Weakened Homeless Bill of Rights Passes Assembly Committee

NOTE BY NORSE:   Not having seen the revised bill, I can’t tell how badly the bill has been weakened.  It seems there are still some useful provisions left in it.  Contact the Santa Cruz City Council at citycouncil@cityofsantacruz.com to demand they support and strengthen it.  Not to mention dumping the raft of anti-homeless laws they already have on the books (See “Deadly Downtown Ordinances–Updated” at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/08/29/18657087.php ).

Capitol Alert

The latest on California politics and government

homeless.JPG

An amended version of a bill that would extend new protections to California’s homeless population cleared the Assembly Judiciary Committee on Tuesday morning.

Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, framed Assembly Bill 5 as an attempt to create a statewide baseline of homeless civil rights, citing a proliferation of municipal ordinances cracking down on behavior like lying or sleeping on the sidewalk as examples of the “criminalization of poor people.”

“Today numerous laws infringe on poor peoples’ ability to exist in public space, to acquire housing, employment and basic services and to equal protection under the laws,” Ammiano said at a Tuesday morning hearing.

Ammiano’s legislation faced a backlash from critics who said the bill would sanction behavior like urinating in public while exposing businesses to new litigation, undercutting the will of voters who had passed local ordinances and handcuffing city-level efforts to deal with homelessness. The California Chamber of Commerce included AB 5 on its annual list of “job killers” because it imposes “costly and unreasonable mandates on employers.”

The amendments addressed those concerns, Ammiano and supporters of the bill argued. A widely derided provision establishing “the right to engage in life sustaining activities” including “urinating” was deleted. Another amendment jettisoned language prohibiting discrimination by business establishments.

But those changes were not enough to allay the concerns of critics like the League of California Cities, which argued that the bill still imposes onerous new requirements. Lobbyist Kirstin Kolpitcke pointed to a provision requiring governments to compile statistics on arrests and citations for offenses like loitering or obstructing sidewalks.

The bill would also bar local law enforcement from applying laws governing things like eating, sitting or panhandling in public places unless the county has satisfied a set of requirements that include a relatively low unemployment rate, a short wait for public housing and readily available public assistance.

“The city does not control the county’s numbers or what they do or do not provide,” Kolpitcke said.
Concerns also remain about the cost of the bill, which requires the State Department of Public Health to fund health and hygiene centers. At the committee hearing on Tuesday, even lawmakers who voted to move the bill underscored those qualms — committee chair Bob Wieckowski, D-Fremont, predicted a “lively discussion” when the bill goes before the Appropriations Committee.

“While I can certainly appreciate the goal and the aspiration, we all know we simply don’t have the money to be able to provide that,” Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi, D-Torrance, said of the proposed hygiene centers.

Even should that provision be stripped from the bill, it would leave the core of the legislation intact — what Jennifer Friedenbach of the San Francisco-based Coalition on Homelessness described as “making sure homeless people have a fundamental right to rest” without facing harassment.
“That does not overturn local laws,” Friedenbach told the Bee.

PHOTO CREDIT: Advocates for the homeless rally outside the State Capitol building on Tuesday The Sacramento Bee/Jeremy B. White

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2013/04/updated-homeless-bill-of-rights-passes-committee.html#storylink=cpy

Showers? What a Concept

NOTE  FROM NORSE:   Public bathhouses, 24-hour bathrooms, 21st Century health standards–all something Santa Cruz has yet to pick up on.

Tech entrepreneur is converting retired city buses into showers for the San Francisco homeless

San Francisco is teeming with tech entrepreneurs who want to save the world but who’ll pass by the homeless person on the street without a second glance.

Doniece Sandoval, a Bay Area tech entrepreneur, is not one of them. Her latest trick? Turning retired city buses into mobile showers for the homeless. The initiative, known as Lava Mae, is a response to a desperate need in the city. According to the most recent count, more than 6,500 homeless people sleep on the street or in shelters in San Francisco, and there are only eight shower facilities specifically available to the homeless, and most of these have just one or two stalls and aren’t open every day.
lavamae_1339430086_600 Doniece Sandoval is working part-time to convert MUNI buses into shower facilities

It all started two years ago when Sandoval hopped in a cab after a meeting in the south of market (SoMa) district of San Francisco, which is primarily inhabited by startups and the homeless.
“My driver turned around and said, ‘welcome to the land of broken dreams.’” Sandoval  snapped out of her reverie and started to really look at the people around her.

“The woman I passed was crying and saying that she would never be clean,” Sandoval recalled, her voice cracking. While this sentiment might have multiple layers of meaning, she took it as a sign that she should focus on the issue of hygiene, one of the most pressing needs in the homeless community.

After mulling it over and doing some research, Sandoval hit on the idea of a mobile unit that could be outfitted with shower facilities. Access to water and sanitation is a basic human right, so as a short-term solution, why not put a shower on wheels?

The project has been several years in the making — and still won’t be operational for several more months — as it has not been easy to get the city’s regulators on board. “There have been a lot of uphill battles,” Sandoval admits. But she has reached an agreement with the transit authorities, which will donate the buses being retired in the next four years. The buses will tap into fire hydrants wherever they go, an ideal water source.


Project Homeless Connect, the Bay Area group that is on a mission to improve communication among service providers, has agreed to support Lava Mae. Once the basic need for sanitation is met, the hope is that San Francisco’s homeless will be better-equipped to find long-term jobs and other opportunities.
A broader goal is to shine a light on the real face of homelessness in San Francisco.

“You would be shocked at how many well-dressed people there are sitting next to you in San Francisco coffee shops who don’t have a place to live,” said Marc Roth, an entrepreneur who lived in shelters, in his car, and on the streets until the day he walked into TechShop, spent on his last cent on manufacturing classes, and picked up a soldering iron. Roth is now thriving; with a newly funded business (a laser company), he’s a living testament that the right program can make all the difference.

Likewise, Sandoval is no stranger to entrepreneurship. She’s the founder of Idea Mensch, an online community where entrepreneurs can share their stories, and currently works for Zero1, an art and technology network. She believes San Francisco’s residents have a real opportunity to use their unique talents for good.

Her plan is to provide 100 to 200 showers each day, as well as a private changing room and bathroom facilities. To ensure the process works seamlessly, she is working with a design firm on the prototype for the first bus.

“We will start with one bus, but will share this idea with communities across the country to make a difference on a national-level,” she said.

2 held after shooting downtown Fresno homeless with paintballs

NOTE BY NORSE:  The “call in a criminal sleeper” campaign encouraged by the SCPD and, I suspect, by Take Back Santa Cruz, could easily escalate to this kind of Trollbuster Violence, as it did in the past.   When homeless people are casually associated with theft, discarded needles, feces-and-urine, trash, and burglaries, open season on poor people becomes not just okay but valued.  The recent Arm the Homeless campaign (see http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/04/15/18735243.php ) was a response.

2 held after shooting downtown Fresno homeless with paintballs

By Diana Aguilera – The Fresno Bee
Monday, Apr. 22, 2013 | 11:19 PM Modified Mon, Apr 22, 2013 09:54 PM

Two teenagers were arrested in downtown Fresno Monday after shooting several homeless people with a paintball gun, costing one man the sight in one eye, police said.

Officers went to the area of Fresno and F streets, where two suspects inside a vehicle shot a homeless man with a paintball gun. The two suspects drove in an alley, shot the man and then fled the area, police said.

Shortly after that, the two teenagers shot another homeless man with the paintball gun near Ventura and H streets.

Police located the vehicle at Broadway and San Benito avenues and later arrested a 17-year-old juvenile from Fresno and an 18-year-old man from Bakersfield.

Police learned the pair had shot paintballs two days earlier at a homeless man and woman at Ventura and H streets. According to police, the man was struck in the eye by a paintball, resulting in loss of sight in one eye. The woman reported being struck in the chest.

The two teens were arrested on suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon and conspiracy. Police said they could face mayhem charges, as well.

Check fresnobee.com for breaking news

From a Decade Ago…

Down And Out In Europe

By BOBBY GHOSH Sunday, Feb. 02, 2003BAITEL-RIBEIRO/GAMMA

EXPOSED: Around 10% of Europe’s homeless are rough sleepers
Follow @TIME


Big Sid tells lies. During the course of a single three-hour conversation on a London street corner, he relates

his life story four times, each version more fantastical than the last. In one, he swims to the middle of the Thames in midwinter to rescue a drowning dog. In another, he vanquishes a phalanx of machete-wielding skinheads with his bare hands. Sid is a black man who says his parents came to Britain from the Caribbean, but the specific biographical details he serves up vary so dramatically he might easily be talking about three or four completely different people; the narrative inconsistencies mount as he works his way through a two-liter bottle of hard cider. By the halfway point, he’s contradicting himself almost every other sentence, and lapsing into incoherent repetitions of his two favorite phrases: “short-term” and “long-term.”

