The Metropolis of San Francisco fired again this week towards accusations from advocates for the homeless that it has continued to conduct large-scale sweeps of individuals residing in road encampments and failed to supply them with quick shelter in violation of an injunction from a federal Justice of the Peace.
Within the newest salvo within the ongoing authorized battle over the way in which San Francisco officers have dealt with the homelessness disaster, Metropolis Lawyer David Chiu described the fees as “riddled with falsehoods and irrelevant info.”
“Plaintiffs have spent months unjustifiably portray San Francisco as a violator of individuals’s rights,” wrote Chiu in a authorized transient filed Thursday.
The controversial injunction was handed down final December by U.S. Justice of the Peace Choose Donna Ryu in response to a lawsuit filed by the Coalition on Homelessness and others accusing the town of breaking the legislation and destroying property as a part of its encampment sweeps.
The order briefly restricted metropolis businesses from implementing native legal guidelines barring sitting, mendacity or sleeping on public property. Metropolis employees may nonetheless ask individuals to maneuver underneath a slim and obscure set of circumstances, together with road cleansing and issues of safety, and the ruling doesn’t bar the town from implementing different legal guidelines unrelated to lodging on the road.
The town has tried unsuccessfully to overturn the injunction. Within the meantime, unhoused advocates argued in an almost 400-page submitting final Might that officers have “continued in routinely criminalizing homeless people who don’t have any entry to shelter.”
However Chiu mentioned on this week’s transient that the town’s Wholesome Streets and Operations Heart had carried out 233 operations because the injunction and “positioned 957 unhoused individuals into shelters, motels and different types of housing.”
He additional argued that homeless individuals residing on the streets usually decline presents of shelter or make what he termed unreasonable calls for to be housed with associates or pets. In one other occasion, he asserted, metropolis employees had been unfairly accused of forcibly eradicating a person from a Downtown sidewalk after they have been truly attempting to assist the person, who was stumbling and “out and in of consciousness.”
“One other declarant mentioned somebody advised him a Metropolis worker had taken his canine, however after a time-consuming search, Animal Care and Management confirmed that no canines have been introduced in from his location on or close to the date he alleged,” wrote the town legal professional.
He concluded: “The town seems ahead to setting the document straight in court docket and persevering with to supply devoted and compassionate look after these most in want.”