Where is being homeless illegal?

Answer 1

Ah! Finally. A question that's really in my wheelhouse...

...what with me having a pretty-much-fulltime, now, ministry to the homeless (and disabled vets, and the indigent elderly, and the prostituted, and recent parolees, and single moms with children and/or families in poverty, and others similarly in need)!

It's not a law, written in any city's or county's ordinances, or in any state's statutes, or in federal law, that it's illegal to be homeless. In other words, it's not statutorily illegal, anywhere in the US, to be homeless.

However, because of the way that the homeless are treated in some places; and/or because of laws that are on the books in some places, but which are not, at least on paper, aimed directly at the homeless, yet which are nevertheless routinely used by police to harass the homeless...

...the net effect is much the same as if it were actually illegal to be homeless.

So, then, whenever anyone says it's illegal to be homeless, somewhere, what they actually mean is that because of the way the homeless are treated by police (and often the courts, too), there, it's effectively the same as if it were illegal to be homeless there... even though there are not actually any laws, there, which specifically make it illegal to be homeless.

Actually, for those of us old enough to remember, in places where law enforcement use against the homeless laws not really aimed at the homeless to nevertheless harass them...

...it's a little bit like it was in the sixties in the south where whites would create create and use certain laws which were not expressly aimed, at least in the language of said laws, at blacks; but which, because of how they were applied by white law enforcement, effectively deprived blacks of their rights, liberties and sometimes even their lives. And by that I don't necessarily mean "Jim Crow" laws, which actually expressed, in their words, the whole nasty business of "separate but equal." Those were bad, too. Rather, I mean laws which, on their face, seemed innocuous, and not necessarily aimed at blacks, but which, because of both the true reality of things, and the way said laws were applied, were, at least effectiively, aimed at blacks.

That's the sort of thing that's going on today, in some cities, with the homeless. And so that's why some anti-homelessness and help-the-homeless activists say that it'll illegal to be homeless in such places. It isn't technically illegal in such places, but it's effectively illegal.

Every year or so, the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, along with the National Coalition for the Homeless, releas a report of the top 10 or 20 cities where it's the worst to be homeless. Sometimes the report calls those cities the "meanest" toward the homeless.

What happens is that cities enact laws which make it illegal to do really basic human things... like, for example, eating, sleeping or sitting in public places. And then law enforcement uses those laws to target and single-out the homeless for doing those things. What makes activists say that such laws effectively make it illegal to be homeless is that if a person who's obviously not homeless -- like an office worker, for example, simply on his/her lunch break -- were to sit in some of those same public places and eat his/her lunch, the police would do nothing. But if an obviously homeless person sits down in a public place and eats whatever s/he has scrounged-up for a mean, police will arrest him/her pursuant to a local ordinance prohibiting eating in public places. They're unfair (and unusually unconstitutional) laws which are selectively enforced so that they're mostly aimed at the homeless...

...and so that's what makes activists say that it's effecitvely illegal to be homeless in such places.

Another law that a lot of cities are now enacting prohibits feeding groups of more than five or so people in public places, like parks. Homeless shelters and activists and church groups often feed the homeless on Saturdays, for example, in public parks; but many cities are now outlawing that. There was a big fuss in Orlando, Florida about that just relatively recently. Orlando is also famous for outlawing panhandling by the homeless; and offering, instead, to have what are effectively parking meters in certain areas which people may use to donate to the homeless so that they don't have to panhandle. But the money actually raised by such ridiculous measures usually isn't enough to even pay for the personnel to maintain them, and retrieve the money from them.

In some cities, police will stop homeless persons who are pushing around a shopping cart with all their possessions in it, and will then arrest him/her for theft of said cart from whatever grocery store has its name on said cart. Gratefully, many grocery stores have sent letters to local law enforcement and prosecutors saying that they will not cooperate with such prosecutions; and if called upon to testify in court, they'll say that they gave the homeless person permission to use their cart, even though they actually didn't. So, in many cities, the shopping cart tactic, by police, was stopped. Still, that's an example of the kind of harassment of the homeless that police do which, in turn, causes activists to characterize such places as being places where it's "illegal" to be homeless.

Another thing at which cities aim their laws, and law enforcement is big on arresting the homeless for doing, is setting-up encampments or tent cities...

...even though there are at least a few cities, now, which, because the number of homeless is increasing so fast, have actually officially set aside some space where the homeless can set-up their tents.

