Note: The online Request to Speak window has expired.
The online Comment window has expired
Agenda Item
11. Public hearing, second reading, and adoption of an ordinance amending Washoe County Code Chapter 50 (Public Peace, Safety and Morals) and Chapter 70 (Vehicles and Traffic) by adding new sections regarding: camping on County-owned properties or public places within 1000 feet of the Truckee River (50.400); use of fires, blow torches, and/or propane tanks (50.500); parking of oversized vehicles on public property (70.391); obstructive uses of public sidewalks, roads, and/or highways prohibited (70.392); ride solicitation and contribution from driver/occupant of vehicle prohibited (70.393); human habitation of vehicles on County-owned properties or public places (70.411); and all matters necessarily connected therewith and pertaining thereto. Sheriff's Office. (All Commission Districts.) FOR POSSIBLE ACTION
Where are they supposed to go? Not on private property, not on public property, and shelters are full. Not only is this order morally reprehensible on its face, it's also 100% going to be enforced in an unconstitutional manner, given Martin v. Boise's precedent. The shelters are full. Nobody who votes for this is genuinely in the fight against poverty. You are criminalizing poverty. It has not worked and it never will. You are only making the problem worse, making people more (rightfully) hostile toward our colonial "law enforcement officers," and further stigmatizing people without helping them. Cops do not help houselessness. They make it worse by design.
Stop criminalizing survival when people have literally nowhere to go.
My name is Nick Helmreich, and I am writing to you to express my opposition to the ordinance that will amend WCC Chapters 50 & 70 with new sections regarding camping on County-owned properties or public places within 1000 feet of the Truckee River, the use of fires (that may be used to engage in life-sustaining activities like food preparation), the obstruction (including sleeping) of sidewalks and roads, and human habitation of vehicles. Criminalizing these life sustaining activities does nothing to help people living in and on the edge of homelessness.
I am concerned that the ordinance penalty (that finds any person who violates the section to be guilty of a misdemeanor or subject to a fine) will further harm vulnerable people in our community and undermine the work being done to lift people out of homelessness. I am also concerned that the broad provisions will infringe upon community member’s rights and lead to costly litigation that wastes public tax dollars.
I urge you to vote against this ordinance and instead continue to fund and work with the MOST team, holistic health care models, trauma-informed providers, local nonprofits, and mutual aid groups and faith organizations. I also ask that you take action to repair broken social safety nets, fund safe parking, safe camping, case workers, mental health and substance-use programs, rapid re-rehousing, and permanent supportive housing.
I appreciate your dedication to those living in and at the edge of homelessness.
I am Edward Choklek, President of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, Reno District Council, which is a faith-based non-profit organization that combats poverty and its causes worldwide through the efforts of nearly 800,000 volunteers. We believe that the proposed ordinance will not reduce the number of homeless citizens in Washoe County, but instead waste taxpayers' money by increasing the number of police required to enforce this ordinance and by incurring additional costs from the increased number of homeless citizens be arrested and housed in the county jail. The introduction to the actual ordinance references protecting the quality of the Truckee River System and the County's drinking water. If the County is truly committed to this quality-of-life issue, then the most effective way to do this is to eliminate the use of all pesticides, fertilizers and herbicides in the County. Also, the County should seek solutions to their storm water management plan to eliminate any raw sewage from entering the Truckee River System during rain and snow events. Garbage/refuse is a very small piece of this issue when compared to the above pollution sources.
SECTION 5 of the proposed ordinance states "It shall be unlawful for any person to stand in or within fifteen (15) feet of a public street or highway for the purposes of soliciting a ride or any business from the driver or any occupant of a vehicle, without permit issued by Washoe County." Does this mean that any person waiting on the curb to be picked up by a ride service (Lyft, Uber, etc.) or a limousine or taxi is breaking the law as it is currently written? If so, this proposed ordinance will directly restrict the formation, operation, or expansion of several businesses.
