{"id":4967,"date":"2025-10-15T15:59:40","date_gmt":"2025-10-15T15:59:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/4967\/"},"modified":"2025-10-15T15:59:40","modified_gmt":"2025-10-15T15:59:40","slug":"splc-jumps-into-lawsuit-over-homeless-people-in-st-petes-williams-park","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/4967\/","title":{"rendered":"SPLC jumps into lawsuit over homeless people in St. Pete\u2019s Williams Park"},"content":{"rendered":"

\t\t\"\"<\/a>Williams Park in St. Petersburg, Florida. Credit: Photo via cityofstpete\/Flickr Late last month, St. Petersburg restaurant owner Ronicca Whaley sued the city of St. Petersburg, saying that the city has caused damage to the Shiso Crispy restaurant by failing to enforce laws banning camping in public places. Last Thursday, according to documents obtained by Creative Loafing Tampa Bay<\/a>, local mutual aid group Progressive People\u2019s Action<\/a> enlisted the help of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)\u2014a civil rights organization that defends the legal rights of marginalized people\u2014to represent the interests of St. Pete\u2019s homeless residents who stand to be impacted by the outcome of the case.<\/p>\n

The lawsuit against the city says that Shiso Crispy\u2019s owner, employees and patrons have been subjected to harassment and threats by people who \u201cregularly sleep overnight\u201d in Williams Park and sidewalks outside the business. On Aug. 19, the city filed a motion to dismiss the case, saying that the police department enforces all applicable laws, and that Whaley\u2019s complaints amount to a \u201clitany of scandalous recitations designed to generate publicity, not plead a case.\u201d The court has not yet ruled on the city\u2019s motion to dismiss.<\/p>\n

Florida\u2019s public camping law passed last year despite sharp criticisms<\/a> and makes sleeping overnight in public places illegal in many circumstances. The law went into effect in January of this year and allows residents to sue local governments if they don\u2019t enforce it. Detractors like the Florida Policy Institute<\/a> say the law criminalizes homelessness without offering real solutions. The city\u2019s motion to dismiss the case says that the law is designed for tent encampments, citing remarks made by Gov. Ron DeSantis when he signed the law into effect, and also says that the city has taken measures to prevent these for decades. <\/p>\n

Related\t<\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"St.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t\tCouncilmember Richie Floyd told the San Pedro Gazette that they are still seeking clarity regarding the \u2018Clean and Safe\u2019 program\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\t Earlier this year, the Monroe County Sheriff\u2019s Office cleared out a homeless encampment in Marathon after a lawsuit was filed by county residents and business owners. The land the encampment sat on was owned by the Florida Department of Transportation, who heard about the lawsuit and then asked MCSO to clear out the property. This resulted in the plaintiffs dropping the lawsuit. <\/p>\n

SPLC senior staff attorney Jackie Azis told CL that if this legal battle continues, it will mark the first time a court has to rule on a suit filed under this new law, making it even more important for homeless residents to have a voice in the discussion.<\/p>\n

Third parties\u2014parties who are neither the plaintiff who filed the suit nor the defendant being sued\u2014may motion to intervene in a case when they have a stake in the outcome. In this case, Azis said Progressive People\u2019s Action has an interest in the case based on their frequent work with St. Petersburg\u2019s homeless population: \u201cPPA has stepped up because, you know, the city has its own interests; obviously, Whaley, as a business owner, has her own interests; but the people who are going to be the most intimately impacted also have interests.\u201d<\/p>\n

This wouldn\u2019t be the first time St. Petersburg is involved in a legal battle that sets precedent for laws on homelessness. In State v. Penley (1973)<\/a>, St. Petersburg\u2019s ordinance against public sleeping was found to be unconstitutional. In Catron v. City of St. Petersburg (2011)<\/a>, the city\u2019s policy on trespassing homeless individuals from public property without due process was also found unconstitutional\u2014specifically citing removal of a homeless man from Williams Park, the same park mentioned by Whaley in her lawsuit. Azis said that PPA\u2019s intervention in Whaley\u2019s case will ensure that, should this litigation become precedent-setting, the interest of the homeless individuals affected will be represented, not just that of Whaley or the city.<\/p>\n

