Violence and Hatred Risky for Homeless

Home » Civil Rights » Page 5

This week, NCH will release their annual report on biased incidences against un-housed individuals, “Hate Crimes against the Homeless: The Brutality of Violence Unveiled”. Take a look at an excerpt from Brian Levin, Director of the Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino, which details the crucial need for federal protections for the homeless. 

Many people worry about the dangers of terrorism, natural disasters, and plane crashes.

Last year, however, more homeless individuals were killed in bias attacks than the sum total of American civilians killed in hate crimes (approximately 10), large commercial air crashes (no fatalities), and earthquakes (no fatalities)–combined. The fact that the 32 homeless killed in bias attacks alone in 2011 are only a portion of homeless people criminally killed each year and come from a pool of only 650,000 on any given night, makes the numbers a cause for concern. Moreover, bias motivated violence is only one of the serious dangers homeless people encounter, including exposure, hunger, accidents, disability and a lack of medical care.

One would think that with all the risks and vulnerabilities the homeless face, they would be the universal recipients of assistance and compassion. Yet among these notable risks, are violent attacks owing to nothing more than prejudice. The National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH) catalogued almost 1300 incidents of anti-homeless bias violence from 1999 to 2011, but these are only a small sampling of such cases, as only a sliver of non-lethal attacks are reported.

Because homicides are more likely to be reported, they are considered more reliable; although, in many instances where attackers are at large, the motive is unknown. Since 1999, the NCH annual survey has reported the number of hate-motivated anti-homeless homicides to have exceeded the total of all the hate crime homicides for every group enumerated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), except in 2003. Even more stark, is the total number of hate crime homicides against the homeless recorded by the NCH for the period of 1999-2011, at 339, is over twice the number of FBI hate crime homicides combined, at 122.

Hate crimes are offenses where a target is selected because of the actual or perceived group characteristic of another such as race, religion or sexual orientation. Over forty states and the federal government have laws that enhance penalties for hate crimes, but only a handful of states cover homeless status. Hate crime laws often enhance criminal penalties, but sometimes are solely focused on providing data collection, training, or civil remedies. After recent legislative advances where six states and Washington, D.C. have enacted hate crime legislation that covers homelessness, legislative efforts over the last two years in several other states stalled.

While most cases involve victims who are middle aged and offenders who are young adults or youths, the Kelly Thomas case put a spotlight on violent police-homeless interactions. Thomas, a mentally disabled homeless man was killed by police, three of whom have been charged in connection to his death. One former officer, Manuel Ramos, is the first police officer in Orange County, California to be charged with an on duty murder. In some jurisdictions such as Boston and Broward County, FL, police have been at the forefront of protecting the homeless, while in others like Fullerton, CA and Sarasota, FL alleged flawed police practices have been the subject of litigation. The NCH has consistently found each year, that while promising police programs exist, there are also disturbing cases of brutality and harassment. Training, reasonable discretion, and departmental policies that take into account the unique issues surrounding the homeless cannot only improve interactions between law enforcement and the homeless, but send a message to young people that such violence will not be tolerated by anyone in their communities.

Jake Walters believes that Membership Matters, especially to young people. Read how youth can make a difference in ending hate crimes against the homeless by becoming a member at NCH:

The Coalition’s You Don’t Need a Home to Vote campaign is aimed at spreading awareness to organizations about issues related to voting among the homeless population. In addition, the campaign aims to register numerous new homeless voters so that they can exercise their democratic right to vote. On this note, membership with the Coalition is crucial as the greater the membership to the organization, the more awareness of homeless voting issues can be spread throughout the nation. Voting discrimination is not something commonly associated with homelessness and many people do not consider it an important issue, therefore it is important that information about this issue be spread so people can be aware of how this issue reflects on homeless peoples’ invisibility in society.

