The Peoria City Council member who cast an apparent swing vote that approved a ban on homeless encampments says the inclusion of an initial outreach effort factored into his decision.
The council voted 6-5 on Tuesday to enact a prohibition that includes fines and potential incarceration as penalties for multiple offenses. An option that would have fines, but no jail terms, also was presented, but was rendered moot following the first vote.
District 3 council member Tim Riggenbach credited Community Development director Joe Dulin for working with the Home for All Continuum of Care and other advocacy groups to make sure the adopted ordinance included a method for working with individuals at the camps before any citations are issued.
“Clearly, when this was presented in August, I spoke out pretty forcefully against it, and was concerned about some of the ramifications of what fines and potential jail time could mean,” Riggenbach told WCBU.
Riggenbach said that although the measure approved by the narrowest vote, he believed if that proposal hadn’t passed, the option with just fines would have.
“As this process evolved, and it became apparent that there was going to be an ordinance coming into being, I think for me, the thing that shifted the tide and that changed my logic, was the way that the process was going to work when we encountered the encampments,” he said.
“So for instance, on day one, we’ll have city staff and somebody from the street outreach team go to the encampment and address the fact that, you know this is now against the city ordinance, and that we have a list of providers, of shelters that you could avail yourself of. We’re going to have that one-on-one, personal, face-to-face contact with the people in the encampments.”
Riggenbach said his vote was contingent on the city council getting monthly reports from the Community Development department on their interactions with the unhoused residents at the camps and how successful they’ve been at helping them access some form of housing.
“Some of the shelters, their capacity fluctuates, so strongly (and) it’s really hard to say from one day to the other. That’s why we’re not going to make any evictions, so to speak, from the encampment on day one; we’re going to work with them,” Riggenbach said.
“And if there’s not room available, that’s something that city staff is going to have to be dealing with as well. So that’s the piece, in my opinion, that makes this different than what was proposed to us in August, that we’re not just telling these people to go find a place to stay. We’re going to be working with them, and we will know firsthand whether or not that capacity is actually there or not.”
Riggenbach said he opted to support the version with potential jail terms because it’s modeled after the state’s law against trespassing that also has an incarceration provision after multiple offenses.
“As corporation counsel (Patrick Hayes) pointed out, in the time that he’s been here, which is three or four years now, it’s never come to that because once the enforcement starts to happen, people move on, so to speak,” Riggenbach said. “So that’s what gave me some solace to say that we need to have some consequences in order to encourage compliance with the ordinance.”
Riggenbach said he understands and appreciates the positions shared before the vote by representatives of the various social service agencies who asked the council to forgo any ordinance with criminal penalties.
“Those people that are involved in those organizations, their task is the homeless issue,” he said. “My job as a councilman is broader than that, and I think it’s critical for us to remember that we have also to represent the downtown interests, the business community, the individuals that are coming to our restaurants and the Civic Center, etc.
“Often, we can be myopic. I believe this is the word I’m looking for, in that we’re singly focused on one of the issues. My job is to look at multiple issues and find the best solution that balances all of the interests. That’s obviously not an easy job, and (that) was a good example of trying to balance those competing interests.”
