Estimated read time: 5-6 minutes
SALT LAKE CITY — A judge has sided with Salt Lake City and thrown out a lawsuit by a group of residents and business owners alleging that the city had created a nuisance by not enforcing its anti-camping laws against unsheltered people.
Third District Court Judge Andrew Stone handed down his ruling regarding the lawsuit last Wednesday, March 27, nearly two weeks after hearing arguments from attorneys on the city's motion to dismiss the case. Stone's decision to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice means that the same claim could not be filed in court again, canceling a preliminary injunction scheduled on May 6.
Salt Lake City attorneys argued in the motion to dismiss hearing that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by Utah's public duty doctrine and they presented "political questions" beyond the courts. The court by law cannot intrude into or interfere with the functions or the policies of other departments of government, city attorneys said in the hearing. The judge's ruling indicated agreement.
"As the court noted during the hearing, bringing a public nuisance claim against a government actor does not exempt the plaintiffs from showing that a duty is owed to them individually. The plaintiffs have failed to allege facts supporting such a duty in this case," Stone wrote in the judgment. "The plaintiffs here have failed to establish that the city owes them a special duty to remedy or 'control' unsheltered encampments beyond that owed to the general public."
An attorney for the plaintiffs said they plan to appeal the decision.
"We think the judge got this one wrong. His ruling effectively abolishes private standing for public nuisance, which would make Utah the only state in the union as far as we know that has done so. We are looking forward to making our case to the appellate courts," said Ilan Wurman, an attorney with the firm Tully Bailey.
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 asked 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.
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."
During the March 14 hearing, 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."
But Katie Nichols, an attorney representing Salt Lake City, argued that the plaintiffs' request for relief was too vague and that they failed to prove a special duty owed to them over the general public.
"The plaintiffs are implicitly invoking the city's police powers to remedy existing conditions," agreed Stone. "As the city's motion correctly points out, these are quintessential public duties. Any given member of the public might complain about how a city allocates its resources, and many such complaints could be articulated under the broad umbrella of nuisance law. The public duty doctrine places limits on when such complaints may be litigated in the courts as opposed to the ballot box."
Nichols acknowledged that it's "beyond unfortunate" that homelessness and on-street camping occur in Salt Lake City, but massive efforts have been made in reducing 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," stated the motion to dismiss.
The judge noted in a footnote that "without minimizing the harms plaintiffs allege they have suffered, the court also acknowledges that it is problematic to refer to unsheltered people as constituting a 'nuisance.'"
Andrew Wittenberg, a spokesman for the Salt Lake City mayor's office, released the following statement in response to the judge's decision:
"Salt Lake City appreciates the court's well-reasoned opinion and conclusion that this complicated and nuanced issue is best addressed by elected officials and policymakers, not the courts. We are also grateful for the court's statement that, without minimizing the real harms business owners have suffered, it's problematic to refer to unsheltered people as nuisances. We believe the court's acknowledgment of the humanity of the unsheltered community is an important distinction in this case. Salt Lake City will continue implementing additional resources and services for individuals experiencing homelessness with our partners at the local and state level," Wittenberg said.
A statement was also released by the ACLU of Utah, which filed an amicus brief with the Utah Supreme Court on behalf of people experiencing homelessness, following the decision.
The statement read, in part:
"By asking the city to arrest and ticket unhoused people who live and sleep in public areas, the plaintiffs in this case were essentially asking to make homelessness worse on the city's dime. Study after study have shown that arresting, citing, and fining unhoused people exacerbates the problem, makes it harder for them to find housing and employment in the future, and costs far more than simply providing housing would. We're glad that this meritless case got stopped at this early stage and hope the community can focus its energy and efforts on increasing access to housing rather than condemning those who cannot afford it as 'nuisances.'"
