Do Homeless People Have Rights?

If you think the public debate about universal health care is loud and sometimes acrimonious, just think about what would happen if we ever start talking about whether homeless people have rights.

What rights would we be talking about? I couldn't say it better, so here it is from the Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776), the unanimous declaration from the thirteen original colonies:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights,
that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

However, the Declaration of Independence does not contain a list of our rights. We know some of our rights because they are contained in:

(1) U.S. Constitution, particularly the first ten amendments referred to as the Bill of Rights.

(2) Congressional legislation, such as the Americans With Disabilities Act 1990 (ADA) 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. and

(3) Court decisions through which the courts, ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court, interpret the Constitution and identify rights, such as the right to privacy in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).

The terms, "homeless person" or "homeless people" do not appear in the U.S. Constitution. So how to we know what rights, if any, homeless people have?

Today, some of the rights of chronically homeless people are being determined through the courts. For example, the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California (ACLU/SC) has filed lawsuits against the three Cities of Laguna Beach, Santa Barbara and Santa Monica alleging that their ordinances against sleeping in public places and the enforcement of said ordinances violate the rights of chronically homeless residents who have no other place to sleep.

In each of these lawsuits, the ACLU/SC

• claims that while there is an insufficient number of homeless shelter beds in each of these cities, the police are intimidating, harassing and arresting their chronically homeless residents for the natural and involuntary act of sleeping in public when there is no way for them to comply with the law;

• seeks injunctive relief to prevent the Cities and their police forces from enforcing said ordinances against chronically homeless people; and

• requests a declaration from the court that the ordinances in question and the enforcement of said ordinances, violate chronically homeless people's rights to equal protection under the law, their rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, their rights to due process of law, their rights to be free of illegal searches and seizures, and their rights to freedom from discrimination under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)

There are a few differences among the lawsuits. The Laguna lawsuit was brought on behalf of five named plaintiffs, while the Santa Barbara and Santa Monica lawsuits were brought on behalf of named plaintiffs and also as class actions.

Further, in the Santa Barbara lawsuit, the ACLU/SC seeks to protect chronically homeless people's rights from illegal takings of their private property without just compensation. And unique to the Santa Monica lawsuit, is the claim that the referenced ordinances and their enforcement violate the rights of chronically homeless to travel and move freely.

While the lawsuits against the Cities of Santa Barbara and Santa Monica are still pending, the City of Laguna lawsuit was settled this June. As part of the terms of this settlement, the City of Laguna agreed

(1) to repeal and did repeal those sections of the municipal code relating to camping and sleeping in public places within the City

(2) to expunge the records of arrests and convictions made pursuant to the City's ordinance against sleeping in public and

(3) not to cite, arrest or harass people under State law simply for sleeping in public places in cases where there are no reasonable public health or safety concerns.

After the City of Santa Monica passed their ordinance against sleeping in all public places, I asked a high-ranking Santa Monica official a question. I said, "Of course, homeless people cannot sleep on private property, that's against the law of trespass. However, now that the City of Santa Monica has passed a law against sleeping in all public places, where are homeless people to go?"

He answered, "Into the sea."

If every city with an insufficient number of shelter beds were to pass an ordinance against sleeping in all public places, there would be no place for a homeless person to sleep. This is the real danger facing homeless people.

The rights that the ACLU/SC is seeking to protect are the rights that belong to all of us -- in this case, the rights of disabled people who are homeless to sleep in public places and to exist in these United States.

I look forward to your comments.

Comments

[Ohioan730]

With all the tent cities popping up around the USA because of our economic problems, cops are gonna have to relax their persecution of homeless people.

[Christine Schanes - Huffpost Blogger]

Hi, Ohioan,

Your point makes perfect sense. However, I've seen just the opposite so far. The municipal governments have directed the police, not their social service agencies, to interact with the people living in tents. And the interaction is not always friendly.

As you probably already know, homelessness is a social service issue, not a police issue. Crime is a police issue. Being homeless is not a crime, it's an economic and social condition.

Please stay in touch,
Christine

[ejcoletta]

There was a comment further down that indicated, "Why should tax payers have to tolerate homeless people sleeping in public places? And cities shouldn't have to bear the burden of providing beds for homeless people who refuse to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, especially in high-rent areas?"

If sleeping in public places is a crime, the taxpayers will pay for their beds anyway when they go to jail. So, either these entitled tax payers can tolerate looking at homeless people sleeping on park benches, or they can tolerate murderers and rapists roaming the streets because the prisions had to make room for all the homeless people. Or, instead of sending homeless people to prision, the judical system can slap fines on homeless people, which they'll never be able to pay, thus compounding the temporarily homeless population into the chronically homeless and increase the homeless population exponentially until the problem becomes so bad, that, guess what--the tax payers will probably demand new homeless shelters to deal with the problem.

