False Narratives and Intentionally False Statements to Push The Proponents’ Agenda:

 

1.) It is False that the “New” Statewide camping ban is new, criminalizes homelessness and prompted the need for the SoDo shelter. Orlando has had a homeless camping ban ordinance since the early 1980’s, which has been enforced on the Mayor’s and Patty Sheehan’s Watch.

 

• The Orlando Sentinel falsely reported that the new Florida statute is a “new tough law” against camping which criminalizes homelessness, and is a  reason for the urgent the need for the SoDo shelter. SOURCE

• The truth is that Orlando has had an ordinance against camping since the 1980’s- two in fact. The second one bans camping near railroad tracks. SOURCE Thanks to this ordinance, Orlando does not yet look like San Franscisco.

• In the Joel case - over 14 years ago - a homeless man sued the city of Orlando for enforcing its camping ban ordinance.  The city or Orlando defended his arrest and litigated the enforceability of the ordinance all the way to the 11th circuit court of appeals which ruled the law was constitutional in 2021. VIEW CASE

• The Orlando Weekly reported on Jan. 7, 2025,  that “at least a half-dozen other municipalities in Orange county, from Winter Park to Winter Garden, Eatonville and Windermere, have already passed similar bans within their own limits, either before or since the state law’s passage.”  Orlando was one of those. SOURCE

• The narrative that the new state-wide ban is either “NEW” or prompted the SoDo shelter need is clearly false.

 

2.) The Community is No Less Compassionate than Patty Sheehan about the homeless, nor are we “cruel” and harassing. Patty Sheehan Opposed and Defeated a Homeless Shelter Next to Her Home Citing Crime Data.

 

• The fact is that Ms. Sheehan opposed the homeless shelter near her home, citing crime concerns and homeless crime stats.  She led the charge to stop a shelter near her home.  See Orlando Weekly Article 1998 and City of Orlando Meeting Minutes. SOURCE   

• Sheehan’s one and only response to my numerous attempts to foster a conversation she wrote, “Many times people will insist that I must represent their point of view. I can not represent points of view I disagree with, regardless whether they are held by my constituents. I need to return to my work, and not be inundated with this cruelty any longer.  I suggest your group do some research on your own and educate yourselves on the plight of the homeless. It is not my responsibility to continue this discourse. You got what you wanted. Kindly refrain from involving me any longer.” The SoDo shelter was one of the most controversial topics in Sheehan’s district in decades, and she doesn't even want to hear the concerns of her constituents let alone speak with them. She advocates loudly for transients who don’t pay a dime in taxes, but not the people who pay her salary.

 

3.) It is False that the recent U.S. Supreme Court case City of Grants Pass criminalizes homelessness and violates constitutional rights.  San Francisco, the League of Cities and Others Support the Ban on Homeless Camping in Brief to the USSC.

​​

• The truth is the case simply affirmed the legality of camping ban laws of cities like Orlando’s and like the new Florida law.

• The Supreme Court received numerous amicus curiae briefs supporting the city’s position to enforce its law and protect the public,  including many San Francisco organizations:

-The San Francisco Chamber of Commerce

-Neighbors for a Better San Francisco

-The National League of Cities

-The National Association of Counties

-300 San Francisco-Based Companies, Business Owners and Executives, Civic Organizations, Professionals and Neighborhood Leaders( a lengthy list that includes former law enforcement officials, former chief of police, former U.S. Attorney, doctors, educators, authors, artists, restaurateurs, philanthropists, etc.)

• The briefs submitted by San Francisco tax-payers and businesses noted billions spent in  San Francisco and New York, but homelessness increased by 30.5% and 64.9% respectively since 2007, and that the politicians have failed the community.

Some quotes from the amicus briefs:

• In San Francisco, in 2004, then-Mayor Gavin Newsom(amicus in this case) pledged that the city would eliminate homelessness entirely within a decade. Since then, San Francisco has become a proverb and a byword of how not to address the homeless crisis. The city built enough permanent housing to shelter every homeless individual- and the result has been an increase in the number of people living in the streets.”  Tab__, p. 8.

• No enforcement of local laws even “contradicts the California Supreme Court’s holding in Tobe v. City of Santa Ana, 892 P.2d 1145 (1995). In Tobe, homeless residents of Santa Ana sought to enjoin enforcement of that city’s ordinances barring camping on public streets, arguing that it was impermissible punishment of the involuntary status of being homeless. Id. at 1166. The California Supreme Court expressly rejected the argument, holding that Robinson and Powell “ma[ke] clear ... that punishing the conduct of using or possessing narcotics, even by an addict, is not impermissible punishment for status.” 

• “Leaving people to remain living indefinitely on the streets, or in tents in a park--precisely on the grounds that they are unable to do otherwise!-is not a compassionate response…A compassionate response would consist of providing people with the care they need-including taking them into custody against their will if they are unable or unwilling to manage themselves…Finally, the law-abiding, taxpaying public deserves compassion, also. The victims of municipalities' abdication of their law-enforcement duties aren't just the homeless-who certainly deserve better than to be left to live on the streets-but also members of the community who must suffer threats, pollution, damage to their properties, and the ruin of their businesses as the consequence of a legal principle that is indefensible either as a matter of precedent, of Originalism, of textualism, or of policy.”

 

4.) The Proposed SoDo shelter will be similar to the work release center in its operation and impact is false.

 

• The work release center had strict rules, had a strict no intoxication policy and closely monitored the convicted residents who were ALL trying to make a new start by WORKING. 

• The proposed SoDo shelter permitted entrance and exit 24/7, permitted intoxication of their guests and no ID was required.

• No other shelters are open 24/7. 

• No drugs and weapons would be permitted inside the shelter, but not to worry because as Lisa Portelli said at the Wadeview Park Neighborhood meeting, the city will provide lockers outside the shelter for homeless people to access those items once they leave the shelter! 

• The city police chief confirmed at the Wadeview meeting that he only has 10 officers and their hours are limited- NOT 24/7.

 

5.) It is False that The leading Cause of Homelessness is Unaffordable Housing and that Mental Illness, Crime and Addiction are Minor Concerns. Research and undisputed data shows mental illness, and drug and alcohol abuse are major concerns.

 

• This false narrative is calculated to appease concerned neighbors who live, work and pay taxes in the area, and whose kids go to school here. The facts are clear. See drug and mental illness data in our "more supporting research page." Plus, having read hundreds of personal stories from petition submissions about being victims of crime by homeless people, our case is clear. Of course, not all are criminals, but to ignore that many came from prisons and jails, and are on drugs is committing a fraud on the public to advance a personal political agenda.