On Tuesday the council in separate items is set to address three key components of its policies on homelessness. First, council will address the need for public restrooms. Second, council will deal with the issue of storage for personal property for unhoused individuals. And third, council will consider an ordinance to prohibit aggressive panhandling, obstructive conduct, and unattended personal property.
The need for a public restroom in the downtown clearly transcends the issue of homelessness – as any parent who has scrambled to find a restroom for their kids can attest. But with complaints about public urination and defecation, it becomes clear that the city needed to address the issue.
Staff notes: “The Davis Chamber created a survey on the topic of the downtown public restroom and issued the online link to all their members. They received 55 responses and 90% said a downtown public restroom would be beneficial to the community.”
The question is now where, and there have been five identified locations which have been presented as final options, although each has, according to staff, received at least one protest.
These are: 3rd and B Streets at the south end of Central Park, G Street Plaza – at the north end, E Street parking lot – at the southwest corner, Depot Building on H Street – inside the building, 
and 2nd & H Street Plaza – east end.
Staff is recommending “that a public restroom be installed in the G Street Plaza with the exact location to be chosen by the City engineers and other key staff.”
The city has about $500,000 remaining in its CIP (Capital Improvement Project) fund. Staff notes: “While this should more than cover the cost of the facility (estimated at $150,000), the initial Alta estimate for installation is $50,000 but does not include design services. A priority for funds remaining in the CIP is enhancements to the G Street Plaza to create an attractive community space.”
Staff argues that G Street Plaza is the best location as it receives “heavy pedestrian traffic as well as shows a distinct problem with public urination. There is also ample space and all the necessary access to utilities.”
However, “adjacent property and business owners have expressed strong desire not to have a restroom at this site but this location does in fact provide the option for the most physical distance between the facility and storefronts.”
Back on January 9 the council discussed the issue of unattended personal property in the public right of way. Staff was asked at the time to explore options to provide for storage of personal property belonging to individuals who are homeless.
Police Chief Darren Pytel and Mayor Robb Davis reportedly met with a small group from the faith community involved in services to homeless individuals “to discuss the possibilities for creating storage of personal goods.”
The group concluded that “reasonable services could be provided to people with small amounts of goods who may need to store valuables during work hours, during job searches, or for other brief periods of time. People using these services would benefit from a secure location for relatively short periods of time each day.”
According to staff, such services, however, would not be appropriate for people with larger quantities of goods for several reasons: “1) it is not clear that people with a large amount of portable goods are looking for these services; and 2) finding a space and providing staffing for and management of larger amounts poses significant challenges.”
They have not made a final decision on this. “Participants agreed that the next step is for Homeless Outreach Coordinator, Ryan Collins, to engage in learning to better understand the circumstances and needs of those with large amounts of mobile possessions before attempting to recommend solutions. In the meantime, discussions continue with the faith community representatives about how a short term storage system might work.”
For now, “service providers will communicate with individuals they serve about police policies related to tagging and storing goods and the police department will continue to tag and remove goods in the downtown in an expeditious way, always attempting to contact individuals directly before removing goods and making it clear for how long and where their goods will be stored.”
Finally, council will consider an ordinance that would address the following issues: Solicitation near ATMs, prohibition of aggressive and obstructive conduct, unattended personal property in public places and rights of way, blocking entranceways and paths of travel.
The proposed ordinance would do the following things:
- Prohibit aggressive conduct. State law already prohibits the aggressive soliciting of alms. This ordinance expands the prohibition of certain aggressive conduct that is not currently prohibited by state law.
- Prohibit soliciting within 15 feet of an ATM or a door of a financial institution. The City’s current code prohibits solicitation within 50 feet of an ATM, however, this distance is no longer defensible in court because it is not narrowly tailored to address specific safety concerns. Shortening the distance to 15 feet and including the entrance/egress points is narrowly tailored to address the public safety concern for individuals who may be carrying cash or deposits.
- Prohibits blocking or disrupting vehicular, pedestrian or cycling traffic.
- Prohibits certain activity in the median strip of a road.
- Requires individuals to leave private property upon request of a police officer, the property owner or the property owner’s representative. This type of trespass is currently prohibited only by a civil injunction, not by state criminal trespass laws. This provision would allow for immediate relief from a persistent trespasser.
- Does not allow individuals to block a sidewalk from general passage or an entrance to a building. Unlike a no sit/lie requirement, this condition requires only that the individual allow for the path of travel to be accessible.