I am also working on the Coalition’s 2012 Hate Crime report, which looks to spread awareness about violence conducted on people experiencing homelessness. This is another important issue that there is little awareness of, and since few states report information on violent crimes against the homeless, this information needs to be spread in other ways, such as through members of the Coalition. Having greater membership would also lead to more resources for this research, since the Coalition relies heavily on input from connected organizations and individuals who are aware of acts of violence in their local areas.

Its especially important that young people be involved on this issue because, unfortunately, the large majority of hate crimes against people experiencing homelessness are perpetrated by youth.  This makes it especially important for young people to become involved in this issue so they can spread awareness of the root causes of homelessness among their peers in an effort to stop others from acquiring negative attitudes toward homeless people and then acting on these attitudes.

by Jin Zhao
Originally Printed in AlterNet
Thursday, August 9, 2012

Only 10% of homeless Americans vote each year, but they can still make a difference in elections.

Having a home is not a prerequisite to vote in the United States. But activists and homeless service providers still face major challenges trying to help homeless Americans register.

Pitts v. Black (1984) and several subsequent cases in the 1980s and ’90s established that homeless people could not be denied the right to vote because they did not live in a traditional residence. A shelter, park or street corner can be designated as a residence. In states that require a mailing address for voter registration, homeless voters can usually use the addresses of shelters, churches, friends’ houses, or P.O. boxes.

Still, turnout among homeless voters is one of the lowest for any demographic. In the 2008 presidential election, people with the lowest income (family annual income less than $20,000) and people with no reported income — the groups most homeless Americans fall into — had the lowest voter registration rate and the lowest voting rate. According to Neil Donovan, executive director of the National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH), only one-tenth of un-housed persons actually exercise the right to vote, and over the years, “the number has been fairly consistent.”

This is unfortunate, because homeless voters can make a difference. As the 2012 presidential election nears, issues that are relevant to homeless Americans, such as economic inequality, healthcare and job creation, will continue to shape the national debate. Although the homeless vote may not be a wild card for any candidate or party, with at least 1.6 million people experiencing homelessness nationwide, it does have the potential to change the game in some swing states.

Some advocates believe the real impact of the homeless vote lies in local elections. “Americans are most interested in national elections, which is ironic in a sense, because local elections are the ones that affect…your day-to-day life the most,” said Devo’n Williams of Homeless but Not Powerless, an advocate group that pushes for greater homeless engagement in local elections. Indeed, local legislation and policies about funding, housing, healthcare, transportation, and employment can often have a greater, more direct impact on homeless people’s lives than national policy.

Sill, the upcoming presidential election is a great opportunity for activists to raise awareness for the cause of homeless suffrage. From September 30 to October 6, NCH will sponsor the National Homeless and Low-Income Voter Registration Week to help its 4,000 organizations across the country boost voter registration. NCH has sponsored the week-long event every presidential election year since 1992 as part of its You Don’t Need A Home to Vote campaign, which has helped register tens of thousands of homeless voters.

This year, activists may have to work harder, for new voter ID laws and other restrictions introduced to states across the country will make it more difficult for some homeless Americans to vote. At least 34 states introduced laws that require photo ID for voter registration; at least 17 states introduced laws that require proof of citizenship such as a birth certificate. For homeless people, who do not have a steady residence, keeping documents such as a birth certificate is a challenging if not insurmountable task. Many also cannot afford the fees to apply for an ID.

Some states also introduced bills that would make voter registration harder by restricting voter registration drives, eliminating election day registration, reducing early voting periods, or making it harder to restore voting rights. Civil rights activists often organize voter registration drives to help and mobilize the homeless to register to vote, and these bills can make their work more difficult.

