NEWSCRIMINALIZATION OF THE HOMELESS

When they say everything is bigger in Texas, you would hope that would also mean a larger sense of compassion. But when it comes to dealing with homelessness, that's not always the case. The City Council of Lubbock, Texas, has once again stalled on proposed plans to establish a homeless committee to address the needs of the city's homeless population at a time when outside temperatures have already begun to plummet.

While the council recently agreed to create a homeless committee, a plan put forward by Councilman Todd Klein, the latest council session ended with a vote which severely weakens the committee's potential to help the homeless. It also delayed appointments for the group's members until December.

Klein, the only council member who opposed the changes and delays, argued that removing a city liaison from the 17-member committee and only giving the group one year to develop a plan is no way to establish meaningful and lasting solutions to homelessness in the area.  I agree. I can understand if other council members are anxious to find ways to address the issue, but rushing the process and setting short-sighted deadlines is not only unrealistic, but likely to lead to temporary fixes. Or worse.

Pressure on the City Council to take faster and more aggressive steps came in large part from the staff at downtown Lubbock's Mahon Library, where homeless individuals have long sought refuge. Eager to displace those who take shelter there (the city currently lacks a permanent shelter), employees have posted warning signs that property will be confiscated, a move that only serves to displace the homeless to other parts of town rather than addressing the issue directly. Worse yet, two ordinances have been proposed to the city council — banning the storage of private property on public areas and setting a curfew — which would in effect criminalize homelessness in Lubbock and slap offenders with unreasonable fines that will likely never be paid.

Apparently San Francisco Chronicle columnist C.W. Nevius is unfamiliar with the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees the right to an attorney.

With an estimated 10,000 "quality of life" violations a year in San Francisco for crimes such as camping, blocking sidewalks, and drinking in public — a number that is likely to rise with the recent passage of San Francisco's sit-lie ordinance — it is hardly surprising that city courts are having trouble keeping up. Denying the poor and homeless the right to counsel is no way to solve the problem, though. Everyone deserves an attorney. In fact, it is a right.

That hasn't stopped Nevius from faulting law firms for defending homeless clients whose crime is, in his view, "open and shut." In a recent column, Nevius seems to suggest that if you are homeless, and have been ticketed for urinating on the street, panhandling or public drunkenness, you are clearly guilty and should pay for your crime. No attorney for you.

Unfortunately Nevius is completely missing the point. The problem is not that pro bono attorneys are successfully fighting the charges. The problem is that the tickets were issued in the first place — a message the San Francisco Board of Supervisors needs to hear loud and clear.

Yes homelessness is a growing problem in San Francisco, but ticketing those who have nowhere to live and no means to pay is not going to solve the problem. And it is public money that could be put to productive use to provide services for the homeless such as housing assistance, emergency shelters, job training and substance abuse programs.

Don't just sit there! Why? Because it's now illegal in San Francisco.

On the ballot yesterday was the controversial Proposition L, better known as the sit-lie ordinance, designed to ban sitting on city sidewalks between the hours of 7 a.m. and 11 p.m.

Supporters, especially businesspeople in the Haight-Ashbury neighborhood, said it would curb loitering and aggressive panhandling. Opponents believed, as we do, that it will be unfairly enforced against homeless people. It passed with 53 percent of the vote.

There are (at least) a few logic gaps behind the bill, which was strongly supported by Mayor Gavin Newsom (the newly-elected lieutenant governor) and Police Chief George Gascón. If the people neighbors object to sitting there are homeless (and thus stereotyped as stinky, drunk or crazy), all the sit-lie ordinance will do is move them. What's next? A no-sitting-in-public-parks ordinance?

Second, it openly allows sitting and lying on sidewalks during the night. So everyone's admitting they're ok with homelessness to the point of people sleeping on the sidewalks, as long as the homeless wake up and move along by rush hour? It's sad to think that the fundraising — $280,000 for the "Yes on L" group — and the political capital could have been better spent on an affordable housing or drug treatment campaign.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted 8-3 against the measure in June, causing Mayor Newsom to take it to the ballot. Ask city Supervisors to take action once again to end this discriminatory sidewalk sitting ban!

On Tuesday, residents of San Francisco will go to the polls to vote on the Sit-Lie Ordinance (Proposition L). If passed, it will be illegal to sit or lie on a city sidewalk between the hours of 7 a.m. and 11 p.m.

