Grace Shelter capacity cut as camping ban approaches
May 1—MORGANTOWN — Jessica Thompson, shelter director for Catholic Charities' Grace Shelter in Hazel's House of Hope, has confirmed that the shelter's capacity has recently been reduced from 28 beds to 19 beds.
The issue comes down to fire code.
"During our evaluation and the measurement of the facility, fire marshals determined that the shelter was operating over capacity, " Morgantown Communications Director Brade Riffee said. "It's important to note that our fire marshals are working closely with the shelter administration to evaluate alternative solutions and options that might be available."
It's believed that one of the alternatives under consideration is full-time use of the first floor space that originally served as the Hope Hill Sobering Center, but more recently served as the temporary winter warming shelter—also operated by Catholic Charities.
The city didn't address how the shelter was permitted to operate at a 28-bed capacity since Bartlett House first opened it in 2021.
In addition to the loss of nine beds at Grace Shelter, Project Rainbow Coordinator Erin Shelton said The Rainbow House has also had to reduce capacity in order to meet best practices surrounding space per client. That shelter, which prioritizes individuals in the LGBTQ + community, now has 22 beds.
Both shelters are full—just as they were prior to the reductions.
"We are full on a nightly basis and we currently have over 20 people on our waiting list, " Shelton said. "As soon as we move someone into housing, we typically have someone from the waitlist move in on the same day or the following day. We haven't had any significant length of time where we weren't at full capacity since our first month of operations, which was July 2024."
While there's never a good time to lose community resources, this seems to be a particularly brutal twist of timing.
The citywide camping ban—passed in September but barred from taking effect due to a successful repeal petition—will be implemented after receiving the support of a small majority of the city's voters participating in Tuesday's municipal election.
According to the city, the ordinance will take effect 30 days after the election results are certified. Election canvassing is Monday, meaning the law could be enforced starting June 4.
The ban defines camp /camping to mean "pitch, erect or occupy camp facilities (tents, temporary structures, etc.) or to use camp paraphernalia (blankets, sleeping bags, tarps, etc.) or both for the purposes of habitation, as evidenced by the use of camp paraphernalia, " and bans it on all public property.
Penalties include a warning on first offense ; a fine of up to $200 for a second offense, and a fine of up to $500 and /or up to 30 days in jail for a third offense within one year. Someone subject to a fine or jail under the law can receive alternative sentencing by agreeing to case management to return to stable housing, and /or treatment for substance abuse and /or mental health.
The question going forward is how, and how often, the law will actually be enforced, given the perpetually overwhelmed status of the local shelters.
According to the law, no citation will be issued or penalty imposed unless the person in violation has been offered "alternative shelter " and refused the offer. An offer of shelter means an alternate location, which may include "emergency shelter or any alternate indoor or outdoor location where the person may sleep overnight."
While pinning down the exact number of unhoused individuals in and around Morgantown at any one time is difficult, it's believed to be north of 100. Milan Puskar Health Right Executive Director Laura Jones estimated 130 in August.
Health Right was among the organizations that believed the lack of available beds should have made the camping ban a nonstarter. Project Rainbow was another.
