Can You Spare a Brother a Sleeping Bag? Don't Try in Pensacola

**correction: actually it was the Committe of the whole, not the actual council - my bad

Earlier this week the City Council of Pensacola brought up an ordinance proposed by the Mayor, Ashton Heyward.

Here is the proposed ordinance:

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pensacola, Florida, hereby finds that in order to provide for, secure and promote the aesthetics, sanitation, public health, and safety of its citizens, it is necessary and in the public interest to adopt an Ordinance prohibiting in part and regulating the conduct of camping on public property, as defined, within the city limits.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF PENSACOLA, FLORIDA:

SECTION 1. Section 8-1-22 of the Code of the City of Pensacola, Florida, is hereby created to read as follows:

Sec. 8-1-22. Camping prohibited; exceptions

(1) For purposes of this section, "camping" is defined as:

(a) Cooking over an open flame or fire out-of-doors; or

(b) Bathing in public for purposes of personal hygiene; or

(c) Sleeping out-of-doors under one of the following circumstances:

(i) adjacent to or inside a tent or sleeping bag, or

(ii) atop and/or covered by materials such as a bedroll, cardboard, newspapers, or

(iii) inside some form of temporary shelter.

(2) Camping is prohibited on all public property, except as may be specifically authorized by the appropriate governmental authority.

(3) Camping is prohibited on all property in the City used for residential purposes; provided, however, that camping is permitted on such property with the permission and consent of the property owner.

(4) An individual in violation of this ordinance who has no private shelter, shall be advised of available shelter in the City of Pensacola or Escambia County, in addition to any penalties of law.

SECTION 2. In any word, phrase, clause, paragraph, section or provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional, such finding shall not affect the other provision or applications of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid or unconstitutional provisions or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are declared severable.

SECTION 3. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.

SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its passage by the City Council.

Needless to say this proposed ordinance created quite a stir and a fairly large crowd assembled to voice their opinions. Since Stacey is involved with the Nothing Lost Outreach Ministry which works with the area homeless she watched the meeting via streaming.

By my count there were at least three members of the local clergy that spoke along with a number of others. Pastor Jeff Henry (Ensley First Baptist), and Pastor Joshua Wallnofer (Klondike Baptist), were both pointed in comments, but also not antagonistic in their commentary. Not so much for Father Nathan Monk (Saint Faustina Old Catholic Church – according to what I found online) seemed more than ready to be bombastic and antagonistic toward the city council members. That the council might pass the ordinance was compared to crucifying Jesus – just a little over the top in my opinion.

Not to be outdone however, a military veteran later compared them to Heinrich Himmler. There was also a young woman who was ruled out of order and wouldn’t stop speaking and had to be escorted away from the meeting. And for comedy relief there was the gentleman, also a veteran, who was blustering on about something not germane to the topic and was also ruled out of order and asked to sit. He was outraged and told the council president that he couldn’t believe he was ruled out of order and that “you know my rank!”

Oh, I almost forgot one of the “Occupy Pensacola” guys who chimed in on a number of subjects. When this Mensa was ruled out of order, his comeback was, “You’re out of order! This is all out of order!”

Not that the crowd had the corner on brilliance at the meeting.

Let me point out that two of the council members (Councilwoman Myers and Councilman Jerralds) had “the vegetables,” as Toby Keith might say, to state they wouldn’t vote for the ordinance and gave cogent reasons for their position.

On the other hand, Councilwoman DeWeese mentioned that she seconded the ordnance so that discussion could go on about it. Laudable I guess, then she went on to say that she was offended that someone would question her faith and attack that faith and also compare her to Nazi’s. Seconding that line of thought was Councilman Johnson. At this point the council president, Mr. Hall apologized to both offended members and said he wouldn’t allow that kind of rhetoric to go on anymore. I think it was also at this point that Mr. Messer, the city attorney , said that if the president didn’t handle it he was (I could be wrong about who said that, but it was said).

At this point let me say to both of the offended council persons, I personally thought it was in very poor taste to compare you to any Nazi’s of any sort, to also equate you to Pilate and those that crucified Christ was also way over the top. As for some of the other statements pertaining to stuff that is actually in the Bible… well, you might want to read a little more closely. You don’t get a pass because you are a high-and-mighty city council person. And also, if you can’t take criticism, well maybe you’re not in the right job field. If you want the big stick, you have to take some of the responsibility and heat that comes with it, just ask Albert Pujols.

While mentioning council members, big kudos should also go to the president of the council, Mr. Sam Hall. He was the virtual caricature of the big boss man. Always right in everything, kissing up to the others on the council and sticking it to the actual citizenry that showed up to share their obviously misguided and dim opinions. It was very obvious by Mr. Hall’s demeanor that he really would have rather not allowed any discussion on the subject. At a couple of points the parliamentarian attempted to interject, but the president is obviously a superior parliamentarian to be corrected.

After all of the fun was over, comments were cut off, instead of “cowboying up,” the council voted to unanimously send the ordinance back to the mayor’s staff for refinement. After all of the bluster, out of the nine members of the council, only two members actually had the guts to stand up and say where they stood on the issue.

Imagine that!

A question that was asked by one person strikes me as particularly relevant. Where was the mayor? He had his staff cook the ordinance up and send down for a vote, why didn’t he show up and defend and/or explain his reasoning?

For the record, I do not live in the city limits, and am glad of it. I would have voted for Ashton Heyward, because I think that Pensacola needs a younger generation with different ideas in a leadership position. However, fortitude is also needed in leading. If you think you’re right, be a man and defend your position, don’t hide behind a bush somewhere.

I think that this came to fruition because of the Occupy Pensacola crowd that got everyone flustered. They took over MLK plaza and nothing was done except to roll over and get a belly scratch. Then after a couple of weeks OP was made to move to the grounds of City Hall and the no-tents rule was waived for another couple of weeks. Then that ordnance was finally enforced.

Now the Occupy movement by-and-large is fueled by the unions and malcontents that don’t have anything better to do (IMO) (Also MO, corporations are made up of individuals who work for the corporation and/or invest in it - many of them in that 99% that Occupy claims to represent). There are some good people in the mix with valid opinions and causes, the fact that they make up about 1% of the crowd is the problem. The same goes for Pensacola, there are some whack jobs and malcontents in the mix along with honest, concerned people.

In the Mayor’s zeal to take care of OP, the homeless of the community were thrown under the same bus. The only issue is that most of the OP members have someplace to go, the homeless don’t. That sleeping bag they have is all the home they have.

A better solution has to be available. It is a virtual impossibility to get rid of them no matter how hard you try (hint, hint, SR County). We have to find a way to help them. “Help” is the operative word.

A start will be to have some sort of round table with the City Council, the County Commissioners and local leaders that work with homeless so things can be discussed. Now that’s a tall order, because that would mean some egos would have to be left at the door. In many cases I don’t think that some local leaders are capable of doing that.

One other thing that everyone involved should think about:

You can disagree without being disagreeable.

I don’t think that many of them can do that either.