Prohibiting the use of personal camping and outdoor cooking equipment in County parks and open-space areas will also be a detriment to those citizens who enjoy the outdoors and especially children who we want to encourage to appreciate nature and become the next generation of environmental champions. Any local ordinances regarding camping and outdoor cooking that are more strict than the regulations and rules that govern national parks and state parks are unnecessary and detrimental to their use.
The Staff Report and Ordinance language read as if the main intent is to get the unhoused off the streets. I will not debate whether this is or is not an appropriate goal. But the language as proposed would also catch in its restrictive nets those who are not unhoused. The language should be refined to remove unintentional consequences.
With regards to “Oversized Vehicles”: In the staff report, the term oversized vehicles and recreational vehicles appear to be used interchangeably. I agree that vehicles that are being lived in should not be parked long-term on public roads in residential communities, although I do think that 72 hours is a more reasonable cutoff than 48 hours. In general, no vehicle is supposed to park without moving on a public street for more than 3 days, and I see no reason to treat recreational vehicles, or vehicles with trailers any differently so long as they are not obstructing traffic or otherwise causing a public nuisance. The two paragraphs on this topic in the staff report comingle the two concepts of living in an RV parked on the street versus parking the RV on the street near or in front of one’s home.
The proposed ordinance language (70.391) adds detail, some of which is problematic, some which is fine, and some which requires clarification. One problematic issue is the allowable overall length or a vehicle, trailer, or vehicle and trailer. This length is restricted to only 20 feet. Yet the common Sprinter and Ford Transit vans are longer than this, and any vehicle with a trailer will exceed that length. Further, the ordinance would restrict these vehicles from parking anywhere other than immediately in front of the property of the owner or driver. Sometimes, the place immediately in front of one’s home is not available. On occasion, people have to walk several blocks if they live in a congested area such as Midtown.
In proposed section 70.411, paragraph 2, please clarify if 2 miles is a radius or a distance by road.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada writes in opposition to this proposal.
Criminalizing those who are unhoused is a waste of government and law enforcement resources. The County Commission should consider the needs of its constituents rather than attempt to criminalize poverty, especially via potential ordinances drafted in this manner that seeks to skirt Ninth Circuit precedent. The County Commission should not pass this proposal to avoid costly litigation, particularly 50.400, 70.393, and 70.411. Please consider treating taxpayers’ money, which will be expended when this matter is litigated, as your own and serving as a good fiduciary instead of passing such a foolish proposal.
Where are they supposed to go? Not on private property, not on public property, and shelters are full. Not only is this order morally reprehensible on its face, it's also 100% going to be enforced in an unconstitutional manner, given Martin v. Boise's precedent. The shelters are full. Nobody who votes for this is genuinely in the fight against poverty. You are criminalizing poverty. It has not worked and it never will. You are only making the problem worse, making people more (rightfully) hostile toward our colonial "law enforcement officers," and further stigmatizing people without helping them. Cops do not help houselessness. They make it worse by design.
Stop criminalizing survival when people have literally nowhere to go.
My name is Nick Helmreich, and I am writing to you to express my opposition to the ordinance that will amend WCC Chapters 50 & 70 with new sections regarding camping on County-owned properties or public places within 1000 feet of the Truckee River, the use of fires (that may be used to engage in life-sustaining activities like food preparation), the obstruction (including sleeping) of sidewalks and roads, and human habitation of vehicles. Criminalizing these life sustaining activities does nothing to help people living in and on the edge of homelessness.
I am concerned that the ordinance penalty (that finds any person who violates the section to be guilty of a misdemeanor or subject to a fine) will further harm vulnerable people in our community and undermine the work being done to lift people out of homelessness. I am also concerned that the broad provisions will infringe upon community member’s rights and lead to costly litigation that wastes public tax dollars.
I urge you to vote against this ordinance and instead continue to fund and work with the MOST team, holistic health care models, trauma-informed providers, local nonprofits, and mutual aid groups and faith organizations. I also ask that you take action to repair broken social safety nets, fund safe parking, safe camping, case workers, mental health and substance-use programs, rapid re-rehousing, and permanent supportive housing.
