Homeless individuals and their service providers packed a meeting of the City Council's Planning, Land Use, and Sustainability committee to criticize a last-minute amendment (.pdf) introduced this morning by council member Tim Burgess that would prevent nonreligious organizations in the city from hosting transitional, long-term homeless encampments on their property. If adopted, Burgess's amendment would essentially outlaw progressive organizations like El Centro de la Raza from hosting homeless encampments as they've done in the past.

Burgess's proposed amendment states: "Guide the operation of safe and healthy transitional encampments located on property owned or controlled by religious institutions to allow temporary shelter for those who are homeless."

"Shame on Burgess," one homeless woman said, according to my spies in Council Chambers.

The council is currently wrestling with how to update the city's (stale) so-called Comprehensive Plan—which concerns various land-use regulations, including the rules regulating where and under what conditions organized homeless camps can operate.

This morning, Mayor Mike McGinn sent a letter to Burgess and the other council members, calling on Burgess to retract the amendment (.pdf) :

As you may know, the consent decree laying out the city's approach to these encampments recently expired... now that the consent decree has expired, private entities, such as the one that sued the city ten years ago, do not have a way to host an encampment like those operated by SHARE/WHEEL. We have been working for some time to develop reasonable legislation that would honor the intent of the consent decree and codify standards for non-religious sites to act as hosts. We plan to introduce this legislation by mid-April.

I am concerned that your proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan would preclude legislation intending to address these issues. Because of these concerns, I am asking that you withdraw this amendment.

The committee is just now gearing up to discuss Burgess's amendment. Updates after the jump.

Burgess says his amendments would encourage more encampments in the city. "It is not restrictive," he argues, "Temporary homeless encampments are allowed today with temporary permits."

Nick Licata counters by saying, "I think we have a difference in opinion in this amendment moving us forward." He continues: "My concern is that we're inserting reference to location where it doesn't need to be. By adding these clauses we're constricting where it doesn't need to be. I see this as hindering our ability to have a broader discussion."

Burgess rebuts: "I'm not sure that encouraging more homeless encampments is consistent with our public policy or our 10-year plan to end homelessness," he says. "We need to have a discussion about whether or not that is appropriate public policy." So, basically we should restrict homeless encampments because that will cut down on our homeless problem?

Aaaaand Burgess withdraws his amendment as everyone agrees to have a "robust discussion" on homelessness in the near future.

The committee then voted to move forward the Comprehensive Plan ordinance that Licata has been working on for the last six months (Burgess abstained from the vote, everyone else voted for it), which will go before the full council for discussion next Monday.