MORGANTOWN — Lest anyone think all the intensity surrounding the citywide camping ban adopted early Wednesday morning by Morgantown City Council was on the audience side of the podium, Councilor Danielle Trumble indicated during deliberations that she’d be eager to sign a petition to challenge the law and, potentially, another petition to recall fellow members of council.
Trumble was one of three members to vote against the ordinance during the seven-hour meeting. She was joined by Mayor Joe Abu-Ghannam and Councilor Brian Butcher.
Her comments came in response to remarks offered during the public hearing indicating opponents would go door-to-door collecting the signatures needed (10% of the total voters registered at the 2023 city election) to force council to either repeal the law or put it before the city’s voters.
Lindsey Jacobs, with Mountain State Justice, said a committee of petitioners initiated that process with the city clerk’s office Wednesday afternoon. The committee will need to collect about 1,300 signatures and return the completed petitions to the clerk’s office within 30 days.
Once returned to the clerk, the ordinance in question is blocked from taking effect while the signatures are checked. If sufficient, council has 30 days to repeal the law, or it goes to a citywide vote.
Triggering a recall election for members of council requires signatures from 20% of registered voters.
Trumble provided her home address and said organizers should bring both petitions if they choose to take up those efforts.
“Those of you who are now paying attention because of this, just know that some of the things that happen around here would blow your mind. So, pay attention to more than just this,” she said. “I will again say that I am ashamed to be associated with people on this body.”
The law defines camp/camping to mean “pitch, erect or occupy camp facilities, or to use camp paraphernalia or both for the purpose of habitation, as evidenced by the use of camp paraphernalia,” and bans it on all public property.
“Camp facilities” include tents, huts and temporary shelters. “Camp paraphernalia” includes, but is not limited to, tarps, cots, beds, sleeping bags, blankets, mattresses, hammocks, portable cooking facilities and similar equipment.
A first violation will result in a warning. A second violation will result in a fine of no more than $200 and a third violation within 12 months can result in a fine of up to $500 and/or up to 30 days in jail.
However, “No citation shall be issued, nor any criminal penalty imposed, under this Section unless a person in violation of this Article has been offered alternate shelter and refused the offer.”
“Shelter” would include an alternate location where the person may shelter overnight, including, but not limited to, a place in an emergency shelter or any alternate indoor or outdoor location …”
Further, alternative sentencing will be possible if violators notify the municipal court that they need treatment for substance abuse or mental health issues or case management for housing insecurity.
As he did during council’s Aug. 20 first reading, Butcher asked why the city was in such a rush to get the law on the books.
In just over two months, it’s gone from a proposal mentioned at the end of a council meeting to an adopted ordinance.
This happened, Butcher said, despite the law being fraught with potential legal ramifications. Further, he said, nobody has answered questions about how it’s supposed to work or if it’s worked elsewhere.
What if there are no shelter spaces available?
Will it mandate an understaffed police force essentially serve as social workers, hunting down open shelter spaces across the county and region?
If someone goes to jail, do they get out and start the process over again?
“Why is it that we’re choosing to do something that is legally risky in the face of things we could be doing? You could pass this whole ordinance without any of the criminal penalties, and you wouldn’t have the same legal ramifications. Also, you wouldn’t be criminalizing homelessness — like you’re saying you’re not — when you are,” Butcher said.
He continued.
“So, I guess what we’re saying is we’ll fine people to make it harder for them to get housing, and then we’ll put people in jail which makes it harder to get housing. Then, when they get out of jail, we’ll have no plan for that.”
Deputy Mayor Jenny Selin countered that the law “lends an urgency to the fact that we need to get people into housing.”
“This is something that there has been an urgency for because of the impacts on people, both housed and not housed,” Selin said, adding, “It’s that it had reached a stage where something needed to happen. It’s not that something needed to happen for any particular group at all. It’s an overall effect on our community.”
As has been mentioned previously by supporters of the ban, council’s constituents extend well beyond those struggling with homelessness and/or other issues and those willing and able to come speak at public meetings.
“My feeling here is that I want the city to be perceived as a place that is safe to come to and ensure that we have businesses here that can support this kind of activity. We’re 30,000 in this larger group. We’re taking on this burden. I want to make sure our city has the resources in the future to handle the people that you’re talking about and provide for them in a proper manner,” Councilor Bill Kawecki said to Butcher. “This is the way I have chosen to vote because I think it will move us in that direction.”
Trumble disagreed.
“I hope I’m wrong. I hope next month we flip a switch, and everything is great and there’s suddenly more housing and we don’t see people suffering on the streets any longer. I don’t think that’s going to happen. I will hold up my ‘I told you so,’ sign at a correct time later,” she said. “In the meantime, I, for one, can’t wait to see how this plays out when we go to court …”
The law will take effect Oct. 4 pending available shelter space.