Azis said that while Whaley may say she wants to improve conditions for homeless people her lawsuit indicates otherwise. Whaley said that one of her motivations for the lawsuit is to help the homeless population in St. Petersburg by forcing the city to create a public space where people are allowed to sleep. Speaking to WTSP<\/a>, Whaley referenced a part of the anti-camping law that allows counties to create spaces where public sleeping is allowed: \u201cThey\u2019re adults that want to do what they want and I get that. So let\u2019s provide, as the law says, a place for them to flourish safely and securely that is better for both sides.\u201d However, Azis said, the law only permits counties to designate these spaces, and the city government can not do so on their own. It is unclear how the lawsuit would prompt the city to develop this location. Proposed outdoor sleeping sites must meet several requirements regarding location and resources on site and require approval from the Florida Department of Children and Families. The same WTSP report said Pinellas County did not yet have any plans to designate such a space.<\/p>\n

Whaley\u2019s lawsuit against the city vividly alleges public defecation, misogynistic harassment and property damage carried out by residents who she says are homeless. One reported incident involved an individual emptying a colostomy bag at one of the restaurants. The city\u2019s motion to dismiss the lawsuit says that anecdotes like this are less about the law and more about influencing public opinion: \u201cThis type of inflammatory language was not added to the Complaint to prove the elements of F.S. \u00a7 125.0231, but rather strictly to get publicity for her lawsuit.\u201d<\/p>\n

In a public comment Whaley made at a June 10 St. Petersburg City Council meeting\u2014several weeks before filing her suit\u2014Whaley said: \u201cWhen I send these people to jail, they show up right back on my property. \u2026 I have a gang of homeless people right now that know that I am trying to make a difference on my block and they have all come to my property and told my employees that they declare war.\u201d Whaley\u2019s lawsuit highlights a police incident report, where one of Whaley\u2019s employees told police that a man said to him: \u201cYour owner fucked up bad by kicking homeless people off the street. Your boss has created a war.\u201d<\/p>\n

Azis said that the outcome Whaley seeks is \u201cinappropriate and unlawful,\u201d and the city of St. Petersburg said in their motion to dismiss that Whaley \u201cseemingly wants 24-hour around the clock monitoring of her various businesses at great expense to City taxpayers.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cWhat the intervenors (PPA) want is an appropriate relief,\u201d Azis said. \u201cOne that will not increase enforcement of punitive measures against people experiencing homelessness for simply sleeping, which is something that we all must do to live and survive.\u201d<\/p>\n

Whaley responded to a request for comment via a statement emailed to CL by her lawyer. The statement reads:<\/p>\n

\u201cMs. Whaley\u2019s lawsuit isn\u2019t meant to criminalize, punish, or ostracize anyone in the homeless community. She fully recognizes that homelessness is a complex challenge, one that calls for the City of St. Petersburg to step in and support those who need it most. The suit\u2019s true aim is to encourage the city to deliver that essential assistance. At its core, this action simply seeks to enforce the law as it stands today, and Ms. Whaley hopes the city will move quickly to create solutions that serve both the downtown business community and individuals experiencing homelessness.\u201d
\n However, Whaley did not respond to several specific questions, including ones that address how specifically she believes this lawsuit will benefit homeless people. She also did not confirm whether she had asked county commissioners to designate a space for outdoor sleeping. <\/p>\n

The city\u2019s lengthy motion to dismiss the case refutes her claim that she is seeking to \u201cenforce the law as it stands today.\u201d<\/p>\n

SPLC and PPA\u2019s motion to intervene in the case says that Whaley\u2019s lawsuit \u201calleges facts that are irrelevant to homelessness and sleeping, thus making a false and biased connection between homelessness and criminal activity.\u201d<\/p>\n

UPDATED 08\/30\/25 6:06 a.m. Updated to include a statement from Whaley\u2019s lawyer. <\/p>\n

Subscribe to Creative Loafing newsletters.<\/a><\/p>\n

Follow us: Google News<\/a> | NewsBreak<\/a> | Reddit<\/a> | Instagram<\/a> | Facebook <\/a> | BlueSky<\/a><\/p>\n

This article appears in Aug 28 \u2013 Sep 3, 2025<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n\tRelated\n<\/p>\n

\t