Fruit of the Contemplative Life

Fruit of the contemplative life: => Right Livelihood => : Jhanananda September 29, 2015, 02:43:28 PM

: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Jhanananda September 29, 2015, 02:43:28 PM
Hello friends, mystics are often forced into poverty, or choose it, as a means of leading a rigorous, self-aware, contemplative life, which is rarely supported by organized religions.  So, I started the research this morning on homeless, and urban camping rights.  The following link will take you to a comprehensive essay on this subject, and should be downloaded by anyone who is homeless or poor in the USA.

A Dream Denied: The Criminalization of Homelessness in U.S. Cities (http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/crimreport/report.pdf)

Please pay special attention to page 147.
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Jhanananda September 30, 2015, 01:40:40 AM
Criminalization Measures Violate Constitutional Rights (http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/crimreport/constitutional.html)

Measures that criminalize homelessness are legally problematic and do not make sense from a policy standpoint. Laws that make it difficult for homeless persons to stay in downtown areas of cities force homeless persons away from crucial services and outreach. When a homeless person is arrested under one of these laws, he or she develops a criminal record, making it more difficult to obtain employment or housing. Further, criminalizing homelessness is an inefficient allocation of resources. It costs more to incarcerate someone than it does to provide supportive housing.
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Jhanananda October 08, 2015, 01:56:48 AM
National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty (http://www.nlchp.org/)
2000 M St NW, Suite 210   |   Washington, DC 20036
p. (202) 638-2535   |  f. (202) 628-2737
Civil Rights (http://www.nlchp.org/civil_rights_resources)
Criminalization (http://www.nlchp.org/criminalization_resources)
Domestic Violence (http://www.nlchp.org/domestic_violence_resources)
Housing (http://www.nlchp.org/housing_resources)
Human Rights (http://www.nlchp.org/human_rights_resources)
Youth & Education (http://www.nlchp.org/youth_resources)

Hate Crime Bill Might Make Md. A Pioneer (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/16/AR2009041604132.html)
By Lisa Rein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 17, 2009

Maryland would become the first state to list the homeless as a class protected from hate crimes under legislation that is headed to Gov. Martin O'Malley's desk.

No Safe Place: Advocacy Manual (http://www.nlchp.org/documents/No_Safe_Place_Advocacy_Manual)

another Advocacy Manual (http://www.nlchp.org/documents/Criminalizing_Crisis_Advocacy_Manual)
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Jhanananda October 10, 2015, 01:44:20 AM
It’s unconstitutional to ban the homeless from sleeping outside, the federal government says (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/08/13/its-unconstitutional-to-ban-the-homeless-from-sleeping-outside-the-federal-government-says/)
Washington Post, By Emily Badger August 13
We all need sleep, which is a fact of life but also a legally important point. Last week, the Department of Justice argued as much in a statement of interest (http://www.justice.gov/opa/file/643766/download) it filed in a relatively obscure case in Boise, Idaho, that could impact how cities regulate and punish homelessness.

Boise, like many cities — the number of which has swelled since the recession — has an ordinance banning sleeping or camping in public places. But such laws, the DOJ says, effectively criminalize homelessness itself in situations where people simply have nowhere else to sleep. From the DOJ's filing:

    When adequate shelter space exists, individuals have a choice about whether or not to sleep in public. However, when adequate shelter space does not exist, there is no meaningful distinction between the status of being homeless and the conduct of sleeping in public. Sleeping is a life-sustaining activity — i.e., it must occur at some time in some place. If a person literally has nowhere else to go, then enforcement of the anti-camping ordinance against that person criminalizes her for being homeless.

Such laws, the DOJ argues, violate the Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment, making them unconstitutional. By weighing in on this case, the DOJ's first foray in two decades into this still-unsettled area of law, the federal government is warning cities far beyond Boise (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-homeless-anti-camping-law-20150806-story.html) and backing up federal goals to treat homelessness more humanely.

"It's huge," says Eric Tars, a senior attorney for the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty (http://www.nlchp.org/), which originally filed the lawsuit against Boise, alongside Idaho Legal Aid Services.

[Lifting bans on sleeping outside won’t stop criminalization of homelessness (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/lifting-bans-on-sleeping-outside-wont-stop-criminalization-of-homelessness/2015/08/13/7054b7f8-41fd-11e5-8e7d-9c033e6745d8_story.html)]

According to a NLCHP report last year (http://www.nlchp.org/documents/No_Safe_Place) that surveyed 187 cities between 2011 and 2014, 34 percent had citywide laws banning camping in public. Another 43 percent prohibited sleeping in vehicles, and 53 percent banned sitting or lying down in certain public places. All of these laws criminalize the kind of activities — sitting, resting, sleeping — that are arguably fundamental to human existence.

And they've criminalized that behavior in an environment where most cities have far more homeless than shelter beds. In 2014, the federal government estimates, there were about 153,000 unsheltered homeless on the street in the U.S. on any given night.

Laws like these have grown more common as that math has actually grown worse since the recession.

"Homelessness is just becoming more visible in communities, and when homelessness becomes more visible, there’s more pressure on community leaders to do something about it," Tars says. "And rather than actually examining what’s the best thing to do about homelessness, the knee-jerk response — as with so many other things in society — is 'we’ll address this social issue with the criminal justice system.'"

[Lifting bans on sleeping outside won’t stop criminalization of homelessness]

According to a NLCHP report last year that surveyed 187 cities between 2011 and 2014, 34 percent had citywide laws banning camping in public. Another 43 percent prohibited sleeping in vehicles, and 53 percent banned sitting or lying down in certain public places. All of these laws criminalize the kind of activities — sitting, resting, sleeping — that are arguably fundamental to human existence.

And they've criminalized that behavior in an environment where most cities have far more homeless than shelter beds. In 2014, the federal government estimates, there were about 153,000 unsheltered homeless on the street in the U.S. on any given night.

Laws like these have grown more common as that math has actually grown worse since the recession.

"Homelessness is just becoming more visible in communities, and when homelessness becomes more visible, there’s more pressure on community leaders to do something about it," Tars says. "And rather than actually examining what’s the best thing to do about homelessness, the knee-jerk response — as with so many other things in society — is 'we’ll address this social issue with the criminal justice system.'"

It's also easier, he adds, for elected officials to argue for criminal penalties when the public costs of that policy are much harder to see than the costs of investing in shelters or services for the poor. Ultimately, though, advocates and the federal government have argued, it's much more expensive to ticket the homeless — with the court, prison and health costs associated with it — than to invest in "housing first" solutions (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2015/04/17/the-surprisingly-simple-way-utah-solved-chronic-homelessness-and-saved-millions/) that have worked in many parts of the country.

Criminal citations also compound the problem of homelessness, making it harder for people to qualify for jobs or housing in the future.

