Facts

Katherine Cody and numerous others filed suit against the City of Albany, the Albany Police Department and Police Chief Mike McQuiston.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
In 2013, the City of Albany announced a plan to evict a group of roughly 60 homeless people from a former landfill, known as the Bulb, where some of them lived for over a decade. Plaintiffs contended that they have lived there with tacit, and at times explicit, permission from the Albany Police Department. Plaintiffs alleged that the Bulb acted as the city's "de facto homeless shelter," since there was no homeless shelter and no low-income housing available in the city.

The city's announced plan was to begin enforcement of a "no camping" ordinance, which would evict the Bulb residents. The ordinance had not been enforced for many years. Plaintiffs claimed the sudden decision to begin enforcement of the ordinance, without provision of reasonable and accessible alternative housing, would effectively drive homeless people out of the city.

Plaintiffs filed suit against the city, asserting causes of action for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, violation of the Fair Housing Act, violation of substantive due process, violation of the right to be secure from unreasonable seizures, violation of right to procedural due process of law, and violation of right to privacy.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The City of Albany asserted it intended to restore the Bulb, which is a strip of public waterfront land, to its designated use as a public park and eventually transfer it to the East Bay Regional Park District for its incorporation to the McLaughlin Eastshore State Park located to the north and south of the Bulb.

Defendant contended that although the Bulb was designated for park use in Albany's 1993 general plan, plaintiffs' illegal homeless encampments and numerous health and safety issues prevented the Bulb from being put to its intended use. In October 2013, the city developed a detailed transition plan including storage of Bulb residents' personal property at the city's expense, city-owned temporary shelters near the Bulb, and housing support services and subsidies for longer term housing.

In November 2013, plaintiffs filed this action and moved for a Temporary Restraining Order to prevent the city from implementing its waterfront transition plan. The court denied plaintiffs' TRO motion on the ground that plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits. The parties began the settlement process shortly after the court's ruling on denial of plaintiffs' TRO motion.

Result

The parties settled. The city agreed to provide each of the 28 Bulb residents who agreed to the settlement, a relocation assistance lump sum payment of $3,000. Under the settlement, plaintiffs were also required to promptly relocate and stay away from the Bulb for one year.

Other Information

FILING DATE: Nov. 13, 2013.