The 2009 report that I just mentionedcited a 7 percent increase in laws prohibiting "camping," in cities across the US; an 11 percent increase in laws prohibiting loitering, a 6 percent increase in laws prohibiting begging and a 5 percent increase in laws prohibiting aggressive panhandling. All such laws, though, the courts have ruled, over and over, again, are flat-out unconstitutional. The cities know, though, that the homeless certainly don't have the money to sue to get the courts to declare them unconstitutional; and the ACLU and others are so busy that it's hard to get them to take such cases; and the non-profit organizations which help the homeless are all strapped for cash and can't pay lawyers; and it's very difficult to find attorneys who are willing to donate their services to fight the good fight.

Sometimes good things happen, though. Not too terribly long ago, a Fresno, California attorney helped get a federal court to rule that it's illegal -- unconstitutional, in fact -- for law enforcement (the lawsuit was aimed at the city of Los Angeles, but the ruling affects all cities) to collect and then throw away the unattended possessions of the homeless left on the street while said homeless go find food, or use the restroom, or whatever. Under that ruling, cities which collect the possessions of the homeless must now store them for a certain number of days; and then make them available to the homeless who subsequently claim them. Sadly, a new lawsuit was filed just very recently seeking to overturn that federal court ruling, so it remains to be seen how much longer cities will be required to do that.

Cities pass such laws -- and/or then have law enforcement selectively enforce both them, and existing laws -- because they find the homeless to be "unsightly." They also don't want the homeless panhandling on the streets, or hanging around in public parks because, frankly, some of them really are a little scary. Many of them are drunk or under the influence of some substance, and so when normal citizens are simply walking down the street on their way to work, or when mothers are simply trying to take their children to play in the park, the under-the-influence homeless are aggressively panhandling, or are doing things like urinating on trees and doing other things that mothers just don't want their children to see. And by "aggressive" panhandling, I mean really aggressive. Some homeless will stand-up and start following people who refuse to give them money; they'll yell at and sometimes even threaten them.

And cities just don't want that. Even I, an anti-homelessness activist, and pro-homeless advocate, don't like to see those things; and don't believe that tent cities are ever a good idea. However, everybody -- including the homeless -- have to be somewhere... occupying space on the surface of the planet. We can't, as a society, simply relegate them to the effective scrap heap just because we don't like seeing them. They're human beings, fortheloveofgod, and we must treat them, too, with decency and dignity. They're the very persons whom Christ commanded us to help.

And though even I hate to see the homeless on the streets, panhandling, pushing around shopping carts full of their possessions, sleeping in doorways, intimidating moms and kids in parks, setting-up unsightly tent cities and encampments, etc.,...

...the bottom line is that until and unless cities respond, properly, to the crisis by providing enough shelter and housing for the homeless so that they don't have to live on the streets, then cities need to bygod stop making it effectively illegal for them to so do.

Some who hate the homeless say that they should just "get a job;" or that they should "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps." Such persons, though, don't really understand homelessness.

Many who are homeless are mentally ill, and so can't work. Many have substance abuse problems which, yes, may have been their own fault and doing at first, but for which they now need serious professional help in order to kick. Some had perfectly good jobs, but got laid-off because of the economy, and simply couldn't find another job. Some lost their homes -- sometimes even bigger and nicer homes than those who say they should just "get a job" live in -- but lost them due to the housing bubble and then crash, and the foreclosure crisis. Many who are homeless are single mothers with children who were full-time at-home moms, but whose husbands left them, divorced them, or sometimes even died for whatever reason. The reasons people become homeless are many and varied; and are often because of nothing they did wrong.

As for why they don't just "get a job," or why they can't just "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps," those who say such things should walk a mile in the shoes of the homeless for a mere day or two and see just how difficult -- and mostly just time-consuming and wearing on one's soul -- it is. We who have homes, and cars, and jobs, and normal lives take for granted our empowerment; and don't stop to think that many of us are but a paycheck or two from homelessness ourselves. There, then, but for the grace of God, go I.

We don't stop to think how different our lives would be if we didn't know where we were going to lay our heads at night, or where our next meal was coming from. We don't stop to think how hard it would be to navigate life if we didn't have a place to put our stuff. We don't stop to consider how hard it would be to get a job if we didn't have an address; or if our address were known to employers to be that of a homeless shelter.

When you become homeless, it starts to show in your appearance, even if you scrub-up and wear your best clothes, and your least worn-out shoes for a job interview.

When you become homeless, you have no place where you can receive a phone call (other than maybe the homeless shelter's phone, which you don't want a potential employer calling).

When you're homeless, you have no computer at which to sit down and job hunt; which is a problem since very few jobs are advertised in the newspaper, anymore... it's all online, now.

When you're homeless, you have no place to put your stuff while you go on a job interview because most shelters kick everyone -- and their possessions -- back out onto the street every morning.

