Throughout American history, there have been laws which negatively affect some populations more than others. Over a century ago, there were Jim Crow laws that took away basic human rights from people of color. Then there were Anti-Okie Laws in California that aimed to keep out all the poor migrant workers coming from out East during the Great Depression. There was ‘Operation Wetback,’ which targeted anyone who was ‘Mexican or Mexican-Looking.’ Until the Civil Rights Act of 1968, we still had Sun Down Towns, which made it illegal for people of color to stay in central towns after sunset. And, yes, our country even had laws – called ‘Ugly Laws’ - against people that didn’t look ‘normal enough’, even if they were middle class white folks.
Here’s an example of one such law--Chicago Municipal Code Section 36034:
“No person who is diseased, maimed, mutilated or in any way deformed so as to be an unsightly or disgusting object or improper person to be allowed in or on the public ways or other public places in this city, or shall therein or thereon expose himself to public view, under a penalty of not less than one dollar nor more than fifty dollars for each offense.”
Thankfully, this was the last of the Ugly Laws, and it was declared unconstitutional in 1974. But I suppose local governments always need to marginalize someone, and since our courts have affirmed that it is morally reprehensible to create laws that discriminate against people of color, people of different genders, people with disabilities or people that are ‘diseased, maimed, mutilated or in any way deformed’, Denver, like many other cities, has decided to target another community- the homeless community.
And they are using the same tactics as they’ve used all along. Then: “It’s not illegal to be black; you just can’t go to the same schools.” Or “You just can’t sleep in town.” Now: “We’re not making it illegal to be homeless, they just can’t hang around or sleep here. This is a business improvement district; they’ve got to go somewhere else.”
The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty (NLCHP) and the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) have shown that using punitive measures, selectively enforcing city-wide ordinances (like loitering, jaywalking, and open container laws) against people experiencing homelessness, and enforcing ‘quality of life crimes’--rather than increasing the amount of services--has become the new norm in dealing with homeless people within major cities. For example, a 2009 study of 234 American cities conducted by the NLCHP found that:
- The percentage of cities with laws criminalizing homelessness is significantly increasing.
- 56% of cities prohibit loitering in particular areas.
- 53% of cities prohibit begging in particular public places, while 24% ban panhandling or begging citywide.
- 40% of cities ban camping in particular public areas.
- 33% of cities prohibit sitting and lying in particular places.
- 22% of cities prohibit loitering citywide.
- 16% of cities enforce citywide camping bans.
- Prohibiting the obstruction of sidewalks and public places
- Prohibiting loitering in particular public spaces
- Enforcing a ‘park curfew’ banning late-night presence in parks city-wide
- Prohibiting sitting or lying in particular public spaces
- Prohibiting ‘aggressive panhandling’
- Prohibiting begging or panhandling in particular places and at certain times
- Criminalizing urinating or defecating in public (without providing adequate public bathroom alternatives)
- Prohibiting spitting
- Prohibiting making improper or disturbing noise
- Prohibiting bathing in particular public waters
- Banning sleeping in particular public places
- Making it illegal to cover yourself from the elements while sleeping outside.
Denver Homeless Out Loud’s recent ‘Report From The Streets’ (which can be found at denverhomelessoutloud.org) analyzed the effects of Denver’s ‘Camping Ban Ordinance’ on 512 homeless individuals living in downtown Denver. When the ordinance was presented to the public by Councilman Albus Brooks, he promised it would not only clean up downtown, but that it would also improve the lives of homeless people. But when those homeless people were asked how the law had affected them, they reported being ‘moved along’ from safe secure places and pushed into more secluded hidden and dangerous areas. The people interviewed claimed they have been approached more often by the police, yet they have received help less often, their lives have worsened and they feel less safe. And worst of all, nearly 40% of people reported not covering themselves from the elements in order to be in accordance with the law.
Cities know that criminalization efforts are counterproductive to helping end homelessness. Many reports have been written about the subject, and people who work with homeless people, service providers nationally and locally, lawyers, the Obama administration and researchers have all spoken out on these issues. The consensus is clear: criminalization efforts violate peoples’ civil and human rights, and are costly and senseless from a policy perspective.
So what does make sense? Study after study has shown that housing homeless people, and making supportive services, like healthcare, available to them is significantly cheaper to the public, than paying for the countless trips to the emergency room and stints in jail that are caused by a hard life on the streets. So, in the long term, the solution to homelessness is not to arrest the victims, but to make affordable housing available to them.
But meanwhile, right now, what to do about all the people without safe and secure places to sleep? What about the help that is available? Aren’t there multiple large shelters in Denver for men and women? Why don’t homeless people use those resources?
