July 2021 - Parks & Recreation - 31

residing in the San Lorenzo Park
and the Benchlands encampment
(Encampment) in Santa Cruz for
several months. The Encampment
had grown to close to 200 individuals
over the past six months.
Residents of the Encampment are
fed and provided with survival
services and items at that locale.
As a result, the Plaintiffs argued
they would face separation from
these vital services if the City is
allowed to carry out the Executive
Order. The City had allowed San
Lorenzo Park to be used for encampments
during the past nine
months of the COVID-19 pandemic.
In
April 2020, the City and County
of Santa Cruz (City) attempted
to implement a " socially distant "
encampment layout " in deference
to the CDC [Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention] Guidance
on encampments, " and the City
provided trash services and hygiene
resources to the Encampment.
In July 2020, the City and County
worked together to establish a
managed camp at the Benchlands.
The City had continued to provide
trash service and hygiene resources
to the Encampment residents.
In addition to its efforts at the Encampment,
the City had partnered
with the County to add shelter capacity
in the City at Veterans' Hall,
the Golflands,
the Pavilion and
several motels. Despite these efforts,
shelters for people experiencing
homelessness in the City and
County of Santa Cruz were full.
On or around December 17, 2020,
the City issued an Executive Order
that authorized and ordered the temporary
closure of San Lorenzo Park
and the Benchlands. The order stated
that these closures would " be acPreliminary
Injunction
Requirements
As cited by the
federal
district
court, the following legal standard
would determine whether the requested
preliminary injunction was
warranted in this particular case:
To obtain a preliminary injunction,
the moving party [in this case,
the homeless Plaintiffs] must estabcomplished
in phases, with the goal
of temporarily closing the entire park
by January 6, 2021. " Further, " the
closure period will end on January
31, 2021, unless an extension of the
closure is authorized. "
The Executive Order noted that
" [i]n recent weeks, the conditions
at San Lorenzo Park have deteriorated
to the extent that we feel
that a temporary park closure is the
City's best and only realistic option. "
Conditions noted in the Executive
Order included vandalism,
fire safety, criminal activity, tree
damage, trash and a lack of physical
distancing or wearing of masks.
The Executive Order further
stated that the City had a " duty
to preserve the park grounds and
facilities and to prevent exorbitant
rehabilitation expenses from becoming
necessary at San Lorenzo
Park, " having paid more than
$140,000 to clean and start the rehabilitation
process of public park
areas " during this time of significant
budgetary constraints. "
On December 21, 2020,
the
City executed the first phase of
the Executive Order, vacating the
areas around the playground in
San Lorenzo Park. While the second
phase was scheduled to occur
on December 28, 2020, the City
paused its efforts after large and vocal
community protests.
lish that: (1) it is likely to succeed
on the merits; (2) it is likely to suffer
irreparable harm in the absence of
preliminary relief; (3) the balance of
equities tips in its favor; and (4) an
injunction is in the public interest.
The court further acknowledged
a preliminary injunction is " an extraordinary
remedy that may only be
awarded upon a clear showing that
the plaintiff is entitled to such relief. "
Likelihood of Success
on the Merits
In their complaint, the Plaintiffs
alleged that the authorized closure
of San Lorenzo Park and the
Benchlands at the height of the
COVID-19 pandemic had placed
homeless individuals in a position
of danger in violation of the 14th
Amendment to the United States
Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
which prohibits the government
from depriving individuals of their
liberty and property without due
process of law. According to the
Plaintiffs, the City had deprived the
Plaintiffs of their rights by placing
" unhoused persons at greater risk
of COVID-19 infection, injury and
death " by " clearing the Encampment
and failing to provide alternate
safe housing. "
The federal district court noted:
" There is no fundamental right to
housing. " That being said, the court
recognized " liability under substantive
due process [i.e., protection of
fundamental rights from government
interference] where a state or
local official acts to place a person
in a situation of known danger with
deliberate indifference to their personal
or physical safety. "
Within the context of substantive
due process liability, the court
defined " deliberate indifference "
PARK S ANDRECRE AT ION . OR G | JULY 2 0 2 1
| Parks & Recreation
31

https://advance-lexis-com.mutex.gmu.edu/document/documentlink/?pdmfid=1516831&crid=0fa3e226-eafa-446d-a620-b8c7f18389bd&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A61VP-1NC1-JF75-M23N-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=6419&pddoctitle=Santa+Cruz+Homeless+v.+Bernal%2C+2021+U.S.+Dist.+LEXIS+13839+(N.D.+Cal.%2C+Jan.+20%2C+2021)&pdproductcontenttypeid=urn%3Apct%3A30&pdiskwicview=false&ecomp=w3wvk&prid=72e0d592-19d0-4801-9343-c504b2f1b4a6

July 2021 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of July 2021 - Parks & Recreation