Depending on which version of the saga you believe, Big Sid was born in South London, or in Yorkshire; he’s a high school dropout, or played football at university; he was married (and divorced) twice, or never. He may be 35, or 40. He claims to be utterly alone in the world, an orphan with no relatives at all, but asked if he will allow himself to be photographed for this article, he balks. “I have family, man,” he says, his high voice abruptly dropping to an embarrassed whisper. “I don’t want them to pick up your magazine and see me in this condition.”

His condition is the one certain, cruel, truth about Big Sid: he is homeless. On this bitterly cold winter night, he will make a bed of flattened cardboard boxes in the recessed doorway of a music store, squeeze into a fluorescent green sleeping bag that’s too small for his angular 2-m frame, and rest his bald head on an old postman’s sack that contains his every possession. He’s been a rough sleeper for much of his adult life, wandering from city to city in a near-constant alcoholic haze. Once or twice a year, he will go to a shelter for homeless people, to get out of inclement weather or to have a doctor look at the sores on his feet. But these interludes rarely last more than a few days: Sid finds sustained human company stressful, and is deeply suspicious of anything that smacks of officialdom. “The shelters are okay for short-term, for a bath and medical treatment,” he says, “but they aren’t for long-term, man, not for me.”

Finding long-term solutions for people like Big Sid is an enormous — and growing — challenge for Western Europe, where homelessness has quietly been climbing to levels not seen since the end of World War II. Hard numbers are scarce, but according to the European Federation of National Organizations Working with the Homeless (FEANTSA), a Brussels-based umbrella body of homeless organizations, at least 3 million Western Europeans are homeless this winter — and between one-fifth and one-third of them are members of homeless families. Only a small proportion, less than 10%, sleep rough like Big Sid; most huddle into shelters or temporary housing, live in shanties, or bed down in the houses of friends and family. Think homelessness is an American problem? Think again. As a percentage of population, it’s as bad in Europe as it is in the U. S., where there are an estimated 2 million homeless, according to Dennis Culhane, a social-policy expert at the University of Pennsylvania, who extrapolates his figure from attendance at homeless facilities in nine U.S. jurisdictions.

That Europe’s homelessness problem is roughly the same as America’s — and that one of the fastest-growing segments of Europe’s homeless population is families — is a shock. After all, Europe sees itself as kinder, gentler and more socially responsible than the U.S., with an extensive, expensive social safety net that’s designed to nurture and protect the most vulnerable sections of the populace — the kind of people who are thrown to the wolves in winner-take-all America. But that might just be the point: it’s easier to be homeless in Europe, where even the down-and-out get social-welfare checks.

Activists and experts, however, hesitate to make a direct cause-and-effect correlation between the dole and homelessness. They point, instead, to inadequate and incoherent social-welfare policies that throw money at the problem but don’t do enough to move the homeless from the streets and shelters into jobs and permanent housing. “The safety net is failing some of the most vulnerable sections of European society,” says Freek Spinnewijn, FEANTSA’s director. “A lot of people are falling through — people with mental-health problems, drug and alcohol problems, and people who have suffered physical and sexual abuse.”

What’s even more scary is that 3 million is almost certainly an underestimate: most European countries simply don’t know where to look or how to count the homeless. Government data are as confusing, and about as reliable, as Big Sid’s stories. Austria and Spain have no official statistics at all. Germany, France, Italy and the U.K. have what are best described as estimates, many of them regarded with skepticism by voluntary organizations that work with the homeless. INSEE, France’s national statistics agency, admits that its official count of 86,500 is only based on the number of adults that went at least once to a soup kitchen or an accommodation service. FEANTSA estimates that the real number of French homeless is closer to 200,000, but many aid organizations claim that even this figure is too low. The British government claims there are just 596 rough sleepers across the country, but those who work in London’s shelters say there are more than 1,000 in the capital alone.

It doesn’t help that different European governments (and indeed different voluntary organizations) have varying definitions of homelessness. In Italy, only rough sleepers qualify — there are around 17,000 of them, according to the official count. At the other end of the spectrum, Finland includes as homeless people staying temporarily with relatives and friends, and even prisoners about to be released who have no homes to go to. FEANTSA, the closest thing to a pan-European authority on the subject, uses a combination of official statistics, data from voluntary groups and its own research to make educated guesses.

Inconsistent definitions also explain why some homelessness groups express surprise at the comparison between homeless numbers in Europe and the U.S. “This is such a difficult phenomenon to quantify, and it’s hard to know whether the Americans use the same yardsticks as we do,” says Jeremy Swain, chief executive of the London homeless charity Thames Reach Bondway. But even if the calculations are imprecise, experts say, they’ve seen enough anecdotal evidence in recent years to know that Europe’s homeless population is enormous, and growing all the time.

And it is compounded by Europe’s other chronic predicament, immigration. The proportion varies sharply: in France, anywhere between 50% and 80% of those using homeless services are immigrants; in Germany, it’s just over 10%. These calculations only include migrants who are legally entitled to state assistance, but social researchers say illegal immigrants tend not to remain homeless very long. With no access to social welfare, they have to find jobs and accommodation to get off the streets, where they risk being caught and sent back home. It doesn’t follow that immigrants who use homeless services are welfare slobs, lacking the incentive or will to break out of their dependence on the state. Many are homeless because they are discriminated against, in jobs and housing — or simply can’t afford Europe’s high cost of living.

But economics is only a small part of the problem. Unlike Eastern Europe and Russia, where homelessness is mostly a result of massive unemployment, the profile of Western Europe’s homeless is much more complicated. A large proportion owe their condition to nonfinancial difficulties — alcoholism or drug addiction, mental disabilities, or trauma brought on by physical or psychological abuse. “We’re talking about people who have been raped or severely beaten up as children, who’ve had bad marriages, lost loved ones, been thrown out of jobs or suffered other kinds of indignities,” says Dublin social-research consultant Brian Harvey. “Homelessness is the end of the line in a series of personal disasters.”

Christelle won’t say what her personal disaster has been, or why she recently left her Algerian-born husband. At the Cité Saint Martin in Paris, an aid center and shelter near the Bastille run by the Association of Catholic Relief Shelters, Christelle (not her real name), 23, tries to keep her three-year-old daughter Julie entertained. Sitting in the playroom, there are different toys everywhere, and after sampling building blocks and crayons, Julie (also not the child’s real name), wearing a red dress with a matching red bow in her curly brown hair, finally settles down with a small plastic truck, driving herself around the room to her own engine sounds. Christelle smiles, but sees beyond the happiness that a well-stocked playroom can provide. “The hard part is living communally,” she says, relaxing in a sweatshirt and jeans — a comfy outfit thrown on after a day out looking for work. “For my daughter, it’s difficult. I don’t want her to become too accustomed to this situation.”

Most homeless people in Europe are single or separated men, like Big Sid. But voluntary agencies say the fastest-growing segments among the homeless are like Christelle: young, female and part of a family. The explanations range from the predictable (the general economic downturn) to the counterintuitive (women’s independence may be a contributor: more assertive women are more likely to dump abusive husbands and move into homeless shelters). When the numbers were small, Europe did well by homeless families and women, giving them priority in temporary and permanent government housing. But as their numbers swell, the infrastructure is being stretched thin. Spinnewijn says that single women with children make up the majority of homeless families in Europe. “One of the main reasons for the increasing number of homeless families is divorce,” says Spinnewijn. “There has been a rise in the number of divorces, and often divorced women with children find it very difficult to have an economically sustainable life.”

Christelle, originally from northwestern France, moved into the shelter last September. According to the government’s rules, she can only stay six months, which means she has until early March to find a new place to stay. Christelle is worried about the deadline, but is optimistic that she will have a job and an apartment by the spring. She hopes to get a divorce soon. With no friends in Paris and what appears to be a distant relationship with her family, who live several hours away, she contacted a social-aid worker who placed her at the Cité Saint Martin.

Résumé in hand, she goes out each day looking for work. “I’d like a job in the hospitality industry, maybe as a receptionist,” she says. But the job market is tight, and so she tries to hide her circumstances from potential employers, to duck prejudice against homeless people. “Nobody knows I don’t have my own home, and I don’t tell them,” she says. That includes her estranged husband and her family; when she calls her parents, she lets them believe she has a place.

The music of Jennifer Lopez plays on the radio in the background, and Christelle says what she’d really like to do is live in the U.S. “I dream of Los Angeles,” she says. “Things just seem better there.” But for the moment, it’s enough to care for her daughter and keep going out everyday looking for a job. “When I was young I would see people from shelters and thought it must not be easy to live like that, without a place of your own,” she says with an awkward smile. “Now I know.”

It’s hard to know what traumas torment the short, stocky man slouched on a bench in Berlin’s Hallesches Tor metro station at 11 p.m. one freezing winter night. He is plainly drunk, the smell of alcohol on his breath mingling with the stench from his urine-stained trousers. His blue eyes are bloodshot, his brown beard mottled. Asked for his name by a worker from the Berlin City Mission, he comes up with “O’Brien,” although he’s plainly German. He agrees to be taken to a shelter run by the Mission, which is sponsored by the Lutheran Church. When he gets there, he is searched for weapons, drugs and alcohol, and is required to surrender the black table lamp that he jealously guards at all times. He’s then handed a bowl of hot soup, but screams out that he wants spaghetti. After some soothing words from the kitchen volunteers, he begrudgingly takes his bowl of soup to the almost-empty dining room, where several other guests have passed out under the tables.