- Refers to existing code for the removal (and subsequent storage) of personal property left unattended on public property. City departments that deal with personal property (generally Police and Parks/Community Services) will have an internal administrative policy to provide additional details on how they remove, store and return property. Trash will continue to be dealt with in the current manner of disposal by City staff.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
All of these proposals sound reasonable.
““adjacent property and business owners have expressed strong desire not to have a restroom at this site but this location does in fact provide the option for the most physical distance between the facility and storefronts.”
Two questions:
1. Are the adjacent property and business owners amongst those who have complained about outdoors urination and defecation ?
2. Are the adjacent property and business owners willing to allow the public to use their restroom facilities as an alternative ?
For the sake of discussion, let’s postulate that the answer the first question is “yes”, and the answer to the second is “no”.
When you say ‘adjacent’, I assume you literally mean “directly adjacent”. If you mean ‘vicinity’, please clarity what distance would constitute ‘vicinity’, in your opinion.
Howard
I hadn’t really given it that much thought. I suppose that I would find a reasonable distance to be one city block, same side of the street which a business owner might reasonably see as their “sphere of influence”.
I work right across the street from the G St spot. I honestly don’t understand the opposition. Homeless people camp out basically in the area all day as it is. Might as well give them a place to use the toilet other than the parking lot.
Thank you…
I come up with a similar # (was thinking visibility from the business, or 100 feet, whichever is greater). For the purposes of discussion.
“Requires individuals to leave private property upon request of a police officer, the property owner or the property owner’s representative. This type of trespass is currently prohibited only by a civil injunction, not by state criminal trespass laws. This provision would allow for immediate relief from a persistent trespasser.”
I am supportive of all of the other measures mentioned. This one gives me pause due to the lack of specification of details. What implication does “immediate relief” for the property owner have for the homeless individual ? This has the possibility for removal/incarceration of those who simply have no place to be.
I saw this play out next to a hotel I was staying at in San Diego. A homeless individual had staked claim to a camping spot on a sidewalk and in the doorway of a business. Because they could not get immediate relief, the property blocking the entrance to the business had to be tagged for 24-hours before they could move it, hampering the business. I believe this is for relief in such emergency situations — I hope that is the purpose.
Also, there was the situation last year were I couldn’t get the police or fire to immediately remove two individuals behind the house behind mine, in a situation where they were camping in a wood structure, next to a wooden fence and had covered the structure (in an attempt to hide it, I assume) with several feet deep of dry branches and leaves . . . AND they had an OPEN FLAME inside the structure. Both Police and Fire said they needed to notice the individuals and go through the 10-day process.
Um . . . F–K NO!!! There must be relief and a process for immediate threat to life and property! I believe this addresses these situations.
Alan
I agree with you completely about the imminent danger situation. Clearly this would need to be addressed promptly. The issue of inconveniencing a business owner is shakier for me as I see it more as a nuisance than an emergency.
I favor all of this: bathrooms, storage, ordinances. All are needed and reasonable as written.
There should, however, be two bathroom sites several blocks apart in key areas, as people aren’t going to walk across downtown just because they have the urge. As well, to the degree they may because attractive nuisances (however necessary), there should be two nodes to disperse the attraction from that of a single point.
I was thinking the same thing, two locations on opposite sides of town.
I think we should modify the bathrooms at city hall so they have a door to the outside so anyone can use them. I bet we will get more action in town to solve homeless related problems when city staff and elected officials see more of them and not just talk with contractors, developers and members of the “donor class”…
Great idea, you’re really on to something here, it would be inexpensive and wouldn’t affect any downtown businesses.
Kind of like people who complain about uprooting the homeless when they’re on or near someone else’s property I’m sure would feel differently if it was their premises.
Ken
I honestly think that is a great idea. Our public spaces should be open and have ease of access for all to use not only for our civic and business purposes, but also for those of a biologic nature. Perhaps our places of worship, Chamber of Commerce, elected representatives offices as examples, would like to make their facilities readily available as well.
One bathroom. Two on opposite sides of Downtown. How is either even considered to be marginally sufficient?
Better than zero. Start there. See how it works. Adjust
We could line very street with portable outhouses, how lovely.
I don’t believe they are talking about portable outhouses. But I can say it’s also lovely to have public spots covered in urine and feces. Just saying.
Should be based on walking time of five minutes maximum (so at least a few Downtown… don’t forget the “Liberal Town…” thing from the other day…)
Have you done studies?
That said, walking at 3mph one can walk almost anywhere in our downtown in 5 minutes.
That’s pretty accurate. I can walk from my office on G pretty much anywhere in 5 minutes. 10 minutes to city hall.