Homeless Probation

[Rulenumber1]

Maybe it's not in California, but it certainly is an issue here in the south. You don't have a viable home, you're not getting released on probation. If you're not still living where you are supposed to be, you're going to get violated and likely terminated. In fact, in both Carolinas, being homeless is a crime in it's own right (though not very much enforced outside of certain areas, we have an ongoing battle between the state/county here and the mayer and PD of one city that keeps sending the homeless into the criminal system).
\

Thanks Ron, I was not aware of this law in SC.
I have many times fed the homeless. Just learned yesterday that this is also illegal! Sad.
I volunteer for a reli
gious organisation that feeds poor people. The director told me I personally yesterday me feeding a homeless person
I was shocked!

 

[quincy]

Thanks Ron, I was not aware of this law in SC.
I have many times fed the homeless. Just learned yesterday that this is also illegal! Sad.
I volunteer for a reli
gious organisation that feeds poor people. The director told me I personally yesterday me feeding a homeless person
I was shocked!

Apparently in South Carolina even taking a homeless person into a restaurant and eating together can be a problem for good hearted souls. I find that incredibly sad.

 

[Rulenumber1]

Apparently in South Carolina even taking a homeless person into a restaurant and eating together can be a problem for good hearted souls. I find that incredibly sad.

SAD world we live in!

 

[quincy]

SAD world we live in!

Yes. There are many sad stories. At least there are those in the world who are working to make it better, in whatever way they can.

 

[cbg]

Seems to me that what's unconstitutional is criminalizing homelessness in the first place.

 

[quincy]

Seems to me that what's unconstitutional is criminalizing homelessness in the first place.

The ACLU certainly believes that.

 

[Rulenumber1]

Yes. There are many sad stories. At least there are those in the world who are working to make it better, in whatever way they can.

YOU have always been an inspiration to me! Thank you!

 

[CdwJava]

Thank you! Your comment was encouraging!

But, as posted by others, SC seems to require a residence for probation. That's both good, and bad, since it implies adequate jail space and staffing, but it also means that people can end up remaining in custody even if it is not necessarily the best course of action for their rehabilitation or future.

 

[quincy]

The National Law Center published a study on “The Criminalization of Homelessness in U.S. Cities.” The 71-page report was released in February 2019. Here is a link:
https://nlchp.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/No_Safe_Place.pdf

Both South Africa and Scotland recognize a right to housing and the way this right is implemented could be a model for the U.S., where cities and states spend more to “punish” the homeless population than it would cost to build and supply housing.

 

[CdwJava]

Out here in California we started eliminating laws (through case law and statute reform) that were seen as punitive towards homelessness 20 years ago - much to the chagrin of those who have to live in areas overrun by the homeless. Most recently, all of us in the 9th Circuit have to abide by the Boise decision (Boise v. Martin) that makes it nigh on impossible to legally move the homeless off of public property. So, while some jurisdictions out here might still have laws on the books that have somehow managed to survive legal challenges, they may no longer be able to enforce them based upon that decision. The east and the south, however, may still have some latitude in addressing the issue.

Unfortunately, addressing homelessness is NOT just about providing housing. Politicians - at least out here - far too often take the short-sighted and feel-good approach of allocating funds for housing without addressing the long term concerns. You also have to provide ongoing services, transportation, property maintenance, ad nauseum. And when a large portion of your homeless are addicts or seriously mentally ill, simply putting them behind four walls will do little to address the underlying problems. (In my county we had two hotels used to house the homeless that ultimately were condemned by the county for health violations as the residents were incapable of maintaining themselves or their property and there was no way to compel them to accept medical or psych. services.) A great part of the problem is that you cannot force people to accept help that is offered. And, even when you have shelters - as we do in Sacramento - these shelters often have rules such as no drugs or alcohol, not being high or inebriated, etc. A great many of those who might benefit from such housing decline BECAUSE of those rules ... or, are denied as a result of their condition.

I do not know THE answer, only that merely building four walls and patting ourselves on the back for our generosity is not it. Unfortunately, it's a short-sighted solution and one that allows politicians and others to praise themselves and their good works while leaving those of us who work with and have to clean up after the problems that arise to deal with the aftermath.

 

[quincy]

Out here in California we started eliminating laws (through case law and statute reform) that were seen as punitive towards homelessness 20 years ago - much to the chagrin of those who have to live in areas overrun by the homeless. Most recently, all of us in the 9th Circuit have to abide by the Boise decision (Boise v. Martin) that makes it nigh on impossible to legally move the homeless off of public property. So, while some jurisdictions out here might still have laws on the books that have somehow managed to survive legal challenges, they may no longer be able to enforce them based upon that decision. The east and the south, however, may still have some latitude in addressing the issue.

