In The News - 4/25/2024
Governing.com
(sent in by Barry Barfield)
Why a Supreme Court Case Isn’t Likely to Make a Dent in Homelessness
The court is considering whether criminal penalties for sleeping in public places amount to cruel and unusual punishment. But no ruling on the issues before the high court will change the nature or scope of the problem.
In Brief:
The Supreme Court is considering whether governments have the right to enforce civil or criminal penalties for sleeping in public places.
A lower court agreed with unhoused people in Grants Pass, Ore., that punishing them for their homeless status violates the Eighth Amendment.
The Supreme Court’s decision might change the tone of local homeless policy, but addressing the problem effectively involves collaboration among stakeholders and an adequate supply of housing.
When Is Homelessness a “Choice”?
Some of the back and forth during Monday’s oral arguments revolved arounda 1962 Supreme Court decisionregarding a California law that criminalized addiction. In that case, the court ruled that as an illness, addiction was a “status” and not a criminal action. Therefore, punishing it violated the Eighth Amendment.
What about homelessness? If there are no beds available, could a homeless person be considered to be choosing to be unhoused?An amicus brieffiled by the California State Association of Counties — in support of Grants Pass — included the observation that there are an estimated 600 homeless persons in the city but just one shelter, with about 50 beds.
Lack of capacity is an issue throughout the country, but it wasn’t the main focus in discussion about the relevance of the 1962 decision. “A number of us, I think, are having difficulty with the distinction between status and conduct,” Chief Justice Roberts said at one point.
Attorney Kelsi Brown Corkran, arguing on behalf of the unhoused Grants Pass residents who brought the suit, expressed the view that homelessness is not something that you do, but something that you are. But Roberts seemed to be troubled by the fact that this “status” could change if a person became housed.
Justice Elena Kagan was less equivocal. “It seems like you’re criminalizing a status,” she remarked at one point to Theane Evangelis, the attorney representing Grants Pass.
Every city is required by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to have a disaster recovery plan, and Lewis says the same thing should be done for the homelessness crisis.
Every city is required by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to have a disaster recovery plan, and Lewis says the same thing should be done for the homelessness crisis. This usually involves creating a command center, getting everyone who touches the response around a table, identifying who needs help and working through what needs to be done.
“We all want the same thing,” she says. “We all want that person off the street, so you have to build a system that can do that.”
RangeMedia
What Spokane’s proposed rental ordinance would do
Separating fact from fiction and fears for the ordinance that would require up to a 6-month notification on rent raises.
From 2003 to 2017, Spokane City Council Member Paul Dillon was a renter — most of his adult life.
His first apartment was a studio in Cliff Cannon he rented for $345 a month and as a full-time student who could only work part time, it fit his budget. Dillon’s second year on the lease, his rent went up just $5. In the third year, though, it jumped from $350 a month to $475.
“When you’re working part time as a student, having to go to a plasma bank to get extra cash to supplement your income, that is a massive increase,” Dillon said. He had to get another job and still decided to move after finding a cheaper place in Browne’s Addition.
Rents have only climbed since Dillon was in school almost 20 years ago. And with those raises, he told RANGE he has heard “countless stories” like his own — and not everyone was lucky enough to land on their feet like he did.
Currently, Spokane landlords are required to give 60 days notice before raising rent — the term set out in state law. If the local ordinance passes, Spokane will be joining 10 other Washington cities in requiring a longer notice period. That list includes places you’d expect like Tacoma and Seattle, but it also includes small cities like Auburn and suburban municipalities like Burien.
The ordinance will be up for a final vote at the April 29 city council meeting, and had its first readingthis week, where it drew criticism from landlords in attendance. Some of that criticism seemed to stem from the belief that the ordinance would impose financial costs on so-called “mom and pop” landlords, a phrase the Spokane Landlord Association uses for landlords who only own a few properties. (Dillon believes the Landlord Association focuses on “mom and pop” landlords as a shield, or diversion to protect larger landlords from scrutiny.)