Railroad trespassing ordinance passed: Some say 'anti-homeless,' others plead for approval

The Reno City Council voted 4-1 Wednesday to approve a new ordinance that would make enforcement of trespassing near railroad tracks easier. Council member Jenny Brekhus voted in opposition.

Under existing Reno and Nevada law, it’s already illegal to trespass on railroad tracks. However, the newly approved ordinance will remove the requirement for "No Trespassing" signs or fencing along the tracks, closing a loophole that previously required such signage to cite trespassers. The council must vote to approve a second time for the ordinance to become law.

The city originally proposed the ordinance on July 24, but it was postponed due to the item being incorrectly referred to as an amendment rather than a new ordinance.

The railroad ordinance came about due to the city council requesting staff to bring forward railroad corridor solutions in April.

Reno Police Chief Kathryn Nance said people being by the railroads is a huge safety concern, and it’s necessary to implement this ordinance to keep the community and city employees safe, and prevent train derailment.

“It gives us the opportunity that we don’t have to warn … We can say you are not allowed to be here, you need to leave,” Nance said, regarding the citations of individuals who are trespassing.

Local businesses plead for approval

Coleman Smith, owner of Eagle Window & Door, which abuts the railroad off of Dickerson Road, said he supports the ordinance due to the safety of his employees and customers.

“In the past six months, I’ve had multiple cuts in our fence onto our property. I’ve had three break-ins, I’ve had multiple employees’ vehicles vandalized,” Smith said.

“I’ve invested nearly ten thousand dollars at this point in the last three months in security upgrades. All I’m asking is that now my tax dollars go towards supporting (this) ordinance.”

Tamme Atherton owns the local business Feed World Trailers with her husband Dave. The business is located on Spokane Street which dead-ends into the railroad tracks. She supports the ordinance because of the effect homeless individuals are having on her business.

“It is a daily occurrence to see dozens of homeless people walking up and down the street in front of our business leaving garbage everywhere and harassing our employees and customers for a hand-out,” Atherton said.

She said customers have told her they stopped coming to her store because they are afraid of being in the area. Atherton choked up with emotion as she explained that FW Trailers had experienced burglaries and they had to close the feed store portion of their business because the area had become dangerous.

“This is not the way it should be. This is not how we should have to do business,” Atherton said. “Passing this ordinance would greatly help us and grow our business. We implore that you do this in support of local businesses.”

Will Truce of Black Rabbit Mead Company told the council that there is a sense of “lawlessness” in the downtown Reno streets, specifically at Fourth Street and the encampments by the railroad tracks.

“Walk along our streets, sit in our businesses, at almost any time of day, and you’ll see blatant crimes being committed,” Truce said, listing drug use, indecent exposure and public defecation as examples.

He said this ordinance can help reform one of the “scariest and most dangerous parts of the neighborhood.”

Damien Cole said he is concerned about the ordinance, rather than being for or against it. He said the ordinance is “vague and subjective” which can result in the loss of civil liberties. He recommends rethinking the verbiage.

Reno resident Ilya Arbatman said he believes this ordinance is infringing on the rights of homeless people in his public comment. Arbatman called the ordinance "inhumane," referring to it as an "anti-homeless" law.

Nine people submitted online comments in support of the ordinance, and only one submitted comment in opposition.

Council members weigh in

During the presentation it was explained the ordinance was proposed to help address railroad maintenance access, reduce repair costs and stormwater collection system interference, and to ensure public safety concerns. The new ordinance would amend the city’s law to further prohibit trespassing on railroad tracks, without requiring signage and fencing to be proof of this.

Council member Kathleen Taylor, wrote an opinion piece about the need for this ordinance , saying it is already illegal to access a private railroad property, and this ordinance would just prevent people from trespassing without having to put a sign or fences to dictate this.

“It’s not about pushing our unsheltered residents away; it’s about removing a sign/fence requirement. That’s it,” Taylor wrote.

City Attorney Brian Sooudi said that this ordinance is a “mirror” of California state law . He explained that the Nevada state law has trespassing, but they use a landmark to determine this. Sooudi said if a property is fenced off or has signage, it means no trespassing.

“Now, the law has a loophole in it,” Sooudi said. “If the sign is not posted every 500 feet, you can’t just go out and charge someone for trespassing.”

It would require a landowner or agent to inform someone they are trespassing. He said fencing off the entire railroad track would not be ideal for the city’s finances, so this is something that can help with enforcing the law.

Council member Jenny Brekhus was concerned that this isn’t a city law matter, but instead a state law matter. However, Sooudi said they are staying within the original intent of the law, just altering it to make enforcement easier.

During the meeting, Taylor added that she understands the ordinance, but she really wanted to focus on the enforcement side of this ordinance.

Mayor Hillary Schieve said she hopes this will help, but the bigger problem is that the city needs to have more emergency relocation services.

“We can all say this all day long, but the bigger issue is where do (the homeless) go? Where do they go?” Schieve said.

“It is a tough thing to do and it pulls at your heart knowing that people need places, homes, roofs over their heads.”

Schieve said it’s a hard thing to vote on, but she doesn’t want an incident to happen if they don’t do anything.

Council member Meghan Ebert was concerned about the ordinance seeing as there is no stipulation on if they’re allowed to be in an area. She lists walking on the sidewalk as an example of whether someone could be cited for this or not.

“If there’s not anything in there that’s … specifically called out, this can be used against people in ways we don’t necessarily intend it to be,” Ebert said.

Sooudi said it’s not typical to add a bunch of stipulations for a law because it’s determined on a case-by-case basis. In the case of a sidewalk, this supersedes the trespassing ordinance, since it’s city law to permit someone to walk on a sidewalk. If someone is on a sidewalk, they have the right to be there and will not be cited.

Brekhus said this is not a “save all” ordinance and she doesn’t want it to be portrayed that way.

“It’s not fooling yourself that an ordinance that basically gives us powers that we already have is going to do it,” Brekhus said.

“I think it's a big fat lie to the people … that this is going to solve their problems.”

Ebert agreed, saying she doesn’t want people to think this is a “magical solution” to the problem, and instead, it just allows them to remove signage.

Jaedyn Young covers local government for the Reno Gazette-Journal. Her wages are 100% funded by donations and grants; if you’d like to see more stories like this one, please consider donating here . Send your story ideas and feedback to Jaedyn at jyoung@rgj.com .

This article originally appeared on Reno Gazette Journal: Railroad trespassing ordinance passed: Some say 'anti-homeless,' others plead for approval