NATIONAL LAW CENTER
ON HOMELESSNESS & POVERTY
April 23, 2019
Helena Morena, morenocouncil@nola.gov
Jason Williams, jasonwilliams@nola.gov
Joseph Giarusso, Joseph.Giarrusso@nola.gov
Jay Banks, Jay.Banks@nola.gov
Kristen Palmer, Kristin.Palmer@nola.gov
Jarred Brossett, councildistrictd@nola.gov
Cyndi Nguyen, Cyndi.Nguyen@nola.gov
Via email
Dear Councilmembers:
I write on behalf of the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty (“Law Center”) to urge you to
oppose, or significantly amend, proposed Ordinance No. 32,262 to Amend Art. XII, Ch. 82 Code of
the City of New Orleans, creating procedures for clearing homeless encampments. We all share the
goal of a New Orleans without homeless encampments—but the best, most cost-effective, and permanent
way to achieve that is to ensure that all who live in those encampments are able to access adequate,
alternative housing. While we welcome clear procedures for addressing unsheltered homelessness, the
proposed ordinance misses addressing this most significant feature of homeless encampments policy—
namely, where will those residing in the encampments live if not in the targeted encampment? Rather, we
are deeply concerned that the proposed ordinance merely provides procedures and cover for pursuing
ineffective, expensive, and likely illegal punishment strategies, rather than constructive solutions that can
actually end homelessness in the city.
The Law Center is the nation’s only legal advocacy organization dedicated solely to ending and preventing
homelessness. In 2017, we published Tent City, USA: The Growth of America’s Homeless Encampments,
and How Communities are Responding, collecting data on 187 cities’ policy responses to encampments,
and best practices, model policies, and case studies from across the country. See National Law Center on
Homelessness and Poverty, TENT CITY, USA: THE GROWTH OF AMERICA’S HOMELESS ENCAMPMENTS,
AND
HOW
COMMUNITIES
ARE
RESPONDING
(2017),
https://nlchp.org//wpcontent/uploads/2018/10/Tent_City_USA_2017.pdf). Additionally, since 1991, the Law Center has
documented a dramatic increase in laws that criminally punish homeless people for performing harmless,
life-sustaining activities in public places, as well as the negative consequences of these discriminatory
measures nationwide. See National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, HOUSING NOT HANDCUFFS:
THE
CRIMINALIZATION
OF
HOMELESSNESS
IN
U.S.
CITIES
(2016),
https://www.nlchp.org/documents/Housing-Not-Handcuffs. The Law Center’s recent reports demonstrate
that laws such as the proposed encampment ordinance do not address the underlying causes of
homelessness, and instead injure homeless persons’ rights and waste taxpayer resources by temporarily
cycling people through the costly criminal justice system only to have them return to the streets, now with
criminal records that make it more difficult for them to access needed employment, housing, and benefits.
Encampment policies must provide enough time, and resources, to ensure encampments are ended
through housing the individuals residing in them. Our Tent City report found a 1342% growth in reported
encampments between 2007 and 2017, but only 11% of the 187 cities we surveyed required any notice
2000 M Street, N.W., Suite 210, WASHINGTON, DC 20036   www.nlchp.org   PHONE: 202.638.2535   FAX: 202.628.2737

 before clearing encampments or storage of property collected during sweeps, and only 3% required
alternative housing be offered. While we appreciate New Orleans creating clear procedures for camp
clearance, 24-hours-notice does not provide enough time for service providers to build relationships with
camp residents, determine their housing needs, and get the residents housed. Charleston, WV, and
Indianapolis, IN, both provide at least 14 days’ notice by law, require coordination with local service
providers to make housing plans for affected individuals, and allow the residents to remain until alternative
housing is available. Pursing a sweep without adequate notice or housing plans means the city will only
be destabilizing the encampment residents, removing their survival materials, scattering them and
disrupting their safety networks and connections to service providers, potentially criminally charging
them, all of which only serve to prolong their homelessness and ensure the city will have to do the same
procedure again, only with more barriers to those individuals accessing housing.
We hope the city will draw on our experience and utilize our Encampment Best Practices and Procedures
which accompany this email, and the best practice ordinances found in the appendix to our Tent City
report. Any “solution” which does not meet the actual needs of those living in the encampments —
including where they can find a safe place to be, day and night, with their belongings—will result in those
individuals needing to improvise their own solutions to meet those needs, and most likely, the city will
not like those solutions any more than they like the current ones. Only by providing a better alternative
for these individuals that actually meets their needs will the city stop this wasteful and harmful cycle. In
February, Los Angeles adopted our Best Practices into their own official guidance, which we consider the
best model to date. See Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, Guiding Principles and Practices for
Unsheltered Homelessness (2019), https://www.lahsa.org/documents?id=2951-guiding-principles-andpractices-for-unsheltered-homelessness.pdf). The proposed San Francisco and Seattle ordinances in our
report also provide model language for the city to draw on, with requirements for adequate notice and
adequate alternative housing to be provided before an encampment clearance can proceed.
Punishing homelessness through sweeps, tickets, or arrests is an expensive and ineffective response to
homelessness. Whether punished through civil fines or immediate incarceration, homeless persons usually
cannot pay fines, and because they often miss notices to appear in court due to a lack of permanent address,
those fines frequently turn into a bench warrant and a criminal arrest. As stated by the Department of
Justice in the context of its argument regarding an anti-camping ordinance in Bell v. Boise:
Criminalizing public sleeping in cities with insufficient housing and support for homeless individuals does
not improve public safety outcomes or reduce the factors that contribute to homelessness… Issuing citations
for public sleeping forces individuals into the criminal justice system and creates additional obstacles to
overcoming homelessness. Criminal records can create barriers to employment and participation in
permanent, supportive housing programs. Convictions under these municipal ordinances can also lead to
lengthy jail sentences based on the ordinance violation itself, or the inability to pay fines and fees associated
with the ordinance violation…Finally, pursuing charges against individuals for sleeping in public imposes
further burdens on scarce public defender, judicial, and carceral resources. Thus, criminalizing
homelessness is both unconstitutional and misguided public policy, leading to worse outcomes for people
who are homeless and for their communities.

