By james art 
Fremont’s city was brought into the national spotlight this week for the adoption of a strict prohibition on public camping, which also makes a crime to “assist” or “encourage” any violation of the new law.
The language to support and attract has caused concerns among the defenders of homeless people who anyone who wants to help living in camps may soon have a goal on their backs. It is said that this is one of the most difficult regulations to fight camping everywhere in the country.
The penalty for violating the ordinance: a fine of up to $ 1,000 and up to six months in prison. It only takes effect in less than 30 days.
Against the background of the dispute, the Municipal Council, at the insistence of many locals, insisted on approving the ban on Tuesday. But the officials stressed that they did not intend to arrest someone who offers stray foods, clothing or other help and promised to continue to cooperate with homeless service service providers to facilitate the crisis.
“Let’s continue to work together so that we can help our non -enlightened persons,” said Fremont Mayor Raj Salvan at the Council meeting on Tuesday.
This did not assure the defenders who accused the advice of trying to push the population of the homeless in the city. They are worried that the ordinance will have a “freezing effect” on local non -profit organizations and public groups, helping homeless people and discourage approximately 600 city residents living on the street to accept the necessary services.
“In one foot, this ordinance has the ability to erase any progress with which we have made (homeless people),” says Vivian Wang, CEO of Rebode Services, the main urban service provider.
What exactly does the ordinance say?
The ordinance prohibits camping on any “street, sidewalk, park, open space, waterway or shores on a waterway or any private property that is not defined and equipped for such camping.” In addition, he makes a crime “preserving personal property, including the bearing paraphernal”, on all public property and private property without the permission of the owner.
In addition, the law finds that anyone who “resolves, assists, supports, supports or conceals a violation of the ordinance to” be guilty of a crime. “
How does the city plan to impose the rule of support and maintenance?
Before the City Council voted to accept the ban on Tuesday, City Prosecutor Rafael Alvarado explained to the Council members that as the ordinance applies only to camping and stor actions.
“As it is written, the city will not impose this ordinance on someone who hands out another person food or clothing,” Alvarado said.
In practice, city authorities have said that this means that authorities are likely to strive to pursue someone who finds a raising of makeshift housing or “trees houses” in local rivers or other public land.
David Bonaxori, a lawyer, lawyer and former Fremont city councilor, asked whether someone in the city was actually striving to help homeless people build similar structures.
It also noted the definition of the Ordinance on “Camp paraffins” – which cannot be stored in public property – “includes but not limited to, beds, tarpaulins, beds, bedrooms, hammocks or cooking facilities and similar Equipment. “Bonaccorsi said that although the employees say publicly, it means that under the letter of the law, the offering of a homeless stove or linen to warm up at night, it can now be considered a crime.
Are there any other cities of similar book regulations?
Tristics Bauman, a lawyer at the Silicon Valley Foundation, said that although the rule of assistance and attraction is not unprecedented, rarely cities include such language in their sleep regulations.
City authorities note that Fremont has already had a language in its Code of Code, banning the support and adherence of any criminal offense. They maintain that the inclusion of the language in the Ordinance itself is made only “in the interest of transparency”.
Fremont officials have pointed out other cities, including Berkli, Hayward and Sunwyle, who have both camping restrictions and the common language to support and attract books.
Can defenders stop the ordinance to take effect?
In a letter to the City Council, the US Civil Freedom Union and other advocacy groups have blown up the ordinance as “apparently unreasonable”, adding the rule to support and attract “will put the city to legal responsibility.”
ACLU described the rule as too vague and claims that the California courts are unlikely to apply such laws that “allow people to” indiscriminately to be prosecuted “, especially for crimes.
Asked if ACLu plans to judge to suspend the ban, the group said in a statement that “closely monitors this ordinance and other measures that criminalize poverty throughout the country.” It is not yet clear whether other organizations can plan a legal challenge.
Originally Posted: