Police Charged with Murdering California Homeless Man

Home » 2011 » Page 2

Santa Ana, California — Every American has the right to self defense, even against police officers, and no one in law enforcement has the right to use unreasonable force in the performance of their duty. That was the final determination made by Tony Rachauckas, Orange County’s (CA) District Attorney, after examining evidence of the July 5th beating murder of Kelly Thomas, a mentally ill homeless man whose life was brutally cut short by at least two on-duty Fullerton police officers, Manuel Ramos and Jay Cicinelli. A total of six officers were put on paid administrative leave after Thomas’ death and prior to today’s charges.

Ramos was charged with second degree murder for craven acts that “were reckless and created a high risk of death and great bodily injury” said Rachauckas. Cicinelli, the second officer charged, is now facing involuntary manslaughter and felony excessive force. The California prosecutor further described Kelly’s last moments in excruciating detail, recalling his numerous pain-filled pleas of “I’m sorry. I can’t breath. Help, Dad.”

The district attorney described the crimes against Thomas as a “violent and desperate struggle”. A full description of the event by witnesses described the shocking extent of Thomas’ injuries and the brutality of the officers’ acts. Thomas died from brain injuries, as a result of overwhelming head trauma. Thomas suffered a variety of broken bones to the nose and cheeks, head and ribs. During the assault, Thomas was shocked repeatedly by police tasers to the head, face, back and chest cavity. The medical report showed that Thomas suffered internal bleeding, causing him to choke of his own blood.

This inhumane assault on Thomas was conducted by no less than a half dozen officers responding to a call of vehicles being broken into. Following the beating, no evidence could be found in the area of vehicles burglarized, nor was any stolen property found on Thomas.

Thomas died because six officers of the Fullerton Police Department didn’t know how to react or respond to a mentally ill person in distress and crisis. When faced with a situation that caused confusion, law enforcement at the scene chose brutal force to subdue Mr. Thomas. This was not an example of appropriate police procedures gone awry. This was a clear case of criminal ignorance, which caused the death of anther human being. This could have all been avoided by the appropriate training of law enforcement in engaging a variety of types of individuals with various mental illnesses. It should have been avoided by Mr. Thomas receiving the appropriate treatment in a place he could call home.

Read More:

Each fall,Washington D.C.teems with incoming freshmen from all over the nation… Oftentimes, these students get a glimpse of homelessness for the first time as they roam the streets during their first few weeks. But for the students of Georgetown School of Nursing, Georgetown University, George Washington University, and American University, the encounter took place face-to-face. For years, the NCH’s Faces of Homelessness Speaker’s Bureau has presented to the first-year students at these universities, in the case of Georgetown, since 1989.This year, between August 24th and 29th, NCH’s Speaker’s Bureau spoke to nearly 600 incoming students at these universities, where many of the young adults were personally confronted with this issue, and given a fresh perspective on the experience of homelessness.

The Faces of Homelessness Speaker’s Bureau is one of NCH’s longest-standing and most successful programs. Through the program, panels of people who currently are or have been homeless present their personal experiences to groups of all ages and backgrounds. The Washington D.C. branch of the Bureau has been educating the public through these presentations for 15 years, and in the past 4 years NCH Speaker’s Bureaus have sprung up in Maryland, Massachusetts, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. The Bureau’s approach is unique in that it empowers those who have been affected by homelessness to directly advocate for themselves and others, and bridge the gap between themselves and their audience, who have often never seen the faces of homelessness up-close. As the Speaker’s Bureau shares the often unexpected variety of paths that can lead to homelessness, the negative view of homelessness as a personal problem is challenged and perceptions of the issue are re-evaluated. In 2010, the Speaker’s Bureau spoke 270 times, reaching a combined audience of 15,000, and 2011 is shaping up to beat that number by a landslide, with over 400 bookings.

This August, each of the three undergraduate presentations was given to incoming freshmen in specially-designed community service programs, and their responses were overwhelmingly positive. Freshman Peter Sacco, from George Washington University’s Community Building Community early move-in program, felt the experience “forced me to re-examine my perceptions of homeless…I used to look at these unfortunate souls as lower level people, whose poor choices in life forced them into their own predicaments. But I desperately want to change this perspective.” He has since reached out to NCH to take part in the 48 Hour Homeless Challenge later this year.

Speaker Jackie Grimball made her debut as an NCH Speaker the GWU program. Her story, which includes an elite family background, a privileged life, and “the best private schools that money could buy, along with a Masters from George Washington University” had an enormous impact on the audience. As it sunk in to the audience that she was speaking to her Alma mater, Ms. Grimball “noticed one young lady in the audience whose mouth dropped.” She also shared that she “could not help but be amazed at the reaction of the students as I was talking to them about my family’s rejection of me when they found out my plight. I saw a few of them crying.” Ms. Grimball received a standing ovation for her presentation, a response which aptly reflects her assessment of the evening: “I believe the GWU students’ reaction was that I was still able to ‘stand’ and I am still ‘standing.’”

