HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-25-25 Public Comment - D. Clark - In the definitions section of the ordinance
In the definitions section of the ordinance, it defines camping as "...to pitch, erect, create, use, or
occupy or otherwise
inhabit camp facilities."
I object to the inclusion of the words "use, or occupy", which are overly broad, especially when
combined with the definition of camp facility:
The ordinance defines "camp facility" as "...tents, huts, temporary shelters, structures, vehicles as
defined in 36.01.020, recreational vehicles with or without motive power designed for use as
temporary living quarters or camping, motor homes, camping trailers, tent trailers, truck campers,
camper vans, structures, or any other item used for the purpose of camping."
I object to the broad inclusion of all vehicles and structures, and to the verbiage "any other item
used for the purpose of camping".
Here are a few examples of how this ordinance makes ordinary, necessary, and otherwise lawful
activities either expressly illegal, or subject to the discretion of a police officer.
This ordinance literally makes it illegal to "use" a "vehicle" on public property. That is the most
simple example, as it is explicitly spelled out.
As to the term "structures" in the definition of camp facility, is City Hall not a "structure"? Is it public
property? Are you using it? Then someone could decide that city employees and visitors are in
violation of 2.08.210, which is a criminal misdemeanor violation. The police probably won't cite
people for such an infraction, but you are technically, by the letter of the ordinance, in violation. We
rely only upon the discretion of the police officers to not cite you for the violation, and for our judges
to exercise good judgement in not convicting you of the offense.
Both of these examples are literal though. No interpretation is necessary. When you "use" a
"structure" on public property, you are in violation of this ordinance. There are no exceptions listed
for otherwise legitimate use, or whether or not you are authorized to use the structure.
The last example requires some interpretation, but it is possibly the most egregious. Since the
definition of camping includes the word "use" and the definition of camp facility includes "any other
item used for the purpose of camping", it creates a circular loophole which empowers the police to
use this ordinance as an excuse to arrest, harass, or have a pretext to demand ID, for any person
who is simply using any item on public property.
I'm not sure if I explained that clearly enough, circular logic can get confusing.
Camping includes to "use" a camping facility.
Camping facility includes anything used for camping.
Which means if you're using something, for the purpose of using it, and you're doing in on public
property, then you're in violation.
I realize this ordinance needs to be somewhat broad to empower the police to cite or arrest a
person who is actually camping on public property, without having to observe them for an extended
period of time. However, as it is currently written, this ordinance is so overly broad that it borders
on ludicrous.
I encourage the City Commission to update this ordinance so that it doesn't make driving a vehicle
on a public street, or working at City Hall, or using the library a criminal offense.
Thank you,
Dave Clark