SHOULD CHICO PAY? Council debates "quality of life" voter initiative and $5,000 complaints

CHICO, Calif. — "Quality of life”: that's the term the Chico City Council is attempting to define while deciding if citizens who complain about it deserve thousands of dollars from the city.

During Tuesday night’s council meeting, a draft voter initiative for a “quality of life” ordinance was brought forward with intentions of the council to place it on the upcoming November election. As presented, it would give citizens the ability to file complaints to the city that a public nuisance exists on city property, namely a homeless encampment or activity.

If left unaddressed, the city would be required to pay a $5,000 fee to the person who initially complained in an attempt to keep the city accountable.

But after an analysis of the initiative by the city attorney, Vincent Ewing, the discussion turned into how the initiative, as presented, was legally problematic. Its authors, including Vice Mayor Kasey Reynolds, Attorney Rob Berry and an undisclosed amount of others in the city, believe the intention of the initiative was misunderstood as they modeled it after a similar initiative voters in the City of Sacramento will see this Fall.

RELATED CONTENT |Other Chico encampments still full of residents after police clear Comanche Creek

“The number one tentative interest is to use all legal means possible to maintain a beautiful quality of life in Chico,” says Reynolds while addressing city staff during the meeting. “So it will take into consideration the settlement agreement, the constitution, all these other things. Otherwise, why in the world would we vote for that and put that forward?”

Reynolds explains that the ordinance voters will potentially vote on in November is intended to reaffirm the city’s vision: a safe place to raise a family, an ideal location for business and a premier place to live. It’s a vision that some, like Berry, believes has not been met after more than a year of restricted homeless enforcement and current limitations in pursuing anti-park camping ordinances.

“What we’re asking the city council to do here through this ballot initiative is to practice defining what is safe, clean, beautiful and contributes to economic development by dealing issue by issue,” says Berry outside the Chico municipal building Thursday afternoon. “That's not a moral sin to promote something like community standards.”

He and other people who spoke at the meeting continue to hold grievances towards the settlement agreement in the Warren v. Chico lawsuit and its limitation to how fast the city can enforce its anti-park camping ordinances across multiple homeless encampments across town. The proposal would create a “quality of life” commission that Berry says would seek “opportunities to enhance” all that the city’s vision statement says.

"I don't have to call the cops, but it's a community standard that needs to be enforced,” says Berry.

“We need to build the quality of life we want by acting in ways that are consistent with what we need to do for each other as neighbors and community members," Berry finishes.

The voter initiative has led to opposition by homeless advocates, like Chico Friends on the Street President Patrick Newman. He speculates that it’s a political ploy to attract voters that are upset with the Warren v. Chico settlement to reelect certain city councilors.

"I don't see law there," says Newman inside the Downtown City Plaza Thursday morning. “It's not about solutions and it's not about improving the quality of life of the poorest people. It's about Chico entrenching itself and this notion that we can make our city the one place in America that doesn't have homelessness."

Further, Neman details how the wording of the initiative seemingly pits community members against city staff for the visibility of the homeless crisis, rather than the city councilors who voted for actions that initiated its lawsuit over a year and a half ago.

“The form that was drafted is problematic to say the least,” says Newman. “Will something like that be on the ballot? Very likely, yes. Will it generate community support? Very likely, yes. It all comes back to this kind of vague notion that we can do something clean and safe that’s different than what we’re doing now and still be inside the law.”

Even city officials indicate that even more legal troubles could come if it was adopted as presented as is Tuesday night. Ewing’s analysis indicates that many intentions of removing homeless people and camps are in direct conflict with Martin v. Boise, which deems municipalities cannot evict homeless people from public spaces if that municipality does not have enough shelter spaced to send them to, and the Warren v. Chico settlement agreement, which dictates how the city can enforce anti-park camping ordinances for the next five years.

Further, the analysis stated that definitions of what defines “quality of life” are too vague that would potentially provoke legal complications as seen in early 2021. Even other members of the city council admit, while interested in the idea of such a mechanism for citizens to report their concerns, that its current form needs to be adjusted to meet legal requirements.

“The biggest problem I have with this is that, A: it’s subjective, and B: that the $5,000 seems ridiculous,” says Mayor Andrew Coolidge while addressing the council during the meeting. “It’s a perfect way to bankrupt the city.”

Ultimately, the council voted unanimously, with Councilor Alex Brown absent, for the city attorney to revise the ballot initiative to meet legal requirements. This includes eliminating the $5,000 fine the city was proposed to face if complaints were not abated in a certain timeframe.

"The document that I will bring back to the city council will be a document that we believe, based on our analysis, passes legal muster,” says Ewing while addressing the council during the meeting.

Still, Berry believes the initiative's writers should be included in this revising process.

"Once again, the issue got directed to the city attorney who is going to go into a closed room somewhere and invent a ballot initiative on his own without any opportunity for anybody to say, 'wait a minute, that's not exactly what we're after,'" says Berry. "How do you expect to have a conclusion that is going to embraced by the community?"

The revisions are expected at the council’s next meeting on Aug. 2 before the state’s deadline to place it on the November ballot on Aug. 12.

--

To report errors or issues with this article please email the editorial team.