Unfortunately, addressing homelessness is NOT just about providing housing. Politicians - at least out here - far too often take the short-sighted and feel-good approach of allocating funds for housing without addressing the long term concerns. You also have to provide ongoing services, transportation, property maintenance, ad nauseum. And when a large portion of your homeless are addicts or seriously mentally ill, simply putting them behind four walls will do little to address the underlying problems. (In my county we had two hotels used to house the homeless that ultimately were condemned by the county for health violations as the residents were incapable of maintaining themselves or their property and there was no way to compel them to accept medical or psych. services.) A great part of the problem is that you cannot force people to accept help that is offered. And, even when you have shelters - as we do in Sacramento - these shelters often have rules such as no drugs or alcohol, not being high or inebriated, etc. A great many of those who might benefit from such housing decline BECAUSE of those rules ... or, are denied as a result of their condition.

I do not know THE answer, only that merely building four walls and patting ourselves on the back for our generosity is not it. Unfortunately, it's a short-sighted solution and one that allows politicians and others to praise themselves and their good works while leaving those of us who work with and have to clean up after the problems that arise to deal with the aftermath.

That is how South Africa and Scotland can instruct.

The solution to the problem of homelessness is certainly not as easy as saying, “Here is a house.” But without a place to live, problems only multiply.

Jailing the homeless and/or fining the homeless for being homeless is definitely not working to solve anything, though.

 

[CdwJava]

Comparing systems from foreign countries is usually not as simple as it might sound. Certainly there may be lessons to take away, but even in Europe they lack the deeply enshrined freedoms that we so often take for granted that also prevent the government from compelling people to act in their own best interest. It's usually akin to comparing apples to potatoes rather than apples to apples.

And, you and I may agree that it is not as simple as "here's a house," but the political solutions I have seen out here so often rely on housing as the primary or sole component of an expeditious "solution". A multi-faceted solution often exceeds the focus or attention span of the politicians seeking a quick fix, and lacks the long term funding source or commitment to try and enact a multi-faceted approach to the issue. I have spent most of my career serving on commissions and panels involved in addressing homelessness, and when there's grant money or new tax money involved, there is a rush to spend it - full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes! It can be quite eye-opening. There ARE good programs out there, but they are often privately run or operated by religious/charitable organizations, and governments are becoming increasingly reluctant to provide funding for some of these NGOs.

I can't speak to jailing or fining the homeless because in my career that has never been the case. Now, jailing or fining them for their (unlawful) actions, that's a different story. Simply for being homeless, no.

 

[quincy]

... I can't speak to jailing or fining the homeless because in my career that has never been the case. Now, jailing or fining them for their (unlawful) actions, that's a different story. Simply for being homeless, no.

Well ... you are essentially jailing the homeless for being homeless when you jail them for unlawfully sleeping in cars/under bridges/in parks. Sleeping is necessary but if you have no house/shelter to sleep in, you are committing a crime.

 

[CdwJava]

Well ... you are essentially jailing the homeless for being homeless when you jail them for unlawfully sleeping in cars/under bridges/in parks. Sleeping is necessary but if you have no house/shelter to sleep in, you are committing a crime.

And there is the rub. Can you continue to run the risk of health and public safety issues with squatters blocking streets, littering the streets, environment and waterways, associated criminal activity (drugs, alcohol, sexual assaults, etc.), and a host of other issues related both to quality of life and safety. Today, we give the homeless carte blanche in most jurisdictions in CA to the point that businesses and residents suffer. And with the Boise decision, it has confirmed that we must simply allow homeless encampments to fester along the public throughfares to the point that in many jurisdictions there is a legitimate health concern as well as safety - both for the general public and the homeless as well. 20 odd years ago, there was, in effect, an "out of sight, out of mind" approach to much of the homeless. As long as they did not camp out (or pass out) at our feet, we would give them a pass. But, when they started camping on the streets, blocking doors to businesses, harassing passerby on the sidewalk, defecating in public, and other offenses, then enforcement was necessary. Today, nope! Especially after Boise. I don't know if you've been to any large cities in CA recently, but ... OMG! With a few exceptions, most of them are ... well, disgusting. My favorite parks in several cities I cannot even go to anymore, and I sure as heck wouldn't bring my children to if they were little.

Again, I don't know what THE answer is, but allowing homelessness to gather and fester on the streets is NOT it. And trying to shove them into four walls is also NOT it. There are some local solutions for those who want to get off the streets which includes temporary housing, and some of these are a step in the right direction ... provided they continue to hold their clients' feet to the fire. But, a majority of the long term homeless population is simply not willing, or incapable of, transitioning off the streets. THOSE are the folks that are most often the problem.

 

[quincy]

Again, it might help to pattern ourselves after Scotland or South Africa. Housing first.