"You have to check those [criminal] boxes on the application forms," Tars says. "And they don’t say 'were you arrested because you were trying to simply survive on the streets?' They say 'if you have an arrest record, we’re not going to rent to you.'"

NLCHP's goal, Tars says, isn't to protect the rights of people to live on the street, but to prevent and end homelessness. That means adding a lot more shelter beds and housing options in places like Boise — which has three shelters run by two nonprofits — so people have options other than the street.

The DOJ's argument is based on the logic in an earlier Ninth Circuit decision (http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/crcl/vol42_1/gerry.pdf), striking down a vagrancy law in Los Angeles, that was ultimately vacated in a settlement. That logic specifically says it's unconstitutional to punish people for sleeping outside if there aren't enough beds for them to sleep indoors. If there are, the constitutional question would be different, although the moral and policy implications may remain the same.

"Homelessness never left town because somebody gave it a ticket," Tars says. "The only way to end homelessness is to make sure everybody has access to affordable, decent housing."
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Jhanananda October 11, 2015, 01:07:15 PM
Justice Department asks judge to block enforcement of homeless camping ban (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-homeless-anti-camping-law-20150806-story.html)
Gale HollandGale Holland, LA Times, August, 6, 2015
The U.S. Justice Department on Thursday urged a judge to block enforcement of an anti-camping ordinance in Boise, Idaho, by employing the rationale from a seminal Los Angeles homeless-rights case.

The outcome in Boise could reverberate in Los Angeles -- where officials are considering resuming enforcement of the city's own anti-camping ordinance, considered among the strictest in the country.

It bans sleeping, sitting or lying on sidewalks and other public property.

In 2006, the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals (http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-skidrow19apr19-story.html) struck down the ordinance, finding that banning sleeping in public by people who have nowhere else to go violated the 8th Amendment provision barring cruel and unusual punishment.

Two years later, Los Angeles settled a lawsuit by agreeing to suspend enforcement between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. until additional housing for the homeless could be built.

Earlier this year, officials said they expected to reach the construction milestone (http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-homeless-belongings-20150617-story.html) the city agreed to as soon as next month. Several officials, including L.A. police Chief Charlie Beck, have said strict enforcement of the anti-camping law could start up again, but the city has issued no formal opinion.

The Justice Department's filing Thursday came in a 2009 lawsuit by seven homeless people convicted of violating a Boise ordinance against sleeping or camping in outdoor public spaces.

The city said the camps were unsafe and unsanitary.

But "if a person literally has nowhere else to go, then enforcement of the anti-camping ordinance against that person criminalizes her for being homeless, " the department said.

"Needlessly pushing homeless individuals into the criminal justice system does nothing to break the cycle of poverty or prevent homelessness in the future," principal Deputy Assistant Atty. Gen. Vanita Gupta said in a statement.

"Instead, it imposes further burdens on scarce judicial and correctional resources, and it can have long-lasting and devastating effects on individuals’ lives.”

L.A.'s homeless population has grown to 26,000 people as of January --  a 12 % leap (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-homeless-count-release-20150511-story.html) in two years. Countywide, the number of people sleeping in outdoor encampments or vehicles jumped 85% in the same period.

More than 70% of homeless people in L.A. County sleep outdoors because of a lack of shelters, a higher rate than in much of the rest of the country, homeless advocates said.

The spread of unsightly encampments has drawn public outcry from businesses and L.A. residents, who say they sow unsanitary conditions and cause petty crime in the communities.

Last month, Los Angeles adopted an ordinance making it easier to dismantle homeless encampments; the city also has stepped up the cleanup (http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-homeless-sweeps-20150711-story.html#page=1) of tents and other homeless possessions.

Attorney Carol Sobel, who represented homeless people in the 2006 L.A. case, said the Justice Department filing should be a "strong message they need to go back to drawing board and figure out how to respond to the causes of homelessness and not punish people for their status.

"It's unconscionable to seek to penalize people again for the city’s failures," she said.

A spokesman for City Atty. Mike Feuer said Thursday that resuming overnight enforcement against homeless people sleeping outdoors was a policy decision for the mayor and City Council to make. He added his office was "confident that the ordinance will withstand any and all legal challenges."

Mayor Eric Garcetti and council members who have served on the city's new homelessness committee did not respond to emails seeking comment.
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Jhanananda October 11, 2015, 02:01:40 PM
Lifting bans on sleeping outside won’t stop criminalization of homelessness (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/lifting-bans-on-sleeping-outside-wont-stop-criminalization-of-homelessness/2015/08/13/7054b7f8-41fd-11e5-8e7d-9c033e6745d8_story.html)
washington post, By Terrence McCoy August 13, 2015


The clearest sign of an oppressed population is when the law criminalizes its actions or defining characteristics. History is full of examples of Jim Crow justice and laws banning intermarriage.

But even though those pillars of oppression have been dissolved — and as a new age of growing gender equality and same-sex marriage dawns — the law has settled its gaze on another enemy. The homeless.

The criminalization of homeless behaviors, however, came under assault last week (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/08/13/its-unconstitutional-to-ban-the-homeless-from-sleeping-outside-the-federal-government-says/). In a statement of interest (http://www.justice.gov/opa/file/643766/download) filed by the Justice Department in a case out of Boise, Idaho, the federal government said it was unconstitutional to ban people from sleeping or camping in public places. The argument also provided a thorough summation of the modern homeless crisis and what cities have done — or not done — about it.

[=http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/08/13/its-unconstitutional-to-ban-the-homeless-from-sleeping-outside-the-federal-government-says/It’s unconstitutional to ban the homeless from sleeping outside, the federal government says (http://=http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/08/13/its-unconstitutional-to-ban-the-homeless-from-sleeping-outside-the-federal-government-says/It’s unconstitutional to ban the homeless from sleeping outside, the federal government says)]

Housing and shelter accommodations across the country haven’t kept pace with the homeless population’s surging numbers since the recession. In Santa Cruz, Calif., more than 80 percent of the homeless have no safe shelter options (http://www.nlchp.org/documents/No_Safe_Place), according to a report by the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty. In Orlando, it’s a third of the homeless population. In total, more than 40 percent of the homeless population sought shelter in places not intended for human habitation last year, Justice’s filing said. They bedded down under bridges. On park benches. Huddled inside vacant buildings. Crammed inside vehicles.

To criminalize that behavior, the filing said, is to criminalize homelessness. “No inquiry is required to determine whether a person is compelled to sleep; we know that no one can stay awake indefinitely,” the document said. It later said, “Enforcing the anti-camping ordinances and criminalizing sleeping in public violates the Eighth Amendment, because it is no different from criminalizing homelessness itself.”

