Almost 100 people attended a City Council meeting Monday, with 19 of them speaking against at least one of three ordinances introduced later in the meeting for possible adoption in April.

One of those ordinances would charge organizers of public events that need police protection $50 an hour per officer; another would make “urban camping” by homeless people illegal; and the third would require a minimum distance of 300 feet between recovery houses, halfway houses, rooming houses and the like.

Several speakers cited precedent cases to warn council members that charging for police protection for protests infringed on the free speech clause of the First Amendment and could generate lawsuits; while some issued similar warnings that the separation requirement for protected classes living in recovery homes could also generate lawsuits; while some called out the urban camping prohibition as violating Jesus’ warning that “whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers.”

After hearing all the complaints, city officials thanked the residents for attending and speaking, and sought to justify the three proposals.

The three ordinances being all scheduled for introduction at the same meeting constituted a “trifecta,” said Carol Taylor, president of Blair County Indivisible, which has been discussing its plans to hold one of the nation’s No Kings rallies March 28.

Depending on how much police protection the police department feels is needed for that rally, the cost to the group could make the event “not affordable,” she said.

“That is a problem under Constitutional law,” said Taylor, who previously worked as a lawyer. “It will be challenged, and you will lose, and it could cost you more” than what the city collects for police protection, she said.

“You can’t violate the rights granted by the Constitution to balance the budget,” said resident Devin Saylor, speaking about the proposed police charges.

He was not blaming the police, who do “a great job,” Saylor said, looking at Police Chief Derek Swope.

Making urban camping illegal would be penalizing “an already downtrodden, marginalized group,” said speaker Caleb Hogan.

Better to focus on a solution, rather than demonizing them, Hogan said.

“It feels like a purposefully cruel thing,” said a woman who said she lives in her car, after an issue with her landlord rendered her homeless, despite having a job.

“I like my job and my community, and I love my neighbors — not just the ones with street addresses,” she said.

The ordinance that would set the minimum distance between recovery houses and the like at 300 feet would actually liberalize the recently enacted 1,500-foot minimum — but it’s still a violation of laws that protect substance use users, according to speaker Autumn Temple.

Citing officials’ celebrating a recent announcement of a 30-apartment project for the downtown that seems to welcome market-rate housing saturation, she contrasted it with the city’s apparent attempt to fight against “saturation” of the recovery homes.

Those homes are needed, said speaker Marianne Sinisi, whose son died years ago of an overdose.

People who have substance use disorder need places like Altoona to come to so they can recover away from their hometowns, where they would be too tempted to be successful, she said.

The same holds true for Altoona natives, she said.

“I appreciate all of you coming out tonight,” Councilman Bruce Kelley said. “There were many very heartfelt feelings.”

He hoped there could be a compromise on the police charges, he said.

It would be nice if there were a Hyde Park, London-style “Speakers Corner” where such protests could take place, he said.

Certain events may require police protection, and that comes with a cost, he said.

Mayor Matt Pacifico, apparently alone among council members, opposes the imposition of a cost for police protection.

The proposed police charges will be legal because they are based on the city’s actual costs, because they are “content-neutral,” and because they’ll be reasonably applied, according to city solicitor Mike Wagner.

“The same rules apply to No Kings as to MAGA,” Wagner said.

The city is far from indifferent about the issue of homelessness, said Councilman Dave Ellis and others.

Over the last three years, council members have worked with multiple city departments and social service agencies to get residents out of unfit homes and into decent housing, Ellis said.

In the first such case, a rooming house was infested with rats, mice, bedbugs and roaches, the landlord was taking the residents’ social security checks and the residents were scrounging for food from charity sources, Ellis said.

That landlord, and others since, have lost their ability to rent to tenants in the city for five years due to their malfeasance, he said.

The urban camping ordinance doesn’t seek to “criminalize” homelessness, given that the plan is to secure an agency-supplied social worker to go with police when they are dealing with homeless individuals, so that such individuals can be guided toward better situations, Ellis said.

The proposed 300-foot separation requirement between recovery homes takes into account unsavory operations in some cases, according to Councilman Dave Butterbaugh. There are cases of operators bringing in individuals with substance use disorder, then kicking them out when the subsidies end, Butterbaugh said. There are also cases of property owners in the city who take advantage of people living with them by demanding sex as rental payment, he said.

“Sometimes the most vulnerable and the most needy are the most exploited,” Butterbaugh said. “We all care.”

It’s “a very complex problem,” Ellis said.

Mirror Staff Writer William Kibler is at 814-949-7038.