We argue that, if passed, this ordinance could potentially criminalize a person just for being homeless as the unhoused often become the target of such laws. Taxpayer dollars could be better spent creating and providing more affordable housing, supportive housing and services to assist these vulnerable individuals. With very few options, homeless people often have no other choice than to be on the streets and sidewalks. Outlawing them will only move them, not make them any less homeless. Stop the Sit-Lie Ordinance in San Francisco!

Meet some allies fighting for the fall of Prop L: the Sit/Lie Posse, a group of artists who have done some guerrilla activism and taken over billboard and bus stop ads with their own artwork to urge voters to say no to Prop L. The ads can be found throughout the city, including where there is strong backing of the proposition, around City Hall, the Haight-Ashbury district and others.

Officials in San Francisco are looking into the ads since they were put up illegally. The anonymous ads weren't paid for and they cover up other paid ads. The Sit/Lie Posse asserts they are artists who have liberated the ad spaces. Their spokesperson, Jim Rawley, said in a press release that "Prop. L ignores due process and criminalizes people based on appearance. If you look like you're homeless, you can be arrested while tourists and the wealthy get a free pass with first class treatment."

San Francisco — arguably the most progressive city in the country — is poised to follow its vote to ban same-sex marriage with another vote for more discrimination. This time the target is the homeless.

On November 2nd, residents of San Francisco will go to the polls to vote on the Sit-Lie Ordinance (Proposition L). If passed, it will be illegal to sit or lie on a city sidewalk between the hours of 7 a.m. and 11 p.m. (It should be noted that there is also Proposition M (pdf) on the same ballot, a "poison pill" that deals with police foot patrols, that could negate Proposition L.)

The law is proposed by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who has shown little sympathy for homeless individuals with past policies. This is not his first ordinance that unfairly targets those living on the streets. He has passed legislation barring aggressive panhandling and developed the controversial program Care Not Cash, which encourages handing out service information to the homeless instead of money. Tell Mayor Gavin Newsom to pull his support for the Sit-Lie Ordinance!

He has already felt resistance to his newly proposed ordinance, stating: "I don't think there's anyone with more scars from these types of battles than me. At what point is there accountability for the words? If you consistently show up and say 'the sky is going to fall in' every time there is a new initiative, at what point do people stop listening?"

Supporters of the ordinance assert that these laws will help clear the streets for patrons and families to easily pass by. Civil Sidewalks is a "grassroots group of families, residents and small merchants who believe that sidewalks should be a safe place for our children, elderly and disabled." They state that in recent years, San Francisco sidewalks have become increasingly violent. They assert that this is not an issue of homelessness, yet they state that those who are the most "intolerant" of passersby are those who "encamp" on the sidewalks. Merely changing a word does not make their cause sympathetic to homeless individuals.

When cities and towns enact laws that prohibit loitering, panhandling, camping, eating in public or otherwise make it a crime to be homeless, the justification is often that public safety benefits.

As it turns out, violent crimes against homeless people are more common in areas that criminalize homelessness. A study (pdf) conducted by the National Coalition for the Homeless found that not only is violence against the homeless on the rise, but that there is a well-documented connection between increased police action and hate crimes against the homeless.

Consider the fate of 53-year-old Gerald Wudarski of Eugene, Oregon. On June 28, 2009, Wudarski, who was homeless, wandered onto private property in search of returnable aluminum cans. The property owner, Corey Freeman, confronted Wudarski, chased him, and then punched Wudarski in the head.

When a neighbor called police, Wudarski was charged with criminal trespassing while Freeman's aggressive act resulted in no charge. It was not until later, when Wudarski died as a result of his head injuries, that Freeman was indicted on second-degree manslaughter and second-degree assault charges.

Perhaps Wudarski erred in entering private property, but there is certainly something very wrong when someone finds it acceptable to chase and assault a man who was merely attempting to make an honest buck by collecting cans. Even more troubling is the response by law enforcement, that it is not OK to be homeless, but it is OK to hit people who are homeless.

It is hard to expect the general public to consider homeless people to be worthy of the same rights, privileges and protections when there are laws that make life-sustaining activities, like eating and sleeping in public, a crime.

Despite a known lack of shelter space, San Diego may soon once again issue tickets to those sleeping on the city's streets.

The practice was popular until a lawsuit was filed against the city and, under the terms of a settlement in 2007, the city was ordered by a federal judge to halt issuing illegal lodging citations to people sleeping on city streets at night.

