CORRESPONDENCE - 11A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

STA NO foo JUS7Ire U.S. 367, 377 (1968). Put another way, such restrictions must be "narrowly drawn to further a substantial governmental interest." Clark v. Cmty. for Creative Non -Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 294 (1984). The restrictions in the proposed ordinance, however, are neither "narrowly drawn" nor "essential to the furtherance of the City's stated interests. Indeed, the City's stated interests appear to be nothing more than post -hoc rationalizations to justify its increasingly punitive approach to the crisis of homelessness impacting those encamped at the Civic Center. Requiring every group that wishes to distribute food in the Civic Center to obtain the approval of the City Manager is constitutionally suspect. It is clear that for expressive conduct, "In public open spaces ... permit requirements serve ... only to regulate competing uses and provide notice to the municipality of the need for additional public safety and other services. Only for quite large groups are these interests implicated, so imposing permitting requirements is permissible only as to those groups." Santa Monica Food Not Bombs v. City of Santa Monica, 450 F.3d 1022, 1042 (9th Cir. 2006). The ordinance, however, contains no consideration of the number of participants in the food distribution effort. The ordinance likewise fails to assess the impact of food distribution activities on the normal functioning of the Civic Center despite this being a critical point of analysis. "The nature of a place, `the pattern of its normal activities, dictate the kinds of regulations of time, place, and manner that are reasonable... The crucial question is whether the manner of expression is basically incompatible with the normal activity of a particular place at a particular time." Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 116 (1972). It cannot, however, be reasonably argued that serving food to homeless individuals is basically incompatible with the normal activity in the Civic Center, where numerous homeless individuals have little choice but to live and, as the City acknowledges, many prepare their own food. With regards to the City's asserted interests, not once does the City's lengthy recitation of the issues purportedly plaguing the Civic Center mention any problems with food or any other services being provided in a disorganized way. It is difficult to imagine that there are simply so many providers of food to the homeless that they need to be coordinated by the City. Similarly, if the distribution of food and the like were resulting in chaos and melees because of lack of organization, the City presumably would have included that information in its preamble. Nor does the City indicate anywhere that food is being distributed by individuals who lack proper experience; moreover, it strains the bounds of reason to assert that distributing coffee and food to needy individuals requires a particularized curriculum vitae. Indeed, the City's attempt to impose stringent qualifications on both medical providers and people handing out food or coffee highlights the difference between these two activities and the needlessness of imposing qualifications on the providers of both. The City does, however, mention the problematic use of propane stoves and the preparation of food in unsanitary conditions, both of which would actually be exacerbated by onerous approval requirements for food distribution. Unnecessary and burdensome restrictions will chill those who would otherwise provide food, forcing homeless individuals to prepare food themselves more frequently. The City likewise fails to justify the need for "a set-up and clean-up plan." Presumably, this requirement is aimed at reducing litter in the Civic Center, which the City identifies as