that the basis of this ordinance is ostensibly to prevent activities that are
already illegal: drug use, harassment, littering. Perhaps stepping up enforcement against these
existing crimes would be more effective than creating a new category for enforcement. Target
the individuals who are actually causing problems, not the otherwise law-abiding citizens just
trying to survive.
Please read about how this is playing out in other areas (specifically San Francisco, which is
now under injunction and heading to trial) for less-sweeping actions with better mitigation
than Gilroy is now considering:
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/homelessness/story/2023-06-17/san-diegos-
homeless-camping-ban-may-face-legal-challenge
We all want a safe, clean community. This ordinance won’t provide it. Let’s work together to
do the things that will.
Sincerely,
Jan Bernstein Chargin