A drunken tantrum is nothing more than a small nuisance for those who work with the homeless. Volunteers routinely encounter hostility, even violence, particularly from rough sleepers. “Those who’ve been on the streets for years get very uncomfortable when they are suddenly in a confined space, surrounded by lots of people,” says Susan Fallis, project manager at a West London hostel, one of several run by the charity Broadway. “They are suspicious and angry, and get put off by even the simplest things.”

Fallis’ hostel is a relatively rare “wet” house: it allows booze (but not drugs) on the premises, on the principle that alcoholics would otherwise remain in the streets and beyond help’s reach. Residents are provided hot meals, clean bedrooms, even well-being services like foot massages and aromatherapy. They are also encouraged to sign up for government detox programs. The hostel receives around €450 a week from the British government for each of its 30-odd residents. It also charges them a small fee, about €12.50 a week, for things like electricity, water and gas. It’s a pittance they can afford to pay from their welfare checks. The small fee has another function: it is meant to help residents deal with simple real-world chores like paying bills. “They need to take small steps toward a normal life,” Fallis says.

But many find even the smallest steps too daunting, and their fear turns easily into resentment. Michael Ion, a 10-year rough sleeper and alcoholic who stayed at the hostel for a few weeks this winter, was enraged when one worker reminded him his monthly fee was overdue. “Why should they remind me about a payment?” he fumes. “I’m not in debt, or anything. And they’re getting money from the government anyway.” Although he concedes that the hostel is less hidebound than most, Ion complains that there are too many rules. “I’m used to being by myself in the open air, with nobody to tell me what to do,” he says. “These places are like prisons for me.”

Both O’Brien and Ion are back on the streets now. Few rough sleepers ever last more than a couple of months in a shelter: their addictions and psychological problems won’t be solved by hot meals and a roof over their heads. And their welfare checks, more often than not, only feed their addictions.

And yet europe’s traditional response to homelessness has been to throw money at the problem, in the form of benefits. Unemployed single French citizens over the age of 25 and with no dependents are entitled to an allowance of around €400 a month. In Britain, people can claim €50-80 per week in unemployment benefits, and in Germany, the homeless are entitled to a subsistence allowance of €9 a day, which they can pick up at the social-welfare office. Social researchers know that “it’s not a matter of giving someone several hundred euros a month and expecting them to find a place to live and make a life,” says Martin Hirsch, president of Emmaüs France, a voluntary organization that runs shelters and provides housing across the country. “Money isn’t enough for people with problems — physical, psychological — who can’t take care of themselves.”

Can Europe fix its homelessness problem? Not before it acknowledges that the problem is graver than officials currently admit. Social researchers say an accurate count of the homeless is as crucial as an accurate national census. Central governments would be smart to pass that job on to provincial and local authorities; they’re closer to the problem and better able to quantify it. “There’s plenty of evidence that local authorities are more responsive to the homeless than central governments,” says Dublin consultant Harvey. This is borne out by the experience of Germany’s l�nder, or states, which under German law are responsible for dealing with homelessness. As a result, they provide the most accurate representation of the problem among the major European countries: after peaking at 590,000 in 1997, the number of homeless Germans fell to 390,000 in 2000. The decline also suggests that local authorities do a better job, not just of counting the homeless but of getting them off the streets.

Other countries are coming around to the idea that workable solutions for homelessness must come from local authorities. England’s Homelessness Act came into force last summer, requiring each of its 354 local-government housing authorities to produce a homelessness strategy by mid-2003. Then the real work can begin.

So far, the response from voluntary groups has been mixed. Alastair Jackson, director of policy for the housing organization Shelter, says the law has already “improved the quality of help” available to homeless people. But he and others worry that the central government hasn’t yet explained how the local authorities will cooperate and coordinate their work with national bodies, voluntary groups and policymakers. And yes, European governments will still need to throw more money at the problem — to pay for more affordable housing, more shelters, and for the detox, rehab and therapies many homeless people need to overcome their personal demons.

Big Sid doesn’t think that’s possible. It’s two weeks since that bender with the hard cider, and he’s back on the streets of London after a trip to the beach resort of Brighton. The begging there was good, and he shows off a bottle of cheap whiskey tucked into his sack. But that’s for a special occasion; for now he’s still drinking cider. And he’s still telling tall tales, but they’ve taken on a much darker tone, with him playing the victim instead of the hero. The villains, inevitably, are representatives of the state, from doctors in public hospitals who don’t give him the medicines he wants to policemen who beat him up for no reason. “Governments hurt people,” he says, recounting years of abuse he endured — or did he? — in a state-run correctional school 20 years ago. “Government programs are all short-term, and nothing good comes of short-term.” Finding long-term solutions for the Big Sids of Europe may be the hardest part of dealing with homelessness.

Two From Monterey County

NOTES BY NORSE:  [See below]

Monterey City Council to look at homeless problem

440 homeless people are in Monterey, says a 2011 census
By LARRY PARSONS   Herald Staff Writer
Updated:   04/22/2013 11:31:16 PM PDT

Amid increased public outcry about the city’s homeless population, the Monterey City Council will hold an evening study session Wednesday on the subject.

A 13-page council report prepared for the session says a 2011 census counted 440 homeless people in Monterey. It cautions that homelessness, unlawful behavior and activities affecting health and safety “are not one in the same and cannot be addressed with the same tools and strategies.”

The council session comes in advance of a first-time, Peninsula-wide “Hungry and Homeless in Paradise” conference to be held May 18 at Monterey Peninsula College.

The council report breaks down different groups of homeless people, looks at different ways of addressing the complex issue, notes what the city already is doing, and says public complaints about transients are on the rise.

“Most causes of homelessness are outside the the control of government agencies,” the report says. “There are no easy answers or solutions, only good intentions, inadequate resources and growing frustrations.”

The homeless population comprises the “truly homeless” who have suffered severe economic setbacks, persons with substance-abuse, mental-health or other traumatic problems, and growing numbers of young “travelers” living nomadic lifestyles, the report says.

The city itself — with its moderate climate, seasonal visitors with disposable income and beaches, parks and greenbelts — are “reasons for the area’s attractiveness



for people experiencing homelessness.”

City officials receive complaints “on a daily basis” from residents, tourists and the business community about the growing numbers of homeless, the report says.

“They report seeing homeless persons sprawled on the sidewalks, urinating in public and acting intimidating,” the report says. Areas particularly impacted are downtown, Roberts Lake and the Garden Road, the report says.

In response, the city has created a temporary three-member police team to maintain a presence in the areas most affected. But city officials also have received complaints from the public about “criminalizing poverty” and targeting the homeless, the report says.

The city has ordinances against aggressive panhandling, loitering, littering, consuming alcohol in public, trespassing and other “health and safety” issues, the report says.

But other measures — overnight parking prohibitions in certain areas, expanded no-smoking laws and making it a crime to sit or lie on sidewalks or other public spaces — likely will be brought to the council, the report says.

This year, the city allocated $123,060 in community development grant money to 13 agencies serving the homeless. That’s 50percent below last year’s funding level because of the elimination of local redevelopment agencies, the report says.

The report lists about two dozen suggestions received by city officials to respond to homelessness. They range from increasing city contributions to business groups for security to licensing panhandlers.

NOTES BY NORSE:

“Most causes of homelessness are outside the the control of government agencies,” the report says. “There are no easy answers or solutions, only good intentions, inadequate resources and growing frustrations.”
Actually, the government has lots of control. Consider the police and judicial amputation of basic legal and human rights that homeless people suffer as a class, such as sleeping bans, bogus “public safety” curfews in public spaces, twenty-first century vagrancy laws (which were actually declared unconstitutional 30 years ago in the Lawson case). These are directly a result of local government action– responding to the agenda of their police department, developers, right-wing bigots, or a reactionary merchant association.
Instead of low-income campgrounds, bathroom facilities, and the obvious amenities of civilization which should be publicly available, there’s the “scare ’em out of town or lock ’em up mentality”. Today in Sacramento Assemblyman Tom Ammiano’s AB 5—the California Homeless Bill of Rights—comes up for an initial Judiary Committee vote. See http://wraphome.org/?p=2953&option=com_wordpress&Itemid=119 .
“In response, the city has created a temporary three-member police team to maintain a presence in the areas most affected.” A brilliant response to the “urination problem”. I guess public bathrooms are out. Exactly how many 24-hour bathrooms are there in Monterey, and where are they located?

Salinas restaurateur admits beating homeless man, will get nine years

Will get 9 years in prison for attack with bat

By JULIA REYNOLDS   Herald Staff Writer
Posted:   04/22/2013 09:02:19 PM PDT
Updated:   04/22/2013 11:11:11 PM PDT
Click photo to enlarge

Robert DeLeon Entered no contest plea after new witness to attack came forward

In a stunning mid-trial turnabout, a Salinas restaurant owner accused of beating a homeless man with a metal bat admitted to assault charges early Monday that will mean nine years in prison.