When you're homeless, and when the city has oppressive laws which keep you from hanging-out downtown, where the homeless services tend to be located, you end-up spending most of your day walking from wherever you sleep at night to said services; or to a soup kitchen where you can get a meal. Just exactly when, then, are you supposed to find the time to go on a job interview; or even if you could, how do you go without smelling of sweat from all that walking?

Even if you're in a homeless shelter, many shelters are located at the outermost edges of their cities, pushed there by said cities because, again, they just don't want the homeless hanging around downtown. And so, again, walking, walking, walking, just to get to services and/or meals.

And even if there is a shelter, or a rescue mission, many of them are operated by ultra-conservative Christians... often Pentecostals who require the homeless who live there to sit through Bible study, go to chapel, and turn their palms to the heavens and sing and dance and praise Jesus. While that may be fine if the homeless person is, himself/herself, Pentecostal, it's absolutelynot fine for most everyone else. In fact, it's criminal, in my opinion, for a homeless shelter or rescue mission to require their residents to not merely be Christian, but to also actively and fairly aggressively practice it in order to avail themselves of services! Everyone, regardless of faith tradition -- or even no faith at all -- should be welcome, and should not have to jump through religious hoops in order to have a meal and a place to sleep. Shelters and missions which receive government funds are actually breaking the law when they do that, and I'm one of the activists who reports them to authorities whenever I discover that they're doing it. And, remember: I'm Christian -- a chaplain, with a Christian ministry to the homeless -- and even I think it's wrong to force Christianity on the homeless and/or, especially, to make it a condition of providing services.

Sadly, though, that's how it is in most cities; and so the homeless who just won't tolerate being treated that way will refuse to come in out of the cold and live in such shelters or rescue missions. Yes, of course, there are some homeless who refuse to live in such places because they don't like the rules; and/or, more often, because they have an addiction which they can't, of course, satisfy if they're in a shelter. There will always be a certain number of homeles -- usually, then, chronically homeless -- like that.

Most homeless, though, want a shelter bed; and then, from there, to be placed in some sort of what HUD calls a "rapid rehousing" home or apartment that's more long-term and permanent. The problem is that there just aren't enough out there. Most shelters in most cities are always full, with a line outside. The waiting list to get-in to most shelters and rescue missions -- even the Pentecostal-run ones -- is days, weeks or even months long. There's simply no place to put the homeless in most cities...

...and the cities -- many of which don't really understand homelessness -- often respond by either creating new laws, or selectively enforcing old ones, which make it, effectively, "illegal" to be homeless in them.

According to the aforementioned report, the following ten cities have long histories of making people feel like it's effectively "illegal" to be homeless there...

1. Tampa, FL
2. New Orleans, LA
3. Fresno, CA
4. Las Vegas, NV
5. Honolulu, HI
6. Los Angeles, CA
7. San Jose, CA
8. Seattle, WA
9. Stockton, CA
10. Springfield, MA

...but there are many, many more. Missing from the list, I notice, is Sarasota, Florida, which has long been known to harass the homeless. In fact, very recently, the city attorney, there, advised the police chief that some of what he was having his officers do to the homeless is unconstitutional; and so an order was just issued to Sarasota police officers to back-off on harassing the homeless they way they've been.

And I notice that Little Rock, Arkansas isn't on the above list. It's always been known as one of the worst offender cities! What happens, though, is that cities sometimes slide down or rise up a few notches on the top-ten list from report to report; but they never stop being among the worst and meanest cities in which to be homeless! In fact, trust me: Find a list of the top 20 (rather than just the top 10) worst and meanest cities in which to be homeless, and you'll find both Sarasota and Little Rock on it!

Part of my frustration, as an activist, is that HUD -- which pretty much controls everything regarding homelessness -- doesn't really care as much about the problem as it wants everyone to think. Evidence of that may be seen in the simple fact that it forces the every-two-year counts of the homeless to be at night, in January, when it's always cold and the homeless are hunkered-down somewhere and difficult to find... thereby ensuring that they'll be undercounted.

Once one gets involved with the whole HUD world regarding homelessness, one quickly begins to notice that everyone there is more about doing studies and reports and assessing the problem...

...but no one's actually fixing it! The bottom line solution to homelessness is a home. Simple as that. We, as a nation, need to be spending our money on that, and not on studies and paperwork which chokes the life out of cash-strapped homeless helping agencies, and contributes to their underpaid workers' unavoidable "compassion fatigue."

In the "sources and related links" section of this web page, below, I've places a few links to some articles and other resources that should better help the reader, here, to understand the problem.