Sidewalk Showdown

SARATOGA SPRINGS — The Saratoga Springs City Council on Tuesday, June 7, passed a new ordinance during the regular City Council meeting that bans people from sitting or lying on sidewalks in Saratoga Springs. The vote was 4 to 1, with Mayor Joanne Yepsen casting the dissenting vote. The ordinance amends Chapter 203 of the City Code. It outlines that a warning would be issued first, but if the offending person continues to sit or lie on the sidewalk, a fine could be issued. Initially the cost would be $50 to $100, but repeat offenders could face a misdemeanor charge, a fine of $400 to $500, community service, imprisonment, or both a fine and imprisonment, according to the ordinance. “This has to do with obstruction of the sidewalks,” said Public Safety Commissioner Chris Mathiesen as he introduced the ordinance. “I would be extremely surprised if this ordinance were used in a way to harshly deal with an individual who was impaired in any way.” Mayor Joanne Yepsen took issue with the possibility people could be charged with a misdemeanor, and also asked Mathiesen for the genesis of this proposed change. Mathiesen answered, “I saw this happening downtown and inquired why we can’t do more about that, and it was pointed out to me that it’s difficult under our present ordinance to deal directly with that problem.” “I think the police do need some tools to work with this issue,” Yepsen said. “I think charging somebody with a crime for their second offense for sitting on a sidewalk is a bit much.” Michael Finocchi, executive director of Shelters of Saratoga, commented, “This code change will only create confusion. Who are they going to target? We have street artists that sit on the sidewalk. I’ve seen parents with their kids taking a break and sitting on the sidewalk. Is one sitter allowed while another is a violator? If the violation (sitting/lying) were a violation of another’s human rights, then I would have an issue with that. Whatever action is done, it’s going to have to be fair across the board.” More than a dozen city residents and concerned citizens spoke against the ordinance, some asking City Council to table the vote. Mathiesen reminded those in attendance that the ordinance is about public safety and not targeting specific groups of people. “We need to remember there are liabilities of people tripping over a person sitting on a sidewalk for the City possibly,” he said. “The City has an obligation to make sure our sidewalks are not obstructed. We have other ordinances that do the same thing. Our sandwich boards signs have to be a certain dimension away from buildings…These ordinances seemed to have worked well. If a person happens to be sitting on a sidewalk and happen to be obstructing pedestrian flow, they have to be asked to move.” Similar ordinances have been brought up in other communities, bringing a spotlight on potential violations by municipalities on civil rights. In Idaho, a group of homeless people challenged a Boise city ordinance against sleeping or camping in public spaces. That case was eventually dismissed, but it did result in a firmer position from the federal government on such concerns. In a Statement of Interest submitted by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in that particular U. S. District Court case of Janet F. Bell, et. al v. City of Boise last summer, the DOJ said that because Boise lacks sufficient shelter space, these local laws effectively criminalize homelessness in violation of the Eighth Amendment, which limits government’s ability to determine which type of behavior can be treated as criminal. According to Finocchi, the City has never really addressed the homeless problem. “They’re trying to address this problem with a quick fix, but it’s been an issue for over a decade now.” He points out that what the City really needs is a drop-in center where people can go to get shelter and receive support for their dilemma. “The City needs to step up and support that effort - they’ve got a surplus in this year’s budget, why not allocate some of those funds to help acquire a building for the drop-in center?” The issue is unlikely to be settled, despite the City Council vote, as concerned citizens continue to speak out against the ordinance change.