"Project Rainbow is deeply disappointed by the passage of Morgantown's camping ban, especially considering the dire situation I'm describing here with limited availability of shelter beds, " Shelton said. "This ordinance criminalizes the mere act of survival for people who have nowhere else to go."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Opinion: Another unanimous win for religious freedom at the Supreme Court
Is religious freedom a wedge issue? The unanimous agreement between all the justices in a decision just issued by the U.S. Supreme Court suggests the answer is no. The Court's example provides an important corrective to the framing of some commentators and advocacy groups. The facts of this case initially seem unreal — the state of Wisconsin determined that the Catholic Charities Bureau was not 'religious enough' to qualify for a tax exemption available to religious organizations in the state. Piling on, the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed because Catholic Charities did not proselytize or exclude non-Catholics from its services. Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court has now corrected that decision and ruled unanimously that the state cannot prefer one religion over another on the grounds of the church's teachings. The Court's opinion was written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She points out, 'A law that differentiates between religions along theological lines is textbook denominational discrimination.' The state had denied the exemption to Catholic Charities simply because the group did not follow the practice of some other churches, which proselytize while providing social services and serve only fellow members. Since doing either of these things would violate the beliefs of the organization, it was treated differently from other religious organizations solely because of this belief. Justice Sotomayor's opinion summarizes the legal standard: 'When the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny.' The Court rightly concludes that Wisconsin had no compelling reason that would justify this disparate treatment. Justice Clarence Thomas joined the Court's opinion and wrote separately to note another problem with the Wisconsin court's opinion. The Court treated Catholic Charities as separate from the local Catholic Diocese. This is contrary to the 'religious perspective' of the church, which is owed deference by the state. Ignoring the church's beliefs violated the First Amendment guarantee 'to religious institutions [of] broad autonomy to conduct their internal affairs and govern themselves.' Religion and claims for religious freedom are sometimes characterized as divisive issues. When a presidential commission on religious freedom was recently created, some commentators charged that this would undermine the separation of church and state. The Supreme Court's decision demonstrates that religious freedom issues need not be divisive. The clear constitutional protection of the right of people of faith to live and of religious organizations to operate consistent with their beliefs is right there in the text of the First Amendment. This is a threshold principle that no government can ignore without endangering the most basic liberties of its citizens. This is especially true given the fact that verbal expressions of personal faith have defined modern protections for freedom of speech, and gatherings of members of organized religion form the foundations for protections of freedom of association. State and federal lawmakers should ensure that their actions are consistent with this guarantee. Additionally, reporters, commentators, politicians and advocacy groups should take note that protecting religious freedom is typically a consensus issue for the U.S. Supreme Court, whose role is to ensure that the First Amendment guarantee is protected in legal disputes. In the 12 religious freedom cases decided since 2015, four have been unanimous and four more have garnered only one or two dissenting votes. There are, obviously, some cases where the justices don't reach consensus, but these cases should not cause us to lose sight of the strong support religious freedom claims typically receive. The Court's support for religious freedom is a bright spot in our current political climate. It demonstrates the wisdom of the Framers of the Bill of Rights in including specific religious exercise protections and vindicates one of the nation's highest aspirations: that people of faith should be free to act on their beliefs without interference or discrimination.
Wall Street Journal
2 days ago
- Wall Street Journal
U.S. Supreme Court 9, Wisconsin Supreme Court 0
Justice Sonia Sotomayor's unanimous opinion last week in favor of a Catholic Charities nonprofit was a good win for religious liberty, and we've already discussed what it says about the Supreme Court. Permit us to add a final thought, which is that the 9-0 decision is a humiliation for the Wisconsin Supreme Court's new 4-3 liberal majority. The state jurists had denied a religious tax exemption to a local diocese's Catholic Charities Bureau (CCB) and associated groups. Their activities were 'secular in nature' and didn't involve teaching the faith or supplying religious materials, the Wisconsin court said. It rejected almost out of hand the First Amendment argument that ultimately won the day.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Yahoo
Religion cases spark both unanimity and division at Supreme Court
