Editor,
The only certainty that can be taken from the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to not hear the appeal in the Boise, ID, Martin case concerning sleeping on sidewalks is the Times' bias and myopia.
While the Martin Decision stands in the nine western states, municipalities in the 41 other states are free to enforce "no sleeping on a sidewalk" ordinances, a fact the Times failed to report. Failure to grant certiorari is not a ruling on the merits of an appeal and, despite your front page headline, the court did not say a word about housing. Actually, the court said nothing and any interpretation amounts to reading tea leaves. The court may simply be waiting for an appeal from another circuit or one with a clearer delineation of the issues. Further, there is nothing in the court's action that precludes cities in the Ninth Circuit from adopting limits on where sleeping on public property is acceptable, such as banning sidewalk encampments within 300 feet of residences.
Mark Ryavec, President, Venice Stakeholders Association
And this is what the Times ran on December 21st:
While
the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Martin vs. City of
Boise stands in the nine western states, municipalities in the 41 other
states are
free to enforce “no sleeping on the sidewalk” ordinances.
Failure
to grant certiorari is not a ruling on the merits of an appeal.
Actually, the court said nothing at all, and any interpretation amounts
to reading of
tea leaves. The court may simply be waiting for an appeal from another
circuit or for one that has a clearer delineation of the issues.
Further,
there is nothing in the court’s action that precludes cities in the 9th
Circuit from adopting limits on where sleeping on public property is
acceptable,
such as banning sidewalk encampments within 300 feet of residences.
Mark Ryavec, Venice. The writer is president of the Venice Stakeholders Assn.
Note that the Times editor felt compelled to remove all of my critiques of the Times' coverage.
