OUR VIEW LOGO (NEW)

Medford received more than a judgment in its favor recently when a federal judge sided with the city in a civil rights case filed on behalf of a half-dozen homeless residents.

It also received welcome confirmation that the steps being taken to act on the habitual issue were those headed in the right direction.

The suit alleged that city ordinances, including restrictions on locations and length of stay for unauthorized camping, violated the constitutional rights of the homeless.

The plaintiffs, represented by local defense attorney Justin Rosas, alleged that “punishing the acts of resting, sleeping or seeking shelter in public … Medford effectively punishes the status of homelessness.”

Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke of the U.S. District Court in Medford found, however, that the city’s ordinances were constitutional, and spent much of his 23-page recommendation filing highlighting many of the city’s efforts to provide shelter and services to the homelessness crisis.

“Where a city has participated in making multiple shelters available, it reflects a commitment to assisting their unhoused neighbors, and it lends itself to the reasonability of whatever restrictions are in place,” Clarke wrote. “The court finds little utility rebuking those efforts, particularly where many of the seeds have been recently planted and require time and dedication before their adequacy can be measured.”

In detailing the efforts ranging from working with advocacy groups and using city-owned properties to provide shelter, its work with state agencies on legislation to codify related requirements, and the estimated $19.5 million spent by the city on services targeted to aid the homeless, Clarke separated Medford from the ongoing federal case involving the city of Grants Pass — which is now before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Medford’s camping ordinance, he noted, are within guidelines that meant the plaintiffs in the suit “do not face a city-wide ban on sleeping or camping.”

Last September, the Medford City Council decided to make it unlawful to camp, lie down or throw a bedroll on the ground within 500 feet of schools and other areas, as well as prohibiting any form of camping within 50 feet of the top of the bank of Bear Creek and other waterways.

The city became proactive last year when disturbances escalated in areas familiar for attracting the homeless population — such as city parks and the Bear Creek Greenway — as well as singular situations that became problematic, such as was experienced at the Medford Public Library.

Clarke’s recommendation, while significant, is not the final say on the matter. It will be taken under consideration by senior U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken, who will make the final ruling in the case.

Medford City Attorney Eric Mitton, in and email to the Rogue Valley Times, called Clarke’s findings “detailed and well-reasoned,” adding that they affirm the approach the city is taking to tackle the seriousness of the issue.

“The city appreciates the court’s recognition,” Mitton wrote, “that the city’s multi-faceted approach to the homelessness crisis meets all applicable constitutional standards.”

It might be seen as a small victory in the ongoing attempt to accommodate all affected by the homelessness dilemma but, when faced with monumental challenges, even small victories are worth noting.