Amazon says it will let a homeless shelter move into one of its new buildings in Seattle once the construction is completed. The company initially allowed the shelter to temporarily move into a motel on one of its properties, but now the retail giant proposed a long-term solution.

The original deal was for the organization, Mary’s Place, to stay in the motel until it was time to tear it down and start construction on the new building. But in a generous arrangement that was announced on Wednesday, Amazon said it will make room for Mary’s Place in one of its new buildings and that the solution will be “permanent.”

This is a huge deal for the nonprofit, which turns unused buildings into temporary shelters and has had to move around frequently. The new space will consist of 47,000 square feet and will be able to house 220 people. Amazon will pay for the design and construction of the building. It will also pay all utilities, and let Mary’s Place stay there rent-free.

What the homeless shelter in Amazon’s building will look like. Occupies half of shorter Amazon building on right https://t.co/B5JHJopYxD pic.twitter.com/nZEPUKWDS5

— Nick Wingfield (@nickwingfield) May 10, 2017

Amazon itself has faced criticism for how it treats its warehouse workers due to the seasonality of its business, with the sales volume increasing significantly around the holidays. This means Amazon employs a large number of people in the last quarter of the year. The pay for short-term workers is low, starting at around $10 an hour, and there is no job security or benefits. After the holidays, seasonal workers lose their jobs and can’t apply for an Amazon position again until after a year.

For people struggling to make ends meet, or those who live in a homeless shelter, seasonal employment is a difficult problem. Often, when they get a job, they move out of the shelter and try to find a more permanent solution too quickly. Many run out of money when they are let go from the temporary job and have to go back. It’s hard to break the cycle of homelessness.

Seattle has also had a particularly bad homelessness problem. In 2015, the situation became so bad that the mayor declared a state of emergency in the city. That year, more than 45 people died on the streets, and almost 3,000 children attending public schools were homeless. Last year, the number of homeless people in the area exceeded 10,000, of which about 4,500 lived on the streets, according to numbers from the Seattle/King County Coalition on Homelessness.

The crisis has been blamed on the heroin epidemic, job losses after the Great Recession, and inadequate means to treat people with mental illnesses. The city also receives less money for affordable housing from the federal government than in previous years. Many people sleep in tents along the road or below highway overpasses.

The people working at Mary’s Place are relieved to finally have a permanent spot. “I see it as this huge gift because everywhere we go, we end up leaving,” said Marty Hartman, executive director of the shelter. Amazon’s vice president for global real estate and facilities, John Schoettler, said that this is an investment in the neighborhood. Amazon also has a bigger responsibility than before; nowadays it has 30,000 employees in Seattle, which makes it the biggest private employer in the city.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Amazon’s New Building in Seattle will Include a Homeless Shelter appeared first on Law Street.

In a story that proves there’s at least some humanity left in the world, the Italian Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a homeless man for stealing food this week, saying that since he was hungry, his actions did not constitute criminal activity.

The BBC reports that Roman Ostriakov stole two pieces of cheese and a pack of sausages from a supermarket in Genoa in 2011, and was sentenced to six months in jail and a €100 fine for theft. However, his case was sent for an appeal to reduce his conviction to “alleged theft,” since he was caught before he left the shop.

Instead of just reducing the sentence, Italy’s Supreme Court of Cassation (the country’s highest court) overturned it entirely, saying that “he took possession of that small amount of food in the face of the immediate and essential need for nourishment, acting therefore in a state of need.”

According to the New York Times, a former member of the Court stated that the basis of the court’s decision relied on an Italian legal doctrine that translates to “No one is expected to do the impossible.” Essentially, because his circumstances made it such that he had no other choice, his theft was not a crime. However, as Vox notes, this decision does not set a precedent, so no need to worry about a wave of food thefts as a result of this case.

While this decision doesn’t stand to alter the current laws in any way, it is a great example of a legal system working to uphold human rights and dignity. As a piece in Italian newspaper Corriera Della Sera notes, the growing crisis of poverty in Italy makes Ostriakov an unlikely hero for the underserved. In this reverse “Les Miserables” situation, justice is with the proletariat. The compassion of the Court could go a long way in promoting broader societal attitudes, simply by advocating for something as basic as humanity for the common man.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Italian Court Says Stealing Food Isn’t a Crime If You’re Poor and Hungry appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

Vincente Fox Apologizes to Donald Trump for Profanity

Happy #ThrowbackThursday everyone! Remember when the former president of Mexico, Vincente Fox, told Donald Trump in an interview with Breitbart that he would not pay for Trump’s “f****** wall”?

