The Chico City Council, on a split 4–3 vote, on Nov. 18 approved an ordinance that prohibits people from lingering on medians, roundabouts and in areas near retail-use driveways.
Under the new ordinance, people would be prohibited from lingering on any portion of a median or roundabout adjoining a public roadway, as well as “right‑of‑way zones serving access points of public shopping centers that connect directly to a public roadway.”
Exceptions include crossing, lawful walking, permitted work and emergencies.
Police Chief Billy Aldridge, who recommended the City adopt the ordinance, said the purpose is to improve public safety.
Councilmember Michael O’Brien made a motion to adopt the ordinance, calling it a “no-brainer.” Councilmember Tom van Overbeek seconded that motion.
Councilmember Addison Winslow proposed a substitute motion to limit the ban to medians that are 4 feet wide or less. Councilmember Katie Hawley seconded the substitute motion.
Winslow’s substitute motion failed, with only Councilmember Bryce Goldstein and Hawley in support.
Over the past 30 months, Chico has had 95 vehicle‑pedestrian collisions, resulting in 71 injuries and three fatalities, Aldridge reported. Most of these incidents occurred at intersections, but it wasn’t clear whether the people who were hit were all loitering.
Aldridge noted there had been accidents, for example, at the intersection of East 20th Street and the driveways leading to Chico Mall and Hobby Lobby, where there are four medians.
“We currently have a problem with people standing, stopping, and remaining within all of those medians,” Aldridge said.
He noted a recent collision in which a motorist turned too soon, struck a median, and hit a pedestrian, breaking the pedestrian’s leg.
Hawley asked Aldridge to clarify whether the prohibited areas include the sidewalk corners at the entry and exit points of shopping centers.
Aldridge said the ordinance wouldn’t apply to sidewalk corners, and only the medians that extend from private retail shopping centers onto a public street would be affected under the ordinance.
Councilmember Addison Winslow asked City Attorney John Lam whether the ordinance could conflict with First Amendment rights.
“How is this reconciled with free speech rights?” Winslow asked.
“We are not targeting First Amendment activity,” Lam said. “We are prohibiting any activity, regardless of whether it’s protected or nonprotected.”
“So even [if] people are doing something fine there, we’re going to enforce it anyway, and that makes it okay,” Winslow said. “I don’t think that really affects my feeling [and] my responsibility to uphold what my sense of the Constitution is in free speech.”
Winslow noted that when other cities have addressed public safety issues, they’ve limited their ordinances to specific situations—such as whether someone’s view was being blocked. He noted San Rafael’s ordinance as an example, which prohibits lingering or loitering on any median less than 4 feet wide for safety reasons. He suggested that regulations should be more focused and targeted.
Councilmember Bryce Goldstein expressed concern as well.
“I’m also concerned that this is too sweeping an ordinance and that it could have unintended effects, even if our intent is good – to prevent people from getting hit by cars or causing distractions,” Goldstein said. “I don’t want to criminalize the use of public spaces beyond where there’s a clear safety need.”
On a ChicoSol social media post about this agenda item prior to the meeting, a reader expressed her concern that the ordinance would produce another reason to arrest the unhoused.
Mayor Kasey Reynolds disagreed with Winslow’s argument that free speech could be affected.
“It’s dangerous for people to be on the corners where cars are turning,” Reynolds said. “That is just a matter of fact. And there’s nothing that’s stopping people from their First Amendment rights and all the other things that they can do, and standing up and lining the lines and putting up signs and doing all the fun stuff on the sidewalk and doing it legally.”
Speaker raises the issue of pedestrian protection
Freddie Wright was the only resident who spoke during the public comment session. Wright believes that the money spent on the new ordinance could be better used to protect pedestrians.
“Pedestrians are at the mercy of traffic flow,” Wright said. “The inaccurate wording and reducing pedestrians to mere obstacles in the road are disrespectful of the pedestrian situation and vulnerability. These types of ordinances can be used to profile, discriminate and intimidate pedestrians.”
Wright suggested the City focus on providing more safe crossings and improving existing ones, as many intersections have inadequate, improperly labeled, or poorly-lit crosswalks.
O’Brien’s motion to pass the ordinance was approved, with Reynolds, van Overbeek, and Vice Mayor Dale Bennett in favor. “I do also concur we should look at intersection safety in a broader context,” O’Brien said.
Yucheng Tang is a California Local News fellow reporting for ChicoSol.
No kidding? A bit of a budget surplus; two people dying a month, outside, in Chico and the big deal is pension stabilization and whether or not to arrest people standing on the median! Safe Space is unable to start their winter shelter program until December 21 for lack of enough participating churches; vacant buildings all over the place; twenty tents downtown; vacant and available parking lots, yet these are apparently unnoticed issues. We figure that there are about 55 Chicoan women sleeping unsheltered in Chico tonight. What does this say about our priorities? What do you say about our priorities?
I bet they are doing this just so they don’t have to feel guilty when they drive past someone begging for a dollar to be able to eat.
It does seem targeted at the unhoused primarily.