Donald Whitehead, one of the presenters at American University, is one of the country’s most notable experts on homelessness. As a former Executive Director of NCH, and two terms as President of NCH’s board, he has been active in the Bureau for years. According to him, speaking to incoming freshmen at American’s Freshman Service Experience “has always been one of my favorite speaking engagements,” but this year he felt “there was something special in the room…The questions that were asked by this year’s group were extremely insightful. As a presenter, I left with a genuine sense of hope that at least for one night there was a room full of amazing young people that truly believe that we can and will ‘Bring America Home.’”

 

 

Steve Thomas

Georgetown School of Nursing and Health Studies invited Steve Thomas of the Speaker’s Bureau to present in accordance with their induction ceremony, where the incoming students swear to the values of upholding the common good, and advocating for social justice, among others. “Universally, everyone in attendance was deeply moved by your presentation,” Samuel Aronson, the Assistant Director of Academic Affairs, later told NCH. “This kind of engagement is something I have never before witnessed,” Arnson said after the nursing students voluntarily gathered the next day to share their response to the presentation. One of the attendees reflected that Mr. Thomas’ “ability to bring us into his dark hour of despair and share with us the hope and kindness he thankfully found was something I will not forget.” Another shared “deep gratitude” with Mr. Thomas, “for his willingness to share his thoughts, feelings and experiences with us.” An article about the Georgetown Nursing event can be found here.

These events are just a handful of the thousands of times that NCH’s Faces of Homelessness Speaker’s Bureau has impacted audiences by allowing people who have often never interacted with people experiencing homelessness to hear what it is like, and encouraging both parties to learn and discuss what they can actively do to end it. For more information on our speakers themselves, booking a Faces of Homelessness Speaker’s Bureau event, or starting a Speaker’s Bureau in your area, please visit the Faces of Homelessness Speaker’s Bureau website.

– Adeline Pearson, Fall 2011 Intern

In March 2009, a city developer informed the Gainesville, Florida city Plan Board about an 18 year old ordinance that was regularly violated. The ordinance, located here in city code, limited soup kitchens to serving up to 130 meals within a 24 hour period. The Plan Board listened to the developer and voted for stricter enforcement of the limit. After two years of protests and activism, the 130 meal limit will now be replaced with a new policy that allows soup kitchens to serve as many people as they can within a three hour period each day.

The Coalition to End the Meal Limit NOW! lead a grass-roots effort to repeal the ordinance.

Due to exemptions in the original ordinance for churches and the Salvation Army, St. Francis House was the city’s only soup kitchen affected by the limit. Commissioner Jeanna Mastrodisca had stated that the limit was in place to keep soup kitchen patrons from being concentrated in the downtown area where many receive meals from the St. Francis House, saying “What we’re trying to do is spread [patrons] out. […] That’s our goal.” City Spokesman Bob Woods said in 2009 that Gainesville is currently developing a “one-stop” homeless center that will provide food, shelter, and services. Woods also said that Churches can hand out up to 20 meals without a permit.

But with the center still yet to break ground in August 2011, the hungry have limited options in Gainesville: according to the Coalition to End the Meal Limit NOW!, “the St. Francis House, in order to keep its license to operate, has had to turn away anyone after number 130 in line to be fed, despite lines approaching 300 people.” The meal limit was featured in the National Coalition for the Homeless’ (NCH) 2010 report on food sharing prohibitions and also helped garner Gainesville the fifth spot on NCH’s 2009 Ten Meanest Cities.

People began protesting the meal limit by picketing city hall and demanding that it be overturned in the summer of 2009. A petition to lift the limit on Thanksgiving, Christmas, and another holiday of St. Francis’ choosing quickly reached the city Plan Board later that year, and the unelected group of Gainesville residents recommended that the City Commission investigate overturning the limit all together. The Plan Board unanimously reaffirmed its position in 2011.

As the amount of time that the meal limit was enforced increased, so did its opposition. On December 1, 2010, the Coalition to End the Meal Limit NOW!formed with the mission of ending the need for their organization to exist as soon as possible.

The Coalition planned to post a billboard with this design to raise awareness and rally support against the limit.

The Coalition brought together a number of people and groups, including Food Not Bombs, Veterans for Peace, and the International Socialist Organization, acting as an umbrella to coordinate protests of the meal limit.

