July 2021 - Parks & Recreation - 34

LAW REVIEW
during the current dire situation of
the COVID-19 pandemic puts them
at greater risk for COVID-19 than if
they remain in the Encampment. "
In reaching this conclusion, the
court found " the CDC Guidelines
are clear and direct stating...where
there
is no alternative housing
available, leave the encampments
to remain where they are to prevent
the potential for infectious disease
spread. " In addition, the court noted
the CDC Guidelines discussed
sanitation, hygiene materials and
handwashing facilities, which were
services currently available to persons
at the Encampment.
After previous dispersals of
homeless encampments in
the COVID-19 era, Santa Cruz
claimed " the County did not
observe an increase in positive
COVID-19 cases among the
dispersed populations. "
Previous Encampment
Dispersals
After previous dispersals of homeless
encampments in the COVID-19
era, Santa Cruz claimed " the County
did not observe an increase in
positive COVID-19 cases among
the dispersed populations. " In
particular, the City of Santa Cruz
pointed to wildfires in August 2020,
which had prompted a large-scale
evacuation without any significant
COVID-19 increase. Further, the
City cited an " overall absence of
an increase in COVID cases in the
August-October time frame. "
The court, however, noted this
earlier large-scale evacuation only
involved
50
34 Parks & Recreation | JULY 2 0 2 1
individuals
experi|
PARK S ANDRECRE AT ION . OR G
encing homelessness from an encampment,
in a total evacuation
that
exceeded
35,000
persons.
Further, this evacuation was " not
tied to any additional dispersals of
homeless encampments. " Moreover,
the court found the City's
declaration was " silent as to any
COVID increase among the 50
homeless persons " in the earlier
evacuation. As a result, the federal
district court concluded the City's
evidence did not support the argument
that " dispersal of the Encampment
homeless population
will not lead to an increase in the
risk of COVID-19 infection. "
The City had also argued the
risk of infection was " mitigated
by wearing face masks, avoiding
crowds and social distancing, "
whether
inside or
outside
when there are no safe, alternate
housing options available.
Accordingly, based upon the
CDC Guidelines and the Regional
Stay at Home Order during
" what could be the height of the
COVID-19 pandemic, "
the
federal
district court concluded " the
homeless persons would be placed
in a more vulnerable situation and
in greater danger without access
to shelter or services, particularly
medical services, showers, and
handwashing
stations, that they
the
Encampment. The City, however,
had presented " evidence of
homeless persons in the Encampment
gathering in crowds and not
wearing face masks. " The federal
district court acknowledged the
City's point as to the wearing of
face masks and physical distancing
was " well taken. " That being
said, the court noted there were
" dueling declarations and photographs
submitted by both sides " as
to " how carefully these practices
are followed in the Encampment. "
The City had further argued that
" the large Encampment itself presents
a heightened risk of COVID-19
transmission. " The federal district
court rejected this argument:
While COVID-19 transmission
is a legitimate risk to any cohabitation
setting, here it is outweighed
by the risk of dispersing
the homeless persons against the
CDC Guidelines and the Regional
Stay at Home Order, particularly
have been receiving at this central
location. " As a result, for purposes
of granting the Plaintiffs' motion
for a preliminary injunction, the
federal district court determined:
" Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood
of success on the merits of their
due process claim if the City cleans
and clears the Encampment. "
Irreparable Harm
As cited by the court, " an alleged
constitutional infringement will often
alone constitute irreparable harm "
to warrant issuance of a preliminary
injunction. In this particular instance,
the court found: " Plaintiffs have
shown the likelihood of being placed
in a position of danger in violation of
their substantive due process rights
during the COVID-19 pandemic. "
The court, therefore, concluded,
" Plaintiffs have demonstrated that
irreparable harm will result in the
absence of a preliminary injunction
at this time. "
Balance of Equities
For purposes of granting a preliminary
injunction, the federal district
court also was required to consider
a " balancing of the equities in the
evidence before the Court. " In this
particular instance, numerous com
July 2021 - Parks & Recreation

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