Criminalizing Homelessness

[Jay Foxworthy]

The Santa Rosa City Council is being asked by its staff this Tuesday to authorize the use of maximum force to punish residents charged with "Quality of Life" offenses. Raising the charges from infractions to misdemeanors will result in fines of up to $1,000, up to six months in County Jail, or both. Criminal convictions will exacerbate housing, employment, and health care access for those homeless.

This policy stands for every thing I am against when it comes to how Law Enforcement should be dealing with the homeless. We should be working with the DA And Public defenders office to help set up a quality of life crimes court that helps direct people committing quality of life crimes to programs that help work on the underlying issues. Santa Rosa has enacted "Housing First" programs closing down homeless encampments forcing many of our homeless to find shelter downtown or head further out to West County.

Jay A. Foxworthy

[Barry]

Here's the PD article on this. It's a difficult issue. I agree with points made on both sides...


Santa Rosa may get tougher on quality-of-life crimes
KEVIN MCCALLUM, THE PRESS DEMOCRAT | August 7, 2017, 6:21PM
Santa Rosa is pressing forward with a controversial plan to give police more power to enforce laws commonly associated with homelessness.

Expand

The City Council today will consider whether to allow police to crack down on certain quality-of-life offenses — such as camping on public property, aggressive panhandling and public urination — by upgrading the offenses from infractions, which typically result in a ignored ticket, to misdemeanors, which can involve a trip to jail.

The debate, as it has in the past, will invariably turn on whether the policy shift is viewed as criminalizing homelessness or merely allowing police to enforce existing laws governing common decency, regardless of who violates them.

“Criminalizing homelessness is a catchy phrase, but that’s not what we’re doing here,” Mayor Chris Coursey said.

The move, which has been discussed for nearly a year, would effectively reverse a 2013 policy to prosecute violations of city ordinances, like drinking in public and obstructing sidewalks, as infractions instead of misdemeanors. That left officers in the position of writing tickets to people who would never pay the fine or show up to court.

Misdemeanors carry fines of up to $1,000 and six months in jail, while infractions only carry a fine of up to $250 for the first offense and no risk of jail time.

The policy change was based on “financial considerations,” said City Attorney Sue Gallagher, who took over the office in March. Beyond that, however, Gallagher said she’s been “unable to uncover a clear reason” for the switch.

Giving police the option of treating such as cases as misdemeanors is not to “crack down” on homeless people, Coursey said, but rather to motivate them to avail themselves of the range of additional services the city is now offering, including extra beds at the shelter and more ways to find permanent housing.

“The goal is not to put people in jail. It’s not to fine them thousands of dollars. It’s to get them into services and housing,” Coursey said.

Coursey said the move will give officers a new tool but he expects them to use it sparingly, only in cases of repeat offenses, and when other outreach efforts fail.


The switch is unlikely to be welcomed by all council members. In the past, Councilwoman Julie Combs has expressed disappointment the city was considering spending more on enforcement instead of expanded services.

Continues here

[photolite]

Really, is it criminalizing homelessness by prohibiting "aggressive" panhandling, defecating in a persons doorway and such? There's a big difference between someone discreetly peeing on a tree and taking a shit in your doorway. How these policies are administered are most relevant. To Headline it as "Criminalizing Homelessness" seems hyperbolic.

The Santa Rosa City Council is being asked by its staff this Tuesday to authorize the use of maximum force to punish residents charged with "Quality of Life" offenses. Raising the charges from infractions to misdemeanors will result in fines of up to $1,000, up to six months in County Jail, or both. Criminal convictions will exacerbate housing, employment, and health care access for those homeless....

[ywv]

What has happened to human kindness. I was raised to have compassion for those that had less than we did. My grandmother always said you treated all people the same with respect, kindness and politeness. It didn't matter what their social or financial standing was, nor was the color of their skin or the size of their bank account, to be considered. If you had food you shared with those who needed food, you donated as much as you could afford to charities to help those in need (20% being your minimum goal), if someone was alone for a holiday, you invited them to join your family celebration. In another words treat others as you'd want your own family members to be treated.

Now all I see around me is what's in it for me. If I do something for someone in need, what I'm I going to get in return: good press, praise for my good deed, perchance a positive tweet.

It makes me extremely sad to read that being homeless can land you in our already overcrowded jails and/or a fine of up to a $1000. Where are they suppose to get the money from?樂

Here's the PD article on this. It's a difficult issue. I agree with points made on both sides...