Pay for it now, or pay for it later. When someone loses their job in this country, its not just 'their problem' anymore. How much have your premiums gone up in the past 10 years because the unisured needed an emergency room vist they couldn't pay for?

Ignore the poor at your own risk.

[Christine Schanes - Huffpost Blogger]

Hi, ejcoletta,

Thanks for your comment.

Reading your words, I thought of how strong your argument is to "ignore the poor at your own risk." Wow!

"Pay for it now, or pay for it later." Very succinct.

In my opinion, you make the point!

I am interested.... do you see compassion playing a role in helping the homeless? As I read your comment, I think that you are making the argument that it is economic to help homeless people. I get it and I appreciate it. I'm just wondering where or if you see a role for compassion as a motivator for helping homeless people.

Please stay in touch,
Christine

[cqyates]

Hi Christine,
Thanks for your fabulous article from a formerly homeless woman. I have so much to say here, I don't know where to start. But I would like to point out to some on this board that I went from being a homeless kid to a self employeed low income mom with a house and two healthy kids. How did I do it?

Well. First I got pregnant which made me eligible for welfare. I used those funds to move inside a residential hotel with my first son and my abusive husband. Then I returned to school with the help of government loans and grants and welfare (moved into subsidized student parent housing). After college I worked as a receptionist, ap clerk (very unsatisfying) Finally after jettisoning my rotten husband and with the help of my family, I now sell vintage clothing patterns through the internet and am starting to get my feet underneath me.

The point is, without the governments help I would still be sucking up public resources on the streets of Berkeley....God Bless!

[Ohioan730]

Thanks for your story. :-)

[Christine Schanes - Huffpost Blogger]

cgyates,

Thank you for your comment.

And thank you for sharing about some of your life experiences.

I wish you all the best!

Please stay in touch.
Christine

[itolduso]

Christine- another great article,Thanks. That so many people can argue against providing aid to fellow Americans is an affront to the principles and ideals of this nation. A common theme throughout all societies in general is that they serve to aid individuals in a time of crisis.....history is full of societies that fell because they failed in that basic requirement. That so many in our society, whether through accident, illness, or circumstance, should be without proper shelter, food, and medical care is not only morally wrong, it is a threat to the welfare and safety of us all. Disease, crime, viruses, abuse, exploitation, rebellion...this is what we cultivate when we ignore our fellow citizens.

[Christine Schanes - Huffpost Blogger]

Hi, itolduso,

Thank you for your kind words.

You have really put this issue into perspective, thanks for that!

While we can measure the financial consequences of ignoring homeless people and not helping them become housed again, the moral costs cannot be calculated. Our lack of kindness to those in need can be felt and that lack diminishes all of us.

I look forward to the end of homelessness because it would mean that we would have a much more compassionate society.

Please keep in touch,
Christine

[RightWingMarine]

being a bum is a disability?

The lawsuit alleges many things that are not explained in the article. The various cities ban sleeping in public and the lawsuit complains of cruel and unusual punishment, deprivation of due process, and illegal search and seizure but no examples are given.

What about the people that live and pay taxes in those cities? Why should they have to put up with bums lounging in the public parks the residents paid for?

[Christine Schanes - Huffpost Blogger]

Hi, RightWingMarine,

That's my fault that I did not indicate that there were factual examples given in each lawsuit. I'm limited to 800 words for the post, but there are many examples of cruel and unusual punishment, deprivation of due process, etc. given in each lawsuit.

In fact, it took me one whole day to read each lawsuit, that's 3 days total, because I was so moved by the examples of human misery given.

Here's just one example about plaintiff Chubna that I will quote from Chubna v. Santa Monica, CV09-5046, filed July 14, 2009, p. 2, para. 5:

"One homeless and severely mentally disabled resident, Nadine Chubna, has been arrested and jailed by the SMPD [Santa Monica Police Department] at least three times for "camping," despite the fact that the City provides no other place for her to sleep. Ms. Chubna is 56 years old and receives Social Security Insurance ('SSI) checks due to her mental illness, paranoid schizophrenia. Ms. Chubna sees spaceships coming after her every night; she fears the spaceships are trying to kill her; and she believes they murdered her mother, father, sister and other family members."

As a result of police action, Ms. Chubna moved to Venice, but "even now, when Ms. Chubna walks to Santa Monica to collect her SSI check, she fears the harassment by the SMPD that has become so routinized and regular." Ibid., p. 2, para. 5.

Please stay in touch,
Christine

[RightWingMarine]

it is not the responsibility of the taxpayers to provide everyone with a bed. To reach into your own pocket to help someone is a good and laudable thing, to reach into someone elses pocket is simply theft. If someone wants to donate their time and money to help Ms. Chubna then they are a good person, but if that same person takes money out of my pocket under the implied threat of force that taxation carries then they are simply a thief.

