Lawton residents see new ordinance as criminalizing homelessness

Some residents said Lawton’s new anti-camping ordinance is criminalizing homelessness.

Eight residents addressed the City Council Tuesday, as that group weighed a proposal to enact an ordinance that would make it illegal to camp in public places such as parks and on sidewalks, without the express permission of city officials. Council members unanimously approved the ordinance with an emergency clause, meaning its provisions already are in effect.

But residents addressing the council Tuesday argued the law is unfair, with many urging city officials to look at other alternatives for those who are forced by various circumstances to sleep in public places because they have no home.

David Reeves, who has addressed the issue at a previous council meeting, said he is familiar with the Grants Pass, Oregon, lawsuit that led to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that it is not unconstitutional to ban camping in public places. He said West Coast cities have taken actions to make it illegal to sleep in public places, and the result has been to shift the homeless population to other communities, adding that he knows many people who would say the law didn’t help the homeless problem in their cities. He said while such laws may initially reduce the visibility of homeless people, “the population rapidly rebounds.”

In fact, the law could deepen the problem, Reeves said, explaining that getting a job is important to get someone off the street, and a homeless person won’t be able to get a job if he is serving 15 days in jail.

“You’re still punishing the homeless,” he said.

Jordan Harris said he has been homeless and he understands the effect the anti-camping ordinance could have and the hostile atmosphere that could develop between the homeless and city police. Harris is critical of what he said is a law that targets the homeless, calling it “a violation of human dignity” and, in a sense, trafficking.

Destry Wilson was critical of provisions in the law, noting references to providing assistance are vague, adding that Lawton has insufficient indoor shelter space to house its homeless population. Wilson said the homeless are suffering from a condition that many other people could face.

“We’re all just a bad paycheck away,” Wilson said of the potential to lose one’s home, adding the better option for the city is to invest in housing and mental health services, while also providing assistance to those entities already helping the homeless.

Kaysa Whitley said Lawton’s law fails to take into account the differences between those who are transitional (temporarily homeless) and chronic (homeless for a long period of time for a specific reason, such as mental health). She asked how the proposed law could provide a solution to address both types of homelessness.

“It can’t,” she said, adding she has faced the threat of homeless because of events in her life and the community’s existing shelters aren’t set up “to help people like me.”

Robert Ratcliffe said the city’s actions perpetuate the common view of homelessness, making it harder for such people to leave that situation.

“It’s like telling someone to run, then tying their ankles together,” he said. “What are we doing? These are human beings.”

Christal Thompkins said Lawton doesn’t have the structure in place to support the ordinance, which specifies homeless people are to be offered assistance. She also asked if city police would be trained to deal with such people, while Daniel Jameson said the city isn’t supporting the needs of such residents through tactics such as supporting more social workers. There’s another factor he and others have spotlighted: some landlords are pricing residents out of their homes.

“It’s not just a homeless issue; it is a housing issue,” Jameson said.

City officials said police officers will be trained for this factor.