Santa Rosa may get tougher on quality-of-life crimes

Continues here

[podfish]

Really, is it criminalizing homelessness by prohibiting "aggressive" panhandling, defecating in a persons doorway and such? There's a big difference between someone discreetly peeing on a tree and taking a shit in your doorway. How these policies are administered are most relevant. To Headline it as "Criminalizing Homelessness" seems hyperbolic.

There are two reasons to criminalize somthing: to punish the offender, or to deter the behavior (or, I suppose, both at once).

I hope no-one's all that interested in punishing the homeless for its own sake.

The problem is that fines don't deter many of the homeless, and for those who actually respect their obligation to pay fines, it's counterproductive. The ones who care are probably homeless because they're poor. A fine's not much motivation to run out and get a job, even if you believe they're poor because they're not interested in work.

That by itself is an argument against giving citations. The higher fines that come with making it a misdemeanor better be ancillary to the real motivation for the change, though the article is ambiguous about that. The real purpose better be to give the courts authority to require the person to comply with .. uh..
That's the missing piece. If you want to address quality-of-life for the non-homeless, which I think is really the biggest motivator here, you do need to have some well thought out and paid for way to provide the homeless with a way to live that's less disruptive to the citizenry at large. I don't dismiss the fact that a lot of this really may be motivated by honest concern for the homeless, but really, you don't get the full-court press on any issue without the moneyed class being behind it.

[photolite]

Is there not a significant criminal element in the homeless population? Perhaps driven there by need, but also perhaps behavior brought some individuals to homelessness. Is it inappropriate to identify individuals whose behavior is distinctly criminal, even though that behavior might be particular to individuals of the homeless community, and hold those few accountable? Would this not be to the ultimate benefit of everyone else, homeless or otherwise? It's not stigmatizing the larger community, it's dealing with a subsidiary problem.

There are two reasons to criminalize somthing: to punish the offender, or to deter the behavior (or, I suppose, both at once).....

[podfish]

Is there not a significant criminal element in the homeless population? ....

"criminal element" ??? that's typecasting again.
We already have laws and the will to enforce actual criminal-element type behaviors. That's not the issue. The issue here is bothering passerbys, blocking a sidewalk, peeing under an overpass and the like.

[beshiva]

awe jeez- the terminology just kills me. the police, given the go-ahead by City Council to crack down on certain "quality of life" offenses.
it's this sort of language that usually makes me cringe. those dehumanizing terms, that over time, diminishes people, makes other people judge harshly, ignores the plight of many...like, collateral damage, or distraction jabs that law enforcement uses, or control strikes which law enforcement also uses which is speak for beating the shit out of people.
all of this terminology causes harm.
what about the quality of life for the homeless? SR City County has been discussing the "homeless problem" for so long, too long, and they have not come up with a decent solution to give the homeless homes, to give the homeless dignity, and to give the homeless services.
i know the police Say, they don't want to be punitive they just want to make the homeless person avail themselves to services and get the heck off the streets.
Awe, that fantasy is just that.
what services? Catholic charities? yes, i realize they have done some really really wonderful stuff. But, they are not the all end all. there are people they can not reach. there are people they don't understand themselves how to help, and asking the homeless to follow certain requirements in order to "avail" themselves to their services falls on deaf ears because they too are stymied as to how to make it work.
i'm not saying it's an easy solution but what i will say is that criminalizing people who already live on the edge is downright mean-spirited. call it something else, it sucks!
The County has so much property, buildings, etc. in their ownership it would make our heads spin. But, they won't, ever give it over to the homeless...they will sit on it, for years in some cases, even let it deteriorate, and make a myriad of excuses as to why they can't turn it over for those most in need amidst all of us.

i'm tired, so damn tired of listening to band-aid solutions, for example, building a dozen tiny houses. Really, the County folks, or City Council will pat themselves on the back when one little effort is made to improve the lives of so few when a couple thousand people sleep on the streets.
criminalizing people to get them to move along, and seek those services is ridiculous. City and County officials know this. but, this way they can say to themselves And the public, they tried.

my request is, Try Harder!

[rossmen]

This policy change is to deter shelterless people from sr. Move them on. Given that sr is the big city round here, with the most services, most likely result will be more laguna camps.

