You Have the Right to an Attorney, Except When You're Homeless

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.

Of course Nevius is correct in calling the tickets a waste of taxpayer dollars, but the waste is in issuing citations to people whose real crime is being homeless.

According to a 2009 report by the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty and the National Coalition for the Homeless, San Francisco spent $9,847,027 on 56,567 quality of life citations between January 2004 and March 2008 that targeted homeless individuals for activities ranging from blocking the sidewalk to camping in the park.

In the same report, Religious Witness with Homeless People estimated that the money used in issuing quality of life citations could be used to provide supportive housing to 492 people, put 300 people in a three-month detox center, or pay the salaries of 113 psychiatric outreach workers.

It is hard to see what the point could be in issuing a fine to someone who is begging for change for his or her next meal. Those wanting to eject the homeless from San Francisco would be better off directing their energy to encourage the city to spend money on affordable housing and jobs programs rather than ticketing and jails. Tell Nevius to stop attacking pro bono attorneys and to start supporting affordable housing and increased services for the homeless.

Photo credit: Bob Doran