This comment is in strong opposition to city ordinance 2017-0054. The city has already conceded in a federal hearing that subsection b of this ordinance would not withstand the strict scrutiny established by Reed v. Town of Gilbert. What remains of the ordinance is still deeply problematic as it is overly broad and what is "aggressive and intrusive" is still open for extremely wide interpretation even with the definitions given in the ordinance. The city has seemingly chosen to combat this problem by persecuting its most vulnerable citizens with the enforcement of this ordinance. If developers and business leaders are so concerned that people downtown may be "exposed" to interactions with other citizens experiencing hard times, might I suggest the business district contribute funds to positive steps such as funding more shelter space rather than pushing the city to criminalize people for being in a desperate situation. This ordinance reflects extremely poorly on the city of Sacramento.
This comment is in strong opposition to city ordinance 2017-0054. The city has already conceded in a federal hearing that subsection b of this ordinance would not withstand the strict scrutiny established by Reed v. Town of Gilbert. What remains of the ordinance is still deeply problematic as it is overly broad and what is "aggressive and intrusive" is still open for extremely wide interpretation even with the definitions given in the ordinance. The city has seemingly chosen to combat this problem by persecuting its most vulnerable citizens with the enforcement of this ordinance. If developers and business leaders are so concerned that people downtown may be "exposed" to interactions with other citizens experiencing hard times, might I suggest the business district contribute funds to positive steps such as funding more shelter space rather than pushing the city to criminalize people for being in a desperate situation. This ordinance reflects extremely poorly on the city of Sacramento.