That was crazy. But what’s even crazier is how last night Fox tried making amends with the presumptive GOP nominee in another Breitbart interview. Later the ex-president even invited Trump to Mexico. Fox claims it was in good form of him to apologize and Trump should do the same. Others say that the apology only makes Trump stronger. So does Trump win this rant-filled feud? See for yourself:

NFL warns against hefty meat consumption in Mexico and China for athletes

Vegans and health nuts everywhere are having a field day! The NFL is warning athletes not to eat too much meat from Mexico and China. Apparently eating large quantities of meat produced in those countries can lead to a positive test result for clenbuterol–a muscle building stimulant banned by the league’s drug policy. But besides the fact that this is a total vacation damper, it raises suspicion about the possibility of tainted meat from abroad.

Starbucks introduces new frappuccino despite lawsuits

Starbucks has been in the news quite a bit this week. This week, the coffee chain announced its new frappuccino: the Caramel Waffle Cone frap, which, if I’m honest, sounds freaking delicious!

But remember how Starbucks played us all with their ice-drink ratio thievery and their overall under-filling issue? A number of lawsuits have been filed against Starbucks for profiting off these cheap tactics. I certainly will never forget the day I spent $6 on a latte and was given half a cup of milk. I swore never to shop at Starbucks again. But…I wonder if those Caramel Waffle Cone fraps are any good.

You know me when #StarbucksHappyHour FRAPS are back I am there!! Tried the NEW Caramel Waffle Cone Frap! pic.twitter.com/tpuHLPKXqt

— Sydney Sanchez (@sydneysanchez21) May 4, 2016

Los Angeles: City’s Homeless Population Increases 11 Percent in 1 Year, Officials Say

Los Angeles, the city of Angels (and many say one of the best cities in the world, second to NYC) has a major problem: homelessness. In less than a year, Los Angeles’ homeless population  increased by 11 percent. Among the most affected are veterans and, for the first time ever this year, people between the ages of 18 and 24.

Martin Shkreli: Prosecutors Say Former Turing Pharmaceuticals CEO Facing New Charges

To conclude our Throwback Thursday edition of RantCrush Top 5, let’s talk about Martin Shkreli. Yes, he’s back in the news. This “Pharma bro” is facing new charges, but we mostly remember him as the former CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals who jacked up prices for an AIDS treatment by 5,000 percent overnight. He’s also the same guy who took possession of a prized WuTang Clan album and wouldn’t give it back. But today, Shkreli is facing additional charges for siphoning money from his business to relieve himself of debt at another one of his companies. Seems like everything is just one big game of Monopoly to this kid. Hopefully he’ll soon be out of the news for good.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: Cinco de Mayo Edition appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio unveiled an aggressive new plan to fight street homelessness. While speaking to the Association for a Better New York, de Blasio unveiled the new initiative: NYC Homeless Outreach & Mobile Engagement Street Action Team—or HOME-STAT. It will be heavily technology-based, and rely on shared data in order to dispatch aid workers to help members of the homeless population who are on the street.

The HOME-STAT plan is part of an overall $2.6 billion program being instituted by de Blasio’s administration. It will include hiring 137 full time staff, and 100 more police officers specifically dedicated to helping the homeless. Under the HOME-STAT plan, which should be fully operational by March 2016, workers will sweep the city’s hot spots for homeless people who live on the streets, and compile an electronic database to track the homeless population. Then, outreach workers will work with the identified individuals; de Blasio stated it will provide each “street- homeless individual a dedicated caseworker who will make it their mission to get their clients off the street and into a healthier place, permanently.”

Additionally, if someone reports a homeless individual on the streets through the city’s non-emergency line, 311, the goal will be for an outreach worker to reach that individual within an hour. According to de Blasio, the use of data is very similar to a program that the NYPD uses to track crime in the city.

This is a large undertaking–the homeless population in New York is thought to be about 58,000, but it’s estimated about 3,000 to 4,000 live on the streets. De Blasio has received significant criticism for what many see as his poor handling of the issue. A recent poll reported that 62 percent of New Yorkers don’t approve of how he has approached the issue of homelessness, and he was pretty heavily slammed after he downplayed the issue of street homelessness earlier this year.

The public response to de Blasio’s plan appears to be mixed. While many, including the advocacy group Coalition for the Homeless have indicated support for initiative, others have brought up concerns that the focus on increased policing will vilify the homeless–they argue instead of advocating for compassion, de Blasio is just encouraging New Yorkers to call an officer to deal with the issue. Judith Goldiner, of the Legal Aid Society, told the Wall Street Journal: “I’m worried that it sends a message that we don’t want to send, which is that we target people who are homeless. That’s not who New Yorkers are.”

