Judge ends ACLU lawsuit against Sebastopol
Judge grants the city's motion for summary judgment, meaning the lawsuit will not go to trial and Sebastopol has the legal authority to crack down on RV parking again if it so chooses
On Friday, Nov. 22, Judge Kandis Westmore of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California sided with the city of Sebastopol against plaintiffs represented by ACLU of Northern California, California Rural Legal Assistance, Disability Rights Advocates and Legal Aid of Sonoma County.
The court granted Sebastopol’s request for a summary judgment—denying all of the 14 claims made by the plaintiff’s lawyers against Sebastopol’s Recreational Vehicle Parking Ordinance.
The city of Sebastopol has spent over $500,000 over two years to defend itself against this lawsuit, which the ACLU et al. filed in October 2022 on behalf of three homeless individuals (David Yesue, Paige Corley and Jessica Wetch) and the nonprofit group, Sonoma County Acts of Kindness.
Mayor Diana Rich is very happy that Sebastopol is out from under the financial burden of the lawsuit, but concerned about its ramifications for Sebastopol’s homeless population. She still strongly supports the town’s parking ordinance.
“The parking ordinance was our small town’s effort to balance the many interests we serve, to find a solution and not turn away from a very challenging situation,” she wrote to the Sebastopol Times. “I have been on the Council the entire time as we struggled to find a fair and equitable balance that would allow people in lived-in vehicles to park and sleep at night, but would also allow the community at large to have daytime access to our businesses, shared spaces, parking, and sidewalks.”
“The parking ordinance was our town’s solution to this huge challenge,” she continued. “We couldn’t solve the larger homelessness issue that is driving despair and conflict in so many other communities, but we can try to do what’s right and fair and compassionate in our town. I’ve always felt that the parking ordinance met that goal: it’s a good-faith, heart-felt solution that gives consideration and respect to all in our community, including the unhoused. I’m pleased to see that the Court’s decision validates Sebastopol’s efforts to do what is right, fair, and equitable.”
She added that, “The City Council will be discussing how to implement this decision in the coming weeks.”
Read the court’s full decision here.
What’s in Sebastopol’s RV Parking ordinance?
Sebastopol’s Recreation Vehicle Parking Ordinance, which went into effect on March 26, 2022, came about because of the health and safety issues caused by the homeless RV encampment on Morris Street and scattered homeless-owned RVs elsewhere around Sebastopol.
“I don’t think [the plantiffs] truly understand the impacts this has on a small city like Sebastopol,” McLaughlin told the Sebastopol Times in June, while he was still City Attorney. “We only had one street that could possibly accommodate any RVs. Morris Street is next to a very important dining and shopping development that brings a lot of money to the city. We supplied porta-potties and washing stations, etc.—all public expense. They were not utilized. In fact, one was set on fire and burnt down. People continued to do their business, so to speak, in the gutter, or they did it in their RV and then drained it into the gutter even though we had a spot for them to go drain their RVs. They packed all their possessions across the sidewalk. They also were openly engaging in drug dealing activities. Citizens complained that, especially in the nighttime hours, they were afraid to walk down the public sidewalk because of these activities. It was impacting a gym that was in business, it was impacting people's ability to use the Laguna Park, it was impacting the community center. I could go on and on. We were very careful at the time that we were preparing that ordinance to create a voluminous public record of the impacts that led to its introduction.”
The ordinance defines a Recreational vehicle (RV) as "a motorhome, travel trailer, truck camper, camping trailer, or other vehicle or trailer, with or without motive power, designed or altered for human habitation for recreational, emergency, or other human occupancy."
It includes the following prohibitions:
It is unlawful for a person to park a recreational vehicle on a street that is zoned residential.
It is unlawful for a person to park a recreational vehicle on a street that is zoned commercial, industrial, or community facility between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 10 p.m.
It is unlawful for a person to park a recreational vehicle on any park, square, or alley at any time.
It is unlawful for a person to park a recreational vehicle in a City-owned parking lot unless that person is conducting City-related business during business hours. The City-owned parking lots for the Police, Fire, Public Works, and City Hall buildings may only be used when actively conducting business at those specific buildings.
It is unlawful for a person to park a recreational vehicle less than 30 feet from the corner of any street so as not to impede site visibility for other motorists.
In addition, the ordinance prohibits running electrical cords, hoses, or cables from any property to a recreational vehicle on a public street. It also forbids making a sewer connection with a recreational vehicle and, of course, forbids the dumping of waste from a recreational vehicle onto public or private land.
Violators can be ticketed, towed or both.