Halfway through a jury trial that included costly expert witnesses rendering opposing opinions, Robert DeLeon, 43, entered a no-contest plea to charges of assault with a deadly weapon and causing great bodily injury leading to a coma in an attack on Ramon Anderson in October.

DeLeon is co-owner of XL Grindhouse on Main Street near the National Steinbeck Center. Prosecutors said he admitted he inflicted injury that caused Ramon Anderson, 55, to “suffer brain injury resulting in a coma.”

An additional charge of attempted murder was dropped as part of the plea agreement.

The sudden change in the trial’s course came about in a matter of hours on Friday.

Prosecutor Steve Somers said Salinas police Det. Arlene Currier received a message Friday from someone suggesting she speak with a possible new witness in the case.

It was the same day DeLeon testified that he never beat Anderson with a bat, something his attorney has contended since the trial began one week ago.

DeLeon admitted a fight took place, but said he only used fists in self-defense.

Currier had no phone number for the new witness, Somers said Monday, but was told where she could find him. She did so, and obtained a recorded interview that told a very different story, one that matched versions given



by another witness and Anderson.

Anderson testified early in the trial that he suffers from schizophrenia and was sleeping behind the restaurant when a customer called police and he was asked to leave the premises. He said he did, but was later walking on the sidewalk in front of the establishment when DeLeon came outside and attacked him.

The new witness, a regular customer of the XL Grindhouse, told Currier that he was “sitting in the restaurant,” Somers said. “He saw the defendant hit (Anderson) with a bat three times in the head.”
During the fight, Somers said, “DeLeon lost control of the bat but continued to attack Mr. Anderson, punching him and stomping on his head as Anderson lay on the sidewalk in a fetal position.”

He said the witness told Currier that DeLeon came back inside the restaurant carrying the bat, then looked at the witness and angrily told him to be quiet.

Two days later, Anderson was flown to a trauma center and underwent surgery to relieve swelling in his brain, followed by weeks in hospitals and convalescent homes.

With another week of trial looming on Friday, Somers said he quickly sent the recording to DeLeon’s attorney Brian Worthington.

Before the night was over, a plea deal was forged, Somers said.

Somers said this was only the second time he has struck a deal halfway through a jury trial.

He said the witness told Currier he never came forward because he thought investigators already had enough evidence.

Worthington on Monday said he didn’t want to discuss witness allegations that are not in evidence, and said he stands by DeLeon’s testimony about not using a bat.

“He’s been consistent with that,” Worthington said. He said corroborating testimony by forensic pathologist Dr. Joseph Cohen about Anderson’s injuries “more than showed that wasn’t the case.”

He said DeLeon did admit in the plea deal to using a bat because the sentence would have been the same whatever weapon was used, and it was more important to get the attempted murder charge off the plate.
“It was a reasonable compromise,” Worthington said. “What really made us move forward with a plea was the (acknowledgement) that Mr. DeLeon had absolutely no intent to kill.”

Somers had another take. Somers felt it met the legal definition of attempted murder, “But it was a tough charge to prove.”

Overall, he said, the plea deal was “an appropriate result.”

DeLeon was facing 15 years in prison, Worthington said, but the deal now stipulates the nine-year sentence. State law requires that DeLeon serve at least 85 percent of the term, and the conviction will count as a strike under California’s three-strikes law.

He is scheduled to be sentenced June 21.

His brother James DeLeon was also originally charged in the assault. He was later sentenced to felony

probation after he admitted to being an accessory after the fact when he lied to police officers about the beating.

It is unclear what will happen to the XL Grindhouse’s beer and wine license, which state records show is held by a company run by both brothers.

California law says convicted felons cannot own liquor licenses unless they are deemed “rehabilitated” through a lengthy court procedure.

Julia Reynolds can be reached at 648-1187 or jreynolds@montereyherald.com

NOTES BY NORSE:
Perhaps De Leon can start a chapter of Take Back Monterey in jail and link up with the militant Take Back Santa Cruz [TBSC] organization up North.

Anti-homeless hysteria generated by TBSC has resulted in the closing down of the only Needle Exchange program located in the city. They’ve amped up “Reefer Madness” and stopped a 2nd medical marijuana facility from opening [See http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_23059432/santa-cruz-planners-consider-medical-marijuana-grow].

TBSC is pushing for more punitive police response, and recently sent a mob to pressure a local judge (successfully) into keeping an innocent man in jail (Ken Maffei) with the false charge that he stole flowers from a police memorial. See http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_22843345/charges-dismissed-against-man-accused-stealing-flowers-from .

Today the Santa Cruz City Council is considering an anti-homeless curfew on Cowell’s Beach–the first beach “forbidden zone at night” ever–after a Drug Warrior gang of hysterical residents mobbed City Council and prompted it to vote behind closed doors to shut down the only Needle Exchange in town.

California Homeless Bill of Rights Faces Committee Vote 4-23

NOTE BY NORSE:   AB 5 comes up for a vote in the Judiciary Committee tomorrow.   A phone call (or an e-mail) to any of the below politico’s might help sway the tide.  I’m not terribly optimistic about the final shape this bill will emerge in, nor in its predecessor in Rhode Island (i.e. whether it’s actually helping homeless people on the grounds), but the continuing debate is important and the issue crucial.

PLEASE CALL OR E-MAIL STONE OR ANY OF THE OTHER REPS !

California Homeless Bill of Rights (AB 5) is set with our first hearing and we all need to ACT NOW!!!

♦ Bob Wieckowski, Chair (D, Alameda, Santa Clara) phone: 916-319-2025. fax: 916 319-2125. kevin.baker@asm.ca.gov
♦ Donald P. Wagner – Vice Chair (R, Orange) phone: 916-319-2068. fax: 916-319-2168. matt.hedges@asm.ca.gov
♦ Luis A. Alejo (D, Monterey, Santa Clara) phone: 916-319-2030. fax: 916-319-2130. tyler.blackney@asm.ca.gov
♦ Ed Chau(D, LA) phone: 916-319-2049. fax: 916-319-2149. edmond.cheung@asm.ca.gov
♦ Roger Dickinson (D, Sacramento, Yolo) phone: 916-319-2007.fax: 916-319-2109. elliot.cavnaugh@asm.ca.gov
♦ Cristina Garcia(D, LA) phone: 916-319-2058. fax: 916-319-2158. tim.reardon@asm.ca.gov
♦ Jeff Gorell, (R, Ventura County, LA County) phone: 916-319-2044 .fax: 916-319-2144. samuel.chung@asm.ca.gov
♦ Brian Maienschein (R, San Diego) phone: 916-319-2077. fax: 916-319-2177. matthew.easley@asm.ca.gov
♦ Al Muratsuchi (D, LA) phone: 916-319-2066. fax: 916-319-2166. brett.williams@asm.ca.gov
Mark Stone (D, Santa Cruz, Monterey) phone: 916-319-2029. fax: 916-319-2129. rebecca.marcus@asm.ca.gov

Three Articles in Defence of America’s Informal Settlements

Communities

In defence of America’s informal settlements: the campers of San Francisco

We tend to believe that wealthy countries like the United States don’t have informal settlements. Not only is this false, but it allows western governments to further marginalise an already misunderstood community. In the first of three articles on America’s informal residents, Martha Bridegam meets two residents of one such harassed community in San Francisco.
Martha Bridegam

20 November 2012
While informal settlements exist in advanced cities like San Francisco, they often take very different forms to those seen in the developing world. Here, in a scene typical of the city, a small community of informal residents cluster their RVs–recreational vehicles or caravans–discreetly together under a freeway viaduct. Photo: Martha Bridegam
In August this year, city and state authorities in San Francisco raided a camp of makeshift homes under a freeway ramp and beside a commuter rail yard near the downtown area, destroying some residents’ property and evicting them from the site.

The San Francisco Chronicle‘s Kevin Fagan described the camp this way: ‘a sprawling mini-city of tents, suitcases and makeshift Conestoga wagon-style trailers, and a 50-strong homeless population that had been there for years. It was the biggest street camp in San Francisco.’ One resident has denied it was so large, but it was certainly substantial for a town that discourages group camps.

Residents were given 72 hours’ notice to vacate but some were offered and accepted temporary city-rented hotel rooms. The San Francisco Coalition on Homelessness (SFCOH), an activist group largely staffed by precariously housed volunteers, reported the eviction proceeded relatively respectfully but later posted complaints about promised rooms that didn’t ‘pan out’.

When thousands of Americans make the same housing decision, and stick with it through cold nights and police harassment, they can’t all be suffering defects of character or logic. For them, informal housing must be the best bad deal available.

Respectfully or not, campers who didn’t leave were ordered out. Some of their property was taken to maintenance yards for later claiming; some was destroyed, in part by workers wearing paper suits and masks. After the raid the camp re-formed, but smaller and under heavier weekly harassment. From past experience as a volunteer advocate for informal campers (in part through SFCOH) I expect the size of the camp may be ratcheted down over time.

