February 2021 - Parks & Recreation - 30

L AW R EV I EW

tain. Further, the court acknowledged: " The potential harm that
the Encampment Plaintiffs face as
a result of possible disbandment
is not minimal. " In the opinion of
the court, potential harm, however, was insufficient to satisfy the
" certain and concrete " irreparable
harm requirement to warrant injunctive relief in the form of a temporary restraining order.

The court concluded that
" the Encampment Plaintiﬀs
have not met their burden
of demonstrating irreparable
harm as required to secure a
temporary restraining order. "
As noted by the federal district
court, Defendants had declared
that " encampments will not be
removed unless three conditions
are met " :
(1) the MPRB determines that
a health and safety risk to the encampment residents exists, (2) a
health and safety risk to the public
exists, and (3) adequate shelter exists elsewhere.
Consistent with this declaration,
the MPRB Park Police Chief testified that the removal of encampments had been undertaken only
when there has been an " actual
and demonstrated threat to the
public safety or health of camp residents or the neighbors and neighborhoods of the park because of
the encampment. " Further, these
encampment removal actions were
only undertaken after the MPRB
superintendent " gave explicate direction after he was satisfied that
public health and safety were en30

Parks & Recreation

dangered and that adequate housing for homeless persons existed
in the community. " In addition,
" when an encampment is to be
disbanded, " the MPRB Director of
Community Outreach testified that
" Community Outreach employees
work with the inhabitants and permittees to assist them in finding alternative housing. "
Based on these representations
and sworn declarations, Defendants claimed that " the Encampment Plaintiffs will not experience
irreparable harm in the event that
the MPRB disbands an encampment after the aforementioned circumstances have been established. "

No Evidence of
Irreparable Harm
In the opinion of the federal district court, Plaintiffs had " not
presented any evidence that persuasively contradicts Defendants'
evidence and representations, so as
to establish that Plaintiffs' alleged
harm is sufficiently certain and
concrete. " Accordingly, the court
concluded that " the Encampment
Plaintiffs have not met their burden
of demonstrating irreparable harm
as required to secure a temporary
restraining order. "
In reaching this conclusion, the
federal district court recognized
the robust efforts of volunteers,
nonprofit organizations and governmental entities to assist those
who face unsheltered homelessness in the local Twin Cities community, including ZACAH, the
Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid and the
American Civil Liberties Union, as
well as Hennepin County, the City
of Minneapolis and MPRB, along
with numerous other nonprofit
organizations and volunteers. Fur-

| F E B R UA RY 2 02 1 | PA R K S A N D R E C R E AT I O N .O R G

ther, the court acknowledged the
prevalence of unsheltered homelessness in the Twin Cities had increased since the beginning of the
COVID-19 pandemic:
Both experiencing and addressing unsheltered homelessness
are grave challenges in the best
of times. The COVID-19 global
pandemic has both increased the
number of people experiencing
unsheltered homelessness and
further complicated the means of
addressing unsheltered homelessness in light of the CDC's recommendations to practice social
distancing and elevated sanitation
procedures.
That being said, the legal issue
before the federal district court was
not " how best to address unsheltered homelessness. " On the contrary, as identified by the court, the
sole issue for judicial consideration
was a procedural issue; i.e., " whether Plaintiffs have met the legal standard necessary to secure a temporary restraining order. " In so doing,
the federal district court acknowledged that depriving Plaintiffs of a
place to live might constitute irreparable harm within the context of a
motion for a temporary restraining
order. However, under the circumstances of this particular case, the
federal district court found Defendants had pledged to mitigate any
harm to Plaintiffs by ensuring the
availability of an alternative place
to live when encampments in public parks had to be removed due to
COVID-19 related health and safety concerns.

Conclusion
Having found Plaintiffs had failed
to establish the requisite irreparable harm to warrant injunctive
February 2021 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of February 2021 - Parks & Recreation