By August 2011, the Coalition had grown immensely. According to Sean Larson, the Coalition Convener, “we currently have 18 member organizations, with many of those sending regular delegates to our bi-weekly meetings. […] We [also] have had over 700 local residents sign the Coalition’s petition, and almost 15,000 supporters sign an online petition at Change.org.”

The petitions have brought attention to the issue, but not nearly as much as the Coalition’s pickets and protests. Larson says that their presence at city hall and downtown has drawn local, national, and even international attention to the meal limit, putting considerable pressure on the City Commission. According to Larson, their campaign gained even more momentum following a revelation that it was only a select group of land developers who pushed for the limit, allowing the Coalition to single out those responsible and hold boycotts and pickets. In October 2010, Gainesville Mayor Craig Lowe still defended the meal limit, saying that it was the best way to keep the downtown community safe until an alternative could be found. But less than a year later, on July 27, 2011, Lowe announced his support of ending the limit, endorsing a plan that allows soup kitchens to serve an unlimited amount of people within a three hour window each day.

Larson says that the Coalition’s protesting is what truly made a difference: “[Mayor Lowe’s] indefensible support of the meal limit became unsustainable in the face of the mounting pressure engendered by the Coalition’s public actions, which generated a large public outcry against the mayor in particular. He changed his position because he had to.” On August 18, 2011, a repeal of the 130 meal limit won its first City Commission vote, and in its place will likely be the “three hour window” plan that Lowe eventually backed.

*This marks the last post by our Civil Rights Summer Intern Daniel Honeycutt. Thank you Dan (and all of our summer interns) for your great work this summer!

You would think that in a progressive state like California there wouldn’t be three different Governors (two Republicans and one Democrat) who have vetoed homeless hate crimes legislation.  But such is the case.  Disproving that the third try is a charm, on August 5, 2011 Gov. Jerry Brown (D) vetoed AB 312.

Introduced by Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), AB 312 would have granted homeless people the right to invoke hate crimes protection when suing an assailant in civil court.   Current categories include:  race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, age, disability, marital status, political opinion and position in a labor dispute.

It was supported by state trial lawyers, veterans’ organizations, county sheriffs and the state’s rank and file police officers.

In an interview with EverythingLongBeach.com, Assemblywoman Lowenthal said, “Homeless people have enough problems without becoming the targets of violence.  This bill is the state’s way of saying those kinds of attacks are especially reprehensible.”

In his veto message, Gov. Brown said, “This bill would expand the provisions of the Ralph Civil Rights Act to include homelessness or the perception that one is homeless, thereby creating new private and enforcement remedies.  It is undeniable that homeless people are vulnerable to victimization, but California already has very strong civil and criminal laws that provide sufficient protection.”

But according to Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism at California State University in San Bernardino, “California for years has consistently ranked first or second in bias homicides against the homeless. Moreover, they are often attacked serially with increasing severity. Yet, current legislation completely excludes the homeless as a group from even the basic civil remedies extended to many other groups to stave off these horrible attacks. For anyone to say that the status quo is acceptable strains credulity.”

He should redirect his letter to the family of Kelly Thomas, 37, a schizophrenic homeless man in Fullerton, who died after a July 5th, 2011 interaction with police.  The brutal beating of Thomas has sparked an international outcry along with rallies, officer’s suspensions, calls for the resignation of the police chief, and pending investigations by local and federal authorities.

Last year Brown’s predecessor, Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a similar bill -AB 2706- also introduced  by Assemblywoman Lowenthal.

In his veto letter dated September 29, 2010 to Members of the California Assembly, Gov. Schwarzenegger wrote:  “While this bill is well-intentioned, it is unclear whether the homeless are targeted for violence because they are homeless, or because they possess a characteristic already protected by California’s hate crime statute, such as mental or physical disability.   Furthermore, poverty, unlike race, gender, national origin and disability, is not a suspect classification.  Because of the incongruence between the recognized classifications listed in the Civil Code section 51.7 and homelessness, this bill could result in legal challenges and increased court costs.”

The former Governor must have forgotten the October 9, 2009 incident in which John Robert McGraham, 55, a homeless man, was drenched in gasoline and set on fire on the side of the road in Los Angeles.  He died.  According to a police officer, the perpetrator, John Martin, had a “straight-up personal dislike and little bit of crazy” toward homeless people.

In both legislative sessions the bills passed overwhelmingly, but along partisan lines.  Democrats generally in favor; Republicans opposed.

Other homeless hate crimes legislation has been stalled, getting tied up into California’s prison overcrowding issue.  In 1994, then Republican Governor Pete Wilson vetoed an even stronger bill that would have simply added homelessness to the state’s existing hate crimes law.

However, there is clearly a need for anti-hate legislation in California.  Since 1999, the National Coalition for the Homeless has issued an annual report on hate crimes and violence against the homeless population.