Overall, it appears as though de Blasio needed to do something to help deal with the street-homeless population in New York City. Whether or not this initiative–which puts a high premium on technology–works, it will be interesting, as it could be a model for other cities suffering with the same issue. I think we’ll all be keeping an eye on HOME-STAT as it is implemented early next year.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post HOME-STAT: New York Mayor De Blasio Unveils New Plan to Fight Homelessness appeared first on Law Street.

Governor David Ige has officially declared a state of emergency in Hawaii. The declaration is in response to the state’s homelessness crisis, as Hawaii has the highest rate of homelessness in the country. The state of emergency will allow the state to aid this large population by rapidly channeling money into confronting the problem head-on.

Hawaii’s rate of homelessness is 465 individuals per 100,000 people. All said and done, there are just under 8,000 homeless individuals total. While that might seem like a relatively small number, given Hawaii’s population, it makes for a large per capita total. HOPE Services Hawaii, a non-profit that works with the state’s homeless, estimates that 11 percent of the homeless population are children, 14 percent are veterans, and 32 percent are of Native Hawaiian ethnicity.

One of the most tangible ways in which the state has attempted to combat the homelessness crisis came in the form of a clean out of one of the state’s largest homeless encampments in Kaka’ako. Since August, 54 percent of the homeless population living in Kaka’ako has been moved into shelters or temporary housing. Ige intends that the clearing of Kaka’ako be used as a model for transitioning other encampments.

The emergency declaration will allow that process to be sped up. According to a press release put out by the governor’s office:

State funds of more than $1.3 million were identified this month, paving the way for the emergency proclamation. The monies will serve an additional 1000 homeless individuals between now and July 31, 2016, providing increased funding for homeless services and programs that promote permanent housing for families and the chronically homeless.

The emergency proclamation will also facilitate the construction of a transitional housing facility for homeless families. The facility will be temporary and have a clear sunset date.

Hawaii is also being relatively innovative when it comes to how it will be housing the homeless population. Russ Wozniak, one of the architects for the transitional housing units that are being created, explained that they are being created from old shipping containers, and have plenty of ventilation. They also will be insulated and situated in ways that keep the housing cool.

While it may seem extreme to some to declare a state of emergency in this situation, it makes a lot of sense. It will expedite the solution to a very real, very important problem in Hawaii. As Scott Morishige, who is working for Ige on this issue, stated: “This proclamation will expedite the state’s plans to help these individuals and families to more quickly transition to permanent housing.” The goal is certainly admirable; it will be interesting to see the results.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hawaii Declares State of Emergency Over Homelessness Crisis appeared first on Law Street.

A relatively minor case in Boise, Idaho may have some significant implications for many cities across the United States. Last week, the Justice Department (DOJ) filed a Statement of Interest in a Boise lawsuit against the city’s ordinances that ban sleeping and camping in public space. According to the Justice Department, rendering it illegal for people to sleep outside when there is not enough room in homeless shelters constitutes a violation of the Eighth Amendment, which protects people from cruel and unusual punishment. Not only does the DOJ claim that having these laws when no other option exists is unconstitutional, it also notes that they are largely ineffective–making matters worse for both homeless people and the communities that they live in.

The case that the DOJ is addressing is Bell v. City of Boise, which was filed by several homeless people in 2009 after they were convicted under ordinances that make public camping and sleeping illegal. Ordinances like the one in Boise are actually quite common–a study by the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, which surveyed 187 U.S. cities, found that 34 percent of the cities had citywide bans on camping in public and 18 percent ban sleeping in public. The report also notes that there are frequently not enough beds in many cities to provide shelter for all of the city’s homeless. This is the problem that the Department of Justice addresses directly in its Statement of Interest–arguing that when beds are unavailable, homeless people should not be arrested for doing something required for survival.

Shortly after the DOJ filed its Statement of Interest,  Mike Journee, a spokesman for the mayor, fired back claiming, “the premise of the filing is incorrect.” Journee argued that homeless people in the city almost always have resources available to them, and in extreme situations, like severe weather, the city’s ordinances prevent police from issuing tickets.

But Journee’s response largely misses the point of the filing. The DOJ’s statement was not intended to weigh in on the facts of the case, rather it urged the court to evaluate the law using a particular logic. The statement referenced a Los Angeles case from 2006, which called a similar law into question. That case, Jones v. The City of Los Angeles, focused on whether the city’s homeless had alternatives to sleeping in public spaces. The DOJ is not arguing that the ordinance in Bosie is unconstitutional on its face, rather it is saying that it should be considered unconstitutional if people are convicted for sleeping outside when that is the only available option–effectively criminalizing the condition of homelessness.

