ORANGE COUNTY VOICES : Condemning the Homeless Won’t Solve Anything

Santa Ana City Councilman John Acosta may be correct that the homeless include bums and vagrants, but it’s unfair to label all homeless people that way. His attitude has encouraged solutions that are just as troubling as the problem. Santa Ana officials should pause and reflect on the Civic Center homeless problem. Their comments thus far validate the ruling condemning the Aug. 15 police action arresting the homeless in the Civic Center area.

Santa Ana residents might also consider that their representatives’ attitudes, and the silence of some, have established policies that will continue to have a direct impact on taxpayers’ pocketbooks--something I learned from listening and examining some of the 14 witnesses over three weeks of court testimony.

For example, after citizens complained to the City Council about the Civic Center homeless situation, a vagrancy task force was formed in 1988, but not to objectively evaluate the problem. Rather, according to city memos, it was to drive the homeless out by confiscating their property. Legal Aid lawyers showed up at the courthouse, and a $50,000 settlement offer was snapped up by the city attorney. According to city memos, the cost of the task force’s confiscation operation was at least $22,000 in money redirected from general revenue-sharing projects. (That left do-gooders who were suggesting the purchase of a few portable toilets scratching their heads.)

Another example from the evidence: After receiving numerous complaints, the Police Department designed a special enforcement program dubbed Operation Civic Center. The cost for the seven-hour operation was approximately $5,800. The police lieutenant who forwarded the operational plan for command approval testified that as part of the program, the arresting officers were instructed, in effect, to ignore a state law and normal department policy and not “cite and release” anyone. Only those who seemed homeless were targeted.

Without further details of the operation’s peculiarities, the experienced and normally conservative judge had no choice but to throw out all the cases.

After the ruling was announced, however, Santa Ana Police Chief Paul Walters said he had had inadequate legal representation from the city attorney and the county district attorney. He claimed, incorrectly, that the district attorney had had only one week to prepare the case. I filed the motion to remove the city attorney for what was an obvious conflict of interest, so I can report that the district attorney had 51 days to prepare his case and that he could have requested more.

The chief’s response in defense of the operation may be appropriate in support of his troops, but wouldn’t it also be appropriate to inform the City Council that the homeless problem isn’t just a police problem that can be diverted into the criminal justice system? Is there anyone in city government who has the courage to tell constituents that a roundup that intimidates and harasses helpless people won’t solve the problem? If council members would express such an attitude, and if department heads would follow or initiate such leadership, then perhaps a productive idea or solution might result.

As the attorney for Norman Bell, a homeless man who currently resides just outside the council chambers, let me convey his request to those who occupy the inside: Please institute a full-time police foot patrol in the Civic Center area so that people who are occasionally accosted can call the police and expect a reasonable response to a specific incident instead of costly enforcement programs.

The attitude required to address the homeless problem should reflect a broader view then the one expressed by Councilman Acosta. Otherwise, inappropriate responses will continue to prove ineffective and embarrassing. And stiff civil-rights damage awards and litigation costs may well reach a point where voters demand an attitude adjustment.