A brief look at statistics would help explain the problem. According to the Metro Denver Homeless Initiative, in Denver alone, there are 4900 homeless people. Yet, according to the Denver’s Road Home 2013 report, there are only about 820 shelter beds available for them year-round, and 1170 during the winter months. (This includes many overflow mats placed on the floor in cramped quarters.)
In 2012, Denver’s Road Home paid the National Alliance to End Homelessness to conduct a ‘Denver Shelter Assessment.’ The report’s findings are depressing. For example:
- “The shelter system in Denver has less public investment and less overall investment than in many other communities, resulting in lower quality than in some other cities, although not significantly so. For example, Philadelphia’s Office of Supportive Housing invests $28 million annually in its emergency shelter system, compared to approximately $2 million invested by the City and County of Denver.”
- “The shelter system is greatly inhibited by the lack of system-wide data and measured outcomes.”
- “Access to the shelter system is uncoordinated and generally does not prioritize people who are most vulnerable. People who need to access the shelter system spend more time and energy gaining that access than is necessary. This is a stressful process and the time could be better utilized on efforts to find employment and housing.”
- “Each shelter has developed standards, training protocols, and policies. However, there is an overall lack of community-wide standards and outcomes in the shelter system.”
- “We were not able to identify any emergency shelter that takes pets, although some, like the Rescue Mission, take service animals. Many of the shelters serve people who are intoxicated, although there appear to be no good options for youth who are intoxicated. Those youth are sent to either one of the adult shelters or to a detoxification program. There also appears to be no place for childless couples, although they can stay in separate shelters, or in the case of Samaritan House, in separate rooms of the shelter.”
- “The most important deficiency in the city's shelter system is the lack of an exit strategy for its residents. There is very little re-housing assistance for people experiencing homelessness in Denver. As a result, people are in the shelter system for longer than is necessary, which puts additional strain on the shelter system. Addressing this need should be the city's first priority.”
So, what is the obvious conclusion here? America’s elected officials would rather trample on people’s rights by criminalizing their status as people experiencing homelessness, in the hopes of ‘cleaning up downtown’ and appeasing the business community, than actually end the epidemic of mass homelessness in America the one way we know how - by funding housing for unsheltered people.
So, what is to protect the rights of homeless people from the whims of business interest? Well, not our local government, who signed the Camping Ban ordinance into law at the request of the Downtown Denver Partnership (DDP) . Nor have local governments throughout history always respected people’s rights without the protection of larger courts. Jim Crow Laws and Sun Down Towns weren’t ended merely because every local municipality decided that it was time to be accepting of people of color. Likewise, criminalization efforts seem impossible to fight from a local level, when the same people who crafted the laws are still in office.
So what to do? It seems the only real answer, with any substantial legal weight, is to fight for a Homeless Bill of Rights (HBOR) - a piece of state legislation which could prevent the rights of individuals from being trampled on by local municipalities.
Rhode Island, Illinois and Connecticut have each passed HBORs, and California and Oregon are currently discussing their own HBORs in their senates.
Connecticut’s protections include the right to:
- Move freely in public spaces, including on public sidewalks, in public parks, on public transportation and in public buildings without harassment or intimidation from law enforcement officers in the same manner as other persons;
- Have equal opportunities for employment;
- Receive emergency medical care;
- Register to vote and to vote;
- Have personal information protected;
- Have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his or her personal property; and
- Receive equal treatment by state and municipal agencies.
If passed, California’s HBOR would protect the following rights:
- Right to move freely, rest, sleep, and pray, and be protected in public spaces without discrimination;
- Right to occupy a legally parked vehicle;
- Right to serve food and eat in public;
- Right to legal counsel if being prosecuted;
- Right to 24-hour access to “hygiene facilities”; and
- Require judges to consider a necessity defense when hearing homeless related cases.
At the present time, homeless people are treated like second class citizens, with their rights being trampled on daily as the wheels of injustice spin freely. However, Colorado could become the 4th state to pass a Homeless Bill of Rights, if only its populace would have the will power to do so.
"I am troubled that an ever increasing number of communities are banning urban camping in response to encampments in public places. There is a sad irony that Americans who are homeless and unsheltered are being displaced and their lives further disrupted at a cost to the taxpayer without solving the real problem. We will continue to reach out to communities and encourage that they embrace alternatives to criminalization including access to housing and safe shelter as well as collaborative approaches with law enforcement and criminal justice."
Barbara Poppe, Executive Director of the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness
RSS Feed