[Jay Foxworthy]

You are 100% correct Santa Rosa has created a policy 'Housing First" where there are not enough beds to house the current homeless population. Then they close the encampments and safe parking pushing more homeless to downtown and west county. Now they pass this resolution to arrest homeless people sleeping on sidewalks and peeing in bushes. These policies are meant to force the homeless out of Santa Rosa.

This policy change is to deter shelterless people from sr. Move them on. Given that sr is the big city round here, with the most services, most likely result will be more laguna camps.

[jesswolfe]

So, here we are talking about homeless folks again and the stereotypes come out in force.

When I was homeless in 2008, I used to read the PD (gotta fill the time somehow). And I was perusing the opinions column and ran across a screed about the "homeless people disrupting the SR city library". The whole point of the screed was that we should ban the homeless from going to the libraries, because you know how they are. They are criminals, mentally ill, riff raff. lazy, etc. (Turns out the folks who were causing problems weren't homeless. They were housed and were being jerks.)

At the time I was homeless with my daughter. Now if you don't know what its like to be homeless, here's a snapshot. Usually if you are lucky enough to be in a shelter (there are always long lists) you are kicked out during the day. You have to be in at a certain time and out at a certain time. The rest of the day you have to figure out what to do to kill time. We used to go to the library. I had an hour (only an hour) to look at email and job postings to look for work. If the weather was bad we would hang out there because it was quiet and warm and safe. A mom and her kid. You wouldn't know by looking at us that we were homeless. And there were other homeless parents and their kids there as well. We knew them. They looked like normal people just like us.

One good thing about being at the library is that there is a bathroom. Most bathrooms in town, in businesses, are for customers only. If you are lucky enough to be in a shelter you at least can get a shower. But using a bathroom during the day is a challenge. There is tremendous push back on providing public restrooms that the homeless can use. So if they can't find a bathroom but can find a bush, they use it.

One common screed is that the homeless don't want to work. Well I spent all of my time looking for work I could do. Was I able to find work that got me a place to live? No. Food? No. Mostly it paid my gas to get to and from work. One place had a dress requirement. I had no money for clothes. One of the people there gave me clothes and shoes (they had to be particular shoes) for me to wear. All too big for me.

To get a job you have to have access to the internet. Many jobs are posted online. You have to have clean clothes. Be well groomed. If you are living on the streets, and have no public showers or bathrooms, no money to do laundry, then getting a job is really impossible. And don't forget you need to be able to get there. So bus fare or gas if you have the luxury of a vehicle that works. Or maybe a bike if you can go the distance.

Most homeless don't have checking accounts, because in becoming poor and homeless they have racked up so much in fees that banks won't open an account for you anymore. So everything is done in cash. Which makes things much more expensive. And oh, if you get a job with nonstandard hours, getting back in and out of a shelter becomes a nightmare (yes this happened to me). If you for any reason get on the wrong side of the staff, you run the risk of losing all of your belongings. Including important paperwork.

Since supposedly the homeless count is down, services are being "reduced". Reduced money for safe parking. Still no shelter space. Getting rid of encampments. "Housing first" with no funding and no housing. So lets arrest them and put them in jail. Maybe that will teach them. They can't pay the fee for the offense, and we are paying a significantly higher amount to make a point by housing them in jail. "We don't care about you."

And some say, well anyone who behaves badly should be dealt with appropriately. So if some unruly tourist is harassing people, how likely is it that they will end up in jail? Or will the police talk to them politely to maybe go back to their hotel or whatever and cool off. And the panhandling? I have never seen an aggressive panhandler. They have been kind and often downtrodden and desperate. I am sure there are people who aren't nice, but for the most part, I don't encounter those people. I bet you that those kind, hurting, shamed people will be picked up and put in jail for being "aggressive" because someone was offended by the very thought of someone being poor in their presence.

To think this is not about harassing the homeless is naive. They are all doing the best they can in incredibly harsh circumstances. And thinking that making the situation much more difficult will fix the problem is disingenuous. Lets face it. We don't want to offend the tourists who see people under the overpasses camping. We don't want them to have to encounter someone who hasn't had a decent shower in a while. (not because they enjoy being dirty) Are we going to arrest the people who pee after they visit the bars? How many guys just pee when they want because they can? And if someone is pooping in your driveway, that's a different problem that needs to be addressed. Not because the person may or may not be homeless, but because there is something wrong with the person. Normal people don't poop in the middle of a person's driveway (and yeah, that is a weird and strange thing to bring up by the way in this conversation).