A battle is underway across the country over the constitutionality of these laws. We have seen new voter laws struck down or blocked as unconstitutional in several states such as Florida, Texas, SouthCarolina and Wisconsin. At the same time, activists are working to make sure that organizations engaged in homeless voter registration are aware of the laws. “Each state has different laws, different ways of addressing voter ID, and…it is important for most groups who are planning on doing any type of voter registration campaigns, especially dealing with people experiencing homelessness, [to] start reaching out to officials and try to figure out how to address some of the problems that some people are beginning to see related to voter ID,” said Isaiah Castilla of the Alliance for Justice, a national civil rights advocacy group. Castilla recommends that activists use the Brennan Center for Justice Web site, which offers comprehensive resources for voter registration and a summary of voting law changes in 2012.

NCH also published a 2012 Voter Rights and Registration Manual for organizations engaged in homeless voter registration and two weeks ago conducted a voter registration workshop during the 2012 National Conference on Ending Homelessness. “We talked about the nuts and bolts of not only how to do it, but why it’s important as well as informing people about the unique characteristics of their state,” said Neil Donovan. The workshop tuned out to be one of the most popular at the conference.

In addition to having a firm grasp of the law, activists working on the ground must be familiar with the logistics of each election. Simple things like making sure that a location is open during the hours it is supposed to be open can make a huge difference.

“The majority of the un-housed people who are our members are employed while they’re homeless,” said Donovan. “Many times the employment is from 7am to 3am, having a half hour for lunch, something like that, so what we need to do is to make sure that if voting officials say that they are going to open the polls at 6am in the morning, they are open at 6am in the morning. We’ll have local people go and just make sure that all commitments are honored.”

Homeless Americans are by no means a homogenous group. Despite some of the myths and misconceptions about the homeless population, many people who are homeless are technologically savvy and well informed. However, when it comes to elections, especially local elections, where there can be dozens of candidates on the ballot, learning about the platforms of all the candidates when one doesn’t have a stable home can be a challenge. That is why voter education is such a challenging but essential part of activists’ work.

To prepare for Atlanta’s recent primary election, Homeless But Not Powerless posted on its Web site candidate profiles with links to candidates’ sites. However, because of a lack of funding, the group could not afford to produce print materials for individuals who do not have access to the Internet. “Primaries are just really really difficult to educate everyone, let alone a population that traditionally does not have the easiest access to the latest technology,” said Williams.

Chicago’s Mercy Housing Lakefront, a nonprofit permanent housing program for people with special needs, relies on its residents to help with voter drives and education. Most of the residents in the program have experienced homelessness, and some of them used to be chronically homeless. As part of its Civic Participation Project, which helps residents reintegrate into society, residents can become “deputy registrars” and register their neighbors as well as homeless people in shelters or on the street. Residents also help research candidates and educate voters.

According to Lisa Kuklinski, Mercy Housing Lakefront’s regional vice president, 75 percent of the residents in the program are registered voters. The number is about 2.5 percent higher than in the general population (72.4 percent) in the 2008 election — a great success.

“For people who have been homeless or for people who have been marginalized by society, this kind of activity, being involved in their community and being civically involved, brings a return of human dignity, brings a return of purpose to their lives that maybe they never had before or that they used to have,” said Kuklinski. “Mostly, the thing that brings so much joy to people is to feel that they personally matter, that they have personal political advocacy that they had not felt before, and that just brings a sense of dignity that actually leads to other major changes in their lives.”

Jin Zhao is a freelance journalist, multimedia producer and photographer. Her work has appeared in the Nation and on AlterNet. Follow her on twitter @jinealogy and visit her blog thingsyoudontknowaboutchina.com.

While Occupy movements across the country have been forced to relocate from parks and have become less visible to communities and the media, many Occupiers have been finding creative ways to use their protests to assist community members who are un-housed or at risk of losing their homes.  In December, we asked that the Occupy movement remember the lowest 1%, and we’re seeing the response:

After an April 1st march to preserve the civil rights of people experiencing homelessness, Occupy San Francisco occupied a vacant building, calling for more housing and resources for people in the city without homes.