Between 1999 to 2009, there were a total of 213 hate crimes/violent incidents against the homeless occurring in 48 California cities.   Forty-eight resulted in death.  California had the most incidents of any state during this eleven year period.  Florida came in second with 177 attacks.

Preliminary numbers from NCH’s annual (2010) report on hate crimes/violence against the homeless population has California taking second place only to Florida.   But California still ranks number one for the twelve year period from 1999 to 2010.

But even with three strikes against homeless hate crimes bills, we’re not out yet. Looking forward, the fight in California is far from over. Lowenthal hopes that as states around the country pass similar laws, such as Florida, people will see more the importance of hate crimes legislation that protects people experiencing homelessness. She also expresses her continued resolve, stating, “This legislation has now been vetoed by two successive governors. That is disappointing and frustrating, but I’ve been working on homelessness issues for a long time and making progress is never easy.”

By Michael Stoops, Director of Community Organizing, National Coalition for the Homeless.

Over the years, NCH has had many homeless-related artwork either loaned or donated to us.   If you come visit us at our office located in the Church of the Pilgrims here in Washington, DC, you will find the following exhibits at the NCH office, and in the Church’s Bird Room Art Gallery and Pilgrimage Retreat Center.  Each year several thousand people get the chance to view our artwork.

If you are interested in checking out our artwork or borrowing our artwork for a special event, please contact us.  Also, if you are an artist who has done homelessness related artwork or know of an artist who has, please consider loaning or donating the artwork to us and or letting your artist friend know about our interest.

Portraits of Homelessness, Frank Russell.   Four paintings depicting homelessness in Baltimore grace our walls.  Mr. Russell also has loaned his paintings and drawings to Health Care for the Homeless in Baltimore.

“Giving Back”, Alan B. Tuttle—These five paintings depict the lives of homeless people with the goal of raising awareness of the problem of homelessness.  Alan resides and works in Oxbow, New York.

Home Street Home (1984), by Fran Adler and Kira Corser.   24 artworks, each with a photograph and poem.  This exhibit is a collaborative photography-poetry exhibition by photographer Kira Corser and poet Frances Payne Adler.  This exhibit was an artistic response to the homelessness crisis in San Diego in the mid-1980’s.

Homeless T-Shirt Quilts, by the late Dorothy Hand.    Since NCH’s founding in 1982, staff and board members have traveled the country to mobilize the grassroots to do advocacy on homelessness issues.   During these travels we came across a number of poverty-related t-shirts that reflect our extensive grassroots network.  As you can only wear one t-shirt at a time, we thought a better idea would be to have these cutting-edge t-shirts made into quilts.

All six quilts were done by the late Dorothy Hand, a quilter from Cincinnati.  She created the quilts in an effort to raise awareness of the homelessness issue.  Her daughter and granddaughter continue to make quilts for NCH.   So if you have a favorite homelessness/poverty-related t-shirt, please send our way.

Images of Homelessness (1999), Tammy DeGruchy (Grubbs).   The Images of Homelessness is the largest (22 portraits) ever oil painting exhibit on homelessness..  Artist DeGruchy painted the exhibit for the National Coalition for the Homeless. The exhibit raises awareness on homeless issues and represents who becomes homeless.

Tammy Grubbs now resides in Pipestone, Minnesota.   She continues to volunteer doing portraits for NCH.  Two of her paintings have been turned into posters that are available for purchase on NCH’s website.

Locked Out, Pat Apt—a 14 piece exhibit—linoleum prints (black ink on brown wrapping paper).  This exhibit seeks to explore how in a society as wealthy as ours, that allows persistent hunger and homelessness to exist.

We’re really sad to see you all go!  NCH has been lucky enough to welcome the following interns to our offices.  This group has shown an incredible level of dedication and skill in helping us to get some great work done this summer.  Thank you for all your hard work, and best of luck in your future endeavors (maybe there is another Secretary of HUD among you?!)!

Laura Epstein

Laura is a sophomore at Claremont McKenna College outside of Los Angeles, where she is studying government and religious studies. At school, Laura is very involved with Hillel and the College Democrats. She first got involved in NCH through attending Speakers’ Bureau presentations, and she is thrilled to become more involved with causes related to homelessness through her internship at NCH this summer. Outside of the office, she enjoys exploring D.C. and teaching violin lessons. She has been working on writing up hate crimes and publicizing National Hunger and Homeless Awareness Week.

