City Council dismisses public outcry on homeless ordinance

Councilman Miklik to churches, nonprofits: Where were you?

The Kokomo Common Council chose to flex its legislative muscles on April 29, showing the local nonprofit community devoted to serving the homeless that government knows better when it comes to addressing the problem.

At issue was an ordinance designed to outlaw "camping" by the homeless population on public property and to authorize the seizure of property from those found in violation.

A parade of professionals, faith leaders, and everyday citizens who either spend their days helping the homeless population, have suffered through homelessness themselves, or simply disagreed with the ordinance took to the microphone to continue their steadfast pleas for the city's administration to reconsider its actions.

Their pleas went ignored by seven of the council members, as the measure passed with just councilmen Bob Stephenson and Jeff Plough dissenting. The end of the debate was particularly telling, as Councilman Tom Miklik called out the churches and nonprofits devoted to addressing homelessness.

Miklik, unlike his fellow councilmen, chose to go on the offensive, scolding the community for their supposed inaction outside of attending a listening session held by Mayor Tyler Moore on April 18.

"I could not tell you how many people have told me we are doing the right thing," said Miklik without further citation. "The people that met on April 18 are people that I have not seen together in quite some time. So, before this ordinance came up, where were the churches? Where were the people that are supposedly caring about the homeless?"

Unsurprisingly, the dozens of audience members who have been working together for decades to address homelessness were offended and spoke out, forcing Council president Ray Collins to silence them.

"The city is not in the business of coordinating all the churches and all the people that are working towards fixing this," continued Miklik. "This is an ordinance to give the impetus to help people that may not want help but may need help. If you all have a better solution, I am perfectly happy to listen to what it is."

Unwelcome discussion

Despite Miklik’s pledge to listen delivered at the end of the meeting, an omen of what was to come surfaced in the council's caucus room before the meeting. In a session specifically devoted to discussing -- but not voting on -- the issues set before the council, suddenly, that discussion was no longer welcome.

"I still have problems with this," said Stephenson. "I've listened to a lot of people, and everybody thinks this is an issue we need to be working on. But nobody thinks this is a good first step."

Plough began to voice similar concerns.

"I've really struggled with this ..."

Councilman Tom Miklik interrupted Plough.

"Mr. President, this conversation needs to take place on the floor," said Miklik.

Council president Ray Collins quailed at Miklik's retort and shut down the caucus immediately.

The public was similarly restricted when it came time to speak. Regardless of message, no one was permitted to speak more than two minutes on the ordinance -- a denial of open discourse that has become a hallmark of the council whenever the public opposes its actions.

Opposition ignored

After Councilman Greg Davis, sponsor of the bill, read the entire ordinance into the record "to make sure everyone understands," the community began its pleas.

Dennine Smith, the executive director of Coordinated Assistance Ministries (CAM) and vice chair of the Region 5 Planning Council on Homelessness, was the first to speak.

"As someone who works with the homeless population daily, I'm concerned that this ordinance has the potential to add barriers for our brothers and sisters who are experiencing homelessness," said Smith. "Let's explore other options by working in partnership with other agencies and stakeholders with experience and finding alternative solutions to addressing the challenges that we are facing.

"Please note that each agency that is working with the unhoused needs additional resources in order to safely and appropriately manage increasing numbers of unhoused individuals. I hope that this is a consideration as we consider making efforts to address this need in our community."

No need to research

Kathy Hagenow, former director of Leadership Kokomo, retired grants and compliance manager for the city's Department of Urban Development, and board member of the Family Service Association, spoke next and simply asked the council a question.

"Have council members or city staff contacted other towns and cities who have passed a similar ordinance to see how it's working?" Hagenow asked.

Collins was quick to deny any responsibility for researching the ordinance.

"I haven't," said Collins. "That would be the administration's job to present the ordinance."

Councilman Matt Grecu chimed in, adding "The ordinance was modeled after ordinances in other communities."

Community activist Clee Oliver helped clarify Grecu's assertion a few minutes later. Unlike Collins, Oliver investigated the ordinance thoroughly.

"It was 99.999 percent (copied) from Elkhart's ordinance," said Oliver. “I went through it, and it is verbatim from Elkhart's ordinance. By the way, it was turned down. If it was a college paper, I guess you'd be expelled from school."

Oliver also raised concerns about the city administration's transparency, explaining that the ordinance was not easily located on the city's website except for by those who are well-versed in how the legislative process works. He, too, advised that the city step back and research the issue fully before acting.