Beyond recommending the appropriate logic to evaluate the Bell case, the Department of Justice’s statement highlights many of the potential issues related to laws that tend to punish homeless people. Arresting people for sleeping outside, when no alternatives exist, simply serves to further perpetuate the condition of homelessness. Having a criminal record makes it very difficult for someone to get a job or participate in a public housing program. Even more to the point, in many cases criminalizing homelessness actually costs cities more money than simply providing housing. The Statement of Interest concludes,

Thus, criminalizing homelessness is both unconstitutional and misguided public policy, leading to worse outcomes for people who are homeless and for their communities.

Alternatives to punishing homelessness do exist, and in many cases they have been effective. In Utah, the government started providing housing, counseling, and treatment to the homeless population in 2005. Since then, the number of chronically homeless people in the state has decreased by more than 70 percent. Not only has this effort changed a significant number of lives, it also saved the state a considerable amount of money. Between hospitalization, medical treatment, incarceration, and shelters, governments end up spending a lot of money on the homeless each year, but that spending typically does not address the underlying issues. A similar “housing first” program in Seattle, found that providing houses to the homeless saved the city 53 percent per person. In Los Angeles, placing just four homeless people in permanent supportive housing saved the city $80,000 per year.

The Department of Justice’s recent statement may cause governments to question whether policies that punish the homeless are worthwhile. Although the DOJ did not weigh in on the specific facts of the Boise case, it did recommend a better way of evaluating laws that ban camping and sleeping in public. The Statement of Interest argues that criminalizing the condition of homelessness is unconstitutional and a violation of the Eight Amendment and future cases should be evaluated with that logic. In light of this argument and the availability of successful alternatives, governments may want to focus their money and policies on alleviating homelessness, not punishing it.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Justice Department Pushes Against Criminalizing Homelessness appeared first on Law Street.

On June 4, 2015 at a restaurant called Busboys and Poets, the DC Coalition for Housing Justice hosted its ninth annual Housing and Community Service Awards Ceremony and Fundraiser. The DC Coalition is a charitable nonprofit dedicated to encouraging and inspiring social justice by addressing housing as a “human rights issue.” The coalition, which serves residents of the District of Columbia, focuses on low to moderate-income communities and works with local politicians and advocacy groups to create jobs and lobby for changes in local and national housing policies.

Following a musical performance by John Davies, Executive Director and Co-Founder of the Coalition, Lester M. Cuffie, welcomed the crowd and shared a few thoughts on the importance of the coalition’s work and on the organizations and individuals being honored. Cuffie expressed that while the trials to combat housing problems are many, the determined people in the room should be commended for working on necessary changes toward housing justice. Predatory lenders, gentrification, and a lack of jobs were matters touched upon that Cuffie says contribute to a need for housing reform. “If we are to tame the lion that is gentrification,” he said, “we must remain vigilant.”

Keynote Speaker Barry Lenoir, President of United Black Fund, shared his thoughts on several problems that he believes need to be tackled in order to better serve disadvantaged communities in the United States and in Washington, DC in particular. His speech cited topics such as racial profiling, drug trafficking, unaffordable housing, and corruption within groups trusted to serve impoverished populations. Lenoir named income inequality as a primary problem that needs to be addressed. He said that the top 20 percent of Washington residents have an average annual household income of $284,000, while the bottom 20 percent have an average annual household income of $10,000; this discrepancy in wealth leads to a strained  understanding of those bottom 20 percent who are in need of assistance. Lenoir said that the lack of personal relationships with individuals in need of housing support is a major propagator of inequality. Lenoir stated, “One of the failings we have with housing in this city is we have think tanks and the ivory towers that come up with ideas, but they don’t have any connection with what is actually happening.” He added that standards are often not high enough for organizations that attempt to combat the current housing problem by saying, “We have to begin to set standards for those people who want to help the poor. If we don’t begin to move that money to serve their needs, corruption will occur. This is something we have to look at throughout the nonprofit community.”

The Law Offices of Paul Strauss and Associates received the Tenant Law Firm of the Year Award.

