After vehicle dwellers filed a legal motion against the city saying it wasn’t doing enough to ensure safe parking is available, even while it tickets and forces them to move, the city clapped back.
In a legal filing Nov. 25, city attorneys argued the city’s safe parking is “reasonably available” to individuals living in their vehicles. They are accusing the attorneys representing vehicle dwellers of going back on their original request for safe parking. They also accused the attorneys of giving people form letters to try to help them avoid tickets.
The city’s legal response highlights just how much enforcement efforts it deployed. Between July and September, city employees issued more than 1,000 citations and referred 245 people to H Barracks. Only 59 of those went to the safe parking lot.
Plaintiffs wanted to stop the crackdown and they referenced a legal settlement they said the city broke.
In 2024, the city reached a settlement after a group of homeless people sued in 2017 when the city made it illegal to live in vehicles and RVs. The city agreed to no longer hand out tickets unless it could provide an immediate spot in a safe parking lot.
The opening of a safe parking lot near the airport in May, H Barracks, allowed the city to start handing out tickets again.
But in early November, plaintiffs of the settlement said the safe parking lot isn’t “reasonably available.”
Now a judge will determine if the city is complying with the settlement. The judge could rule that the city is doing everything right or issue a hearing for oral arguments on whether the city is upholding the terms of the settlement.
H Barracks, a safe parking site near the airport, is open from 6 p.m. to 7 a.m. and requires people to leave each morning. Some people said they struggle to pay for gas and can’t move in and out of the lot each day. Others said they have disabilities, which can make it difficult to pack up their cars. They’re also drowning in tickets that cost up to $173.
Plaintiffs claimed that because of these hurdles, the safe parking is not easily accessible. They filed a legal motion on Nov. 3 to compel the city to comply with the settlement terms.
City lawyers wrote that officials are complying, according to an opposition brief filed on Nov. 25.
They also alleged that at the end of August, Ann Menasche, the lead attorney on the settlement, handed out letters to plaintiffs to exempt them from tickets. In the letter, plaintiffs are instructed to indicate why the safe parking lot was not “reasonably available” to them.
The city said the letters cannot be used to get out of tickets and weren’t part of the settlement.
The city shared a screenshot of one of these letters in the brief where an individual indicated why the safe parking was not “reasonably available” to them.
An X was crossed by the following statement: “I/we can’t afford the cost of gas and wear and tear on my/our oversized vehicle driving back and forth daily to the H Barracks lot.”
According to the brief, the individual was living in their oversized vehicle on Fiesta Island in Mission Bay. The city determined the move from that location to H Barracks was not too much to ask.
“Less than 6 miles is a very reasonable commute for an individual,” said the brief.
The brief also said the attorneys and plaintiffs went back on their original request for safe parking.
The brief said in an “ambush meeting” on Sep. 12 with the city, the attorneys for RV dwellers argued the settlement agreement required the city to provide more 24-hour safe parking sites. However, the city says the attorneys’ initial position was different – they wanted the city to “fight to open” safe parking near Mission Bay.
“This was a complete reversal of Plaintiffs’ prior position,” said the brief.
The city also argued that disability accommodations do not require them to open 24-hour lots or give people living in their vehicles a free pass to park in the streets.
But the RV dwellers continue to disagree. They pushed back with a response to the opposition on Dec. 9.
The response said the city does not consider RV dwellers on a case-by-case basis and whether the safe parking lot is a viable option for them.
They said prior to ticketing, officers should consider the “totality of circumstances,” including the type of vehicle, distance to the safe parking lot, and whether there is adequate space for the vehicle in the safe parking lot.
In an interview with Voice of San Diego, Menasche said she handed out the letters because she found plaintiffs weren’t clear on their rights when interacting with the police.
“I decided that I needed to make it easy for them,” said Menasche.
The city said this wasn’t part of the agreement and did not meet and confer with them prior to handing out the letters.
By doing so, the city said the plaintiffs are in violation of settlement terms that require attorneys to resolve disputes, “swiftly and inexpensively as possible, initially through communication.”
In their Dec. 9 response attorneys said they did attempt to meet and confer, and that the city’s accusation is “unfounded.”
I recently tried to sign up for the program and was told I needed a referral from sdpd so I left a note on my vehicle and waited they came by quickly wrote 2 tickets and left without even completing the tickets when I finally did get to the program I was turned away because the hours of my work and because i only needed it short term. The other program dreams for Change wont take my trailer and also expect me to be dependent on there program. So much for trying to do the right thing.
Sure. You are a victim here. If you want to do the right thing, try getting off drugs first. That will solve 99% of your problems.