If we really want to work on the homeless problem, then provide actual services. Let them use the county land for encampments instead of kicking them out with nowhere else to go. Let them use the many vacant buildings. If the answer is we can't afford it, then lets audit how many people we are housing in the jail because they are homeless. I'll bet its a pretty large sum. Maybe we can better use the money providing actual services that keep people out of jail.

Jessica
www.daughterofthediviners.com

[jesswolfe]

A Ritual To Read To Each Other
by William Stafford

If you don’t know the kind of person I am
and I don’t know the kind of person you are
a pattern that others made may prevail in the world
and following the wrong god home we may miss our star.


For there is many a small betrayal in the mind,
a shrug that lets the fragile sequence break
sending with shouts the horrible errors of childhood
storming out to play through the broken dike.


And as elephants parade holding each elephant’s tail,
but if one wanders the circus won’t find the park,
I call it cruel and maybe the root of all cruelty
to know what occurs but not recognize the fact.


And so I appeal to a voice, to something shadowy,
a remote important region in all who talk:
though we could fool each other, we should consider—
lest the parade of our mutual life get lost in the dark.


For it is important that awake people be awake,
or a breaking line may discourage them back to sleep;
the signals we give—yes or no, or maybe—
should be clear: the darkness around us is deep.

Jessica
www.daughterofthediviners.com

[photolite]

Thirty years ago I sat on a task force convened by the mayor of another Calif. city. Our mission was to formulate and implement a community plan to address the perceived "Homeless Problem". It was the most well represented body on which I've served with members from Social Services, Soup Kitchens, Hospitals, Merchant Groups, Law Enforcement, both City and County, a County Commissioner, a City Councilperson, Churches, Neighborhood Groups and the Mayor himself. We quickly realized the scope of the problem defied a singular label such as "The Homeless". Here is why.

The large majority of our homeless population consisted of families, or mothers, with children either escaping an unsafe situation or otherwise fallen on hard times, the mentally ill without a place to go, many elderly whose lean income didn't allow for a roof over their heads. There was also a contingent of young to middle aged men, many of whom were "homeless by choice" or whose behavior had made them persona non grata at aid facilities both public and private. There was a lot of alcohol or drug abuse among this group and this, unfortunately and largely due to highly visible public behavior, was the image most people held of our local homeless population. They also consumed a disproportionate amount of resources allocated to help those in need. We determined that if this often "criminal element" could be addressed, the community at large would be more supportive of funding services, streets would feel safer, etc.
This was done through very similar enforcement policies as is being suggested here. So my question isn't the typecasting you allege, so much as an insight based on past experience that the homeless community itself might greatly benefit from this proposal if it is judiciously applied.

As Mayor Coursey said, “Criminalizing homelessness is a catchy phrase, but that’s not what we’re doing here,”

“The goal is not to put people in jail. It’s not to fine them thousands of dollars. It’s to get them into services and housing,”..."the move will give officers a new tool but he expects them to use it sparingly, only in cases of repeat offenses, and when other outreach efforts fail.

"criminal element" ??? that's typecasting again.
We already have laws and the will to enforce actual criminal-element type behaviors. That's not the issue. The issue here is bothering passerbys, blocking a sidewalk, peeing under an overpass and the like.

[beshiva]

goals don't mean a damn thing if you know already that the goal is not a worthy one. there are many people who will not, let me repeat, will not, take those services. now, we can speculate as to why these people resist such help, and we can demonize them too, and tell them if you don't do it our way, then YOU will be criminalized until you decide to do it the supposed right way. this won't work. one size will never fit all and we all know this by now. we can try to fit a round peg into a square hole but it just isn't going to work.

we need to definitely have services. we must Meet people where they are at. we must have the creativity and the ingenuity to address the different areas of homelessness. and, yes, this takes time, money, people to work on the problem. city officials are always willing to throw $$$ at the problem if it's an easier solution and right now their solution to to pay officers to kick up their efforts to criminalize the homeless. oh hell, keep those people out of the square at all costs and make sure they are not peeing or defecating around there but don't do something as simple as some portable toilets. toilets are an eyesore as if that damn square isn't!...it looks like it was designed by an architect whose parents forced them to be an architect so to be spiteful they designed this eyesore...with benches with no backs just to make sure no one gets the idea they want a comfy place to sit. and that goes for Grandma as well as some vagrant.
comes down to how we value people, what we value in our society and if (All) of us Count then we'll work harder on solutions to difficult problems.