Bell v. Boise, et. al., 1:09-cv-540-REB, Statement of Interest of the United States (Aug. 6, 2015).
Numerous studies have shown that communities actually save money by providing housing and services
to those in need, rather saddling them with fines, fees and arrest records and cycling them through
expensive hospital and jail systems. See HOUSING NOT HANDCUFFS, supra. The Economic Roundtable of
Homelessness in Los Angeles found that housing reduced average monthly spending by 41% per person, even
2000 M Street, N.W., Suite 210, WASHINGTON, DC 20036   www.nlchp.org   PHONE: 202.638.2535   FAX: 202.628.2737

 after including the cost of providing housing. This savings included a 95% reduction in jail facilities and
services costs. Though it may hide the costs in the law enforcement and jail budget, passing the
encampment ordinance at issue here will incur significant costs for the city and its taxpayers—without
solving the problem of homelessness. If the city’s true interest is in public health, safety, and economic
growth, it could make a much better investment by providing housing and services, rather than making it
harder for people to exit homelessness due to criminal penalties and arrest records.

Additionally, this proposal runs afoul of the federal government’s policies to end homelessness, and may
ultimately threaten the community’s access to federal funding to provide homeless services. For the past
four years, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has asked questions on its funding
application for its $2.5 billion Continuum of Care funding stream to reward Continuums that have
implemented constructive solutions to homelessness, and restrict funding from those that continue
criminalization strategies.
Punishing Camping in the Absence of Adequate Alternatives is Unconstitutional. Just last September, the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in Martin v. City of Boise, 902 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2018) that “the
Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of criminal penalties for sitting, sleeping, or lying outside on
public property for homeless individuals who cannot obtain shelter.” It ruled that “as long as there is no
option of sleeping indoors, the government cannot criminalize indigent, homeless people for sleeping
outdoors, on public property, on the false premise they had a choice in the matter.”
Based in part on Martin, a federal judge in California enjoined enforcement of an anti-camping ordinance
against a group of close to 1,000 homeless campers in Orange County, forcing the county and cities to
provide alternative housing before they could clear the encampment. See Orange County Catholic Worker
et. Al v. Orange County, Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order, Case 8:18-cv-00155 (Feb. 6, 2018).
57% of lawsuits brought against municipalities for anti-sleeping or anti-camping ordinances over between
2014 and 2017 resulted in decisions favorable to the homeless plaintiffs. See National Law Center on
Homelessness and Poverty, HOUSING NOT HANDCUFFS: A LITIGATION MANUAL (2017),
https://www.nlchp.org/documents/Housing-Not-Handcuffs-Litigation-Manual. Litigation would be an
additional fiscal cost to the city, as well as injuring the dignity and rights of its most vulnerable citizens.
In an era of record poverty, prolonged unemployment, and a shrinking stock of affordable housing,
sensible and cost-effective policies are needed – not ineffective measures that waste precious taxpayer
dollars. The Law Center urges the New Orleans City Council to vote “no” on the proposed ordinance No.
32,262, or to amend it to codify our Encampment Principles and Best Practices. If New Orleans is truly
concerned about the existence of homeless campers on its streets, the best way to address the problem is
by removing the need for people to shelter themselves in public in the first place, by providing adequate
housing and services. Our reports document numerous case studies of constructive alternatives to
criminalization; if the city would like, we would be happy to work with you to implement solutions that
work for everyone. Please feel free to contact me at etars@nlchp.org or 202-638-2535 x. 120 with any
questions or concerns.
Sincerely,

Eric S. Tars
Legal Director

2000 M Street, N.W., Suite 210, WASHINGTON, DC 20036   www.nlchp.org   PHONE: 202.638.2535   FAX: 202.628.2737