HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-07-24 Public Comment - S. Kirchhoff - Ordinance 2172From:Steve Kirchhoff
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Ordinance 2172
Date:Sunday, October 6, 2024 3:29:25 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor and Commissioners:
I am writing to you in reference to Ordinance 2172, which revises current policy regardingcamping on public property and public rights-of-way.
I wanted to raise concerns about several provisions: First, in 2.08.210, the ordinance gives theCity Manager oversight over a new system that would permit camping under certain
conditions; second, in 2.08.230 the ordinance describes fines for persons found to be campingillegally and for entities that provide camping facilities to others for the purpose of residing on
rights-of-way; and finally, Section 5 of the ordinance provides a “Sunset” clause stating that, ifadopted, Ordinance 2172 will expire on October 1, 2025.
Regarding the role of the city manager. The city manager is authorized in 2.08.210 to issuepermits for persons to camp on public rights-of-way. An un-housed person applies, and the
city manager “may issue” a permit, but also, he may not. The ordinance says the manager“may adopt administrative rules” to guide his decision making. But also, he may not adopt
such rules. That sounds like the city manager could make and then re-make or revise a rulewith each permit request.
It seems the criteria used by the city manager in making permitting (and the street designationdecisions) should be adopted by policy-makers. These are consequential decisions—they are
the rules, and the commission should be party to making the rules. Finally, the length ofcamping on any given street has a maximum of 30 days. How was that number arrived at?
Who established this as the length of stay, and what thought process was followed?
The penalty and fines for violations of the ordinance seem unbalanced. Surely any entity who
provides a trailer for a fee to another person to camp in, should be fined at an amount higherthan an un-housed person who violates the ordinance. Fine amounts should be proportional to
ability to pay.
It is unclear why camping illegally could result in jail time. It is unclear why $500, which
seems high, is the fee amount for camping illegally. It is unclear how high fines and possiblejail time help the un-housed find housing and thereby help the city reduce the number of un-
housed persons, which is presumably part of the goal of the commission and the ordinance.
Regarding the sunset clause. The accompanying memoranda to the ordinance do not describe
other avenues the city may be pursuing to reduce the number of un-housed persons inBozeman. I was under the impression that a working group was going to be convened to
devise longer-term strategies to do just this. In the absence of any separate efforts by the cityto reduce homelessness, the sunset clause of Ordinance 2172 gives one the impression that the
ordinance provides a slow-motion illegalization of camping on Bozeman rights-of-way.
I hope a working group is assembled and that it includes housing professionals, advocates, un-housed persons, and other interested members of the community to work toward increasing
transitional housing to bridge un-housed members of the community into some form ofsubsidized housing.
Thank you for your time and energy on this and all the other issues confronting the citizens ofBozeman.
Warm regards,
Steve Kirchhoff