Washoe County’s Board of County Commissioners meeting kicked off on Tuesday with nearly two hours of public comment dedicated almost exclusively to advocates for those living without shelter speaking out against an ordinance that would ban sleeping overnight in cars. It was similar to a scene in February when the ordinance received its first reading by the commission.
Despite pleas from those providing public comment, commissioners passed the ordinance into law following the second reading with a 3-2 vote. Commissioners Claria Andriola, Alexis Hill and Mariluz Garcia voted in favor of the ordinance, while Commissioners Mike Clark and Jeanne Herman voted against it.
Washoe County’s ordinance bans camping on county-owned property or public places, including within 1,000 feet of the Truckee River, as well as living in vehicles or RVs on public or county property. Other provisions in the ordinance prohibit obstructing sidewalks, roads, and other rights of way, and using any outdoor fires or portable open flame devices “in an unsafe manner.” Violations would result in a misdemeanor criminal charge.
The cities of Reno and Sparks both have similar laws on the books. Washoe County Sheriff’s Office Chief Deputy Corey Solferino said it was necessary for the county to adopt a similar law to Reno and Sparks that prevents people living unhoused from moving away from help and into less accessible areas of the county where they might live out of their vehicles.
“We’re not saying it’s perfect, but it’s consistent across the region,” Solferino said. “And that’s what we’re trying to do, is gain consistency with what’s happening in the cities of Reno and Sparks.”
Solferino said Sparks’ ordinance has been in place since 2016 and, since then, Sparks Police have made only five arrests under the law. He said he checked with the Reno Police Department during the commission meeting and RPD officials confirmed no arrests have been made by their officers in the past year under a similar ordinance.
Residents speaking against the ordinance included members of Faith in Action, a multi-faith organization that advocates for social, racial and economic justice. Members of the group penned an op-ed in This Is Reno Monday calling the ordinance immoral.
In that letter they wrote, “We are aware of the challenges faced not only by the unhoused but by those in elected office, to find a way to ensure the safety of all citizens. While we can only assume good intentions were at the heart of this measure, it does not live up to the ethical, moral, and human values that we as people of faith aspire to.
“While the efficacy and legality of this measure is dubious, at best, it is unequivocally immoral,” the clergy members continued. “It is immoral to criminalize homelessness. It is immoral to make poverty a punishment.”
Solferino said the law was about balance, not punishment.
“We want to balance public health, we want to balance public safety, and we want to balance public order,” he said. “Our goal is not to incarcerate.”
He pointed to statistics from the Homeless Outreach Proactive Engagement (HOPE) Team’s last year of work, which he said shows that the goal is to work with people to connect them to services and housing. He shared a list of achievements, including securing identification and social security cards for dozens of people, finding housing for 158 people, and a 94% success rate in connecting people with services.
Commissioner Garcia said she was pleased that the steps before arrest were added to the ordinance, including verbal and written warnings, among other actions taken before an arrest.
“We know we can’t warehouse people, nor do we want to,” Solferino added. He said “the elephant in the room,” was that homeless encampments are also places where crime takes place but often isn’t reported, including sexual assaults and battery.
Commissioner Herman said if there were a safe lot where people could sleep in their cars, the county’s ordinance wouldn’t be necessary.
“I don’t know why we haven’t come up with a better idea to take care … an alternate place that is safe,” she said. “Used to be in the old days there were churches, and they would take people in and help them get a leg up.”
Commissioner Clark agreed, suggesting the use of the county’s large parking lot for a safe car camping option. He also suggested more public restrooms and discrete dumpsters to reduce waste in the Truckee River.
“Vehicular homelessness is an area, it’s really a gap in services in our region,” Commissioner Garcia said, suggesting a pilot program for safe parking. “I think that the county in partnership with our faith-based community could make some strides in that area.”
A “safe” parking lot concept was launched this month in Sedona, Arizona, an upscale resort town north of Phoenix. The program is limited to two years and allows people who work in the community, but can’t afford housing, to live in their cars while following certain rules, including active engagement with social services with the goal of transitioning to permanent housing.
Herman said without adequate shelter and housing options, people living unhoused will have to choose between becoming a victim or becoming a criminal.
Faith In Action Community Organizer Chasity Martinez said the conversation isn’t about whether the HOPE Team is good at their job.
“I know the HOPE Team does help people,” she said. “But what we have here is a very broad camping ordinance. It’s not [a] best practice. It’s proven to be ineffective to force people to get services.”
Martinez pointed to principles outlined by the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness, which notes:
“Some communities turn to strategies that use aggressive law enforcement approaches that criminalize homelessness, or they close encampments without offering shelter or housing options. These approaches result in adverse health outcomes, exacerbate racial disparities, and create traumatic stress, loss of identification and belongings, and disconnection from much-needed services. While these efforts may have the short-term effect of clearing an encampment from public view, without connection to adequate shelter, housing, and supportive services, they will not succeed.”
Rev. Clare Novak said before commissioners approved the ordinance she’d like to see the data on why service-resistant, unhoused people are refusing services offered.
“What were the services offered?” she asked. “Were they appropriate for that person? What was the quality of the services? Were they easily available? And most importantly, did they lead to a legitimate pathway to permanent housing?” 
Novak also said there was an accountability issue with the ordinance, which was “written by those who will enforce it, and it lacks any process for independent review.”
Solferino suggested including data in the Sheriff’s quarterly report to the commissioners on the number of arrests and citations issued related to this law. Commissioner Hill said she wanted that data included and would watch for it during coming meetings.
Commissioner Andriola said she thought a check and balance was possible with greater involvement and partnership between community organizations and law enforcement working with the unhoused.
Novak also suggested that a coming case to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court could result in a decision that would make the county’s ordinance illegal. That case, City of Grants Pass, Oregon vs. Gloria Johnson, takes up the issue of Eighth Amendment protections from “cruel and unusual punishment” in relation to laws regulating camping on public property. A hearing is planned for late April with a ruling to be issued as early as June or July.
Commissioner Clark said procrastination may be the answer when considering the ordinance, based on the Grants Pass case.
“It’s legal today, but it might not be legal if that court ruling goes a different way,” Clark said.