Daniel Honeycutt

Daniel is a sophomore at Allegheny College in Meadville, Pennsylvania, where he is majoring in Political Science and Music. He plays trumpet and sings in many music ensembles at Allegheny, including jazz band and choir. Daniel hopes to attend law school or graduate school for Political Science following graduation. He recently moved to Maryland from much colder Maine, where he was once an intern for Senator Olympia Snowe. His previous political experience motivated him to seek out a great nonprofit to intern with for the summer, and NCH was a perfect fit. Dan is currently tracking voter ID laws for the 2011/2012 Voting Packet and updating the 2010/2011 Criminalization of Homelessness Report.

Elizabeth Ballinger-Dix

From Seattle, Elizabeth is a junior at Amherst College in Massachusetts, majoring in English. After graduation, she is considering work in international development or conflict resolution. While searching for a way to work on poverty this summer, she learned about NCH through her college’s Center for Community Engagement. After work she likes cooking, reading, wandering around, and talking to anyone who will give her five minutes. Her main focus this summer is updating the website.

Brooke Templin

Brooke is a rising junior at Allegheny College in Meadville, PA, majoring in English. She is also pursuing a minor in Biology. Her time at the National Coalition for the Homeless is a part of her commitment and participation in the Bonner Foundation Program, a community service based scholarship program. Brooke first became interested in issues of homelessness when the Speaker’s Bureau came and spoke at Allegheny. Since then, she worked with the Bonner Foundation at a local family services agency in Meadville that provided rental assistance. She is excited to be in Washington, DC learning about the issues and being a part of the advocacy community for people experiencing homelessness. Currently she is working on updating factsheets and the website layout. In her free time, she loves reading and exploring the many sights of DC.

Erin Linnehan

Erin is a rising senior at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts. She is a Political Science and Religious Studies double major with a concentration in Peace and Conflict Studies. At school, she is a Varsity athlete on the Women’s Track and Field team at Holy Cross, directs the campus community service organization, and sings in her college a Capella group. Erin enjoys the company of family and friends and loves to spend time playing pick up sports. This summer, she has primarily been updating the Foreclosure to Homelessness 2009 report which the organization hopes to release by next year.

Marianne DeAngelo

Marianne DeAngelo is a junior at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, TN majoring in Sociology and minoring in Communications and Studio Art. She became interested in NCH after researching hate crimes against people experiencing homelessness for two classroom speeches. At Vanderbilt, she has participated in Habitat for Humanity Spring Break, is a captain of the Club Lacrosse team, and is the Recruitment Chairwoman of her sorority. After college she hopes to find a career that relates to her interest in criminology. This summer she has been using her communications experience to improve our “Faces of Homelessness” Speakers’ Bureau.

Shane Poole

Shane graduated Magna Cum Laude from the University of Pittsburgh with a B.S. in political science and psychology.  In the fall he will be entering his second year of law school at Howard University.  Shane plans on devoting his legal career to social change as an advocate for the poor.  He believes that racial unity and education are the keys for progress, and that everyone in America could be given an equal opportunity to make something out of life.  Greatly inspired by Martin Luther King, Jr., Shane understands that peace, compassion, and love must be spread to all.

The National Coalition for the Homeless would like to offer a preview of our upcoming report on the criminalization of homelessness by choosing the top ten most ridiculous anti-homeless policies enacted in cities across America. Our criminalization report will offer narratives for many more cities and occurrences than the ones listed here, as well as rank the nation’s ten “meanest” cities. This post counts down our choices for the 5 most ridiculous anti-homeless laws/actions. An earlier article ranking policies 10 through 6 is available.

10 Most Ridiculous Anti-Homeless Laws
~From 2010 through June 2011~

 5. Panhandling Bans – Multiple Cities

A rapidly increasing number of cities are designating areas where it is illegal to ask for any item of value. In Miami FL, for instance, panhandling is not allowed around American Airlines Arena and other tourist-heavy areas. Dallas TX also banned panhandling in popular tourist destinations in preparation for hosting the Super Bowl. Some cities, like St. Petersburg FL, even issued bans that cover the entire city.

Despite laws already being in place to guard against “aggressive” panhandling and asking for help clearly being a first amendment right, the courts have had mixed conclusions on these ordinances. An appellate court in New York said that such bans are unconstitutional, while panhandling bans for certain areas, such as around ATM’s and banks, were upheld in Minneapolis MN.

Oakland Park FL decided to take their roadway panhandling ban a step further: not only is it illegal to ask for anything of value, it is also illegal to give. In the name of traffic safety, anyone caught giving to or purchasing something from anybody on the road can face either a fine of $50 to $100 or up to 90 days in jail.

4. Camping Bans – Multiple Cities

Some cities, including Anchorage AK and Kansas City MO, have passed “anti-camping” ordinances and are destroying homeless camps both within metropolitan areas, such as those under bridges and in abandoned lots, and deep within parks and forests. Many municipalities interpret “camping” to mean setting up structures such as tents, while others will issue citations for simply using a sleeping bag because it provides shelter from the elements. For example, Salt Lake City UT has produced horror stories of people receiving camping citations for sitting on their backpack in a park.