San Francisco is dotted with small clusters of makeshift homes, especially under elevated freeways and in the remaining warehouse districts. The housing may be tents, shelters built around shopping carts, or vehicles, especially older recreational vehicles (‘RVs’, American English for ‘caravans’). Police and public works staff regularly disperse these unauthorised communities and destroy portions of their property as waste. The campers regroup. The cycle repeats.

I think our officials justify clearances of camps, and conventionally housed neighbours accept them, out of civic perfectionism. They presume informal housing can’t really be necessary, not in the prosperous United States. Taking comfort from the existence of government and NGO services for homeless people, they assume these services can meet all homeless people’s needs — hence that informal housing is a choice made by people who refuse to be helped.

They are proven wrong by the quiet ubiquity of makeshift housing in San Francisco and across the United States. When thousands of Americans make the same housing decision, and stick with it through cold nights and police harassment, they can’t all be suffering defects of character or logic. For them, informal housing must be the best bad deal available.

There are indeed chances to stay indoors. San Francisco’s aid program for indigent childless adults provides accommodation for up to 27 or sometimes 33 months, though many initial placements are in shelters rather than hotels. The program typically uses old-style downtown residential hotels built during San Francisco’s post-1906 earthquake recovery. Solid shelter despite the risk of crime, noise and bugs. To keep a hotel or shelter placement, though, residents must meet paperwork requirements, follow rules on matters such as dogs, clutter and visitors, and, in most cases, pursue either paid employment or federal disability benefits.

People easily fail or bolt out of that system. Other forms of subsidised housing have long waiting lists. The city’s nightly shelters, though disliked, turn people away regularly. That leaves informal housing.

Two residents of San Francisco

The Chronicle spoke of conventionally housed people as ‘residents’ but of informally housed people as ‘homeless’. That phrasing reflects an established asymmetry: campers may see conventionally housed people as neighbours, but property owners and neighbourhood associations tend to discuss campers as inarticulate elements of a category, ‘the homeless’.

City and Caltrans policies require property of value that is not abandoned to be stored for later claiming. But Sticks said, ‘they don’t give us no option. Whatever they take, whether it’s personal or what, it’s going to the garbage.’

When I visited the camp site in October the man who welcomed me was a lifelong San Francisco native. He introduced himself as Sticks (‘I shoot pool’). Now 56 years old, he said he had lived in the camp much of the past seven years. I asked him what people called it. He said, ‘we call it home.’

Highway workers had fenced off only one small camping area. Tents and shelters had returned, though fewer than in August. (Later I met more residents: some seasoned campers, some recently homeless.)
Sticks found the August eviction less worrying than the new severity of weekly sweeps by the state highway agency, Caltrans. One such raid had destroyed his own property. ‘They took all my clothes and everything and just put it in that big-ass truck that crushes everything.’ He meant a garbage compactor truck, the kind that breaks and compresses property and takes it to the landfill, beyond recovery.

City and Caltrans policies require property of value that is not abandoned to be stored for later claiming — rules reinforced this September by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Lavan v. City of Los Angeles. But Sticks said, ‘they don’t give us no option. Whatever they take, whether it’s personal or what, it’s going to the garbage.’

For water and restrooms he said the camp relied on a public park nearby. It has an outdoor drinking fountain and an indoor restroom that closes overnight. Sticks said an unguarded tap nearer the camp had been shut off. Had residents asked for portable toilets or other amenities? He said, ‘we’ve talked to them about a whole lot of things,’ mainly through an ex-schoolteacher spokesman, but they claimed to be ‘having too many complaints.’

It’s a circular problem: there will always be complaints about crime and sanitation at an informal community if authorities approach these problems not as governance and civil engineering challenges common to every human settlement but as proof that the camp must be removed.

Sticks believed the harsher weekly sweeps were reactions to a series of maliciously set fires that followed the August eviction. Sticks and his friend Rashan, who joined us mid-conversation, said the fire-starter was not part of the camp: he was a resident’s bitter ex-boyfriend.

Rather than discuss guarding the community from further attack, Bevan Dufty, lead official on homelessness in the office of San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee, responded to the worst of the fires by telling the Chronicle, ‘an incident like this can make people more accepting of services, and it also sets off bells that this is not a safe place to live.’

Rationalising the eviction

Public rhetoric surrounding the eviction reflected support from a liberal-conservative consensus. Expressions of solidarity on the left and objections from the Coalition on Homelessness represented minority views.

Bevan Dufty is a popular liberal figure, formerly an elected member of the Board of Supervisors (similar to local council). Speaking to the Chronicle before the eviction, he portrayed the freeway camp as dangerous to its occupants and said city employees were reaching out to provide appropriate services and housing instead. He told the paper, ‘we’re going to say, “this change is coming and you need to think about what you want to do and can we help you figure that out.” The worst that could happen would be for 50 people to be kicked out onto the streets.’

A representative of the less liberal California Highway Patrol interviewed by a local television station spoke more bluntly: ‘mainly, it’s to remove garbage, excrement, rats, that kind of thing.’ A Caltrans spokesman told the Chronicle of plans to bar returners with a stronger fence. His comments were consistent with other Caltrans statements that portray ‘encampments’ as a problem of  trash removal. (Caltrain spokeswoman Jayme Ackemann said the commuter rail system does not own or police the freeway camp area but does remove campers from its own land, offering services when it does.)

Right-wing anti-homeless messages bloomed in the Chronicle‘s online comments. One commenter used the rhetoric of addiction recovery, which holds the addict responsible for self-improvement: ‘Enabling the homeless lifestyle is not compassion. When you make it comfortable for people to be homeless, they will stay homeless. The cops need to be tearing out these homeless encampments as soon as they crop up. The only money we should be spending toward the homeless issue are [sic] in drug rehabilitation and psychological services. That way the homeless have two options: Get treatment or move.’

Learning from the developing world

Although unauthorised settlements have legitimacy problems everywhere, it’s inspiring to consider that in some parts of the developing world, informally housed people count as ‘residents’.

Rashan responded warmly when I suggested the freeway camp might elsewhere be understood and respected as a town. He mentioned people he had seen invoking squatters’ rights during his childhood in Jamaica. ‘They would just plant a little food and put up a little shanty or whatever they could use — bamboo or wood or whatever they find … not just thrown together, I mean, well-knit, you know, I mean, well done … some people just have to live like that, you know? And a lot of them had kids and stuff and their children were always the brightest in school, just, I mean, incredible, you know?’

In San Francisco I do think formally and informally housed people may yet learn to negotiate with each other as neighbours — not beloved neighbours, just neighbours who admit to sharing the same plane of existence.

As I’ll discuss next, hard times in the United States are drawing attention to informal housing. Some punitive raids and legislation have followed, but there’s also a current of sympathy, especially for newly homeless people living in their cars. With that, I think, comes hope for improvement.

COMMENTS at http://globalurbanist.com/2012/11/20/campers-of-san-francisco

The criminalisation of homelessness and informal settlements in US cities

Why do “squatters” in houseboats become residents, but campers in tents and caravans remain “homeless” and unwanted? In her second of three essays on America’s informal residents, Martha Bridegam describes a recent increase in criminalising legislation and policing against homeless and informally housed Americans but asks, is this a short-term backlash against changes in the nature of US housing?
One of several houseboats on Mission Creek in San Francisco. In the 1960s residents of houseboats were treated almost as squatters and threatened with eviction at short notice, as campers are today, but houseboat living is now viewed as a legitimate lifestyle. If attitudes towards these erstwhile “squatters” can change, could attitudes towards campers in tents and caravans in public space also change? Might camping one day no longer be seen as “homeless” but as a legitimate form of residence, however imperfect, and campers given the chance to stabilise and improve their liing conditions as houseboat residents have done? Photo: Joel VanderWerf

The United States has seen a recent striking increase in local laws and clearance campaigns against visibly “homeless” people — a category that, to Americans, includes residents of makeshift housing  such as those I introduced here last month. Infomal shelters were not the sole targets of these campaigns but group camps and some organised “tent city” communities did suffer raids and removals.

Headlines about backlash measures suggested that poor people had become more visible as users of public space. On the other hand, with mainstream news reports full of no-fault misfortunes, such as evictions of foreclosed borrowers’ tenants, it seemed Americans might be attaching less moral blame to the loss of housing. There were hints of selective sympathy, especially for recently displaced people, those living in vehicles, and residents of orderly “tent cities”.

Campaigns against visible poverty

At that, Boden’s customary fluent profanity deserted him: he emailed a copy of a photo from a somewhat later Fresno demolition in December 2011. It showed men in paper suits kicking down makeshift plywood homes. Boden wrote, “Has she even looked at the HUD budget lately?”

As the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty (NLCHP) reported in 2010, uses of public space by homeless people have been contested for decades through criminalising legislation and civil rights litigation. Civil rights precedents on the use of public space require that arrests be made only for discrete prohibited acts, not for characteristics such as lack of housing that were formerly defined as “vagrancy”. To get around this, modern anti-homeless laws criminalise acts such as sleeping, sitting, trespassing (including sleeping in doorways), begging, drinking alcohol, erecting shelters, or sharing food.