A local lawsuit, the Supreme Court, and a final decision
On October 25, 2022, the ACLU et al filed a lawsuit, asserting 14 claims against the City of Sebastopol over its parking ordinance. They alleged that its ordinance “violates the Eighth Amendment ban on ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ and excessive fines; violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantees of equal protection of the laws and due process; amounts to ‘state-created danger;’ permits unreasonable seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment; is void for vagueness; violates the fundamental right of freedom of travel; violates analogous provisions of the California Constitution; and violates federal and state laws protecting persons with disabilities.
Sebastopol and the ACLU spent the next two years involved in court-ordered settlement discussions, during which the city agreed to a temporary moratorium on the enforcement of its RV Parking Ordinance.
While these talks wore on, the U.S. Supreme Court took up a similar case, Grants Pass v. Johnson this spring. The Grants Pass case didn’t involve RV camping; rather, it involved an Oregon town that passed ordinances barring people from sleeping outside in public using a blanket, pillow, or even a cardboard sheet to lie on.
While Sebastopol and the ACLU et al. waited for the Supreme Court’s decision in the Grants Pass case, Sebastopol agreed not to enforce the ban so long as the ACLU did not move forward with their lawsuit. (Read more about that moratorium here).
On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that cities can punish unhoused people for sleeping in public, even if they have nowhere else to go. The Grants Pass case overturned Martin v. Boise, which ruled that homeless persons cannot be punished for sleeping outside on public property in the absence of adequate alternatives. The court’s decision in the Grants Pass case gave local governments like Sebastopol more authority to enact and enforce criminal penalties for public camping or sleeping. (Read about how the Grants Pass case affected Sebastopol here.)
Two weeks after the Grants Pass Supreme Court decision came out, both parties filed their motions for summary judgment. Friday’s decision was the court’s answer to those requests. The court granted Sebastopol’s motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment.
Summary Judgment findings
Judge rules the ordinance does not include excessive fines
Two of the 14 claims made by the plaintiffs against Sebastopol involved excessive fines, which could violate the Eighth Amendment—banning cruel and unusual punishment—of the U.S. Constitution and parts of the California Constitution.
“The Court concludes that the factors weigh in favor of finding that Defendant’s parking fine of $60 per occurrence is not grossly disproportionate to the underlying offense of parking an RV where and when prohibited,” the decision reads.
Ordinance was not a state-created danger
To create a state-created danger, “a state actor needs to know that something is going to happen but ignore the risk and expose the plaintiff to it.”
Plantiffs argued that “vehicularly-housed persons” were specifically targeted by Sebastopol’s RV ordinance. Moreover, they argued that someone may choose to live in a vehicle because it is safer for them, which means that banning them from doing so puts them in unnecessary danger.
“Plaintiffs identify possible harms that may affect people with particular disabilities,” the decision said, “but it is unclear how this demonstrates that the danger is particularly directed at Plaintiffs.”
Ordinance did not violate Equal Protection Clause
The decision references the Plyler v. Doe Supreme Court case: “The Equal Protection Clause directs that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike. But so too, the Constitution does not require things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same.”
“The parties largely dispute whether there was impermissible animus towards the vehicularly-housed,” the decision stated. “Regardless, however, the Court finds that…the Defendant has established that the RV Ordinance serves other legitimate government purposes.”
Thus, the RV ordinance “does not offend the Equal Protection Clause because it does not rest exclusively on an ‘irrational prejudice’ against” vehicularly-housed individuals.
Other claims were also denied
The court ruled that the ordinance itself did not allow Unreasonable Seizure of Property, arguing that the plaintiffs could not challenge Sebastopol on the fact that vehicles can be legally towed if they are “taking up parking needed by other vehicles for use at public facilities or local facilities.”
The court also ruled that the ordinance still allowed for a RV resident to get “procedural due process,” since residents would be notified of the law, and that the ordinance did not restrict those in the RVs “right to travel,” because that right does not guarantee the right to park wherever one wants.
The final claims filed by the plaintiffs argued that Sebastopol’s ordinance violated disability-related laws. The court ruled that this was not the case because there was nothing about having a disability that required someone to live in an RV.
The court’s decision was announced by the city of Sebastopol on Saturday, and the ACLU has not responded to requests for comment.
Some of the RVs are neat looking and some are a mess. Time for Sebastopol to do something.
To me this is a case of the ACLU (and others ) bulling a small town with limited resources. They figured they could push their agenda here, force the city to rollover, and have it become a precedent for other towns. Good for Sebastopol!