,
This story was originally published by City Desk ABQ, a local nonprofit daily newsroom covering local government, politics and more. If you like this story, please support local, independent journalists like these by reading more and donating today at citydesk.org
By Damon Scott, City Desk ABQ
Advocates for those experiencing homelessness in Albuquerque reacted to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling Friday with concerns about what it might mean for the city’s unhoused population. City officials, meanwhile, were also considering the implications of the decision.
The court issued a decision Friday in the highly anticipated Grants Pass v. Johnson case. Siding with the Oregon city of Grants Pass, the court ruled that an ordinance passed by the city making it illegal for those experiencing homelessness to camp on any public property was not unconstitutional.
Arguments on behalf of the homeless population contended that enforcement of the anti-camping rule is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment’s protections from cruel and unusual punishment — especially in the midst of a crushing affordable housing crisis and in places where shelter beds are inadequate or at capacity. The court disagreed in a 6-3 decision.
How best to mitigate illegal camping has frustrated Albuquerque leaders as well, as they try to balance health and safety concerns without making an already dire situation worse for those experiencing homelessness.
A statement from Mayor Tim Keller’s office said the city “appreciates more flexibility to enforce ordinances and will continue to protect the rights of unhoused individuals.”
“I know there will be mixed reactions to this ruling in our community, so I want to be clear — the city will continue to do everything in our power to get people the help they need and to deal promptly with illegal encampments,” Keller said in the statement.
The city had been operating under a state District Court injunction designed to limit its sweeps of homeless encampments from November 2023 until it was dropped in May. The injunction required that campers be given a 72-hour notice to vacate and be offered storage for belongings and transportation to a shelter. It also required an opportunity for belongings to later be reclaimed.
The injunction stemmed from a 2022 lawsuit filed by several unhoused people who alleged the city was violating their rights by unconstitutionally seizing and destroying their property without providing enough shelter beds and alternatives to living on the street.
The city estimates there are about 800 emergency beds under its purview and another 400 available from other facilities. That’s far less than the conservative estimates of more than 2,000 people experiencing homelessness last year. In addition, most of the city’s beds are at its Westside Emergency Housing Center, where conditions have been widely considered substandard.
The city said even though the injunction was dropped in May, it has been giving campers appropriate notice and offering resources. It said it will continue to send staff to conduct welfare checks at encampment sites and offer a list of services for campers.
‘People outside are desperate’
The consensus Friday among the city’s homelessness advocates is that the Supreme Court decision would criminalize homelessness and wouldn’t improve the lives of the unhoused.
“People outside are desperate; they have little hope; and authorities at all levels don’t seem to care,” said Ilse Biel, a longtime community organizer and advocate for those living on Albuquerque’s streets. “When are they going to concentrate on getting enough meaningfully accessible resources sorted so that the majority of folks currently outside will have the necessary alternative options?”
The Albuquerque Human Rights Board took up the issue this year and says the city often doesn’t live up to its policy of offering storage for belongings.
“Since January, the board has heard of four urns being stolen and destroyed by Solid Waste employees during the encampment sweeps,” Anami Dass, board chair, said. “Those four urns contained the remains of a woman’s father, another person lost his daughter, and one person lost both of her parents. How is that not cruel and unusual?”
Critical documents and identification are often also lost when belongings are destroyed, Dass said. She hopes the city will listen to the testimony the board collected during a June 22 public hearing on anti-homeless sentiment and discrimination in the city.
“To repeat testimony that was heard: ‘I think it’s time we begin to consider what we are becoming,’” Dass said. “I pray that the city of Albuquerque upholds article eight of its charter and decides to preserve, protect, and promote human rights and human dignity. I pray the city stops the sweeps.”
Health care advocates also expressed concern about the Supreme Court decision.
“Albuquerque Health Care for the Homeless is deeply disappointed in the Supreme Court’s ruling today in favor of policies that criminalize and only further entrench homelessness,” chief strategy officer Rachel Biggs said. “Criminalization and forced displacement bring along compounding collateral consequences that make obtaining housing incredibly difficult. Housing solves homelessness.”
Retired Albuquerque attorney Peter Cubra, who long-represented the homeless population, said the ruling was “hard-hearted.”
“I did not expect six of [the justices] to be this hard-hearted after hearing the oral arguments,” Cubra said. “All six of them are showing utter indifference to what happens to poor people who can’t afford housing. These justices have explicitly said it’s OK to punish people for not having a place to live.”
He added that the city’s encampment sweeps have done nothing but “traumatize poor people.”
“It’s hard to imagine the city being more cruel in the future than it is now,” Cubra said. “I have observed many displacements of people and I have never seen the city employees follow the city policy.”
‘Haven’t been able to get clear answers’
Albuquerque City Councilor Nichole Rogers represents District 6, which includes the city’s International District, an area where encampments frequently form. She said she often stops to observe city encampment sweeps in progress.
“I ask the folks that they’re sweeping: ‘Were you offered a bed or a ride to a shelter or storage?’ Most of the time the answer is no,” Rogers said.
She said Solid Waste Department employees working at the sweeps often don’t know what the procedures are for storing personal belongings.
“They couldn’t tell me how somebody accesses their stuff once they store it; what the hours are; where it’s stored,” Rogers said. “I still haven’t been able to get clear answers about that, so I don’t have faith that we’re even doing what we say we’re going to do.”
Rogers is concerned that the Supreme Court ruling might spur city legislation aimed at imposing civil penalties on those in encampments.
“I worry that that’s what will be next for us,” she said. “People will want to impose those types of fines, which only further criminalizes folks who are already in poverty. So I worry about this decision and what it means for our city.”