Strauss Accepts Tenant Law Firm of the Year Award

Cuffie praised the firm for its exceptional work in housing justice, its unparalleled assistance to tenants, and its honorable contributions to the DC community. Paul Strauss and Associates received the award for readily making itself available to tenants, among other accomplishments. The firm has a policy of free consultations for clients who need a lawyer, and even stays open until 7 pm each day so that tenants are not forced to miss work to meet with an attorney. Tenant Association directors thanked Strauss and his attorneys, saying, “We take our directions and instructions from you.” Former clients expressed their gratitude for the firm’s work, relaying personal stories of cases won and justice granted for themselves and their families. Strauss accepted the award by saying, “I’m proud to stand with the Coalition for Housing Justice because they are leading this movement by getting out there in the community, working with these groups, and giving them the tools that they need.”

Strauss, a current Shadow Senator from the District of Columbia and former superdelegate to the 2008 Democratic National Convention, sat down with me for an interview to discuss his work and how young people can get involved in issues related to housing justice. Strauss said that in an era of record low interest rates, homeownership should be expanding rather than displacing tenants. “We are working hard to make sure that in buildings where we represent tenants and tenant associations, that they get to use something in DC called the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act to actually buy their apartment buildings, own them themselves, [and] run them themselves.”

In 1987, Strauss was a young student at American University living in a rental apartment. After being hit with a massive rent increase, he helped to organize a Tenant Association, bought his apartment complex, and became a tenant advocate and activist. “That’s where I started,” he said, “in my own neighborhood, in my own building, in my own community.” Strauss emphasized that young people can truly influence their communities and that traditional activism is the most powerful way to ignite change. “You can sign an online petition, you can tweet your support for any cause, but at the heart of organizing and at the heart of activism is that, at some point, you have to go out and knock on doors and engage people in a human way. There’s just no substitute for grassroots organizing.” Strauss also acknowledged stereotypes of those who choose careers in law and policy, but reassured me that they are not all true. “People shouldn’t think of law and policy careers as something for dull, suit-wearing people,” he said. “There’s a great tradition of our profession being activist; you can be a lawyer and be an activist at the same time. You can work for the government in public policy and be an activist at the same time. It’s not one or the other. Those skills only help you be better at all of it.” This attitude towards advocacy melded with law promises to be helpful to many people who need aid the most.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post DC Coalition for Housing Justice Honors Local Advocates appeared first on Law Street.

Millions of travelers visit Hawaii every year with the hopes of experiencing beautiful beaches, luaus, and other exciting adventures. With a record number of 7,998,815 visitors in a year, Hawaii is one of the most popular vacation spots for tourists. Because this is such a tourist heavy location, the city council in Honolulu has placed a few rules on the city that they believe will make tourists’ visits a bit more pleasurable. Most recently, Honolulu placed a ban that does not allow people to sit or lie down where a tourist can spot them–leading to controversy in the island vacation destination.

The island first placed this ban on the commercial parts of Waikiki, an area located on the southern shore of Honolulu, after receiving complaints about the city’s homelessness rate from the tourism industry. Mayor Kirk Caldwell’s spokesman, Jesse Broder Van Dyke, said at the time that Caldwell frequently received letters from tourists complaining about public drunkenness and urination. The city now wants to expand the sit-lie ban from just commercial areas to areas off sidewalks as well. Caldwell vetoed this bill, fearing that it is unconstitutional and could cost the city pricy legal fees. But the city council voted 6-3 in favor, overriding his veto. There is a huge concern that this ban targets those who are homeless and will put them in a position to get in trouble with the law. Caldwell stated,

If they make an argument that this legislation is based on targeting homeless, and not about commerce and business, then the whole bill is jeopardized.

Two members of the council, Brandon Elefante and Kymberly Marcos Pine, voted against the bill because they feel that it wrongly addressed the issue of homelessness. Councilman Ron Menor, who also voted against the bill, introduced a new proposal that would limit this ban to only commercial areas. Menor’s compromise never got a hearing in committee. A violation of the sit-lie ban ranges from warnings to fines and forced removal if necessary. Hawaii’s homeless population increased to 6,918 last year and citizens of Honolulu believe that the city should be more focused on providing housing and services than criminalizing homelessness. David Cannel, a 62-year-old man who was homeless for eight years, stated,

This is such a crisis. It’s a city of squalor. This isn’t a third world country. … Everyone has to go somewhere to get some sleep, at least. So where do they go?

While many have concerns that this law will hurt the homeless, the director of Hawaii’s Institute for Human Services, Connie Mitchell, believes that it is getting homeless people off the streets and beaches. She stated: “People are coming into the shelter. It’s working the way it’s supposed to.”