I appreciate your dedication to those living in and at the edge of homelessness.
Sincerely,
Nick Helmreich
Patagonia Reno
I am Edward Choklek, President of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, Reno District Council, which is a faith-based non-profit organization that combats poverty and its causes worldwide through the efforts of nearly 800,000 volunteers. We believe that the proposed ordinance will not reduce the number of homeless citizens in Washoe County, but instead waste taxpayers' money by increasing the number of police required to enforce this ordinance and by incurring additional costs from the increased number of homeless citizens be arrested and housed in the county jail. The introduction to the actual ordinance references protecting the quality of the Truckee River System and the County's drinking water. If the County is truly committed to this quality-of-life issue, then the most effective way to do this is to eliminate the use of all pesticides, fertilizers and herbicides in the County. Also, the County should seek solutions to their storm water management plan to eliminate any raw sewage from entering the Truckee River System during rain and snow events. Garbage/refuse is a very small piece of this issue when compared to the above pollution sources.
SECTION 5 of the proposed ordinance states "It shall be unlawful for any person to stand in or within fifteen (15) feet of a public street or highway for the purposes of soliciting a ride or any business from the driver or any occupant of a vehicle, without permit issued by Washoe County." Does this mean that any person waiting on the curb to be picked up by a ride service (Lyft, Uber, etc.) or a limousine or taxi is breaking the law as it is currently written? If so, this proposed ordinance will directly restrict the formation, operation, or expansion of several businesses.
Prohibiting the use of personal camping and outdoor cooking equipment in County parks and open-space areas will also be a detriment to those citizens who enjoy the outdoors and especially children who we want to encourage to appreciate nature and become the next generation of environmental champions. Any local ordinances regarding camping and outdoor cooking that are more strict than the regulations and rules that govern national parks and state parks are unnecessary and detrimental to their use.
The Staff Report and Ordinance language read as if the main intent is to get the unhoused off the streets. I will not debate whether this is or is not an appropriate goal. But the language as proposed would also catch in its restrictive nets those who are not unhoused. The language should be refined to remove unintentional consequences.
With regards to “Oversized Vehicles”: In the staff report, the term oversized vehicles and recreational vehicles appear to be used interchangeably. I agree that vehicles that are being lived in should not be parked long-term on public roads in residential communities, although I do think that 72 hours is a more reasonable cutoff than 48 hours. In general, no vehicle is supposed to park without moving on a public street for more than 3 days, and I see no reason to treat recreational vehicles, or vehicles with trailers any differently so long as they are not obstructing traffic or otherwise causing a public nuisance. The two paragraphs on this topic in the staff report comingle the two concepts of living in an RV parked on the street versus parking the RV on the street near or in front of one’s home.
The proposed ordinance language (70.391) adds detail, some of which is problematic, some which is fine, and some which requires clarification. One problematic issue is the allowable overall length or a vehicle, trailer, or vehicle and trailer. This length is restricted to only 20 feet. Yet the common Sprinter and Ford Transit vans are longer than this, and any vehicle with a trailer will exceed that length. Further, the ordinance would restrict these vehicles from parking anywhere other than immediately in front of the property of the owner or driver. Sometimes, the place immediately in front of one’s home is not available. On occasion, people have to walk several blocks if they live in a congested area such as Midtown.
In proposed section 70.411, paragraph 2, please clarify if 2 miles is a radius or a distance by road.
Without a solution on where people can live, it takes so much of the ability of people to get into housing.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada writes in opposition to this proposal.
Criminalizing those who are unhoused is a waste of government and law enforcement resources. The County Commission should consider the needs of its constituents rather than attempt to criminalize poverty, especially via potential ordinances drafted in this manner that seeks to skirt Ninth Circuit precedent. The County Commission should not pass this proposal to avoid costly litigation, particularly 50.400, 70.393, and 70.411. Please consider treating taxpayers’ money, which will be expended when this matter is litigated, as your own and serving as a good fiduciary instead of passing such a foolish proposal.