Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Homelessness topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenter urges alternatives to criminalizing homelessness as council debates new camping rules
Summary
A Reclaim representative urged the Duval City Council to avoid criminalization of homelessness; council then spent extensive time on proposed DMC Title 8 changes that would create a staged approach to camping enforcement (notice, outreach/assistance, deferred fines if conduct corrected) and left open the length of the notice period and enforcement details for follow-up.
A Reclaim staff member and longtime local resident told the Duval City Council on June 16 that criminalizing homelessness hurts people and fails to produce housing, urging investment instead in outreach, housing navigation and shelter partnerships.
"Citations, fines, arrests and displacement do not create housing," Asia Gordon said during public comment. Gordon, who identified herself as having lived in the Snowqually area for 33 years and as a Reclaim employee, called for shifts away from punishment and toward services: outreach, housing navigation, behavioral-health supports, affordable housing development and emergency sheltering.
Council then spent an extended portion of the meeting discussing proposed amendments to Duval Municipal Code Title 8 (use of public property and park facilities). Staff said the revised draft clarifies that mere presence on public property is not a crime, requires compliance with state law for inventorying and providing access to personal property left in public spaces, and proposes a staged approach when camping or long-term occupancy occurs: initial contact and outreach, a notice period, an option to issue a civil infraction with an ability to defer payment where conduct is immediately corrected, and escalation to criminal penalties only for repeated, hazardous or interfering behavior.
City attorney and staff walked council through specific code sections. Council members debated whether to duplicate existing criminal-code provisions (several agreed duplication was unnecessary), where a public-urination provision should sit in the municipal code, and an appropriate notice period before enforcement (24 hours favored by several members; 72 hours suggested by others to allow access to services on weekends/holidays). Members also asked whether fines could be waivable or deferred if the person engaged with services; staff noted that enforcement and judicial outcomes depend on the district court and that the city cannot unilaterally direct court actions, though the city can choose not to pursue collection in some circumstances.
Councilors repeatedly emphasized that the draft attempts to prioritize resource connection before enforcement. One councilor summarized the draft process as a series of steps: offer outreach and connection to services, allow a notice period to enable departure or engagement, and only issue fines or criminal enforcement if hazards or interference continue. Council gave staff direction to refine the time-period language and to seek input from local service providers and the police chief; staff said it will return with edits at the July 21 meeting.
No final ordinance was adopted on June 16. The discussion will continue; staff will solicit feedback from social-service providers, clarify enforcement language and bring a revised draft back to council.