With so many cities having already passed, or currently considering, legislation to limit the ability of people who are homeless to sleep in public areas, Occupy Nashville held a “sleep-in” to protest an anti-camping law that had been signed by the Tennessee governor in March.

And finally, foreclosures are continuing at an alarming rate.  Occupy Our Homes recently assisted a District of Columbia resident in preventing her eviction.

WASHINGTON – U.S. District Court Chief Judge “Ted” Stewart of the Utah District Court struck down a law that limited panhandling or public begging. Families and individuals who live in persistent poverty often turn to panhandling as a way of scraping together badly needed cash (the average American panhandler earns $30 for a three hour shift). Recently, instances of “aggressive-panhandling” have prompted some local Ute’s to take action to protect their public interest. Chief Justice Steward pushed back stating:

“The court does not dispute that the state has a legitimate and important interest in regulating conduct that occurs on busy roadways, and it may do so as long as the legislation is written so as to avoid infringing on constitutionally protected rights. However, it may not do so through sweeping statutes that regulate conduct unrelated to the government interest,” (Wilkinson et al. v Utah)

Efforts to restrict the poor have a long history, both locally and nationwide. But, specific efforts to criminalize panhandling have been under particular scrutiny just in the past year. Some examples include:

  • In Royal Oaks, Michigan, the ACLU appealed to mayor and city commissioners, calling for a repeal of the 2011 ordinance that bands panhandling in all public places. They cited the lower court’s authority that protected panhandling even if it’s uncomfortable for those being asked to give to the panhandler [Coast v. City of Cincinnati 402 US 611, 61(1971)]

Panhandling was specifically protected by the lower court on the following grounds:

  1. First Amendment speech [Loper v. NYC Police Department 999 F. 2d 699 (2d Cir. 1993), Benefit v. City of Cambridge 679 N.E.2d 184 (Mass.’97)]
  2. Broad application of content speech (Logsdon v Hains 492 F.3d 334,336)
  3. Failing to prove the state’s interest to curb charitable donations or solicitations on public ground [Blair v. Shanahan, 775 F. Supp. 1315 (N.D. Cal. 1991), Ledford v State, 652 So.2d 1254 (FL/Dist.Ct.App.’95)]

Subsequently, the Royal Oaks ordinance has been repealed and replaced with a prohibition on “aggressive” panhandling.

  • ARIZONA V. BOEHLER – On September 13, 2011, a state appeals court unanimously ruled in Arizona v. Boehler that a 2003 amendment to a Phoenix anti-panhandling law was unconstitutional under the First Amendment and strict scrutiny. The law “was not narrowly drawn because it applied to many forms of peaceful solicitations that did not threaten, intimidate or harass others. The law could apply to someone politely asking for cash contributions to a political campaign or a church volunteer asking for donations to the church,” according to the opinion. “Our constitution does not permit government to restrict speech in a public forum merely because the speech may make listeners uncomfortable.”
  • In the New Orleans French Quarter, the community passed a local anti-panhandling law, stating that it wrote the law “after similar laws in other cities and is designed to withstand possible challenges that it violates the First Amendment.”

The language of the 2011 law prohibits soliciting “in or near parks, playgrounds, banks, ATMs, bars, liquor stores, convenience stores and gas stations — or within 20 feet of an intersection or marked crosswalk, to people in parked or stopped vehicles, or to people standing in lines.” Although unstated in the laws review (article) The New Orleans prohibitions are similar to Royal Oaks prohibitions, in that they applied to public places and the regulation of speech in said area..

  • Johnston County, North Carolina approved panhandling regulations just two weeks ago. The county now requires solicitors to register for a permit to ask for money. Officials sated, “They’ll have to show a photo ID and pass a criminal background check. Upon appeal by the ACLU on the grounds that several provisions were unconstitutional, commissioners dropped all requirements that panhandlers renew their permits or pay a $20 fee each month.