Van Dyke has made it known that Honolulu police will enforce this ban among tourists as well by saying, “Police have to enforce the laws equally against everyone. They don’t target homeless in park-closure enforcements.” A tourist that faces these charges can plead guilty by mail, or fight the charges in person. Failure to do so can lead to a criminal warrant for missing court dates. Mayor Caldwell has tried to address the homeless issue with a plan for a $42 million Housing First program which will not begin until later this year. He stated, “We have never promised we are going to solve homelessness, and I don’t think anyone who does is being honest. But I think we can make a dent.” The Honolulu Police Department will enforce the law, which depends on the number and type of complaints they receive about people sitting or lying on the sidewalks. City officials did not say when enforcement of the expanded ban will begin.

This leaves many people questioning if Honolulu really cares about the well being of the homeless, or if the city is more concerned with keeping tourists happy and bringing in their money. With more than 3.5 million people experiencing homelessness every year in America, this is a huge issue that needs to be addressed. Citizens want to see the city working hard to bring the homeless into shelter, rather than working hard to reprimand them because they are resting in a commercial area. Although many people seem to be against it, if the ban can truly help those who are homeless then it will become very beneficial for the city.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Honolulu’s New Law: Helping or Hurting the Homeless? appeared first on Law Street.

Trying to get by without a reliable place to stay is difficult. But it becomes nearly impossible when trying to live in a city where it is illegal to sleep in parks, to store belongings, or to stand outside buildings. This is exactly what homeless people are up against in many cities across America. Cities are increasingly turning to laws that criminalize homeless populations by outlawing fundamental human behaviors. With laws banning sleeping and camping in public, where should the homeless turn?

What are the statistics on homelessness?

Homelessness has been a problem for decades, but the root causes of the issue are complex. Homelessness is incredibly difficult to measure, especially since many people are forced into homelessness for only a temporary period of time. According to a one-night head count by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, more than 610,000 Americans were homeless in January 2013. Sixty-five percent of the nation’s homeless were staying in shelters that night. This means more than one-third were living in unsheltered locations — under bridges, in cars, parks, or abandoned buildings. Nearly a quarter of the homeless were children under the age of 18.

What have cities been doing?

Cities are increasingly passing laws that essentially make it illegal to be homeless. Most of these laws are designed for safety reasons rather than to put more homeless people in jail, but the effects can still be harmful. Numerous U.S. cities have public designs hostile to the homeless, such as benches with a mysterious third bar in the middle to prevent lying down and sleeping. Most cities have unevenly enforced loitering laws as well as laws prohibiting begging.

The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty released a report on July 16, 2014, tracking the laws of 187 American. Some of its findings:

• 57 percent of cities prohibit camping in particular public places — “camping” encompasses a wide array of living arrangements
• 27 percent of cities prohibit sleeping in particular public places and 18 percent of cities impose a city-wide ban on sleeping in public
• 76 percent of cities prohibit begging in particular public places
• 65 percent of cities prohibit loitering in specific public places
• 9 percent of cities prohibit sharing food with homeless people
• 74 percent of homeless people do not know a place where it is safe and legal for them to sleep

The problem is that these laws have increased in recent years. Since 2011,

• Citywide bans on camping in public have increased by 60 percent.
• Citywide bans on loitering, loafing, and vagrancy have increased by 35 percent.
• Citywide bans on sitting or lying down in particular public places have increased by 43 percent.
• Bans on sleeping in vehicles have increased by 119 percent.

Watch the video below for more information on the measures taken against the homeless in Clearwater, Florida:

Are these laws constitutional?

City bans targeting the homeless population raise a number of legal questions. While the laws are often ruled unconstitutional, they still thrive in most U.S. cities. Most people take issue with the fact that these laws are discriminatory in targeting the homeless population. Some argue that an activity like begging should be protected as free speech. A similar argument is made that the homeless should be afforded freedom from cruel and unusual punishment and should have the right to due process of law. The U.N. Human Rights Committee found criminalization of homelessness violated the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Other significant rulings:

• In April 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that criminalizing behaviors and acts integral to being homeless was a violation of the 8th and 14th Amendments; however, the opinion was vacated when the two parties settled out of court.
• In August 2012, a federal judge in Philadelphia ruled that laws that prohibited serving food outside to the homeless were unconstitutional.
• On June 19, 2014, a federal appeals court cited issues of discrimination in striking down a Los Angeles law that banned people from living out of their cars.

What are the effects of these laws?

Typically the homeless are encouraged to stay in shelters until they can find affordable housing of their own, but oftentimes it is not that easy. Consider a city like Santa Cruz, California, where 83 percent of homeless people are without housing and shelter options, yet the homeless cannot lie down in public or sleep in vehicles. Or consider El Cajon, California, where 52 percent of homeless people have no access to a shelter, but sleeping in public, camping in public, and begging are criminalized.

