By Pauline Masson
On Jan. 17, aldermen rejected the first version of a proposed law, crafted by City Attorney Bob Jones and Police Chief Scott Melies that not only made it a crime to sleep in an “uninhabitable” structure (a tent, camper or RV) in Pacific, it also made criminals of citizens who allowed anyone to sleep in such a structure on their property.
That version of the bill made it through the first reading, but a motion for the second reading, or final approval, failed to get a second. So the bill died.
If that bill had passed it would have been illegal to sleep in a tent, camper or recreational vehicle anywhere in Pacific. Property owners were prohibited from sleeping in a RV in their driveways to make improvements to their homes. The kids were prohibited from sleeping in a tent in the back yard.
Aldermen James Cleeve and Scott Lesh objected to targeting citizens saying property owners should be able to use their property as they wished. On social media platforms prevalent in the Pacific area, residents also voiced objection to a law that limited the use of private property.
When the first bill failed, Alderman Jerry Eversmeyer called for a new version of the law that limited the crime of camping in an “uninabitable” structure to sleeping on city owned property only.
He worried that the river trail property along the Meramec River would be an easy haven for homeless camps and asked for a law strong enough that the city could evict campers from city property.
Aldermen got a look at the new bill, which was crafted by Jones and Chief Melies, on Feb. 21.
BILL NO. 5189 – AN ORDINANCE PREVENTING THE OCCUPANCY OF STRUCTURES DEEMED UNFIT FOR HABITATION
Section D includes the followsing clause: Any person who . . . allows another person to occupy the tent, camper, or other recreational structure as a temporary or permanent residence or shelter shall be guilty of an offense and upon conviction shall be punished in accordance with Section 100.170 of this code.
Jones said that section meant the person allowing occupancy on their property could be fined or imprisoned.
Cleeve objected, saying aldermen had asked for a bill that was limited to camping on city owned property only, but the new bill still targeted private property owners.
“The request for a bill was primarily to protect city property but this bill still has parts that I have a problem with,” he said. “If we’re really trying to protect city property can’t we just, in an ordinance, say no one can camp on city property except Boy Scouts and Girl Scout and leave it at that?”
Eversmeyer, who had requested the new bill, also questioned the inclusion of private property in the revised bill. He asked if there was a way to specify that the restrictions just applied to city property.
Jones said there was, “if that’s what you’re really trying to target.”
“I did not try to limit it to only to city property, correct. I did not,” he said.
Jones said when he and Melies drafted the first bill they addressed structures that were uninhabitable.
“Someone could not camp in a structure that was not habitable on the back lot of the gas station on Viaduct Street. That would not be allowed with this verbage,” he said. “Another thing that we wanted to at least try to address when the chief and I were drafting this ordinance in the first instance was, we wanted to address any structures that were uninhabitable. It’s really not a camping ordinance.”
“But if the consensus is to limit it to city property, yes, we can do that,” he said
Eversmeyer said that was what he wanted.
“Personally that’s what I want to do’” Eversmeyer said. “That’s where we had the problem on the original vote on the personal property side of it. My concern is city property. We have a lot of acreage from the flood buyout and the river trail. We have all this property and it is sitting around here and unoccupied. If we don’t protect that property I think it is a mstake.”
Cleeve asked the attorney if there wasn’t already an ordinance covering trespassing. Jones said there was a trespass ordinance and there was also an ordinance that restricted sleeping in the city parks without approval of the park board.
Mayor Heather Filley weighed in. She said she wondered if a new ordinance was even needed since the city already had a trespass law and a law with restrictions in the city park within the city codes. But Eversmeyer pushed back.
He said if the trespass law worked, there would be no need for a park law. He also said he would like to see language in the law that covered what the city could do with debris left behind in illegal camps. He cited visible debris of abandoned camps under bridges and along the right-of-way between Pacific and St. Louis.
“It doesn’t get removed. So how do we protect ourselves when that doesn’t happen?” he said.
Jones said the city was limited on what it could do with someone’s property.
“The violation of trespass is punishible by a fine or imprisonment,” he said. “As to siezing personal property, I think we’d have to look that on a case by case basis, whether that’s appropriate.”
Cleeve asked whether the city could give a warning for first time campers and get tougher for repeat offenders. Jones said the bill refers to the property owner, any person who controls the tent, camper or RV and allows another person to occupy it.
“The whole idea of it is we still don’t want you having cousin Jethro living in a trailer in your driveway,” Jones said.
“I don’t want my cousin living there that long, either,” Cleeve responded. “But if I do have my cousin living there, it is my property.”
“I’m not looking to have campers on cinder blocks in my front yard, but somewhere it’s got to stop,” he said. “The city can’t tell you everything you can do with the land you pay for and pay taxes on.”
Jones said he would draft whatever the board wanted. He just need a little clearer direction.
“I think the direction needs to be the city property,” he said. “If that’s the consensus we’ll bring back an amended bill. It can be read by title only – and we’ll strip it of everything but camping on city property.”
Cleeve made a motion to amend the bill to state that camping regulation referred to city owned property only. Eversmeyer seconded the motion. With Alderman Sara Gendron absent the motion pass 4 to 1, with Alderman Scott Lesh casting a no vote. In an interview after the meeting Lesh gave the reason for his no vote.
“I voted not to revise the second version of the Unfit Structures bill, in part, because the extent of the problem has yet to be identified. The revision was directed at dealing with just city property,” he said. “With the first version, Alderman received a compilation of complaints during 2022 that did not support a recurrence of the stated problem on city properties. For legislation to be crafted the scope and nature of the problem needs to be substantiated during discussion before tasking our city attorney with drafting any bill.”
Encouraging to read that Alderman Cleeve took a strong stand against this hair-brained proposal. He is growing into a strong part on the BOA and obviously cares and invests the time to analyze proposals on the agenda. Some others on the board seem apathetic and disinterested, at best…
Keep up the good work.
Mayor Filley is correct there are laws to cover the city, and if we had a chief that would enforce the laws those laws would be enough. Why doesn’t Eversmeyer tell the chief to be a policeman. He thinks he can do nothing and sit around waiting for retirement.
Maybe check into a recall of the chief. Ask the city attorney about recalls. Lol
In the Marshal’s very first statements, on his explanation for the need for this bill, he noted that he was requesting a ordnance which would give him the authority to act immediately open finding such a ‘problem structure’. He did not want to have to take the time to go through the courts as a remedy. Seems like he believes pesky things like constitutional due process were getting in the way of him making a big name for himself in law enforcement circles. Further restricting property rights to solve a problem that is already covered is just a way of cluttering up the books to make more expensive busy work for the courts and lawyers. Find something important to do with the alderman’s time.