But mid-2012 produced a special hail of punitive local ordinances and eviction sweeps against people described as “homeless”. In May the city of Denver passed an ordinance against camping on public or private property. Camping bans are common nationwide, but Denver’s ban was especially strictly worded and represented a sharp break from the city’s prior level of tolerance. It banned “eating, sleeping, or the storage of personal possessions” in conjunction with any “shelter” consisting of tents, bedding, or “any form of cover or protection from the elements other than clothing.” Although arrests had not been made under the law as of October, just its threat was said to be clearing usual camping areas, with homeless people being “driven underground“.

In June USA Today reported on a national trend of punitive ordinances: the Denver law, talk of public space restrictions in upscale Ashland, Oregon, and a Philadelphia ban on food sharing programmes in parks — a ban defended in let-them-eat-cake style by Philadelphia mayoral spokesman Mark McDonald: “We think it’s … much more dignified … to be in an indoor sit-down restaurant.” From the Tampa Bay Times: laws were passed against sitting or lying on sidewalks and rights of way in parts of Clearwater, Florida.

San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors passed a law prohibiting the parking of large vehicles on specified streets, ironically including some where inhabited RVs (caravans) have traditionally been herded by police. (A friend has described her first-hand experience.) Nearby Berkeley came close to passing a ballot measure in imitation of San Francisco’s largely unenforced 2010 ordinance against sitting or lying on the sidewalk, but the proposal was narrowly defeated in the left-tending November 2012 election.

Formed in the 1960s, the houseboats along Mission Creek have outgrown a past semi-squatter status that at one point saw an abrupt threat of 30-day eviction notices. It’s now viewed as a chic bohemian enclave with no questions asked about residents’ trustworthiness…

California’s state highway agency, Caltrans, demolished camps in the towns of Vallejo and Los Gatos. In Sacramento residents have been evicted from generations-established campsites along the American River, in one case displacing approximately 150 people. A “cleanup” campaign on Los Angeles’ notorious Skid Row included both much-needed waste disposal as well as destruction of campsites, sometimes including arrests.

But the September court ruling Lavan v City of Los Angeles, which arose from property destruction in prior Skid Row raids, presented a major advance by protecting campers’ rights to possess “unabandoned” property left on the sidewalk, though the city still can and does dismantle campsites. And this October, activist attorney Mark Merin won payments for 1,143 past residents of Sacramento encampments who lost property in evictions dating back to 2005.

Compassionate demolition?

At the national level, responses to criminalisation vary substantially and, surprisingly, by agency. At the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), spokesman Brian Sullivan chose words carefully about local measures directed at homeless people. He said he didn’t know if HUD had a policy on “sanctioning” or on “depopulating camps”, but “the law enforcement approach doesn’t answer the fundamental question about how are you going to house homeless people”.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) contributed to a recent report on alternatives to criminalisation but has also funded a policing think tank, the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, that provides an intelligent but prejudice-skewed guide to removing “the problem of homeless encampments“. It presumes that camps pose crime and safety hazards by and to “transients” and must be removed.

Given that the US Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) participated in the report on avoiding criminalisation, it was surprising to see the mayor of Fresno, California quoting approving comments from USICH director Barbara Poppe in a press release about a November 2011 camp removal.

The statement attributed to Poppe apparently responded to local officials’ assurances that many displaced people had been or would be housed. It reads: “I applaud the City and its partners for focusing on the housing-first approach to addressing this issue and getting the public, private and nonprofit sectors aligned to services and housing to the men and women living in the encampments … The City and its partners have shown true leadership in energizing the community to respond in a way that is compassionate to individual needs and also makes sense for the greater community.”

I heard about Poppe’s comments from Paul Boden of the Western Regional Advocacy Project (WRAP), who headed the San Francisco Coalition on Homelessness when I volunteered there as a lawwyer. He told me USICH confirmed the quote and provided further material from Poppe saying in part: “The costs associated with trying to ensure the safety, health, and well-being of people in encampments would be more strategically spent on housing.”

At that, Boden’s customary fluent profanity deserted him: he emailed a photo showing men in paper suits kicking down makeshift plywood homes (see photo gallery). He wrote: “Has she even looked at the HUD budget lately?”

That is, Poppe’s comment presumed it is possible to get all campers into conventional housing — except it isn’t. As Boden and WRAP point out persistently, HUD spending on housing construction and subsidies has been steadily far below the level of need since the cuts of the 1980s.

The man who took the demolition photo, homeless-rights campaigner Mike Rhodes, writes that Fresno authorities and NGOs have created some housing meant for homeless people, but nowhere near enough. During late 2011 his activist Community Alliance Newspaper chronicled an especially heavy series of multi-site demolitions in which bulldozers destroyed residents’ structures and property. He wrote to me about Fresno authorities: “They see providing any public services to the homeless in these encampments as helping them to live in these degrading conditions, therefore they refuse to help.”

Why the sudden visibility?

“Tent cities” became discussed as a rising US trend as long as three years ago. The National Coalition for the Homeless reported extensively on West Coast examples in 2010, calling them “America’s de facto waiting room for affordable and accessible housing”. Meanwhile its Twitter feed (a source for several items reported here) has been monitoring the nationwide backlash — including for example a Talent, Oregon, report about a sudden “homeless problem“.

Homelessness isn’t new since the global financial crisis. It had a long remission in the US from the Great Depression of the 1930s through the 1970s but substantially reappeared in the 1980s with the Reagan Administration’s cuts in social support programmes. It became institutionalised a quarter-century ago: July 22, 2012 marked the 25th anniversary of the federal McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, the first federal law to dedicate major spending to homelessness, though it spends less than was cut from welfare and housing programmes.

City populations are now presumed to include a stratum of unhoused and underhoused people, described as “homeless”, circulating among weekly-rental hotels, shelters, subsidised housing programmes and campsites. Homelessness is understood as a condition of life, even a quasi-ethnic social status or, in the case of “chronic homelessness”, a housing status elided with medical diagnosis.

What is new is that homelessness has overflowed into public view from a system of services that, while they didn’t end homelessness, managed for a generation to partially contain and routinise it.

Waiting rooms or living rooms?

It is beginning to seem optimistic to view informal communities as “waiting rooms”. Moves toward legalisation of makeshift housing are already appearing as cities admit to the need. Unfortunately, some combine substandard conditions with the paternalism of traditional US shelters.

Rhodes is a long-term critic of one such complex in Fresno, Village of Hope, run by an NGO called Poverello House. It provides sleeping space in tool sheds without utilities. His 2004 photos of closely spaced sheds behind a wire-topped fence induce a slight shudder. Poverello House’s website states the village is self-governing but Rhodes has written that homeless people tend to dislike the strict rules, which include a requirement to leave the site in daytime.

Similarly, town governments have experimented with legalised parking “programmes” for RVs. One in San Luis Obispo is limited to “only those people who commit to case management and remain drug-free and alcohol-free.” In nearby Arroyo Grande the police reviewed applications for spaces in a small parking area.

The police chief of Nevada City, California, began to issue permits to sleep in public.

A few camps of the autonomous type are hanging on, offering valuable chances to prove that people without money have no special need to be told how to live. After many past evictions, the large self-governing Nickelsville community in Seattle is being allowed to remain at a site on appropriately named Marginal Way. However the organisation still seeks legitimacy. A resident said the community is allowed to contract for portable toilet and garbage pickup service but the city will not help with those costs nor provide utilities — yet city service programmes sometimes refer people there to stay. Last year the Seattle Post-Intelligencer found 130 residents including children and pregnant women.

In Sacramento, the uniquely sophisticated and reportedly democratic Safe Ground initiative seeks refuges for campers on both public and private land. It has drawn national and international human rights attention. Significantly, a news report on City Council skepticism toward Safe Ground led with the question: “Should a group of homeless people be allowed to camp together in Sacramento without outside monitoring?” Currently lacking a main campsite, the organisation continues to search.

Better, but more elusive, is the possibility that unauthorised communities could become regularised as neighbourhoods, with residents accepted simply as townspeople. A heartening model is available in San Francisco: the houseboats along Mission Creek, a frequently polluted but picturesque channel in the same urban renewal area as the freeway camp I’ve described previously. Formed in the 1960s, the houseboat group has outgrown a past semi-squatter status that at one point saw an abrupt threat of 30-day eviction notices. The community has become more conventional in legality and lifestyle over time. It’s now viewed as a chic bohemian enclave with no questions asked about residents’ trustworthiness, though the group had to campaign fiercely for a while to stay put amid development.

Unfortunately, the houseboaters are distinct from poorer residents of RVs who parked around that shore until gentrification drove them out. A recent article on the colony underscored the class difference between houseboat residents and RV campers by saying of the houseboaters, “until recently, they were the only people out there.”

As I’ll discuss further in the next article, it remains to be seen whether informal community legalisations can be a means for residents to escape the irregular, second-class status of “homelessness” or whether such places risk becoming institutional holding areas where people wait for a chance at conventional affordable housing.

