By Pauline Masson –
Fairytale and folk lore aficionados may recall the whimsical Danish tale The Emperor’s New Clothes.
In the Hans Christian Anderson story, a narcissistic emperor is promised a magnificent, albeit invisible, set clothes by a pair of swindlers. As the emperor stands perfectly still while his dressers pretend to slide new articles of clothing onto his body, the hoaxers exclaims how magnificent the emperor looks in his new suit. As a result the vain emperor blissfully parades before throngs of his subjects, as Danny Kaye would say, in the all together.
And so it seems to be with a new ordinance that purports to beautify our town by making sure that only those who reside in suitable housing can stay here over night.
A bill, or proposed ordinance, that outlaws the homeless, those who harbor the homeless and anyone living in substandard housing is on the board of aldermen agenda for the Oct. 4 meeting, listed as Unfinished Business, and identified as tabled.
This will be the fourth time this bill, or proposed law, has come before aldermen.
The bill was given preliminary approval Sept. 20, but ran into some opposition when it came up for final approval at the Oct. 6 meeting.
Aldermen Scott Lesh and James Cleeve worried that the bill infringed on the rights of property owners to use their property as they see fit. And the pair who crafted proposed law, City Attorney Bob Jones and Police Chief Scott Melies forcefully pushed back against the aldermen – pursuing a 15-minute debate.
In earlier administrations this might have gone more smoothly. In the not so distant past, when a bill appeared on the agenda for a first reading, the reading required that aldermen make a motion, second it and vote that the bill be read for the first time.
I don’t recall the date of the meeting, but I do recall that attorney Bob Jones said the motion, second and vote was not necessary. He said the city clerk could just complete the first reading.
That might be technically legal, but I submit that eliminating the act of aldermen calling for and approving the first reading of a proposed law has had misleading consequence. Some aldermen do not seem to realize that their silence during the first reading is actually preliminary approval of a bill – the same as a vote – an act that is necessary before they can approve the second reading and vote to give final approval and pass a law.
When I reported recently that aldermen sat in silence for the first reading of the homeless bill, alderman James Cleeve said, “I believe and have been told that an item is introduced at one meeting to allow the public time to research/comment before a vote is possibly taken at a second meeting.”
What new aldermen should be told, is that ordinances must be read twice before they become law. They can be read twice in one meeting, and they often are, especially if someone’s buddy doesn’t want to wait and asks for speedy action. Then aldermen simply make a motion for two readings in one meeting. I’ve lobbied against two reading in one meeting because it eliminates the prior notice to the public that was erroneously pointed out to Alderman Cleeve as the reason for the first reading.
If aldermen had had to vote to approve the preliminary approval on the homeless bill, one or two might have said the bill was not ready for approval and needed amendment, or at least, a healthy discussion.
When aldermen Lesh motioned to send the bill to a committee for discussion and amendment, Chief Melies was not about to turn it over to the aldermen. He said he wanted to be there to offer his insight. And Alderman Andy Nemeth, who chaired the meeting in Mayor Heather Filley’s absence, said, “We want to make sure that chief is present so he can help review that.”
As it turned out when the Operations Committee met Oct. 20, the homeless bill was not on the agenda and Chief Melies was not present.
But there is another side to the story of homeless people in our community.
When a representative of a group that made plans to help to the homeless attempted to visit the homeless in their location, which was relayed by the police chief, no homeless could be found.
The homeless campsites that the chief identified were the woods between the city park and the industrial park, and Pacific Palisades, east of the Meramec River.
The would-be benefactor walked every trail beyond the city park and found no homeless camps – no tents, no bedding hanging on tree branches, no household trash strewn on the ground. In Pacific Palisades the helper walked all the way through to the St. Louis County line. Again no sign of homeless individuals was found.
In the interest of full disclosure, I should report that I recognize that there could be (probably are) homeless persons tucked in behind heavy vegetation somewhere in the city. But the people who want to offer them assistance, using the location provided by the chief, found them as invisible as the emperor’s new clothes – nowhere to be seen.
I would not try to predict what aldermen will do with this proposed ordinance that criminalizes the homeless and those who support them – but the bill is again before the board Oct. 4 and is in a position to become law.
It wasn’t on the agenda for the operations meeting. Why? And who decides this? This isn’t the first time something like this has happened. Is this the puppet master Roth pulling the strings? Are just hoping that it will be forgotten and then slip it in?
Melies has already voiced his opinion on this ordinance. He isn’t part of the Operations. Can I or you Pauline attend the meeting and give our insight?
Were the bill only about the truly vagrant homeless– people who are beggars, moochers, hoboes, unwashed, mentally ill or otherwise itinerant human beings without means, certainly an effort should be made to get them off the street, and into surroundings more habitable for human beings. However, especially in a working class place like Pacific, there are a number of people who are just one paycheck, job loss, rent payment, car wreck, medical expense, or such away from the street. I’ve known people who have couch surfed for a time, or had to be taken in by family or friends until they could get their act together. For a time, my husband and I were without jobs, not eligible for unemployment and needed help from a relative to make our food bill and house payment. Not everyone has family support, and I get it.
But this bill goes too far by making connection to city utilities criteria for “homelessness”. Someone living in a RV to assist relatives, or as a temporary worker are included. Putting up a tent with the permission of the landowner for a week or two? Homeless. Technically, kids camping in the back yard (not uncommon during the “house arrest” of the first year of covid) — homeless. And what about people living on the road…gainfully employed through the miracles of computers, mobile phones and the internet? Or seniors who sold their homes, bought an RV, and are always on the road, “boondocking?” The latter can be quite wealthy. Where is the city going to put in water and dump stations to keep these people legal? What about the people who just came to town for the rodeo, and who sleep in their trucks or trailers, with their animals? Heaven forfend we would ever have a Native American pow wow here. OR any other sort of outdoor festival not associated with a “bonafide youth group.”
The Chief needs to get out of the 20th century, and a narrow idea of human behavior and not ask for new laws which criminalizing sleeping while not in his ideal housing. If someone is truly a problem, that’s one thing. But don’t make laws just to make behaviors which will make otherwise decent people illegals.
State and federal parks have a 14 day limit of site occupancy to avoid homeless camps.
Good analysis, Jo. One hopes that as aldermen consider the big picture where the homeless are concerned that common will sense prevail.
The Chief came to town looking for a ‘rocking chair job’ so he could double dip on pensions, very common in the emergency services. Problem is, he worked in a “Karen-HOA’ overloaded area a he apparently thinks that type of bullying is needed in our small town. Some places even dictate where and what color flowers you can plant.
Maybe his plan is not going so well.
Could be he had a run in or two with some homeowners that didn’t care for his arrogant attitude.
Question, how are the so called homeless criminals to pay the fines and cost when he has them hauled off in chains to municipal court?
It would be better that he ,as Chief, offer them a hand up , not a slap down.
He should, instead, use his management skills to coordinate the many help agencies available in the area.
Get with the program. They’re shelterless neighbors. I love paying higher taxes, in a declining city, recession/inflation/higher interest rates/housing crash, we offer nothing and the value of our properties are going down. Palisades, one of our big attractions! And, small garden on Osage, generic bluff, with fake cannon and Porta potty. Nosebleeds included. Nobody knows it’s there. To busy to trim around sign or hang a basketball hoop? Go to that lot with headstone, see those 100, crumbling stone steps, Porta potty? Ahh, can’t make it up there anyway. Headstone? Cemetery !! Just a hill. But, Palisades ? Watch for the trash, old needles, liquor bottles. That river floods, be careful. Ready with all our attractions, celebrating Route 66! Make Pacific your destination!!