The Justice filing could ultimately help undermine ordinances criminalizing homelessness — but it won’t be easy for two reasons.
One, cities are actively expanding laws that target the homeless population. The National Law Center on Homeless & Poverty surveyed 187 cities and found that other activities by the homeless had suddenly become illegal in an increasing number of cities. Since 2011, bans on begging increased by 25 percent. Prohibitions on loitering, loafing and “vagrancy” ballooned by 35 percent. The number of bans prohibiting sleeping in cars increased by 119 percent.

“This increase in citywide bans shows that the nature of criminalization is changing and that cities are moving toward prohibiting unavoidable, life sustaining activities throughout entire communities rather than in specific areas, effectively criminalizing a homeless person’s very existence,” the report said.

The other reason is that it would require dismantling years of ingrained prejudices against the homeless population, which have long manifested themselves in law. There’s a current fiction that the criminalization of homelessness is somehow a nascent phenomenon, sparked by the recent rise in the homeless population. But such laws (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo4/5/83/contents) have long defined Western society. Throughout Europe, from the United Kingdom to Germany, the act of “idleness” — or unemployment — has been reason enough to commit someone to a labor house or prison. The goal of these laws weren’t dissimilar to what they are today: to cleanse the street of “undesirables (https://books.google.com/books?id=Fy8ciGG8Q68C&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=vagrancy+act+undesirables&source=bl&ots=M6gUNBQxkT&sig=MoYcTA6Lt-pxwjzkGoPlTZ3ZnWg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAWoVChMIybacheymxwIVxBo-Ch0t2gMM#v=onepage&q=vagrancy%20act%20undesirables&f=false).”

This disdain for homelessness isn’t bound by national borders or cultural identities. To some degree, its originsare in human nature, wrote Randall Amster in the academic journal Social Justice.

“What is it about the homeless that inspires such overt antipathy from mainstream society?” he asked. “What is so special about their particular variety of deviance that elicits such a vehement and violent response to their presence? After all, ‘the homeless’ as a class lack . . . power, posing no viable political, economic, or military threat to the dominant class.”

Still, throughout modern history, the laws have continued, seizing Miami around the turn of the 20th century. It wrote “vagrants” and “penalty for vagrants (http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/miami-once-outlawed-proud-sluts-and-threw-drag-queens-in-jail-6558472)” into its 1917 city code. Its definition of vagrants: “rogues and vagabonds, idle or dissolute persons who go about begging.” The city charter vested the police to “arrest any vagrant . . . without a warrant in case the delay in procuring one would probably enable such alleged vagrant to escape.”

Eric Tars, an attorney with the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, said laws against homelessness have such resonance in the United States because of the puritanical work ethic woven into its social fabric.

“This is the assumption: that people are homeless because they aren’t trying hard enough,” he said. “There’s the sense that something must be wrong with them, rather than something is wrong with society.”

The knee-jerk reaction many local governments have when the number of homeless residents swells is to criminalize the population’s behavior. But that, Tars said, targets the symptoms of a societal problem, rather than its causes.

“People want to find ways to exclude anyone less than desirable and push them out of public view,” he said. He said the recent federal filing is an encouraging sign that the government is mobilizing to decriminalize homelessness. But such an endeavor wouldn’t be easy, he conceded.

It wouldn’t just mean undoing decades’ worth of ordinances — but a precedent left by hundreds of years of history.
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Jhanananda October 13, 2015, 02:29:36 AM
The New Homeless In America's Wealthy Capital (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flbixwhrO7c)
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Alexander November 17, 2015, 01:38:15 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkgRkwE9KFU :(
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Alexander November 17, 2015, 01:40:04 AM
A good quote from the comments:

I remember when we waged war on poverty, not poor people.

This is another symptom of our country's sickness; its growing inequality and falling away from its values.
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Jhanananda November 17, 2015, 02:56:09 AM
Thank-you, Alexander, for posting a link to the video Hiding the Homeless (Trailer) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkgRkwE9KFU).  Yes, I agree ignoring the poor and the homeless is certainly "another symptom of our country's sickness."

I have lately been reflecting upon the fact that there are so many homeless people with genius IQs.  Why?

I found while spending 15 years of my life studying and doing research at various universities in the USA that good students from poor families, who are geniuses, tend to be used as indentured servants in research; whereas, students from wealthy families typically walked right through their PhD and into a tenured professorship.  Why?  This might give us an answer to the question at the end of the above paragraph.

This means poverty is a class war.  The poor continue to be trodden upon by the wealthy.
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Jhanananda February 18, 2016, 07:45:31 PM
I received an urban camping ticket this morning at 3:30AM.  I plan to for now on carry the Justice Department statement of interest (http://www.justice.gov/opa/file/643766/download) on me at all times.  It states:

Case 1:09-cv-00540-REB Document 276 Filed 08/06/15 Page 9 of 17
the conduct is inextricably linked to one’s status, such that punishing the conduct is indistinguishable from punishing the status. See, e.g., Jones, 444 F.3d 1118 (finding anti- camping ordinance violated Eighth Amendment because it criminalized sleeping in public when homeless individuals had no other choice but to sleep in public, and therefore criminalized the status of homelessness itself); Johnson v. City of Dallas, 860 F. Supp. 344, 350 (N.D. Tex. 1994), rev’d on other grounds, 61 F.3d 442 (5th Cir. 1995) (same); Pottinger v. City of Miami, 810 F. Supp. 1551, 1563 (S.D. Fla. 1992) (same)...

See Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae, Joyce v. City and County of San Francisco, No. 95-16940 (9th Cir. Mar. 29, 1996); Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae, Tobe v. City of Santa Ana, No. S03850 (Cal. June 9, 1994). In those briefs, the United States took the position—as it does here—that criminalizing sleeping in public when no shelter is available violates the Eighth...

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES – pg. 9
Case 1:09-cv-00540-REB Document 276 Filed 08/06/15 Page 10 of 17

Amendment by criminalizing status. In the twenty years since the United States last weighed in on this issue, courts’ analyses of these statutes have remained divergent...

Consistent with the position taken in its previous filings, the United States now urges this Court to adopt the reasoning of Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2006). Although the Ninth Circuit ultimately vacated its opinion in Jones—pursuant to a settlement agreement between the parties, 505 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2007), not for any substantive reason— its logic remains instructive and persuasive.
The Jones court considered the enforcement of a Los Angeles ordinance prohibiting sitting, lying, or sleeping in public. There, like here, the court was asked to consider a statute that, on its face, criminalized conduct rather than status. Importantly, the plaintiffs in Jones presented evidence suggesting that there was an inadequate number of shelter beds available for homeless individuals, so many individuals had no choice but to sleep in public in violation of the city’s ordinance. See Jones, 444 F.3d at 1137.