Police “sweeps” of homeless camps, which are intended to clear out residents and their makeshift shelters, have resulted in the loss of very important property, such as medication, birth certificates, ID, and personal mementos. Due to legal challenges nationwide, like one in Portland OR and another in Sacramento CA, many cities that perform these sweeps have instituted systems to provide warning time to campers and to retain their seized belongings for a fixed period of time. Without this process, numerous homeless victims have illegally lost what little property they had, and even with it many more still stand to lose their belongings due to the difficulty of retrieving it. Ultimately, these crackdowns on homeless camps only waste taxpayer money and cause unnecessary hardship in order to move the problem of homelessness instead of solve it by providing adequate access to housing and services.

3. Sit/Lie Ban – San Francisco, California

“Stand up for the right to sit down!” This is the rally cry of those who are protesting a San Francisco ordinance that makes it illegal to sit or lie down on the city’s sidewalks between 7 am and 11 pm. The city claims that the ordinance is intended to limit panhandling and to reduce San Francisco’s homeless population by discouraging homeless people from living there. Opponents say that it is unconstitutional to force somebody to walk and stand all day simply because they have nowhere to go. Similar ordinances exist in cities across the country, including Austin TX, Seattle WA, and Reno NV to name a few.

2. Food Sharing Limits – Orlando, Florida

Since when is it illegal to give somebody food? In Orlando FL, it has been since April 2011, when a group of activists lost a court battle against the city to overturn its 2006 laws that restrict sharing food with groups of more than 25 people. The ordinance requires those who do these “large” charitable food sharings in parks within two miles of City Hall to obtain a permit and limits each group to two permits per park for a year. Food sharing is considered to be a form of speech, but the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the ordinance still provides ample areas for groups to practice their first amendment rights because they can still share food elsewhere in the city.

The law was not enforced during the legal battle, but after the lawsuit against the city failed, Orlando began cracking down on those who chose to defy the ordinance, resulting in multiple arrests of activists from Food Not Bombs. “‘They basically carted them off to jail for feeding hungry people,’ said [Douglas Coleman from Orlando Food Not Bombs]. ‘For them to regulate a time and place for free speech and to share food, that is unacceptable.’”

Food sharing prohibitions are far from a new development and are not only found in Orlando. In 2010, NCH and the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty released a report on the growing popularity of these ordinances.

1. Sleeping Bans – Multiple Cities

Many city ordinances that ban public sleeping, like one in Santa Cruz CA, refer to all sleeping in public as “camping,” but the act of camping is interpreted in this article to be the use of personal shelter, such as a tent, and those laws are addressed in #4 of this list. Number one on our countdown is focused on ordinances that strictly ban all public sleeping outright, which includes cities such as Santa Cruz that make sleeping outside illegal in a de facto manner via a “camping” ordinance’s broad interpretation and enforcement.

No other type of law can quite compare to these bans when it comes to the overt criminalization of homelessness: it is undeniable that people experiencing homelessness are the only segment of the population commonly affected by ordinances that do not allow sleeping outside. To exacerbate the problem, many places with these laws, like Ashland OR, simply do not have enough shelter and services to offer violators.

Thankfully, courts have usually required cities with these ordinances to have enough shelter space available for every offender, as was the case in San Diego CA. But this policy ignores that shelters, which usually have curfews, tough crowds, and crammed beds, are not necessarily the most desirable places to live, so many people would much rather stay on the street than in what are sometimes “jail-like” places. And all too often the homeless have no choice: in St. Petersburg FL, those caught sleeping on the sidewalk are told that they can either go to a shelter or a real jail, denying them the option of avoiding systematic and strict harboring altogether. In the end, these policies can severely hurt people experiencing homelessness, resulting in jail time, outstanding fines, and a restriction of their freedoms.

For more information on the criminalization of homelessness, you can visit our 2009 Homes Not Handcuffs Report and our 2010 report on Food Sharing Prohibitions.

By Daniel Honeycutt, NCH Intern

The National Coalition for the Homeless would like to offer a preview of our upcoming report on the criminalization of homelessness by choosing the top ten most ridiculous anti-homeless policies enacted in cities across America. Our criminalization report will offer narratives for many more cities and occurrences than the ones listed here, as well as rank the nation’s ten “meanest” cities. This post counts down our choices for the ten most ridiculous anti-homeless laws/actions.

These five anti-homeless policies are only the tip of the iceberg. Check back in with the Bringing America Home Blog next week for five even more ridiculous laws and actions that not only ignore human rights, but constitutional ones as well.