"I don't know if it can be tabled or actually voted down, but there needs to be further study," said Oliver. "Back in 2019, the city dealt with a dog ordinance. They spent eight months discussing it, meeting two times a month. Shouldn't the community of the homeless deserve more?"

An alternative not considered

Kokomo Housing Authority director Derek Steele added his voice to the dissension, putting forth an alternative plan.

"The city should undertake an information gathering study," said Steele. "I suggest that coordination between the Kokomo Police Department and the local emergency shelters occur, and a list of the currently available shelters be determined.

"Those shelters could then provide our local police and law enforcement with daily available bed counts, something that has to occur based upon this ordinance."

Steele also urged that police officers be trained in trauma-informed care interactions to avoid unnecessary conflict.

Rosalyn Davis, Associate Professor of Psychology at Indiana University Kokomo, also urged restraint from the council. She explained how the ordinance could be used to entrap people in the criminal justice system.

"When people are arrested for what seems like petty crimes, and they don't have the resources to get themselves out of it, you start a cycle that they literally cannot get themselves out of," said Davis. "It starts with one thing, like being arrested for not having some place to sleep. Then they have a fine. They have probation. They have other things that the system keeps stacking on them. One bad night can ruin the rest of your life in this country because we are not in the rehabilitation business, we are into punishment."

The ordinance does not directly authorize law enforcement to arrest the homeless. It only allows the possibility when a homeless individual refuses to relocate to an available shelter bed.

Pastor Jack Woodard of Straitgate Ministry came to the microphone with a question.

"Do any of you have someone in your family that is homeless?"

Miklik responded dismissively.

"Is that germane to this question?" he asked.

"Is it relevant? Yes," said Woodard. "It's easy to go home and sleep when you have a nice, comfortable place while somebody else who is homeless with no place to go gets locked up for being homeless."

Council responds

After a few more speakers expressed their dissent, the council members were allowed to speak. Council Dave Capshaw opened by inciting the crowd.

"In the last few months, all I've heard was people are against this ordinance," said Capshaw. "But I've not heard anybody tell me an alternative. What do we do?"

The crowd responded in anger, causing Collins to gavel them down.

Stephenson took a moment to express his opposition to the ordinance.

"No one has come to me and said, 'This is a great first step,'" said Stephenson. "We may need to get to this point, but I don't think it's a good place to start."

Plough, who conceded he voted for the ordinance on its first reading, added his voice in opposition to its final passage.

"I have concerns about the ordinance," said Plough. "I've educated myself about an issue that has been relatively foreign to me. A couple of things come out, in my mind, that really question the viability of the ordinance.

"It's a fairly well-known fact that the majority of the time there are no beds available. As a result of that, we will be approaching the homeless community to try and help in assisting them. And if where they're staying, there's issues related to it, they're gonna be moving from this location to two blocks down the road. And we're going to start that process over again."

Plough rightly pointed out that the lack of bedspace prohibits enforcement of the ordinance. The homeless cannot be moved, and an arrest isn't authorized at that moment. But their property may be seized. The ordinance also doesn't address what appears to be the motivating problem that caused the city administration to go looking for a new law.

"Regarding the urination and defecation that's occurring in the parking garages -- that's even occurred outside the entrance to City Hall -- this ordinance is doing nothing related to that at all," said Plough. "As far as removing possessions, I agree that just having piles of stuff everywhere is a concern. But when we start taking the materials, the possessions that is going to put an additional burden on the ..."

As had happened in the caucus, Plough was again cut off by Collins and not allowed to speak further.

Davis, the sponsor of the ordinance, said that it was "sad" that it took the introduction of an ordinance to start a conversation on homelessness, prompting consternation from the crowd. He went on to defend the ordinance by citing downtown business owners who have reached out to him, complaining about homeless people and their possessions blocking entrances to their stores.

"I believe that Christ says, ‘what you do to the least of them, you do to Me,’ but I also believe that we can't just stick our heads in the sand and say, 'King's X. We don't have a complete answer, so let's do nothing," said Davis.

Grecu focused on debunking the belief that the ordinance is an attempt to criminalize homelessness.

"It's not going to be something where we're out hunting homeless people to put them in jail," said Grecu. "That's not what this is about. It's a tool to try and pair people with available resources."

The ordinance passed 7-2.