SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The city of Sacramento inadvertently cleared homeless encampments twice in the last week despite a court order from a federal judge temporarily pausing sweeps due to extreme heat.
According to a statement from city spokesperson Tim Swanson, it happened around City Hall and was the result of a lapse in communication between the city and one of its contractors.
The statement in full is below:
“The City respects the order issued by the federal court and has been working diligently to follow all aspects of it. The City has communicated the information contained in the order to its employees, including those in the Sacramento Police Department, Code Enforcement and other departments and divisions. However, the City was previously not as effective in communicating with one of its contractors and their employees, leading to the unintentional oversights that occurred Friday and Monday. At this time, the situation involving City Hall has been addressed and remedied, with the City proactively informing the Sacramento Homeless Union Monday morning about the mistaken enforcement.”
The Sacramento Homeless Union initially asked for a stop to sweeps until mid-September due to excessive heat, but Eastern District of California Judge Troy Nunley granted them a 14-day temporary restraining order on Aug. 3 instead.
ABC10 spoke with their attorney Anthony Prince about the latest development in the ongoing battle to stop sweeps during the hottest time of year.
Prince says the union and homeless advocates learned about Friday’s sweep as they arrived for a planned news conference. He says they were told by members of the union they had been swept and all the encampments around City Hall were removed.
“We had been informed before the city told us. I will say the city contacted us… but I can’t say it was a proactive situation,” said Prince. “It was perhaps better to hear it from them than to find out on our own.”
ABC10 also asked Prince about the city’s statement explaining it was the result of a miscommunication.
“The court order is expressly applicable to not only the city (and) its employees, but contractors, agents and all those who are under the authority and act at the direction of the city. That express language is there for a reason. That is in the court order, not as just some extra language. It's to make the city aware that they are responsible for communicating and seeing to it that their agents, contractors, employees, all those who are under the control of the city, obey that order,” said Prince.
Prince says he informed the city Friday of the steps they needed to take after violating the order, which included posting a notice for the unhoused that it was safe to return. Then, on Monday, another sweep happened.
“To say it was a miscommunication where they conveyed it but not sufficiently or their contractor didn’t get it? Under the law, how could you possibly accept something like that? A party under a court order could just point the finger at their subordinate? No, the order was violated, and the city needs to understand that we’re taking it seriously,” said Prince.
As for the latest letter from District Attorney Thien Ho to Mayor Darrell Steinberg, Prince says it encourages the city to violate the restraining order and it's unheard of for a district attorney to make a statement with the intent or the effect of trying to bully the city into violating a court order.
So, what happens next? Prince says they have a 5 p.m. Wednesday deadline to file a reply brief to the city’s opposition to a motion for a preliminary injunction.
They’re also contemplating filing a motion explaining why the city shouldn’t be held in contempt for violating the order. Prince says they haven’t decided on that yet, but advocates are concerned about the city’s ability to obey the order elsewhere after it was broken several times around City Hall.
“So far they have not given me a reason not to file for the show cause order for contempt.”