COMMENTS at http://globalurbanist.com/2012/12/04/criminalisation-of-homelessness

Accepting each other as neighbours: the settlements demonstrating the dignity of informal US housing

In her third piece on homelessness and informal settlements in the US, Martha Bridegam describes Dignity Village in Portland, Oregon, and other settlements across the country which are setting out to prove that informal housing can be just as peaceful, lawful and neighbourly as any other residential area.
Overlooking a corner of Dignity Village in Portland, Oregon. Photo: Steve Wilson/American Street Philosophers
In this third article on American informal housing, I’m glad to turn from accounts of a group camp’s repeated decimation in San Francisco and of other criminalisations of homelessness to more hopeful talk about progress eroding the all-or-nothing view of housed status that I earlier called “civic perfectionism”.

The visibility of informal housing in the US is a new factor that may reduce social exclusion of people defined as “homeless”. An archipelago of encampments has formed — “movement” is too definite a word — where residents are inching toward acceptance with conventionally housed neighbours.

Such acceptance is needed because Americans will not all be in formal housing any time soon. Those without it need recognition in the meantime as community members with their own goals and rights.

Feldman suggests Americans over-idealise the “proper home” and view the house-dweller as the archetypal solid citizen. Such nostalgic respect has a harmful side: it tends to make conventional housing a prerequisite for acceptance as a fully fledged person with rights, therefore defining “the homeless” as incomplete people without rights.

Homeless Sacer

Arguably informal communities reduce housing-based social exclusion by creating a visible middle layer of housing between reductive stereotypes of “housed” and “homeless”. The new prominence of “tent cities”, groups of cabins sharing washhouses or kitchens, or groups of RVs (caravans) parked together, can encourage a view of housing quality as a continuum from worse to better. The continuum approach keeps the focus on improving people’s real circumstances — what Jane Jacobs called “unslumming“. That’s healthier than the too-common official practice of destroying makeshift housing on the principle that it’s not good enough to be real housing.

I’ve drawn some of these thoughts from a post about Giorgio Agamben and American homeownership by Aaron Steinpilz and much more from political scientist Leonard Feldman‘s 2004 book Citizens Without Shelter: Homelessness, Democracy, and Political Exclusion.

Feldman writes that Americans have been taught, in ways that feel apolitical but aren’t, to see “the homeless” as victims or criminals, but not as political actors nor as townspeople. Drawing on Hannah Arendt, Agamben and others, he suggests Americans over-idealise the “proper home” and view the house-dweller as the archetypal solid citizen. He argues that such nostalgic respect has a harmful side: it tends to make conventional housing a prerequisite for acceptance as a fully fledged person with rights, therefore defining “the homeless” as incomplete people without rights. Campaigns for acceptance of informal housing are a way for people defined as homeless to claim the rights and social significance of “complete” people.

Legitimacy in tent cities

Tent cities and other encampments have made progress winning legitimacy, perhaps because the public now believes residents who say they have nowhere else to go. By living openly and unremarkably in informal housing, and appearing as civic participants in their cities, residents prove that “homeless” people are real Americans, not figures waiting to resume life as Americans if or when they return to conventional housing.

Mitch Grubic, elected CEO at the uniquely self-managed Dignity Village camp in Portland, Oregon, knows that potential. Having lived in his car, he understands the hassling and contempt. “That attitude of ‘omigosh, a homeless person coming into my neighbourhood, omigosh’ — I don’t know what it’s going to take for that attitude to change.” He said the subject comes up constantly in his community of 50 cabin-dwellers, which has contracted to use space on the edge of a city recycling yard. He said “we have game plans” to change public perceptions: to say “we are empowered people, we’re not what you think we are …

That’s going to come from the camps. The shift in paradigm is going to be coming from camps like us.”

By living openly and unremarkably in informal housing, and appearing as civic participants in their cities, residents prove that “homeless” people are real Americans, not figures waiting to resume life as Americans if or when they return to conventional housing.

Photojournalist Steve Wilson, who for five years has been documenting Dignity Village, calls some villagers “upper-class homeless”. He defines them as “those complete enough within themselves to succeed in America’s decades of ‘more than my share is my share’ but have opted out.” He wrote: ”Upper-class homeless’ are experimenting with minimalism: villages responsibly sharing, environmentally aware and self-governing by choice, not economic necessity.”

Grubic says many people in Dignity Village are around his own age of 50 and fed up with a society that rejects older workers and demands too much striving to reach a too-high standard of living. Their minimalism seems a virtue created by necessity.

Working tent cities aren’t utopias. The strongest ones enforce membership standards and conduct rules. Grubic imposes sanctions at Dignity Village, appealable to a resident council, ranging from one-day expulsions to permanent banishment. During our phone conversation he broke off repeatedly to judge a dispute: “Larry, you go back to the commons, Jerry, sit down, OK? … Don’t fight with him, OK? I appreciate it … Larry, let me just deal with it, OK?” He was promising to impose a 24-hour expulsion on a resident. “I’m gonna get him out of the camp. But you cool off too, OK? How about that?”

So nobody’s claiming to resolve the eternal tension of community versus individual rights. But at least tent city communities are starting to claim the equal protection of the laws: when police are called to Dignity Village, it’s not to arrest the group for camping, but to address a crime on behalf of the group.

Grubic spoke warmly of the possibility that US encampments might form a national organisation. It’s natural: they are starting to seem numerous and they’re starting to find each other. In this regard Grubic pointed out the work of Andrew Heben, a researcher and activist now working on the Opportunity Village project in Eugene, Oregon. Heben maintains an impressively crowded if not comprehensive wiki map of U.S. tent cities online. His online PDF book and web site, both titled Tent City Urbanism, build on the 2010 west coast tent cities report by the National Coalition for the Homeless to describe a nationally extending world of voluntary encampments and makeshift homes.

Plumbing as acceptance

To a surprising extent, encampments’ levels of acceptance are indicated by the infrastructure allowed to them. Even clean water is something not always offered to campers, since to offer water is to recognise that campers have a right to exist. Sanitation arrangements seem to represent the next step upward, then formal permission to remain on sites. With full utility hook-ups, an encampment is on its way to becoming a neighbourhood.

San Francisco provides many services to individual homeless people but does not directly serve informal housing areas except through antagonistic “clean-ups”. The park restroom pictured in my first article, a block from the freeway camp mentioned there, is comparatively one of the most convenient and welcoming to campers. It’s sad to remember that in 1998 the Vehicularly Housed Residents’ Association, assisted by SFCOH, nearly created an authorised parking area for RVs and other inhabited vehicles. It would have had a washhouse and formal self-governance; there were architectural drawings. Then apparent support evaporated at City Hall; the plan collapsed. (A local news feature conveyed the possibilities though it understated police harassment and offended several interviewees.)

This year, in passing a parking ordinance directed against RV dwellers, some members of San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors (similar to local council) called for an authorised RV parking or storage area. However, the site suggested was remote Treasure Island; the purpose sounded like containment, not empowerment. Supervisor Carmen Chu told the San Francisco Chronicle, “Traditionally, vehicularly housed individuals have been very difficult to get into city services … We are hoping that this will get these people to them.”
In Sacramento, members of the Safe Ground Sacramento tent camp in 2011 secured a fact-finding visit from the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the violation of their human right to safe drinking water and sanitation. (I’ve discussed this on my own blog.) However, Steve Watters, director of the Safe Ground Sacramento NGO, said his group has given up assisting unauthorised tent camps because local elected officials would not stop the police from repeatedly evicting campers. Instead, the group is serving immediate needs with indoor shelter arrangements. Later members hope to create an authorised “transitional housing” site with solar-powered cabins surrounding a community centre with utilities.

Residents would stay one year. Ideally they would move up in life, but in case not, the group was struggling with “what do you do at the end of the year?”

Mike Rhodes, the embattled Fresno, California advocate I mentioned in previous articles, has managed to contract for portable toilets at camp sites without city objections. For six months he contracted for a Dumpster (skip) to remove residents’ trash regularly from one large camp. He says Fresno is unique in that camps tend to remain for six months to two years, sometimes with solid wooden structures, between city demolition campaigns. Rhodes is involved now, for at least the second time, in a federal lawsuit over such demolitions.

In Seattle, in addition to Nickelsville (also mentioned previously), the SHARE/WHEEL local NGO supports two tentatively authorised tent camps. Since my own past advocacy experience in San Francisco has involved frustrating efforts to protect formerly tolerated RV campers against gentrification, I’m glad to see academic researcher Graham Pruss winning respect and empathy for vehicular residents in Seattle, recently as lead author of an advisory report to the Seattle city government that explains hardships of vehicle camping from the inside and calls for “safe parking” arrangements in the city.

Dignity Village is one of several sites with groups of cabins. Residents have shared water taps, portable toilets, propane heat in cabins, hot water at central showers with authorised drain hook-ups, a computer room, electric coffeepots, and a microwave oven. Grubic regrets, however, that permits haven’t come through for a real kitchen: “We get low marks on cooking.” And he hopes for a better location: the current site gets leaf mould smells from the city composting facility and noise from the nearby airport.