10 Most Ridiculous Anti-Homeless Laws
~From 2010 through June 2011~

10.  “Homeless Meters” – Multiple Cities

San Antonio TX, Virginia Beach VA, Anchorage AK, and many more cities across America are installing converted parking meters to collect donations for homeless service organizations. These meters are being marketed as a possible solution to panhandling by encouraging do-gooders to give their spare change to established groups instead of directly to the homeless to avoid the possibility of their money being spent on drugs and alcohol.

Donating to vetted homeless service organizations is a positive thing, so we at NCH want the placing of “homeless meter” programs on this list to not necessarily mean that we are against the use of parking meters to collect donations. But we also urge the public to be aware of the negative effects of these efforts.

Personal interaction, which these meters may eliminate, can be just as important to a person experiencing homelessness as an actual monetary donation. A short talk can go lengths and bounds to renewing a feeling of inclusion in society, a feeling that is all too often lost among the sometimes invisible homeless. Donations to service organizations are always encouraged, but we should never let these meters discourage acknowledging that those who ask for money are fellow human beings. Just as ignoring the issue of homelessness will not help end it, ignoring the people directly affected by homelessness will not help them help themselves.

9.  RV Sleeping Ban – Venice, California

In 2010, Venice CA began strict enforcement of an ordinance banning sleeping in RV’s. This action is reportedly due to resident claims of annoyance from noise and inconvenience from the bulky vehicles. But many homeless live in RV’s, and they need to be close to the city so they can access services. Not allowing them to park and sleep in the city makes getting help all the more difficult. The ordinance was enacted due to reports of some RV owners dumping their sewage in public, but this ban punishes Venice’s homeless who have to choose between living either in their RV or on the streets. This homeless population is assuredly much larger than a couple of bad apples who do not care where their waste ends up.

8.  Smoking Ban – Sarasota, Florida

A ban on smoking in some public areas in Sarasota FL may sound fine at first: after all, New York City recently banned smoking in public parks. But the real issue here lies within the City Commission’s intentions, not the validity of the effects of second-hand smoke or cigarette butt pollution. The ban was originally proposed in conjunction with park bench removal at Selby Five Points Park (#6) to discourage the homeless from using the public area. The ban was later expanded to all public parks out of fairness, but this ordinance still remains far from fair: a city-owned golf course was given an exemption because, according to City Manager Bob Bartolotta, “so many of the golfers are smokers.” What is so special about golfers that they should not be required to follow the laws that are in place across the rest of Sarasota’s public parks?

7.  Water Sprinklers – Manteca, California

“Creative” is one way to think of this method of keeping the homeless from sleeping in public parks in Manteca, CA. “Cruel and unusual” is another. In order to discourage the homeless from camping in Library Park, the city purposely changed the water sprinkler schedule so that people could not sleep in the park without an unwanted shower. The policy also includes shutting off power in the park’s gazebo to keep the homeless from using it to charge their cell phones.

6.  Bench Removal – Sarasota, Florida

In response to complaints about gatherings of “vagrants” in public parks from downtown Sarasota FL condo residents, the city decided to remove the presumed host of these gatherings: benches. Sarasota went forward with its plan to remove the benches in Selby Five Points Park in May 2011 in order to please those who pay “the highest property tax value in the county” by discouraging the homeless (and apparently everyone else) from using the park. Combined with a panhandling ban around parking meters and a smoking ban in certain public spaces, which the City Commission originally proposed to further discourage the homeless from using parks (#8), it is all too clear that the Sarasota Commissioners are willing to go to ridiculous lengths to keep their poorest citizens out of the sight of their wealthiest.

For more information on the criminalization of homelessness, you can visit our 2009 Homes Not Handcuffs Report and our 2010 report on Food Sharing Prohibitions.  Be sure to check back next week for the top 5 Most Ridiculous Anti-Homeless Laws!

By Daniel Honeycutt, NCH Intern

With so many college students flocking to D.C. for internships, it is no surprise that organizations choose to have conventions geared toward young adults in D.C. over the summer. In the past month, I had the fantastic opportunity of attending the 2011 College Democrats of America Conference, from June 16-19, and the Center for American Progress’s Campus Progress National Convention on July 6. At the conferences, I learned about ways to take action on progressive causes and publicized National Hunger and Homeless Awareness Week to college students.