The Jones court found enforcement of the ordinance to be unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs because of inadequate shelter space. The court based its decision on its conclusion that, “[w]hether sitting, lying, and sleeping are defined as acts or conditions, they are universal and unavoidable consequences of being human.” Id. at 1136. Because sleeping is unavoidable, the court then considered whether the plaintiffs had a choice to sleep somewhere other than in public, concluding that they did not: “for homeless individuals in [Los Angeles’] Skid Row who have no access to private spaces, these acts can only be done in public.” Id. at 1136. As a result, the court found that sleeping in public is “involuntary and inseparable from” an individual’s status or condition of being homeless when no shelter space is available. Id. at 1132.The court...

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES – pg. 10
Case 1:09-cv-00540-REB Document 276 Filed 08/06/15 Page 11 of 17

concluded that, under those circumstances, “by criminalizing sitting, lying, and sleeping, the City [of Los Angeles] is in fact criminalizing [Plaintiffs’] status as homeless individuals.” Id. at 1137.

Defendants assert that reliance on Jones would be “misplaced, factually unsupported, and
immaterial to this case.” Def. Rep. at 7. In advocating against the applicability of Jones, Defendants rely on a conduct-versus-status distinction that does not withstand close scrutiny. Id. (stating that the Boise ordinances “avoid criminalizing status by making conduct an element of the crime”). However, Defendants’ position is unpersuasive because the Eighth Amendment analysis is not limited to a reading of the plain language of the statute in question. Rather, the practical implications of enforcing the statute’s language are equally important. Those implications are clear where there is insufficient shelter space to accommodate the homeless population: the conduct of sleeping in a public place is indistinguishable from the status of homelessness.

It should be uncontroversial that punishing conduct that is a “universal and unavoidable consequence[] of being human” violates the Eighth Amendment. See id. at 1136. It is a “foregone conclusion that human life requires certain acts, among them . . . sleeping.” Johnson, 860 F. Supp. at 350. As the Jones court noted, it is impossible for individuals to avoid “sitting, lying, and sleeping for days, weeks, or months at a time . . . as if human beings could remain in...

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES – pg. 11
Case 1:09-cv-00540-REB Document 276 Filed 08/06/15 Page 12 of 17

perpetual motion.” Jones, 444 F.3d at 1136. Once an individual becomes homeless, by virtue of this status certain life necessities (such as sleeping) that would otherwise be performed in private must now be performed in public. Pottinger, 810 F. Supp. at 1564; see also Johnson, 860 F. Supp. at 350 (“they must be in public” and “they must sleep”). Therefore, sleeping in public is precisely the type of “universal and unavoidable” conduct that is necessary for human survival for homeless individuals who lack access to shelter space. Id.

In this way, the Boise anti-camping and disorderly conduct ordinances are akin to the ordinance at issue in Robinson, at least on nights when homeless individuals are—for whatever non-volitional reason(s)—unable to secure shelter space.14 When adequate shelter space exists, individuals have a choice about whether or not to sleep in public. However, when adequate shelter space does not exist, there is no meaningful distinction between the status of being homeless and the conduct of sleeping in public. Sleeping is a life-sustaining activity—i.e., it must occur at some time in some place. If a person literally has nowhere else to go, then enforcement of the anti-camping ordinance against that person criminalizes her for being homeless. See id. at 1136-37.

But these concerns are not at issue when, as here, they are applied to conduct that is essential to human life and wholly innocent, such as sleeping. No inquiry is required to determine whether a person is compelled to sleep; we know that no one can stay awake indefinitely. Thus, the Court need not constitutionalize a general compulsion defense to resolve this case; it need only hold that the Eighth Amendment outlaws the punishment of unavoidable conduct that we know to be universal. Moreover, unlike the hypothetical hard cases that concerned the Powell plurality, the conduct at issue in the instant case is entirely innocent. Its punishment would serve no retributive purpose, or any other legitimate purpose. As the plurality in Powell itself noted, “the entire thrust of Robinson’s interpretation of the Cruel and Unusual...

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES – pg. 13

Case 1:09-cv-00540-REB Document 276 Filed 08/06/15 Page 14 of 17

Punishment Clause is that criminal penalties may be inflicted only if the accused has committed some act [or] has engaged in some behavior which society has an interest in preventing.” Powell, 392 U.S. at 533 (emphasis added).

Using this reasoning, the vital question for the Court becomes: Given the current homeless population and available shelter space in Boise, as well as any restrictions on those shelter beds, are homeless individuals in Boise capable of conforming the necessary life activity of sleeping to the current law? If not, enforcing the anti-camping ordinances and criminalizing sleeping in public violates the Eighth Amendment, because it is no different from criminalizing homelessness itself. The Jones framework, developed from analyses of earlier cases, makes it clear that punishing homeless people for “acts they are forced to perform in public effectively punishes them for being homeless.” Pottinger, 810 F. Supp. 1551, 1564; see also Jones, 444 F.3d at 1136-37; Johnson, 860 F. Supp. at 350.

The realities facing homeless individuals each day support this application of the Eighth Amendment. Homelessness across the United States remains a pervasive problem. As the Jones court observed, “an individual may become homeless based on factors both within and beyond his immediate control, especially in consideration of the composition of the homeless as a group: the mentally ill, addicts, victims of domestic violence, the unemployed, and the unemployable.” Jones, 444 F.3d at 1137. Regardless of the causes of homelessness, individuals remain homeless involuntarily, including children, families, veterans, and individuals with physical and mental health disabilities. Communities nationwide are suffering from a shortage of affordable housing. And, in many jurisdictions, emergency and temporary shelter systems are already underfunded and overcrowded. For example, the 2010 Hunger and Homelessness Survey conducted by the...

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES – pg. 14
Case 1:09-cv-00540-REB Document 276 Filed 08/06/15 Page 15 of 17

U.S. Conference of Mayors found that 64% of cities reported having to turn people away from their shelters.16

At least one of the Justices in Robinson was concerned with how criminalizing certain conditions (there, addiction to narcotics) may interfere with necessary treatment and services that could potentially improve or alleviate the condition. See Robinson, 370 U.S. at 673-75 (Douglas, J., concurring). Those concerns are equally applicable in this context. Criminalizing public sleeping in cities with insufficient housing and support for homeless individuals does not improve public safety outcomes or reduce the factors that contribute to homelessness. As noted by the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (https://www.usich.gov/), “[r]ather than helping people to regain housing, obtain employment, or access needed treatment and service, criminalization creates a costly revolving door that circulates individuals experiencing homelessness from the street to the criminal justice system and back.”17 Issuing citations for public sleeping forces individuals into the criminal justice system and creates additional obstacles to overcoming homelessness. Criminal records can create barriers to employment and participation in permanent, supportive housing programs.18 Convictions under these municipal ordinances can also lead to lengthy jail sentences based on the ordinance violation itself, or the inability to pay fines and fees associated with the ordinance violation. Incarceration, in turn, has a profound effect on these individuals’...