...“The goal is not to put people in jail. It’s not to fine them thousands of dollars. It’s to get them into services and housing,”..."the move will give officers a new tool but he expects them to use it sparingly, only in cases of repeat offenses, and when other outreach efforts fail.

[juna]

Who are the powers that be that are creating this horrific scenario??? Let's get to know who is really behind this.

You are 100% correct Santa Rosa has created a policy 'Housing First" where there are not enough beds to house the current homeless population. Then they close the encampments and safe parking pushing more homeless to downtown and west county. Now they pass this resolution to arrest homeless people sleeping on sidewalks and peeing in bushes. These policies are meant to force the homeless out of Santa Rosa.

[gaiasophia]

Rent control would definitely help! I've lived in this county for many decades, 2 of my 3 kids were born here, and all of them were raised here.
I'm in a tiny place, and recently the rent was increased $325, which is not affordable to me.
I've heard true stories, from people I know and trust, where landlords raised the rent several times a year, more than $200, ie., each time during the year the rent was increased more than $200.
If the rent stability measure had passed here in Santa Rosa, my rent would only have been raised $27.

I fix most things myself here. If something I can't fix happens on a weekend, I chose to "live with it" until Monday, to save my landlord money.
They wanted a long term tenant, and when rent was raised, they complained that they usually wait til tenant moves to raise rent, but that I "never moved". I've been here about 5 years (and yes, they raised rent $50 before--in response to asking to have something fixed). One time the porch was so rotten (I'd sent photos to landlord about a year before, and requested it be fixed) that my friend actually fell thru the porch when she knocked on my door. Thank goodness she wasn't hurt. I never sued etc. I could go on and on.
And we need a real living wage--$15 per hour is not a living wage here in Santa Rosa or in Sebastopol.
I offer all this info with kindness and sadness...these are real solutions.

[patnicholson]

Expand

The county is not in the business of providing shelter. They operate along the same guidelines that the sect.8 Federal housing assistance does. They will provide housing based on the federal guidelines and claim they don't have the funding to provide any other assistance.

Well , duh, they spent $500,000 / unit for the tiny home project in Santa Rosa on Roberts(?) Rd.

The board will not provide any assistance that does not provide permanent housing . The entire board has to present the CDC with questions related to changes in the status quo or the CDC will ignore the request.

Supervisor Hopkins will pursue possible solutions which allow shelter, even temporary arrangements, because it would be an improvement over the status quo.

Could all you folks who feel so strongly about this get on the phone to people outside of the fifth district and get them to contact their representative to require that homeless assistance be created that serves this population.?

Ask how it serves the greater good not to provide bathrooms for the public? Where are all those tourists flocking to Santa Rosa supposed to go? Can someone tell me what the thinking is here? If you don't want people peeing on the street , give them a toilet!

Did Santa Rosa come up with a plan to provide shelter to all the newly displaced ? There should be more of these folks soon now that the Bennet Valley folks were moved out and the plan is supposed to relocate the underpass people next.

The city of Santa Rosa is taking teeny ,tiny steps towards a policy that includes dissemination of their actions. Call them and ask them what their plans are! They will provide answers if asked, do not expect them to make this easy , perhaps because they are so bad at this. They're thinking is limited and rigid, if you can engage he city council to be responsive , maybe solutions can be found. Is this the only way to change the status quo?

[Shandi]

Politician (Mayor) in Salt Lake City puts his life and political career at risk to experience homelessness on the streets and in a shelter. This brutal, enlightening experience has shifted his priorities regarding a push for change. He didn't do this publicly, and knew it might hurt his career. But someone found out, and he was approached to share what he saw and learned.

He discovered why people would rather sleep in the street than some shelters.

Imagine if more politicians did this kind of thing, it could make a difference. Although the downside is that they're taking a bed away from someone.

'I didn't feel safe': Mayor Ben McAdams describes secret nights on street, in shelter

[Dorothy Friberg]

Sometimes students are given an assignment to spend a night in a shelter. There are people who make surfing shelters a way of living, many of them become bullies because they know the system so well. Other counties sometimes send, drop off or otherwise direct their homeless to Santa Rosa or other towns that have shelters thereby overwhelming our own efforts, especially in the winter time. (Lake county, Reno, Arcata, etc.)