Since Ms. Chubna suffers from paranoid schizophrenia then it would seem her living in a public park would create the very public safety issue the cities are trying to protect their citizens from.

[itolduso]

Please clarify RightWingM­arine....w­ho exactly, do you mean when you say 'bum'? Is it the homeless veterans (they make up over 25% of the Homeless pop. in the U.S.) combat vets are a big part of the chronically homeless, they made it back from war, they just couldn't make it ALL the way back. Another group are the 'medically bankrupt' those who, either through accident or illness, lost everything to medical bills, too young for s.s. & medicare, too old in a job market that worships youth.....they just 'gave up'...picking up minimum wage & odd jobs when they can, not earning enough for even the cheapest housing. Of course, every city seems to have a large group of the mentally ill that have no where to go- over the past decade treatment centers have closed - and often the mentally ill are shuttled between emergency rooms, jails, and the streets in a strange little game of 'hot potato'...no one seems to want to find a better solution for them. And domestic violence is a leading cause of homelessness for women & their children, they're not as visible but they're out there with no where to go. So WHO exactly are you calling BUMS?!

[RightWingMarine]

to call someone homeless is to state that that person had a home that they lost due to an event such as hurricane Katrina. While I am keenly aware that a large number of bums are war veterans they are, nonetheless, bums. Life is not easy and sometimes bad things happen to good people that don't deserve it but that does not change their situation.

[Christine Schanes - Huffpost Blogger]

Hi, itoldyouso,

Welcome back!

You always make such great points.

Please stay in touch,
Christine

[EdCoughlin]

Those without property could not vote in the years after the founding of the United States, that even included renters much less the homeless. If using original intent (as many of the Supremes are sure to) there is clearly no right to be homeless anywhere one wants. The state does have some responsibility to these Americans without a place to stay, but that responsibility is moral and not legally binding.

Additionally the way homeless works (with the homeless living primarily in desirable high rent small population communities such as La Jolla, Santa Barbara and Santa Monica) this requirement for city governments to provide more and more beds is quite unfair. Allowing homeless to live anywhere then forcing Santa Monica to pay for their lodgings is far from the spirit of anything present in the Constitution.

I'm not saying they should be forced into the sea, but the idea that they should be given free reign to sleep in any public area anywhere or alternately the cities blessed with nice climates should be saddled with an undue proportion of the high cost of providing for the homeless is not fair to the propertied. Each city being required to provide a section of public land specifically for homeless lodging is more fair to all involved (with no costs accruing to the city other then the loss of public land use). Only when land is full across all cities in the region should the burden placed upon any one city be increased.

[EdCoughlin]

The issue here is not just homeless rights, but the concentration patterns of the homeless. They are disproportionately present in certain areas, Santa Monica, Laguna Beach and Santa Barbara being three of the highest concentration points for homeless residents.

The reason for this is obvious. If you didn't have to pay the outrageous rents in certain parts of this country where would you live? Probably exactly these areas with the ordinances (after all, given a choice, who wants to live in Fargo in the winter?) This creates a natural antagonism between those who are paying tens of thousands in monthly mortgage payments to live in these few highly desirable areas and those who are living there as transients.

There are compromise positions that protect property rights and property values of those who live in these desirable communities through hard work and high mortgages while still insuring that homeless don't have to live "in the sea". The compromise would have to be something like setting aside a certain amount of public land within the city limits for these populations in exchange for banning sleeping on the streets at will anywhere (which is an unreasonable request, it is not unreasonable for residents to prefer to be able to walk through public areas funded by their taxes in the evening without having to compete for space with hundreds of homeless).

[Christine Schanes - Huffpost Blogger]

Ed,

Thanks for being up these points.

The mayor of Los Angeles had a press conference some time ago at which he revealed that the Los Angeles Housing Services Authority (LAHSA) found that 78% of the people who were homeless in the City of Los Angeles were housed in the City of Los Angeles when they became homeless.

City fathers and mothers of every city I've talked to often say, "Homeless people come here to our City for the __________." Sometimes, it's the weather, sometimes its the services...

But my question is: How many people were housed in that city when they became homeless?

The above-referenced study by LAHSA is the only study of its kind that I know of right now.

Do you know of any similar studies?

Once we know how many people were housed in the particular city that they are now homeless in, we can really have a factual discussion.

In an earlier blog, "3 Steps to Ending Homelessness," I have proposed pretty close to what you are proposing: use a closed military base as a place where homeless people would be welcome, not forced, to live. This self-sufficient village could run along the lines of a kibbutz with nonprofits helping every step of the way.

Of course, all current efforts to house the homeless would continue and grow. But, with this self-sufficient village we'd have an immediate, humane and available way to help people in need.