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES – pg. 15

Case 1:09-cv-00540-REB Document 276 Filed 08/06/15 Page 16 of 17
lives.19 Finally, pursuing charges against individuals for sleeping in public imposes further burdens on scarce public defender, judicial, and carceral resources. Thus, criminalizing homelessness is both unconstitutional and misguided public policy, leading to worse outcomes for people who are homeless and for their communities.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court should adopt the analysis in Jones to evaluate Boise’s anti-camping and disorderly conduct ordinances as applied to Plaintiffs in this case. If the Court finds that it is impossible for homeless individuals to secure shelter space on some nights because no beds are available, no shelter meets their disability needs, or they have exceeded the maximum stay limitations, then the Court should also find that enforcement of the ordinances under those circumstances criminalizes the status of being homeless and violates the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution.

Submitted this 6th day of August, 2015.
s/ Sharon Brett
Sharon Brett
Attorney for the United States of America
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Cal February 19, 2016, 12:44:05 AM
This is a bunch of crap, Jeff. So you've been harassed 3 times in less than a week, to my knowledge. I read an article http://www.moderntimesmagazine.com/page16/Arizona_Urban_Camping_130730/Arizona_Urban_Camping_130730.php (http://www.moderntimesmagazine.com/page16/Arizona_Urban_Camping_130730/Arizona_Urban_Camping_130730.php) that really opened my eyes to what they are capable of doing in Pheonix. I did note that in the above statement of interest that if you are turned away by a shelter due to overflow or what-have you, then the act of police fining you is actually considered criminalizing you for simply being homeless. Perhaps you may look into this angle. It sounds like that recent article has painted a target on your back =(, which is something you also might look into. If you can lean on this letter of interest from the Supreme court, hold your ground on freedom of speech and expression, all while bringing light to the fact that the harassment is due to, you may be able to get them off your back. I'd talk to someone more knowledgeable  about the details though. I'm sorry friend =( only in a mad world would things like this happen.
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Jhanananda February 19, 2016, 01:45:37 AM
Hello, Cal, and thank-you for your kind support, and for the excellent article on urban camping in my region.  Yes, it is the third time I have been harassed in less than a week, so it does indeed look like I am being harassed due to the article.

The article Fight Against Urban Camping Continues In Phoenix (http://www.moderntimesmagazine.com/page16/Arizona_Urban_Camping_130730/Arizona_Urban_Camping_130730.php), which you posted a link for is dated from July 30, 2013.  Whereas, the statement of interest (http://www.justice.gov/opa/file/643766/download) is from 08/06/2015.  So, it is current, and supersedes any and all anti-urban camping ordinances nationwide.

The article that you linked did have a link to a useful document, Homeless in Phoenix: Know Your Rights (http://www.acluaz.org/sites/default/files/documents/Homeless%20in%20Phoenix.pdf) from the AZ office of the ACLU.

I actually do not have to be rejected by any of the shelters here, because it is a known fact that they are far to little to meet the homeless demand here.  The statement of interest (http://www.justice.gov/opa/file/643766/download) also gives me an out.  No one needs to stay at a shelter, if he or she can demonstrate that for health reasons the shelter will not work.  The shelters are full of bed bugs, alcoholics, and drug addicts; and I am a sick old man, who can take better care of himself in his van.

However, the message here is the saga in Prescott continues.  I expect that the drama will continue, but come to an end when I submit the letter of interest to the local judge who will be presiding over my case on March 15th. Otherwise we should expect to be left alone before the July retreat takes place here.
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Alexander February 19, 2016, 01:19:22 PM
The city of Worcester, where I live, just lost a major lawsuit trying to criminalize homelessness/panhandling. Ironically I remember Worcester listed in one of the almanacs you posted earlier. Although now they're being countersued (which I don't approve of) for 1.2 million which would extract that cash from the (relatively poor) city's taxpayers and give it to the opposing side's lawyers.
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Michel February 19, 2016, 08:48:13 PM
How distressing it is to hear of your problems with the officials, Jeffrey. Is the ticket for a fine?
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Jhanananda February 20, 2016, 01:37:56 AM
The city of Worcester, where I live, just lost a major lawsuit trying to criminalize homelessness/panhandling. Ironically I remember Worcester listed in one of the almanacs you posted earlier. Although now they're being countersued (which I don't approve of) for 1.2 million which would extract that cash from the (relatively poor) city's taxpayers and give it to the opposing side's lawyers.

The fact is the supreme court supports the poor and the homeless, so every municipality that criminalizes the poor and homeless is destined to be sued.  And, I hope they are until it hurts, so they stop doing it, and work on solving the problems of the poor and the homeless.

How distressing it is to hear of your problems with the officials, Jeffrey. Is the ticket for a fine?

Yes, I have a fine from the forest service for $125.  I expect that the judge will see that it was petty and drop the case, but I will have to drive to Flag Staff to deal with it.

I am not sure what the cost of the urban camping fine is, as the police officer neglected to give me the ticket, but I expect it will be $100 or more.  I expect it will be dropped as well, or I will have to find a lawyer who will sue the city.
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Michel February 20, 2016, 05:05:22 PM
Yes, I have a fine from the forest service for $125.  I expect that the judge will see that it was petty and drop the case, but I will have to drive to Flag Staff to deal with it.

I am not sure what the cost of the urban camping fine is, as the police officer neglected to give me the ticket, but I expect it will be $100 or more.  I expect it will be dropped as well, or I will have to find a lawyer who will sue the city.

What a pain. I'm sorry you have to deal with all this nonsense. It angers me.
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Jhanananda February 21, 2016, 01:26:14 AM
Yes, this is just the way life is for a mystic.
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Jhanananda February 25, 2016, 01:41:59 AM
(http://dingo.care2.com/pictures/causes/3169/3168963.large.jpg)
Homeless Advocates Fight for the Right to Rest in Denver (http://www.care2.com/causes/homeless-advocates-fight-for-the-right-to-rest-in-denver.html)
Homelessness in Denver has grown 600 percent in the last 20 years (http://www.cpr.org/sites/default/files/homelessness-study.pdf) , while the amount of emergency shelter beds has been stagnant. In October 2015, Denver Homeless Out Loud (http://denverhomelessoutloud.org/about/)  (DHOL) occupied space at Sustainability Park and, financed through online donations (https://campaigns.communityfunded.com/projects/denverhomelessoutloud/little-denver-a-tiny-home-village/), began constructing tiny homes for those experiencing homelessness. The group named the site Resurrection Village, in honor of Martin Luther King Jr.’s Poor People’s Campaign (http://crdl.usg.edu/events/poor_peoples_campaign/?Welcome&Welcome), which culminated in 1968 after King was assassinated. The historic campaign confronted economic inequality in the United States as demonstrators built tents outside the Capitol in Washington, DC, deeming the encampment “Resurrection City.

