Estimated read time: 3-4 minutes
SALT LAKE CITY — A judge has taken under advisement a motion by Salt Lake City attorneys to dismiss a lawsuit alleging that the city has created a public and private nuisance by "inviting and fostering vagrancy" on its property.
The arguments were presented in court Thursday.
The complaint, filed in September on behalf of nine residents and business owners, argues that Salt Lake City has allowed "homeless encampments to proliferate in violation of existing city ordinances and state laws." The group is asking the court to direct the city to abate "any and all nuisances caused by the unhoused" on any city property and that the city pay their attorney fees.
The residents and business owners suing Salt Lake City include Danielle Barrani, Kadri Barrani, Liesa Covey, Scott Evans, Jim Grisley, Juan Gutierrez, Clotilde Houchon, David Ibarra and Randy Topham.
In the original filing, the group outlined instances of human waste, theft, vandalism, acts of violence and use of illegal drugs. Attorneys for the group provided photographs of unsheltered people sleeping or camping in public spaces near residences or businesses, drug paraphernalia and public drug use, trash and property damage. When the incidents occur or are reported, the group argued that "the police response is always inadequate."
Salt Lake City filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit in early November, and the ACLU of Utah shortly after filed an amicus brief with the Utah Supreme Court on behalf of people experiencing homelessness.
"Plaintiffs' complaint disregards both the city's enormous efforts and the realities of the challenge facing government actors. Plaintiffs see the unsheltered community not as individuals, but as an aggregate nuisance to be gotten rid of," the city's motion to dismiss the case states.
"What plaintiffs seek is a drastic expansion of nuisance law, requesting a court order to compel a municipality to prevent every unlawful act committed by a third party anywhere on a public right-of-way. That is the stuff of science fiction movies, not reality," attorneys for the city argue in the motion.
The city's motion also contends that the group's claims were barred by Utah's public duty doctrine, which requires plaintiffs to prove that the government agency or its agents committed "a breach of a duty owed him as an individual, not merely the breach of an obligation owed to the general public" to be held liable for negligence.
Additionally, the city's attorneys argued that the court by law cannot intrude into or interfere with the functions or the policies of other departments of government. Even so, the motion adds, the request for relief by the complainants is too vague.
"The city is not the proximate cause of the continual acts," said Salt Lake City attorney Katherine Nichols. "This is different acts by different individuals at different times."
The plaintiffs' attorney, Ilan Wurman, argued that "this is a nuisance case and the plaintiffs are suing the defendants as a landowner," and that the city "as a landowner is responsible for actions of third parties on its land."
Wurman added that the case is not about prevention but about the city's tolerance of the behavior. The complaint alleges that there are enough shelter beds for the unsheltered population, for those who will accept them, and that "even if there were no such beds available, the city could certainly erect regulated campgrounds as other cities have done."
The suggestion prompted several questions by 3rd District Judge Andrew Stone. "If there's shelter and they refuse, should you move them there by force?"
When Wurman pointed to enforcement by police, the judge asked, "Do you know how long a misdemeanor trespasser stays in jail?" adding that "They'd be back on the streets in hours."
The plaintiffs argued that many questions, including the specific details of what relief looks like, would be further detailed in a trial format.
The judge said he would consider Salt Lake City's motion and release a ruling later.