Of course there’s always room to improve, to “unslum”. But it’s great to see these sites steadily improving conditions on low budgets without waiting for someone to raise the absurdly high costs of conventional subsidised “affordable housing”.

I have one more storehouse of knowledge to recommend on informal housing. Significantly, it’s the guide offered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to counting “unsheltered” people in HUD’s controversial “point-in-time” enumerations of homelessness. The document’s authors are required by laws and rules to define nearly everyone in informal housing as “unsheltered,” yet they provide knowledgeable introductions to cases that ought to be viewed as exceptional, some third thing other than “unsheltered” or conventionally housed: “snowbird” RV-dwelling retirees; the “off-the-grid” community in

California known as “The Slabs“; the “colonias” near the Mexican border, where houses are formally owned or rented but lack proper utilities; other substandard rural housing; trailers in rural areas whose residents count as “housed” or “unsheltered” depending largely on where they are parked with what level of

permission.

It begins to seem that official knowledge unofficially includes significant awareness of informal housing; officials simply need to bring that knowledge out in the open and admit that it concerns housing.

Other encouragements

Informal housing could benefit from a trend begun when the state of Rhode Island passed a Homeless Bill of Rights protecting, among much else, the right to exist and possess property and privacy rights in public space. WRAP is now campaigning for a recently introduced California legislative bill that would grant rights similar to the Rhode Island measure.

Another hopeful development is that Occupy encampments introduced middle-class demonstrators to homelessness in fall 2011 and 2012. As Barbara Ehrenreich explained, voluntary and involuntary campers together faced the hounding and property destruction that police use against the poor in ways viewed as apolitical. News reports suggested Occupy campers who had nowhere else to live were not real protesters — illustrating Feldman’s theory that homeless people are viewed as outside politics. Maybe fellow demonstrators learned otherwise.

There’s always danger that tent cities or parking areas could become places of enclosure rather than welcome. But it seems possible that democratic governance can emerge or persist in voluntary encampments.

The “homelessness” state of exception is an internal exile more populous than many US states. For most, the way out of this virtual prison isn’t past formal gatekeepers into formal housing, but by blurring the lines drawn around people called “homeless” — and that requires people inside and outside the lines to contest their absurdity. People are starting to do that. And in the process, more Americans may be recognising each other as neighbours.

Martha Bridegam is a lawyer and writer in San Francisco with a history of volunteer advocacy for informally housed city residents. She tweets @MarthaBridegam.

Coming up Monday and Tuesday: Bill of Rights Hearings in Sacto

NORSE’S NOTES:  Anyone in Santa Cruz interested in caravanning up to this event?  Come to the Keith McHenry presentation on Saturday April 20th at the Sub Rosa, and we can organize one.   Or give me a call at 831-423-4833.


State-wide Coalition converges on the Capitol on April 22 and 23 before Homeless Bill of Rights Hearing
Homeless communities, grassroots organizations, and advocates across the state join together to ensure the passage of the Homeless Person’s Bill of Rights and Fairness Act (AB 5) 
CONTACT:    Paula Lomazzi, SHOC Director   shoc_1@yahoo.com    916.862.8649                                                    
EVENTS:
Rally – North Steps of Capitol, April 22, 2:30 – 6 PM
Press Conference – North Steps Capitol, April 23, 7:30 or 8:15 AM
APRIL 12, 2013—Momentum for the Homeless Person’s Bill of Rights and Fairness Act is building steadily, with critical revisions to the proposed bill now complete and Judiciary Committee hearings scheduled for April 23rd.  Hundreds of homeless rights activists from across California will rally in Sacramento on April 22nd  
Assembly Bill 5 was introduced by Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco). “This bill,” he says, “is really about basic justice. People who are Homeless not only have to struggle with life on the street, they often have the indignity of being treated like criminals because they have nowhere to eat, sit, or sleep except in public. My bill is not about privilege. It’s about making sure they are treated equally before the law. I’m proud to be standing with, and for, anyone seeking justice.”
In a Western Regional Advocacy Project (WRAP) survey of 1,267 homeless people, 81% of participants reported that they were harassed by police for sleeping. In addition, 78% reported experiencing police harassment for sitting. Six hundred of these respondents were in California. Tickets for “status offenses” like sleeping or sitting often result in the arrest and imprisonment of homeless people.
 
With shelters filled to capacity and thousands of people on waiting lists for housing around the state, homeless people have no choice but to sleep, rest and eat in public places.Paula Lomazzi from Sacramento Homeless Organizing Committee said, “These are basic rights that allow all people to stay alive—things most of us get to take for granted, but which remain a daily challenge for many of the poorest members of our communities.”
 
“Laws that segregate, that make criminals of people based on their status rather than their behavior, or that prohibit certain people’s right to be in public spaces are not just sad relics from the past, ” says Paul Boden, Organizing Director of the Western Regional Advocacy Project (WRAP). “The California Homeless Bill of Rights is a response that will protect homeless people from discrimination and ensure their right to exist. This is not about special rights – this is about equal rights.”
Last year, Rhode Island became the first state to pass a statewide homeless people’s bill of rights. Building on the community organizing that led to this success, social justiceorganizations around the country have been working on bills that aim to protect the rights of homeless people. While the states of Vermont, Oregon, Connecticut and Missouri have already had bills introduced, California’s Bill – co-sponsored by the Western Regional Advocacy Project, Western Center on Law and Poverty, JERICHO: A Voice for Justice, and the East Bay Community law Center – is the first bill since Rhode Island’s to be heard in the state legislature. Judith Larson of Jericho said, “This is the essence of what Jericho was 
 
Sacramento Homeless Organizing Committee
P.O. Box 952, Sacramento, CA 95812
Phone and Fax: (916)442-2156
www.sacshoc.org
 http://homeward.wikispaces.com/

Six Ticketed in Continuing Santa Cruz Sleep-Out

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/04/18/18735455.php?show_comments=1#18735481

by Robert Norse

Friday Apr 19th, 2013 11:39 AM

SIX TICKETED FOR SURVIVAL SLEEPING IN A VISIBLE SPOT
Zack, one of six people who, he says, slept at the post office steps area last night called in with a report a few minutes ago. They all received “camping” tickets for survival sleeping in a visible area. I call them the Visible Sleepers.He says some of the folks from the previous night left for the North, but they intend to continue their protest tonight and in the nights that follow.

COPS VIOLATING THE LAW?
He said several police arrived around 6 AM and did ask them if they had Homeless (Lack of) Service Center receipts, but ticketed them anyway with the Camping Ordinance MC 6.36. (subsection 6.36.010).

A key paragraph of 6.36.055(a), a key subsection of MC 6.36, reads
(a) A person shall not be in violation of this chapter [the Camping Ordinance] if, at the time of his or her citation for a violation of this chapter, either: the winter shelter at the Santa Cruz National Guard Armory is filled to capacity; or the person is currently on the waiting list for shelter service through one of the shelter programs offered by the Homeless Services Center or the River Street Shelter in Santa Cruz.”

The officers gave citations anyway in apparent violation of the law. They suggested the citations “might be dismissed in court.” Zack said the group explained they had nowhere to go, were told the shelters were full, were given a receipt by Christine Younger of the HLOSC so asserting (that is, they were put on the Waiting List), and had no legal place to sleep. Police then left, and they went back to sleep, Zack continued.

SIGNS OF THE TIMES
Some of the signs they were displaying read, according to Zack, “If every life has value, then why is our life illegal?”
“If safety is a priority in this community, why do we have to fight for a safe place to sleep?” “When you privatize public space, you silence the voice of the very community it was designed for.” “Any law against sleep is unjust.” And other signs as well. They can be viewed again tonight, presumably, when the protest is slated to resume.

Some locals suggested that to avoid tickets they could leave early in the morning, but Zack noted he told them that the point is we shouldn’t have to move since there is no legal place and we’re not doing anything illegal. First Alarm “security” thugs arrived after 8 AM and told them they’d have to lie outside their sleeping bags or be ticketed. Freedom initially declined, saying it was cold, but when another woman came up with a problem for First Alarm, she complied in order to facilitate First Alarm’s helping with that other problem.

DEFENDING FIRST ALARM THUGS
A police officer advised the group that First Alarm was “just doing their job; they are the middle men between business and the people.”

Zack concluded, “We’re not trying to incite any anger against us by the police. They spent a lot of time trying to justify what they were doing. They could have been out arresting violent criminals instead of explaining…cause we’re peaceful, and we need a place to sleep.”

Camping citations carry a potential fine of $100-200. As mentioned in a prior posting, interviews from last night’s Free Radio Santa Cruz show with Freedom, Andrew, and Cody are archived at http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb130418.mp3.

There will be a workshop tomorrow led by Food Not Bombs co-founder Keith McHenry around broader issues of homeless civil rights (the California Homeless Bill of Rights) and deeper issues of housing (foreclosures and occupying vacant buildings as Homes Not Jails does). At the Sub Rosa Cafe at 703 Pacific Ave. as mentioned above and described at http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2013/04/15/arm_the_homeless.pdf .