Georgia Let NIMBYs Sue Cities Over Encampments. This Mayor Said B.S.

New State Law Strips Sovereign Immunity from Local Governments that Fail to Enforce Camping Bans

Savannah Mayor Van R Johnson II is pushing back against Georgia’s new law that allows property owners to sue local governments over unenforced camping bans. “If we get sued, then let’s get sued for it,” he said. “Public squares are public assets; homeless people are part of the public; they should have access like everyone else.”

“B.S….B.S.,” Johnson went on to say. “They don’t want to see them. That’s what it is.”

GA HB295

Georgia House Bill 295 was signed into law in May, over the objections of Representatives like Gabriel Sanchez, who called the bill “yet another example of prioritizing the needs of the wealthy over the needs of everyone else”. Senator Josh McLaurin noted the bill’s shortsightedness, saying, “What you’re inviting is a bunch of court cases where homeowners who are aggrieved at the local government can come make spurious claims about causation and have essentially a circus in court, which wastes judges’ time; it wastes juries’ time.”

The bill removes sovereign immunity from local governments, allowing property owners to sue them for expenses incurred or lost potential property value due to the government’s failure or refusal to enforce certain laws and ordinances. The main idea behind this is that residents would be able to sue governments for failing to adequately enforce camping bans if they see an unswept encampment in their neighborhood, or for failing to respond to public nuisances if they notice a homeless person nearby.

Though it will be difficult to prove, as Senator McLaurin mentioned, any property owner will be able to claim compensation for any alleged financial impact this has caused them. What is “adequate” and “reasonable” will be up to the courts to decide, but basically, this law supercharges NIMBYs’ power to escalate their complaints all the way to the legal level. If they see someone loitering, panhandling, or camping in public and feel it’s affecting their bottom line, they can sue their government for failing to protect them from that financial loss.

The final version of the bill also includes a last-minute addition prohibiting local governments from implementing immigration sanctuary policies. If they’re considered not to comply with state and federal immigration enforcement, they can be sued for that, too.

The bill’s sponsor, Houston Gaines, framed it this way: “If a local government refuses to do its job, we’re going to hit that local government in the pocketbook and put the money back in the hands of the property owners who have been harmed.”

Cities Stand Up

Within a month of the new law’s introduction, some cities are gearing up to test its limits in court. Savannah Mayor Van R. Johnson is outspoken in his intention not to be cowed into compliance by the mere threat of a lawsuit. He is not shy in pointing out the hypocrisy and concern trolling employed by the law’s supporters, saying, “I saw some of those comments, ‘Oh, it’s for their help.’ No, no, no…If you’re so concerned about their wellbeing and safety, donate to the Chatham Savannah Authority for the Homeless, donate to United Way, donate to Family Promise.”

It is refreshing to know that there are still politicians who can clearly see that the real victims in these situations are not the nearby housed people and business owners, but the unhoused people who are subjected to much greater financial and physical harm by these enforcement actions that NIMBYs are fighting to increase.

Aside from being the moral stance, it may prove to be prudent as well. While lawsuits can be time-consuming and expensive, in the end it will be difficult for individual property owners or businesspeople to prove that they have both suffered a significant financial impact and that it was caused by the local government’s failure to enforce a certain law or ordinance. Especially knowing that other “common sense” arguments like “homeless shelters lower property values” have already turned out not to be true.

Legal Challenges Are Already Underway Elsewhere

Georgia is not the first to engage in this courtroom drama. A neighborhood group in Tucson, Arizona, has already sued the city for failing to enforce its public nuisance laws. The site in question is an encampment of about 20 people in Navajo Wash Park, which the city has already removed several times. NIMBYs say it’s not enough, and eventually, an appeals court sided with them.

Also in Arizona, a group of Phoenix property owners came together in 2023 to sue the city in an attempt to force it to sweep a large encampment known as “The Zone.” The area, which was home to around 1,000 unhoused people at the time, was cleared at a cost to the city of $20 million, but the sweep hasn’t prevented people from returning, since they have nowhere else to go.

The cycle of encampment growth, sweep, and regrowth has been playing out before our eyes for a long time now. It is fueled by the simple fact that although encampment living is difficult and made even more so by city sweeps, the fact remains that the people who live there have no better options available to them. Instead of solving that problem, states are now just adding an extra step to the cycle: grow, sue, sweep, regrow, repeat.

This is not just a waste of time for judges and juries (the idea of being stuck with jury duty and forced to listen to someone’s tantrum over their latest property valuation is no one’s idea of fun). This is also a waste of public resources that we all depend on.

The funds used for legal defense and mandated encampment clearing could be much better spent on things that actually benefit the public good, rather than just lining the pockets of a few wealthy property owners who know a good lawyer. These pointless lawsuits are draining money that should belong to all of us and funneling it once again into the coffers of the few. Let’s take inspiration from Mayor Johnson and call B.S.