Just Released: Guidance for States on Aligning Efforts to End Chronic Homelessness & Implement Olmstead Mandate (https://www.usich.gov/tools-for-action/fulfilling-the-dream-aligning-state-efforts-to-implement-olmstead?utm_source=February+24+News+from+USICH&utm_campaign=Feb+24+News+from+USICH&utm_medium=email)

Fulfilling the Dream: Aligning State Efforts to Implement Olmstead and End Chronic Homelessness (https://www.usich.gov/resources/uploads/asset_library/Olmstead_Brief_02_2016_Final.pdf) from USICH provides seven key strategies to guide states in developing an action plan to achieve both an end to chronic homelessness and compliance with the community integration mandate issued through the Supreme Court ruling Olmstead v. LC.

Homeless camps intolerable, even in city of good intentions (http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/nevius/article/Homeless-camps-intolerable-even-in-city-of-good-6852413.php)
: San Francisco Chronicle
During a tour of the new homeless shelter at Pier 80, Trent Rhorer offered up some blunt talk.

Rhorer is director of the city’s Human Services Agency, and no one in the city has been more involved in housing the homeless. Among other things, Rhorer helped spearhead then-Mayor Gavin Newsom’s Care Not Cash program.

But, Rhorer said, good intentions aren’t enough. We can’t continue to let homeless campgrounds proliferate.

“If someone is making a lifestyle choice,” Rhorer said, “whether rational or irrational, sometimes we have to make decisions for them. And that decision would be that it is safer, more healthy, and you would have access to services if you come inside with us.”
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Jhanananda March 01, 2016, 02:18:27 PM
(http://media.salon.com/2016/02/military_jacket.jpg)
Jailed for being homeless (http://www.salon.com/2016/02/28/jailed_for_being_homeless_partner/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow)
On an overcast autumn morning, 21-year-old Joey Fiala sits on a sprawl of sleeping bags and blankets, watching Colorado’s prolonged summer yield to winter. Fiala, originally from Kansas City, Missouri, is among a group of homeless people who gather most days in Jefferson Park on the north end of the Old Town Square section in Fort Collins. Here, a grassy lot sidles up to a busy railroad track and serves as a sort of daytime rest stop for folks without shelter. The men and women socialize and sneak catnaps in between hustling for cash and shuttling around the community to make use of its spread-out resources. When night falls, however, residents without shelter rush to get out of sight. Groups disperse and individuals head off in pairs or on their own.

Ray Lyall, 57, homeless for two years, has worked with Denver Homeless Out Loud (DHOL) for the past 22 months. He was arrested on October 24, along with others working on DHOL’s Tiny Homes project. Since he was released from jail, he has been camping with a group at a site in Denver at 26th and Lawrence Streets, which was raided on December 3. Lyall says the camping ban is used to target people sleeping outside and give tickets for other offenses. “Can’t have anything under or over you,” he says, explaining the camping ban. “I can lay in the freezing snow but I can’t have anything on my back.”

More from Narratively and the Vera Institute of Justice: “Legal Perils of Homelessness (http://humantollofjail.vera.org/legal-perils-of-homelessness/)”

Fort Collins, a college town at the base of the Rocky Mountain foothills, prohibits practices such as loitering, “misuse of public waters,” and “camping or pitching a tent without permission.” Being homeless here necessitates invisibility, and consequently, isolation. Things that offer safety and even comfort at night—tents or multi-person encampments—make hiding difficult, and often land homeless people in jail.

More from Narratively and the Vera Institute of Justice: “The Human Toll of Jail (http://humantollofjail.vera.org/)”

“I’ve been to jail twice for camping,” Fiala says between swigs of coffee and bites of a doughnut, pulling his jacket tight around his small frame.

“I’ve been in for camping and for trespassing,” chimes in Steve, who doesn’t give his last name. A dad with a perfect goatee and cheeks rosy from the incoming chill, Steve hesitates to offer more. But others in the group nod in agreement.

“Yeah, I got ticketed twice for sleeping under the Linden Street Bridge,” Fiala says, jumping back in. “I was sick, sleeping on a mattress under the bridge, and they woke me up and gave me a ticket. I balled it up and threw it in their face. ‘F— you! I’m not gonna pay that. I can’t pay that.’ So I ended up in jail for failure to appear.”

Recent years have seen a surge of policing efforts throughout Colorado targeting those without shelter. Numerous communities have banned panhandling, camping, or sleeping in cars on public property. Loitering and trespassing laws prevent homeless individuals from having a safe place to rest—or options for washing up or using a bathroom. Violators face fines of $100 or more, an expense that quickly adds up for repeat offenders, landing many with warrants and, eventually, jail time. (Officials in Fort Collins have said they are looking into proposals (http://www.coloradoan.com/story/news/2015/06/10/fort-collins-talks-homeless-camping-changes/71033542/) that would allow people to sleep outside in certain places.)

According to the 2015 report “No Right to Rest: Criminalizing Homeless in Colorado (http://www.cpr.org/sites/default/files/homelessness-study.pdf),” more than half of the state’s homeless population has been in jail for minor infractions.

Fiala has been homeless about three years, or pretty much his entire adult life. When he first moved to Fort Collins with his then-girlfriend, they slept in their car. “But,” he sputters, in sequential bursts of frustration, “she cheated on me….She wrecked [our car].” He dunks a doughnut in his rapidly cooling cup of coffee and shudders. “You got a cigarette?”

Wes Hammond, a middle-aged man who has been listening quietly, suddenly plunges into the exchange. Hammond has been homeless on and off for much of his life. Born in Kentucky, he lived briefly in Tennessee before heading west. “I hitchhiked for three days to Colorado and this guy picked me up, asked if I wanted to work on a ranch,” he says. “So I did, up in the mountains, but I got tired of that, so I built a bike and I rode it off that mountain.”

He arrived in Fort Collins in 2010, initially finding stability in a relationship. When that “blew up” a year ago, he found himself back on the streets.

“I’ve had three camping tickets, two trespassing tickets, open container, parks violation, and urinating in public,” he claims. “My fines come to $2,009….I just got out of jail last night. Just one night this time. Failure to appear. Tacked on a $50 fine.” He takes a drag off the spliff that’s been floating around the circle and shakes his head ruefully. “I won’t be able to pay it. And all my stuff’s there at the police station. I can’t get to it.”

Steve, eyeing the joint, chimes in once more. “You better be careful with that. We may be in Colorado, but our house doesn’t have any walls,” he says, referring to the state’s legalization of marijuana use in private, but not in public spaces. As with open alcohol containers and intoxication, smoking cannabis is permitted only for those with the means to do so behind some sort of closed door. Individuals who lack shelter automatically miss out on key benefits afforded by seclusion. The very invisibility they seek when scattering at night is almost impossible to come by without the security of a safe and private place to rest.
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Jhanananda March 04, 2016, 02:06:32 PM
(http://westernnews.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com/img/news/tease/legacy/dcourier/153937a_t670.jpg?b3f6a5d7692ccc373d56e40cf708e3fa67d9af9d)
Homeless in Prescott: Former scientist develops alternative fuel system as means to survive (http://dcourier.com/news/2016/jan/16/homeless-in-prescott-former-scientist-develops-al/)
Originally Published: January 16, 2016 6 a.m.