Religious rights are sparking both unanimity and deep divisions on the Supreme Court this term, with one major decision still to come. On Thursday, all nine justices sided with Catholic Charities Bureau in its tax fight with Wisconsin. But weeks earlier, the court's 4-4 deadlock handed those same religious interests a loss by refusing to greenlight the nation's first religious charter school. Now, advocates are turning their attention to the other major religion case still pending this term, which concerns whether parents have the First Amendment right to opt-out their children from instruction including books with LGBTQ themes. 'The court has been using its Religion Clause cases over the past few years to send the message that everything doesn't have to be quite so polarized and quite so everybody at each other's throats,' said Mark Rienzi, the president and CEO of Becket, a religious legal group that represents both the parents and Catholic Charities. The trio of cases reflect a new burst of activity on the Supreme Court's religion docket, a major legacy of Chief Justice John Roberts' tenure. Research by Lee Epstein, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis, found the Roberts Court has ruled in favor of religious organizations over 83 percent of the time, a significant jump from previous eras. The decisions have oftentimes protected Christian traditions, a development that critics view as a rightward shift away from a focus on protecting non-mainstream religions. But on Thursday, the court emerged unanimous. The nine justices all agreed that Wisconsin violated the First Amendment in denying Catholic Charities a religious exemption from paying state unemployment taxes. Wisconsin's top court denied the exemption by finding the charity wasn't primarily religious, saying it could only qualify if it was trying to proselytize people. Catholic Charities stressed that the Catholic faith forbids misusing works of charity for proselytism. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored Thursday's majority opinion finding Wisconsin unconstitutionally established a government preference for some religious denominations over others. 'There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one,' Sotomayor wrote. The fact that Sotomayor, one of the court's three Democratic-appointed justices, wrote the opinion heightened the sense of unity. 'She's voted with us in several other cases, too, and I think it just shows that it is not the partisan issue that people sometimes try to make it out to be,' said Rienzi. However, Sotomayor's opinion notably did not address Catholic Charities' other arguments, including those related to church autonomy that Justice Clarence Thomas, one the court's leading conservatives, endorsed in a solo, separate opinion. Ryan Gardner, senior counsel at First Liberty Institute, which filed a brief backing Catholic Charities, similarly called the unanimity an 'encouraging' sign. 'If they can find a way to do that, they want to do that. And that's why I think you have the opinion written the way that it was. It was written that way so that every justice could feel comfortable signing off on it,' said Gardner. Supporters and critics of the court's decision agree it still poses repercussions on cases well beyond the tax context — and even into the culture wars. Perhaps most immediately, the battle at the Supreme Court will shift from unemployment taxes to abortion. The justices have a pending request from religious groups, also represented by Becket, to review New York's mandate that employers' health care plans cover abortions. The regulation exempts religious organizations only if they inculcate religious values, meaning many faith-based charities must still follow the mandate. And for the First Liberty Institute, it believes Thursday's decision bolsters its legal fights in the lower courts. It represents an Ohio church that serves the homeless and an Arizona church that provides food distribution, both embroiled in legal battles with local municipalities that implicate whether the ministries are religious enough. Thursday's decision is not the first time the Supreme Court has unanimously handed a win to religious rights advocates. In 2023, the First Liberty Institute successfully represented a Christian U.S. Postal Service worker who requested a religious accommodation to not work on Sundays. And two years earlier, the court in a unanimous judgment ruled Philadelphia violated the Free Exercise Clause by refusing to refer children to a Catholic adoption agency because it would not certify same-sex couples to be foster parents. 'People thought that was a very narrow decision at the time, but the way it has sort of been applied since then, it has really reshaped a lot of the way that we think about Free Exercise cases,' said Gardner. It's not always kumbaya, however. Last month, the Supreme Court split evenly on a highly anticipated religious case that concerned whether Oklahoma could establish the nation's first publicly funded religious charter school. The 4-4 deadlock meant the effort fizzled. Released just three weeks after the justices' initial vote behind closed doors, the decision spanned one sentence. 'The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court,' it reads. Though the deadlock means supporters of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School are left without a green light, they are hoping they will prevail soon enough. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump's third appointee to the court, recused from the St. Isidore case, which many court watchers believe stemmed from her friendship with a professor at Notre Dame, whose religious liberty clinic represented St. Isidore. But Barrett could participate in a future case — providing the crucial fifth vote — that presents the same legal question, which poses consequential implications for public education. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court still has one major religion case left this term. The justices are reviewing whether Montgomery County, Md., must provide parents an option to opt-out their elementary-aged children from instruction with books that include LGBTQ themes. The group of Muslim, Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox parents suing say it substantially burdens their First Amendment rights under the Free Exercise Clause. At oral arguments, the conservative majority appeared sympathetic with the parent's plea as the court's three liberal justices raised concerns about where to draw the line. 'Probably, it will be a split decision,' said Gardner, whose group has filed a similar lawsuit on behalf of parents in California. But he cautioned, 'you never know where some of the justices will line up.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