Watch the video below to learn more about a law banning homelessness in Columbia, North Carolina:

Incarceration

Violators of these rules face fines or incarceration. As many homeless people cannot afford fines, they end up spending time in jail. With no permanent address, no regular transportation access, no place to store personal records, and few to no financial resources, the homeless targeted for criminal behavior have difficulty paying fines. If they can’t pay fines they often cannot get probation. This means they are incarcerated more often and for longer periods of time. For the homeless, getting into shelters and finding affordable housing is already difficult. But doing so after a previous arrest becomes nearly impossible.

Suspended Benefits

The homeless are typically eligible for a variety of beneficial federal programs, such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Social Security Disability Insurance (SSD), and SNAP (food stamps). Many homeless people are unaware of these programs. Since most of the homeless lack an address and application documentation, they have difficulty applying. SNAP has special procedures that give greater assistance to the homeless, such as providing the, with a representative and mailing benefits to homeless shelters. Most cities recognize the obstacles the homeless face in applying for federal benefits and employ outreach teams to connect homeless people to benefits and services. For example, Denver’s “Road Home” plan began in 2005 with the goal of helping homeless people with disabilities. Denver organized all the existing outreach programs in the city and added 20 more outreach workers as well as a program coordinator. In the first 3 years, the program helped 2,000 people in Denver access public benefits and services. Another program in Portland set up training to teach all homeless case workers what major benefit programs are available and how the homeless can apply.

One big problem is that having a criminal record makes people ineligible for certain benefits, such as federal housing subsidies. When disabled individuals are incarcerated, their SSI is suspended. If they are incarcerated for more than a year, SSI benefits are terminated and the person must then submit a new application. The process could take months or even years, meaning an increased chance for homelessness in the meantime.

High Cost

Recent studies show that laws targeting the homeless are not always cost-effective. The Utah Housing and Community Development Division reported that the annual cost of emergency room visits and jail stays for the average homeless person was $16,670. Providing someone an apartment and social worker would only cost $11,000.

A 2013 analysis by the University of New Mexico’s Institute for Social Research examined the costs of providing immediate, permanent, supportive housing to the homeless rather than the more typical transitional housing. Albuquerque’s “Heading Home” Initiative made extensive use of community partnerships to coordinate housing and services. Overall, the study found that housing the homeless is 31 percent cheaper than keeping them homeless, mainly because housed individuals use emergency services less frequently. Their research showed that simply by providing permanent housing, Albuquerque reduced spending on homeless-related jail costs by 64 percent. The costs of emergency room visits also declined 13 percent, while spending on mental health visits increased 34 percent.

Do these laws help protect the homeless?

Very rarely are cities explicitly aiming to make the lives of the homeless even harder by instituting these laws. Many cities see these laws as a way to ensure public safety as well as the safety of the homeless. For instance, laws prohibiting sharing food with the homeless are aimed at protecting the homeless from bad food. Food given illegally could be made with questionable food safety practices or could come from someone with more nefarious intent like poisoning the food. Other cities worry about the effects of public feedings. For instance, a church group may set up in a park next to a school, which would leave many parents upset over the safety of their children. Watch for rationale behind feeding laws below:

Laws outlawing public camping are often a way for the city to push the homeless to stay in safer shelters, especially in dangerously cold weather. Staying in a shelter generally keeps the homeless safe from people who may otherwise harm them on the streets. Shelters can also help cities connect the homeless to other beneficial social service programs. Officials also say these laws help to encourage better pubic hygiene and safety. Other laws target panhandling. Police object to panhandling since it is often done in high-volume, potentially dangerous areas, such as a highway median.

So why can’t the homeless find a place to stay?

More than 12.8 percent of the nation’s supply of low income housing has been permanently lost since 2001. This is largely due to a steady decrease in funding for federal subsidies for standardized housing since the 1970s. There are fewer emergency shelter beds than there are homeless people. The number of shelters in the United States rises each year, but the increased supply of beds does not always correspond to the areas of highest demand. In certain areas where there is a lack of affordable housing, the shelters still do not provide enough beds. Further, waiting lists for subsidized housing in most areas are incredibly long. The city of Los Angeles has only 11,933 shelter beds for a homeless population of 53,798. If cities cannot provide adequate shelter beds, there is no place for the homeless to go but the streets.