For Jeff Brooks, a perfect day is one where he goes to sleep to the sound of howling coyotes and awakes to chirping birds or the sight of a doe herding her fawn.

The whispers of nature feed his soul; he much prefers tranquility and solitude over traffic and people.

At 62, Brooks is retired, but not by choice and not with the resources that draw so many retirees to Prescott.

The trim, long-bearded Tucson native doesn't camp in a luxury, high-tech motor home equipped with creature comforts and necessities such as beds, closets, kitchen and bathroom. Rather, he sleeps on a donated mattress inside a 1983 diesel-fuel Chevrolet van he bought nine years ago for $1,200. A makeshift kitchen behind the passenger seat he rescued from a dumpster.

He camps not as a vacation, but as a way of life. He is one of Prescott's homeless.

Sitting at a park bench in downtown's Granite Creek Park, a place where he often spends part of his day as he claims it offers the autonomy and privacy he craves, Brooks' scientific acuity is evident as he articulates the details of the alternative fuel system he uses to operate his van.

On his resume, Brooks lists his venture, the Great Western Vehicle, as his ongoing research science experiment. He rents a warehouse in Prescott Valley to continue his alternative fuel exploration.

Brooks' research and engineering knowledge dates back to his early adult years when he spent a year working as a research technician for Chevron in California. Articulate, and almost professor-like, Brooks is clear he long hoped to resurrect a life started in an abusive, alcohol-fueled childhood by virtue of a superior intellect that enabled him to earn three undergraduate college degrees. His ambition was to become a successful entrepreneur.

Much to his chagrin, the twists and turns of his life journey have forced him to become a self-sufficient survivalist; he chronicles a series of life setbacks that have left him with limited choices.

"This wasn't a choice for me!" said the twice divorced father of two adult children, aged 35 and 27.

In his young teen years, Brooks traveled the world with an emotionally distant father who when he graduated high school in southern New Jersey gave him $200 and the keys to a 1972 Ford Maverick.

"He told me to go and have a nice life," Brooks recalled. "I didn't hear from him again for 10 years."

So Brooks started applying to colleges, and ended up attending Drexel University in Pennsylvania. His father picked up the tab for some of the tuition, but he worked as a janitor and other odd jobs to pay his living expenses. In his second year, Brooks said he found it impossible to study calculus and physics "while working full-time just to live."

He headed back to the Southwest, enrolling in various college courses both in Arizona and San Francisco before he married and started to raise a family. He eventually landed a job in the food processing industry as a quality control technician.

Always interested in fuel production, Brooks started hunting for jobs in fuel research. He was beyond thrilled to land the job with Chevron he saw as the catalyst for only good things to come.

With that year-long assignment done, Brooks returned to Tucson. He embarked on career in optical science and computer technology, including some high-tech, space and defense-oriented projects at the University of Arizona where he continued to take courses to complete his undergraduate education.

From there, Brooks entered the private technology sector. In 1990, Brooks opened his own computer business, the Mac Doctor. The six-employee business stayed afloat for eight years. After closing, he worked independently for another decade. But he admits he was financially strapped.

Then came a domestic setback: a dispute with his former wives over child support.

Even though he said he always supported his children, with the two living with him for several years, Brooks said found himself in front of a judge struggling to come up with money he didn't have.

He couldn't afford the $10,000 for a lawyer. His financial life became all the more precarious.

For a time, Brooks cobbled together some short-lived contracting jobs, but nothing that equaled his expertise.

"After 30 years of experience in computer technology, and my degrees, I could not find a job anywhere. I was applying for 100 jobs a day on the Internet, and after two years of "No, no no" I ran out of resources."

He, too, admit he was succumbing to a sense of futility.

Between 2005 and 2010 Brooks said he was able to do some archaeology digs, as well as photographic exhibits for the National Parks Service. Again, though, the work was sporadic.

The final blow to his plans to become financially solvent again came when he was diagnosed with diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis.

"Now I'm wandering through the maze of this strange disease," Brooks said.

In 2014, Arizona had some 10,495 homeless persons, according to the 2015 State of Homelessness in America report. The national rate of homelessness in America is 18.3 percent per 100,000 population; Arizona's rate is 15.8 percent per 100,000 population.

In Prescott, the 2015 Point-In-Time count taken at the end of January tracked 141 homeless individuals. Homeless advocates and social service agency officials say the number fluctuates considerably depending on the weather. The Coalition for Compassion and Justice reported serving 587 individuals in 2014.

Brooks said he is not an expert on the statistics. What he does know is that he is not alone in suffering a series of calamities that left him living in his van.

"That's how people end up homeless; a series of collapses that they just cannot overcome," Brooks said.

Volunteer homeless advocate Jean Lutz, who befriended Brooks several years ago while volunteering at the Open Door where Brooks regularly goes for meals, said he is fortunate he is "resourceful" but he also bears a bitterness and a sense of hopelessness that she wishes she could find a way to resolve.

Another advocate Daniel Mattson, who Brooks counts as a "hero" for his willingness to do whatever it takes to help those in need, suggested an admiration for Brooks who has tapped into his scientific abilities to create a fuel system that allows him to survive "pretty well" despite what others consider a non-traditional, even undesirable, lifestyle.

Unlike some of the area's homeless, Brooks said he has no malice toward the police, rarely encountering any problems because he strives to "stay under the radar."

He also doesn't fault the National Forest service employees who strictly enforce rules related to camping in the wilderness.

"Some of the homeless think they are entitled to be obnoxious ... they make it bad for the rest of us," Brooks said.

Brooks applauds the various organizations, and individuals, who do their best to help, including the Salvation Army where he is able to go and get a shower or have a meal.

"The people of Prescott are real generous and real patriotic," Brooks said.

Like some of his fellow homeless, Brooks does wish there were a more plentiful supply of affordable housing, as well as possibly a dedicated campground where the homeless would not be chased away.

On his monthly Social Security check of just over $700 a month, Brooks said he can barely afford to rent a warehouse space and maintain his van.

Asked if he would move into more permanent housing if it was available, Brooks said he might. But he might not.

With his diminishing health and post-traumatic stress disorder, Brooks said he isn't so sure he could live somewhere where he would have to interact with a large group of people.

"I'm a resourceful guy ... but I don't want to take any risks anymore," Brooks said.

His van allows him to "choose my neighbors, and those are mostly squirrels, deer, rabbits, birds and coyotes."