Neighboring Wake and Raleigh counties also began regulating panhandling, with the ACLU describing the measures as near criminalization. ACLU legal director Katy Parker said, “Panhandlers rarely possess a photo ID, which is a requirement for the permits in Raleigh, Wake County and Johnston County,” Further complicating matters for those who wish to file for public solicitation, permits purchased in Wake County must be renewed weekly. The Johnston county law is thought to only apply to public solicitors only, creating the same or similar scenario similar as seen in Arizona v. Boehler and Wilkinson v. Utah.

By Jose Morales, American University ’13

“Homeless Hotspots” – is this marketing campaign a friend or foe to un-housed folks? NCH has been getting a lot of requests-for-comment.  As a membership organization that advocates with (not for) homeless individuals, we depend, rely and are primarily informed by the opinions of people who are homeless. So, we asked our members for their feedback and this is what we heard.

NCH believes it should focus its time and attention on the three primary causes and solutions to America’s homelessness: affordable housing, living wage jobs and accessible healthcare. So, we asked if this was a relevant issue for us to be discussing. The response was clearly a “yes”. No matter how you feel about the issue of “Homeless Hotspots”, it’s a conversation about jobs.

Next, we asked if this was a living wage job. The general agreement was “no”. But, when we asked folks who had done similar types of “jobs”, they said that they took the work knowing how much it paid and that it was temporary. Some people used the experience just get a little spending money and others thought it might help them to get a little work experience before taking on a more permanent job. People compared it to selling streets newspapers. One “Homeless Hotspot” worker described his pay as $20 per day and $2 for each person he could get to use the serve. It worked out to about $8 an hour. So for most folks we asked, it seemed to pay close to a living wage.

Lastly, we asked if jobs like the “Homeless Hotspot” job treated homeless people as less than human, or like an object and not like a person. The responses were clear and consistent. Most people felt that being homeless in America can be, and often times is, a dehumanizing experience. Being homeless means being ignored or treated like “something” unwanted. The “Homeless Hotspot” gave folks on the streets a reason for people to talk to them.

So, NCH’s comment is that we need a lot more affordable housing, many more jobs that pay a living wage, and improved access to healthcare. Unless and until then, we’re going to have homelessness in America. “Homeless Hotspots” isn’t the answer, but it’s not the problem either. If we want to get mad, and NCH thinks we all should, let’s get mad for the right reasons and at the right people. If we’re going to end homelessness, we’re going to need much more funding and lots more new and innovative ideas.

Thanks again to all our members for making us a better organization, and thanks for your support in Bringing America Home!

What are crimes of hate against the homeless and why does the National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH) believe it’s so necessary to invest considerable time and attention into researching this issue? Admittedly, some choose to believe that the homeless don’t deserve federal and state legal protections and some draw the hard line of choosing to believe that hate crimes simply doesn’t exist.

After more than a decade of research and analysis, NCH has proven that behaviors that begin as hurtful towards the homeless often devolve into bias motivated criminal acts of hate. We are reminded of these facts all too often, in media stories that year after year possess increasingly more brutal forms of abuse.

Hurtful thoughts and acts based on the bias of one person towards another, quickly becomes a hate crime. A hurtful video game which rewards players who beat or kill homeless characters can quickly devolve into a crime of actual physical violence and hate. The taunting of people seeking refuge from the cold can overnight turn into a bias motivated act of hate-filled violence.

NCH believes that the eradication of hate crimes can only occur if there is a complete understanding and accounting of these crimes. Furthermore, there must be a willingness to challenge the motivations of people who choose to ignore the very existence of these crimes.

Each year, NCH releases a Hate Crimes against the Homeless Report. NCH invites you to read this year’s report, Violence Hidden in Plain View, a factual accounting of bias motivated crimes against un-housed individuals in the order of their occurrence. It is also a report that, in its entirety, illustrates the deadly consequences of decades of failed housing policies and social reforms.

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:

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.

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