Please keep in touch,
Christine

[marinara]

I don't really think lawsuits are the right tool to give homeless protection. I would rather see the Governor or the President lead a effort in legislation. Yeah I know how dreamy that sounds.

[Christine Schanes - Huffpost Blogger]

Hi, marinara,

I'm laughing out loud at your comment. We must be on the same wave-length because I intended to write that what we need is

(1) a Constitutional amendment prohibiting the discrimination against people because of their economic status or

(2) federal legislation like the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) to protect the rights of homeless people.

Well, I'm writing it now. We do need a Constitutional amendment or federal legislation, as just described, to protect homeless people from discrimination.

I agree that litigation is not the best method of assure homeless people protection, but it's the only method we have right now.

And I am very grateful to the ACLU for using it!

Please stay in touch,
Christine

[Zacharyl]

This idea about a constitutional amendment protecting the rights of the homeless is intriguing. Could you maybe expand on this more in a new post? What provisions would the amendment include? How would it better protect rights than through current litigation?

Thanks,
Zach

[marinara]

I agree 100% with the blog.

I will point out that in a society that worships credit ratings and high fashion, expediency is. Government tries putting homeless out of sight by any means.

The irony is that providing these elderly and disabled human beings is no great task. They have been getting along w/o health care. Most of their needs would be met by a basic bed and a basic meal.
I really don't know but I suppose it could be done for a few dollars per day. But a soup kitchen and a bunkhouse has to exist somewhere, and you have shown that it's effortless for the police to harass and force the homeless out.

[Christine Schanes - Huffpost Blogger]

marinara,

Yes, police action is possibly the easiest way to "deal with" homeless people because all the municipality needs to do is pass an ordinance and tell the police to enforce it.

However, the costs are actually immense. I plan to devote a post to the costs of not treating homeless people humanely vs. arresting someone for their mere status of being homeless, that is, criminalizing homelessness.

Let is suffice to say for now that the costs of police action, incarceration, ambulances, emergency room care, etc., far outweigh the costs of a clean place to sleep, food and regular medical check ups.

Please stay in touch,
Christine

[propitiousmoment]

It's more than disabled persons who are homeless, the ranks are growing, as you know. Kudos to ACLU for taking on this cause, and thanks to you for publicizing the effort.

[Christine Schanes - Huffpost Blogger]

Hi propitiousmoment,

Thanks for your comment.

Truly , it is my pleasure to publicize the efforts of the ACLU for a fine job in trying to protect the right of chronically homeless people to sleep in public places when there is insufficient housing available.

Of course, I agree with you that the ranks of homeless people is growing. However, once a court recognizes at least one right of a group, then, hopefully, it will be easier for more of the groups rights to be protected.

At least that's what I hope.

Please stay in touch,
Christine

P.S. I love your signature

[WilliamProc]

There are a lot of foreclosed homes nationwide, the banks could have some compassion. Who am I kidding?! Homeless people only becaome a problem when they are visible to the affluent. I keep forgetting this is Amerika.

[Christine Schanes - Huffpost Blogger]

Hi, WilliamProc,

Thanks for your comment.

Wow, I agree with you about that compassion thing. However, I actually, don't laugh, believe that banks could come to realize that compassion is just what they need. Obscene corporate profit and outrageous executive pay and bonuses will actually hurt the banks in the long run. It's actually a big part of what got them into their recent trouble.

I guess we all need to evolve a little. It would be good for each of us and would make the world a better place for the housed and unhoused.

Please stay in touch,
Christine

[BusGreg]

>>>>"The terms, "homeless person" or "homeless people" do not appear in the U.S. Constitution. So how to we know what rights, if any, homeless people have? "

The homeless have the same constitutional rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights as all Amerticans. While it does not mention the homeless in our constitution it also does not mention that you have to own or rent a home to have these basic rights.

[Christine Schanes - Huffpost Blogger]

BusGreg,

Thanks for your comment.

You are so right!

I guess it would be a more accurate question to ask, "Are Homeless Peoples' Rights Observed?" That I can testify to is a big no.

The point I tried to make in this post is that only through our Constitution, legislation or court decisions, are rights really clear and set forth. This recognition of rights is important for the protection of these right.

Unfortunately, not many rights of homeless people have been made clear or set forth in court cases and most of the legislation has been against homeless people, not identifying their rights.

Once we have an enforceable statement of homeless peoples' rights, we can get them protected.

The ACLU is doing what they can right now for chronically homeless people. I wish them the best!

Please keep in touch,
Christine

[BusGreg]

Miss Schanes,

Thank you for the kind words. I believe that a good point to start would be our schools. All too often our public mis-education system does not put enough emphasis on the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. After all, if one does not know one's rights, how is one supposed to assert or defend them??? (But then I guess that makes it that much easier for the State to trample on those rights)