In Grants Pass, Oregon, city leaders are moving forward with a plan to start a city-funded campsite program without pinning down the total costs or whether or not the camps will provide drinking water to people staying there.
After winning the most impactful Supreme Court case on homelessness in decades, Grants Pass is preparing for an injunction on its camping bans to be lifted.
So during a city council meeting last week, the Grants Pass City Council updated the city’s camping bans to make the practice illegal on any city-owned property except for the city’s future campsites.
The revised ban won’t go into effect until after the injunction is lifted, when the city plans to create fenced-in campsites on four of its properties. The city will allow unsheltered residents to camp for one to four days, depending on the site.
During the meeting, several residents said the plan for the campsites seemed rushed, chaotic and didn’t consider how the sites will impact homeowners and unsheltered residents. City staff, residents and council members alike expressed reservations on four proposed campsite locations that the council nonetheless approved unanimously.
“Out of all of the sites,” Grants Pass City Manager Aaron Cubic said, “the only one that we would feel most comfortable with—and that’s only for a temporary time and we still don’t feel comfortable with it—is the water treatment plant site. The other sites all have encumbrances on them that are concerning on multiple levels.”
The water treatment plant site is one of the campsite locations the city council approved. That property is where the city plans to construct a new treatment facility next spring, at which point the camp there would close.
The city’s insurer, Citycounty Insurance Services (CIS), would charge the city $5,000 per site. CIS, which provides insurance to most local governments in Oregon, told the city none of its members have as many designated campsites as Grants Pass is proposing.
Costs and staffing needs unknown
In addition to the four approved camps, the city may create a fifth campsite, possibly near the police department or city hall.
In the first year, the five campsites will cost at least $250,698—more than six times what the city budgeted for homeless services this year, city records show.
However, the city’s cost estimate doesn’t include contracts or staff labor costs to maintain the campsites. Aside from security trailers at two of the sites, the estimate doesn’t include security for each camp, which Cubic said last month the city would need to consider providing at campgrounds to ensure they were safe and reduce risk to the city.
The city’s cost estimate for the campsites includes a portable toilet and handwashing station for each site, but Grants Pass’ updated camping ban doesn’t require the city to provide that equipment or drinking water at camps. The resolution through which the council approved campsite locations also doesn’t include requirements on providing water, toilets or handwashing stations.
The city could cover the campsite costs with funding from the American Rescue Plan Act, a covid relief package, the general fund’s contingency account for unexpected expenses or the capital improvements fund, a staff report said. But Cubic said during the meeting that costs associated with the campsites would come out of the city’s public works department.
“The majority of this is going to fall on public works’ shoulders,” he said. “It’s going to be a facilities type of management issue.”
The city’s budget devotes $1.2 million to facilities management, with about $288,000 reserved for unexpected expenses.
Cubic said the city needs to ensure it has enough resources to start the program but staff aren’t certain how much time it will take to manage it.
“We don’t know what that looks like, so … we might need additional resources,” he said, “because I don’t want us to suffer in other service levels to pick this up.”
CIS advised the city that “the safest path” to reduce liability to the city is to ensure the sites aren’t “subject to obvious dangers as compared to where they are currently camping” and “if it can’t be staffed for the indefinite future, don’t start it.” Any improvements or services become a new baseline that the city would need to maintain, the staff report said.
After clearing the Supreme Court, Grants Pass’ ongoing court case could face another hurdle
In June, Grants Pass won a Supreme Court case arguing camping bans don’t violate the Eighth Amendment’s protection from cruel and unusual punishment. The Eighth Amendment also prohibits excessive bail and fines, but the court didn’t consider if the bans violated that part of the amendment.
The Supreme Court case, which returned to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for more proceedings, stemmed from a class action lawsuit in which homeless Grants Pass residents argued that the city’s three camping bans were unconstitutional.
Two weeks ago, an attorney for the class action plaintiffs asked the court to rule on whether the city’s bans violate the excessive fines part of the Eighth Amendment. Court records show they have this option because during its appeals to the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court, Grants Pass didn’t seek a ruling on the excessive fines issue.
Since last week’s city council meeting, Grants Pass is down to one camping ban because councilors repealed two bans and amended a third to adhere to state laws that restrict local camping bans and camp removals.
The updated ban carries punishment of a fine of up to $50 and no jail time. Previously, the city charged fees starting at $295 for ban violations.
Aside from the fine, the city’s updated camping ban allows judges to choose penalties intended to address the cause of the camping ban violation, as long as that punishment doesn’t include jail time.
When setting a punishment, judges can consider if an unsheltered person removed their belongings and garbage from the site or “meaningfully engaged” with service providers to address the reasons why they broke the camping ban.
Worries about campsite locations span home values and impact to the river ecosystem
Council members approved these locations for city-funded campsites:
- The future water treatment plant site: At 755 Southeast J Street, this will be the only campsite where residents can camp up to 96 hours. City Councilors Brian DeLaGrange and Vanessa Ogier said the city should provide drinking water at the site, while Councilor Dwight Faszer II opposed that idea.
- The southeast corner of Riverside Park near the Rogue River on 128 Redwood Highway, where residents can camp up to 24 hours.
- 850 E. Park St. for up to 24 hours. This site is near the Rogue River.
- 704 NW Sixth St. for up to 24 hours.
Cubic said city staff had concerns with campsite locations that are next or adjacent to residential properties or have direct access to parks, including the East Park Street and Riverside Park locations.
[ Read more: Renters insurance doesn’t cover floods, surprising some tenants during climate disasters ]
Residents who spoke during a public comment session also weren’t crazy about the campsite locations.
“I’ve paid all my money to have a riverfront property,” said Steve Schooler, who lives near one of the future campsites. “Now you guys are going to provide a riverfront property for them for free. … My biggest concern, for me and the other people in my community right there, is will it make our whole place completely worthless?”
City Councilor Joel King, who worked for the US Forest Service before retiring in 2010, worried about the two sites near the Rogue River.
“It’s an economic thing, it’s an ecological thing,” he said. “I know people, especially in an urban environment, don’t think about ecology, and that’s my background so when I see that being abused, I—I don’t think these type of facilities should be adjacent to the river.”
Mike Slotemaker, a Grants Pass resident who said he’d earned the nickname “NIMBY Mike,” accused City Councilor Dwayne Yunker of being out of touch with the community. Slotemaker said he’d gathered signatures for a petition against a city campsite near the fire station on Hillcrest Drive, which wasn’t approved by the council.
“Your complaints are valid,” Yunker said to Slotemaker about his concerns with the site. “I don’t need to take a roster around to know nobody wants these (camps) in their parks—nobody. … You’re not telling me nothing I don’t know. Nobody wants it near them.”
Yunker added: “We don’t need to be told that you don’t want them in your area but we’re trying to fix this as best we can. I don’t want them, either, but they’re human beings.”
Contact Streetlight editor Mollie Bryant at 405-990-0988 or bryant@streetlightnews.org. Follow her reporting by joining our newsletter.
Streetlight, previously BigIfTrue.org, is a nonprofit news site based in Oklahoma City. Our mission is to report stories that envision a more equitable world and energize our readers to improve their communities. Donate to support our work here.
Not supplying or making water available is a bit inhumane, I think. These campgrounds would quickly become unsanitary. How is that good for any City? Police still need to patrol the area, the city would need to supply trash receptacles, etc. I’ve noticed in Oklahoma, without positive reinforcement, some of our homeless people tend to be very unsanitary…this needs to stop…they only do it because no one gives a damn.