Typically shelters are run by non-profit organizations associated with church groups or the federal or state government. Numerous national organizations, such as Salvation Army, United Way, and the National Alliance to End Homelessness, aid in the upkeep of homeless shelters. Most shelters require residents to exit in the morning and go somewhere else for the day before returning at night for a meal and to sleep. Shelters try to offer a variety of services, including job training and rehabilitation programs, but some are criticized for being nothing more than holding facilities. One shelter in Washington, D.C. in particular has dealt with corrupt workers preying on the homeless residents as well as a decaying building, contagious infections, and hazardous bug infestations.

Another significant obstacle is how to find housing for vulnerable populations like the previously incarcerated, the recently hospitalized, and veterans. Once released from jail or prison, many have no place to turn and no money to pay for housing. Those released from hospitals are also more likely to suffer from homelessness and even mental illness.

Housing First models have grown in popularity in recent years as part of the movement to find new ways to help the homeless. One of the first Housing First models was launched in Los Angeles in 1998 by the non-profit PATH Beyond Shelter. The success of the policy led to its spread to a number of U.S. cities. Rather than moving the homeless through different levels of housing, Housing First models move the homeless immediately from the streets or a shelter into their own apartment. The idea is that once housing is obtained, other issues like mental health or addiction can more effectively be addressed. By using a Housing First model, Phoenix became the first city to successfully house all of its chronically homeless veterans.

Watch the video below for more information on the Housing First program:

Libraries and the Homeless

With the homeless finding it increasingly difficult to find someplace to sit outside, libraries are a prime spot to spend their days. As social safety nets shrink, libraries have become more vital than ever to homeless populations. Libraries are free, centrally located, provide numerous books and computers, and allow the homeless to escape from snow or scorching temperatures. Increasingly, libraries have added homeless outreach to their array of programs.

Being a de facto gathering place for homeless populations can often deter use by other patrons. Striking the balance between making the homeless feel welcome and making other visitors feel comfortable is tricky. Naturally libraries deal with complaints regarding homeless people being loud, unclean, mentally ill, monopolizing computer time, and bathing in restrooms. Some libraries institute their own rules to mitigate these problems. For example, rules in Washington, D.C. prohibit alcohol, bare feet, carrying more than two bags, sleeping, or an odor that can be detected six feet away.

Watch the video below to see how a library in Burlington, Vermont, deals with the homeless:

Libraries have not turned a blind eye to the needs of the homeless. In response to problems with the homeless population, the city of San Francisco hired a social worker for its main library. The social worker is aided by five peer counselors, all of whom are formerly homeless. The library even implemented a 12-week “vocational rehabilitation” program. Graduates of the program are then hired to work in the system. Other libraries in Washington, D.C. and Philadelphia have since followed suit to hire social workers.

In Greensboro, North Carolina, libraries offer meals, haircuts, blood pressure screening, and job counseling. Libraries in San Jose, California bring library programs, such as computer classes, to homeless shelters. The central library in Philadelphia even features a cafe staffed by the homeless, who then use the job skills gained to secure other employment. The American Library Association calls for even more programming targeting the homeless, recognizing that libraries should provide training to staff and coordinate programs and activities to benefit that population.

Cities need more affordable housing to help the homeless. Ideally they should seek to confront problems of homelessness and provide solutions rather than criminalize homeless behavior. Naturally many communities do not want to have to deal with the homeless in public areas, but criminalization of homeless behavior is costly, unconstitutional, and hinders a person’s future ability to secure a permanent place to stay.

Resources

Primary

HUD: 2013 Annual Homelessness Assessment Report to Congress

 Additional

No Safe Place: The Criminalization of Homelessness in U.S. Cities

Reuters: U.S. Libraries Become Front Line in Fight Against Homelessness

Huffington Post: More Cities are Basically Making it Illegal to be Homeless

The New York Times: Shunting the Homeless from Sight

USA Today: More Cities Pass Laws that Hurt the Homeless

Wall Street Journal: A Crowdfunding App for the Homeless

Blaze: Top 10 Anti-Homeless Measures Used in the United States

American Library Association: Reducing Homelessness Through Library Engagement

NPR: Urban Libraries Become De Facto Homeless Shelters

MSN: Court Overturns Los Angeles Ban on Living in Cars

ALA Library: Services for the Poor

Arizona Central: Success in Housing for Homeless Veterans in Phoenix

Harvard Civil Rights/Civil Liberties Law Review: Jones v. City of Los Angeles: A Moral Response

NPR: With A Series of Small Bans, Cities Turn Homelessness into a Crime

Alexandra Stembaugh

Alexandra Stembaugh graduated from the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Costs of Criminalizing Homelessness appeared first on Law Street.