However, with last week's unanimous decision by the City Council to move forward with a $31 million service and housing center for 225 people, ticketing may soon resume.

The decision to once again issue tickets may have been a condition of approval of a new homeless shelter. Though the tickets come with conditions — they are only to be issued if shelter space is available and the person in question refuses to accept the space — efforts would be better spent helping homeless residents get housing assistance and other services such as job training, drug and alcohol treatment and medical care. Tell the San Diego City Council that sleeping outside is not a crime!

It is understandable that the city would want to encourage its homeless residents to fill every available bed space. But the sad reality is that there is not always enough space — the new shelter is not expected to be completed until the end of 2012. And there are many residents who, for whatever reason, do not want to sleep in a shelter. Earlier this week a homeless encampment in San Diego was dismantled, with the police citing health and safety violations.

How would you handle the desperate homelessness on Los Angeles's Skid Row? Would you do what many community groups do, and go hand out food and clothing to people in need? Or would you cut off this sort of ad-hoc assistance in an attempt to get Skid Row's residents to accept long-term help from shelters, as activists say the police are trying to do?

In response to what they feel is pressure to stop helping, homeless advocates took to Skid Row last week in a food-sharing protest. The "Right to Share Food Extravaganza" served to "exercise and protect our right to share food with our brothers and sisters," according to Michael Hubman, the founder of Right to Share Food and Watercorps, groups which provide food and water to the homeless.

Activists allege that cops and city officials are slowly but surely trying to shut down their efforts with concerns about food safety, personal safety and littering. For example, a five-year-old soup line run by World Agape was shut down over the summer. The LAPD, on the other hand, says the charges are "100 percent false." "What we're for is people doing it in a responsible way," said Officer Deon Joseph, of L.A.'s Safer City Initiative. The initiative has dramatically cleaned up Skid Row in the last few years, though some question its harsh tactics.

Get this. Police didn't want an event full of services for the homeless to be held in San Francisco's Golden Gate Park because that would bring homeless people back to an area cops have been working to shoo them away from. Huh?

The event is the semi-regular Project Homeless Connect, spearheaded by Mayor Gavin Newsom, designed to provide homeless individuals with referrals to housing programs, medical care and substance abuse treatment, HIV testing, haircuts and more. It's a one-day, one-stop shop for services. Previously it has been held at an indoor location downtown, but providers decided to move this week's event to the park to try to connect with people who wouldn't come into an auditorium. Makes sense.

In expressing concerns about the event further entrenching homeless people who refuse to leave the park (about 50 people live there now, down from a peak of about 300), a police captain engaged in unhelpful stereotyping. "We're trying to get them out of the park and [the event is] bringing them back," Lt. Mark Solomon, acting captain at the Police Park Station, told the San Francisco Examiner. He was alarmed, or he said he was alarmed at least, by the event's proximity to a playground in the park. "We're dealing with people with mental health issues, and [sex offenders] and people who carry weapons, and we're bringing them to a children’s playground. It just doesn't make sense."

Actually, Officer Solomon, what doesn't make sense is foisting your own misinformed stereotypes on an entire group of people. I would think a member of law enforcement would know that homeless people don't often carry out crime sprees, and that most people arrested for sex crimes or weapons charges have permanent addresses.

Earlier this month the city of Santa Cruz set a fine example for myopic towns that still hand out "camping" tickets to homeless people sleeping outdoors. Santa Cruz's city council voted unanimously to waive such tickets given to homeless people on nights when the local shelters are full, as long as the offender is on a shelter's waitlist.

Previously, the city had only waived tickets when a certain winter shelter was full. This makes it sound like officials are admitting that it's routine for shelters to be packed to the gills year-round. Tell Santa Cruz officials to take steps to ensure that homeless Santa Cruz residents can get a shelter bed when they need one.

This solution, if you can call it that, isn't perfect. But it does put Santz Cruz a heck of a lot closer to decriminalizing homelessness that places like Boulder, Colorado that still issue tickets and hand out fines or community service sentences for folks who have nowhere to go.

The new rule puts an unfair burden on the homeless, though. How can they be expected to make the effort to get assistance everyday, by going to a shelter and being put on a waitlist to ensure they won't be ticketed, while the city gets away with failing everyday by not providing enough beds? Unfortunately this might not have been as much about ending unfair burdens on the homeless as it is a little market research. City manager Martin Bernal said a key motivation of the decision to waive tickets is to find out, "Are people actually making an effort?"