National Hunger and Homeless Awareness Week, from November 12-20, 2011, is an NCH-sponsored event that I have been publicizing as part of my internship here at NCH. During the week, groups have the opportunity to coordinate events related to issues of hunger and homelessness such as hosting a Speakers’ Bureau panel, creating a tent city on campus, or lobbying elected officials. This summer, I have reached out to religious groups, community service groups, and college campuses to see if they can involve more groups in hosting their own awareness weeks. To enhance outreach efforts, I talked to many college students at the conferences I attended to encourage them to learn more about the awareness week by signing up to receive an organizing manual. Due to the close ties between democratic/progressive causes and issues related to poverty, students were extremely interested in becoming involved with our awareness week. Furthermore, because many of the democratic/progressive clubs that students are involved in have a low profile on campus or are faced with many apathetic student bodies, I encouraged students to bring awareness weeks to their campuses because of the innovative leadership and outreach experiences the week presents.

In addition to reaching out to students to participate in National Hunger and Homeless Awareness Week, I attended seemingly countless panels and keynote addresses, including hearing from people such as former President Clinton, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, and author of Nickel and Dimed Barbara Ehrenreich. As well as learning about cool projects and ways to take action that I will take back to my college campus, I was able to look at many issues through the lens of the relationship to homelessness. For instance, Representative Donna Edwards (D-MD) spoke about how when she was younger, she almost lost her house because she racked up hospital bills that she never would have incurred had her job provided her with healthcare or a high enough wage for her to buy her own coverage. For the conferences as a whole, one of the biggest topics was voting rights. ID laws and other requirements not only negatively affect the homeless, they also restrict the ability of college students to vote. It was so interesting to make the connections and to see how various groups are fighting the new voting laws. I also attend a panel directly related to poverty, with representatives from low-income student groups, Center for American Progress’ poverty reduction program (half in ten), and others. It was inspiring to hear how different organizations tackle the issues of poverty.

I absolutely loved attending the conferences because not only did I learn more about issues that I care about, but I was also able to talk with so many other students about how they are making positive social change and relate their experiences to mine here at NCH.

By Laura Epstein, intern

“If you have to show a picture ID to buy Sudafed, if you have to show a picture ID to get on an airplane, you should show a picture ID when you vote.” This is South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley’s justification for a new bill in the state that requires voters to produce photographic identification at the polls. Signed into law on May 18th, the bill also requires voters to produce a voter registration card, and one containing a photograph can be acquired for free with a birth certificate or passport.

South Carolina is far from alone in passing this measure. As of date, fourteen states have passed laws requiring photo identification, with sixteen more having other proof of residence voting requirements, such as presenting a credit card, utility bill, birth certificate, or paycheck if the voter does not have another form of identification. The stated goal of most supporters of this kind of legislation is to reduce voter fraud by making it more difficult for people to vote more than once in an election or for non-citizens to vote.

This trend is only becoming more and more widespread: according to The Brennan Center for Justice, “at least 37 states are considering or have considered voter ID and/or proof of citizenship” bills in this legislative session alone. The graph below shows the astounding recent increase in photo ID legislation passage:

These measures may in fact disenfranchise many American citizens who would otherwise be able to vote. A New York Times Editorial arguing against this type of legislation cites a survey by the Brennan Center for Justice which finds that 11% of American citizens who are of voting age (21 million people) do not have up-to-date photo identification, with that percentage being significantly higher among those with low incomes (15%) and African-Americans (25%). Furthermore, this was a phone survey, so the nation’s entire homeless population was, in all likelihood, not remotely accounted for in the results. If anything, these percentages are likely to be higher among the entire American electorate.

In theory, making photographic identification free, as some of these laws also do, should make it easy for citizens to acquire one and be able to vote. However, it is not that simple. Although most of these state laws have alternatives to using identification on election day, such as provisional ballots and affidavit forms, many of them still put a de facto price on voting for those who simply do not have the means to easily obtain a birth certificate, find out their Social Security number, or to make a trip to the DMV for a state-issued ID, such as the impoverished, disabled, and homeless. The key problem here, as was outlined by Professor Justin Levitt of Loyola Law School in a NPR discussion on the topic, is that “it takes ID to get ID.” Even if finances are not an issue, which they certainly are for individuals and families experiencing homelessness, it can still be “quite difficult to round up the documentation necessary to get documentation. It ends up a little bit of a bureaucratic cycle,” possibly causing voter apathy.

Overall, this legislation puts even more roadblocks in the way for the homeless to vote than there already are. Even though its supporters may indeed have the noble intention of reducing voter fraud, the issue of fraud itself is virtually “nonexistent” according to the New York Times. Regardless of how large or small of a problem voter fraud actually is, the large possibility remains that a surprisingly large number of Americans, at least 21 million, stand to effectively lose their vote if this legislation spreads nationwide unless they acquire a photo ID, which is certainly easier said than done for our marginalized populations, including the homeless.

To find out your state’s current voter identification laws, you can visit the National Conference of State Legislatures voter ID page. Also, New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice has an up to date report on the progress of voter ID legislation by state.

By Daniel Honeycutt, Intern