Metro

About 60 people attended a City Council meeting Monday, 16 of whom spoke against one or more of three controversial ordinance packages on the agenda to be adopted: one calling for reduction of the distance required between recovery houses; one that would have imposed fees for police protection needed to secure events downtown; and one that would have authorized criminal charges for “urban camping.”

Council unanimously rejected the recovery house ordinance, so that it can be reexamined and reintroduced at a later date; passed the downtown events ordinance without the accompanying fee resolution imposing the police protection fees; and passed the urban camping ordinance in a split vote.

The recovery house ordinance “requires additional refinement to ensure it appropriately balances the needs of residents, neighborhoods, service providers and public safety,” according to a statement read by Councilwoman Shelley Clinich. “Concerns raised included clarity of definitions, consistency with zoning, operational standards and overall impact on surrounding communities.”

Council is still committed to passing an ordinance “that supports recovery efforts, while upholding the city’s responsibility to ensure effective governance and community safety,” the statement reads.

“We’ll go through it line-by-line,” Clinich added later.

The ordinance rejected Monday called for a separation of 300 feet between recovery houses and other special facilities, and would have replaced an ordinance recently passed that requires a separation of 1,500 feet.

That ordinance remains in place.

Residents critical of the recovery house ordinance have warned council that any separation requirement may violate the federal Fair Housing Act, because individuals with substance-use disorder are a protected class.

Thus, the ordinance makes the city vulnerable to lawsuits, those critics said.

The decision to reject the ordinance Monday came after a “comprehensive policy review and consideration of public input,” according to the council statement.

Gathering police fee dropped

Council adopted the public gathering ordinance without the accompanying fees for police protection after hearing residents’ criticism that such fees violated the First Amendment right of free speech, and were intended to discourage events like the No Kings rallies that have been held in Heritage Plaza.

Not so, according to City Manager Christopher McGuire.

The proposal to charge $50 per hour for each officer that was needed for security at downtown events had been recommended by staff merely to help defray the cost of events, and would have applied across the board, for protests, parades and concerts.

It was a strange coincidence that such a proposal should arise when the need for protests has become so clear, given the national situation, according to meeting attendee Gena Strawmire.

“Stop pretending,” Strawmire said. “We know what this is about.”

Even neutral-sounding fees have a chilling effect on free speech, Strawmire said.

The fees would have crossed “a line,” Strawmire said.

While the resolution wasn’t revived after being tabled last month, it’s not necessarily dead, according to Councilman Dave Butterbaugh, speaking after the meeting.

“Fees need to be looked at at least once a year,” Butterbaugh said.

He pointed out that there have been recent events originally intended for Heritage Plaza whose organizers moved them to venues outside the city to avoid them causing a burden to city government — implying that such an action would be considerate.

Still, “everybody is entitled to free speech,” Butterbaugh said.

The ordinance adopted Monday extends the time that city staff has to approve a public gathering permit from seven to 30 days.

The approval process includes a review by all departments and approval by the manager.

Bruce Kelley was the only dissenter, due to that extension.

It’s too long a potential wait for protesters, according to Kelley.

“A lot can change in 30 days if people feel aggrieved,” Kelley said.

Urban camping ordinance approved

Council passed the urban camping ordinance despite continued complaints against “criminalizing” homelessness.

People are vulnerable with the recent rising prices, said attendee Harriet Gaston.

“Many of us are one step away from a catastrophe that may make us homeless,” said attendee Pam Beckwith. “We all need to have empathy.”

Gaston and Beckwith pleaded with council to come up with something “creative” that wouldn’t involve criminalization.

But there is no intention to criminalize, said Councilman Dave Ellis.

People who sleep on a park bench aren’t going to be “dragged off to a magistrate,” Ellis said.

The plan is to embed a social service worker with the Police Department so that homeless individuals encountered in the city will be offered transitional housing or other needed services, with the hope that they can be steered toward permanent housing, according to Ellis and others.

“A lot of good is happening,” Butterbaugh said about services being developed. “People are working very hard and together to find solutions.”

Police Chief Derek Swope is looking for three or four officers to operate as an intervention team under a sergeant to deal with homeless people.

“We’re definitely looking at it from a compassionate point of view,” Swope said.

The police have “historically” adopted that approach, he said.

Prior to the advent of city warming centers, officers would give shelter to people they found outside in the cold in the lobby of the police station, Swope said.

They still do that when necessary, he said.

“The narrative that there will be mass arrests is not true,” Swope said.

Both Mayor Matt Pacifico and Kelley voted against the adoption of the urban camping ordinance.

There are lots of resources in place that can help homeless people without resorting to criminal charges, Pacifico said.

“I have a real personal issue with criminalizing people sleeping outside,” he stated.

While he doesn’t like to see people living in tents, “it raises the possibility of criminalizing someone in a bad spot,” Kelley said of the ordinance. “I don’t know that it’s necessarily fair,” he added.

Attendee Michael Allison, along with Gaston and Beckwith, called for more dialogue between the city and the residents who feel passionate about the issues discussed Monday.

Allison is right, Butterbaugh said.

After last month’s meeting, he, Allison and others talked at length, and everyone seemed to come to a better understanding of where they all stood.

“There’s a lot more commonality (among) people that care on both sides of the equation” than there appears to be, Butterbaugh said.

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