Follow Nanci Hutson on Twitter @HutsonNanci. Reach her at 928-445-3333 ext. 2041 or 928-642-6809.
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Alexander March 04, 2016, 02:28:22 PM
Great article, Jeffrey. And while I am always despairing with you when I hear of your troubles, the life you live remains an example of heroism, integrity and excellence.
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Jhanananda March 05, 2016, 02:56:52 AM
Thank-you, Alexander, for posting your kind support.

Here is another interesting article:

(http://cdn.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/04104135/AP_444414228998-1024x768.jpg)
City Takes A Stand Against Treating Homeless Camps Like Crime Rings (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2016/03/04/3756638/indianapolis-homelessness-federal-funding/)
When homeless people cluster and set up stable tent camps, most American cities eventually send garbage men, cops, and social workers to tear the camps down, kick out the occupants, and even destroy their belongings. But in Indianapolis, such encampments are now protected from the sudden, destructive approach that so many other cities use to break up unsightly homeless communities.

Such camps are now shielded there by a bill passed in February on an overwhelming 23-2 vote. City officials must give a full 15 days’ notice to residents of any planned dismantling of a camp, a far longer lead time than is typical in such efforts. The city is never allowed to destroy residents’ personal property, as is common when local leaders opt for a crackdown. And the city can’t tear down a camp at all unless there are enough open housing units and sufficient resources for social services organizations to immediately absorb all its residents — a provision that can be suspended if Indianapolis declares a homelessness emergency.
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Frederick March 06, 2016, 06:41:09 PM
I, too, find this sad. I consider my retreat to have given me a tiny window into what it's like being homeless in the United States.

I'll pray that things improve and that the police leave you alone.

You're such a quiet, clean, and low impact person so I find this to be truly unfair.

The first night, you actually cleaned up the camp sight area.

We made it better than before we came.
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Jhanananda March 07, 2016, 02:12:21 AM
Yes, follinge, I always pick up the garbage where ever I camp.  Sadly, the homeless are in the lowest social position with little kindness showed to us.  Often police and rangers just target us, giving us tickets that we cannot afford to pay.  When the ticket is not paid, then there is a warrant out for our arrest.  Then we spend time in jail, and lose what little we could accumulate for our survival.  It goes on like that in every town, city, and forest.
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Jhanananda March 15, 2016, 01:19:52 PM
Here is a very interesting and related case.

Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F. 3d 1118 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2006 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=jones%20v%20city%20of%20los%20angeles&hl=en&as_sdt=2003&case=4259488333208893136&scilh=0)
For the approximately 11,000-12,000 homeless individuals in Skid Row, space is available in SRO hotels, shelters, and other temporary or transitional housing for only 9000 to 10,000, leaving more than 1000 people unable to find shelter each night. See Mayor's Citizens' Task Force, supra, at 5. In the County as a whole, there are almost 50,000 more homeless people than available beds. See L.A. Homeless Servs. Auth., supra, at 2-14. In 1999, the fair market rent for an SRO room in Los Angeles was $379 per month. L.A. Housing Crisis Task Force, In Short Supply 6 (2000). Yet the monthly welfare stipend for single adults in Los Angeles County is only $221. See L.A. Homeless Servs. Auth., supra, at 2-10. Wait-lists for public housing and for housing assistance vouchers in Los Angeles are three-to ten-years long. See The U.S. Conference of Mayors, A Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness in America's Cities 101, 105 (2002) [hereinafter Homelessness Report];[1] L.A. Housing Crisis Task Force, supra, at 7.

The result, in City officials' own words, is that "`[t]he gap between the homeless population needing a shelter bed and the inventory of shelter beds is severely large.'" Homelessness Report, supra, at 80. As Los Angeles's homeless population has grown, see id. at 109 (estimating annualized growth of ten percent in Los Angeles's homeless population in the years up to and including 2003), the availability of low-income housing in Skid Row has shrunk, according to the declaration of Alice Callaghan, director of a Skid Row community center and board member of the Skid Row Housing Trust. According to Callaghan's declaration, at night in Skid Row, SRO hotels, shelters, and other temporary or transitional housing are the only alternatives to sleeping on the street; during the day, two small parks are open to
1123
*1123 the public. Thus, for many in Skid Row without the resources or luck to obtain shelter, sidewalks are the only place to be....

IV. Conclusion

Homelessness is not an innate or immutable characteristic, nor is it a disease, such as drug addiction or alcoholism. But generally one cannot become a drug addict or alcoholic, as those terms are commonly used, without engaging in at least some voluntary acts (taking drugs, drinking alcohol). Similarly, an individual may become homeless based on factors both within and beyond his immediate control, especially in consideration of the composition of the homeless as a group: the mentally ill, addicts, victims of domestic violence, the unemployed, and the unemployable. That Appellants may obtain shelter on some nights and may eventually escape from homelessness does not render their status at the time of arrest any less worthy of protection than a drug addict's or an alcoholic's.

Undisputed evidence in the record establishes that at the time they were cited or arrested, Appellants had no choice other than to be on the streets. Even if Appellants' past volitional acts contributed to their current need to sit, lie, and sleep on public sidewalks at night, those acts are not sufficiently proximate to the conduct at issue here for the imposition of penal sanctions to be permissible. See Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514, 550 n. 2, 88 S.Ct. 2145, 20 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1968) (White, J., concurring in the judgment). In contrast, we find no Eighth Amendment protection for conduct that a person makes unavoidable based on their own immediately proximate voluntary acts, for example, driving while drunk, harassing others, or camping or building shelters that interfere with pedestrian or automobile traffic.

Our holding is a limited one. We do not hold that the Eighth Amendment includes a mens rea requirement, or that it prevents the state from criminalizing conduct that is not an unavoidable consequence of being homeless, such as panhandling or obstructing public thoroughfares. Cf. United States v. Black, 116 F.3d 198, 201 (7th Cir.1997) (rejecting convicted pedophile's Eighth Amendment challenge to his prosecution for receiving, distributing, and possessing child pornography because, inter alia, defendant "did not show that [the] charged conduct was involuntary or uncontrollable").

1138
*1138 We are not confronted here with a facial challenge to a statute, cf. Roulette v. City of Seattle, 97 F.3d 300, 302 (9th Cir.1996) (rejecting a facial challenge to a municipal ordinance that prohibited sitting or lying on public sidewalks); Tobe v. City of Santa Ana, 9 Cal.4th 1069, 1080, 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 402, 892 P.2d 1145 (1995) (finding a municipal ordinance that banned camping in designated public areas to be facially valid); nor a statute that criminalizes public drunkenness or camping, cf. Joyce v. City and County of San Francisco, 846 F.Supp. 843, 846 (N.D.Cal.1994) (program at issue targeted public drunkenness and camping in public parks); or sitting, lying, or sleeping only at certain times or in certain places within the city. And we are not called upon to decide the constitutionality of punishment when there are beds available for the homeless in shelters. Cf. Joel v. City of Orlando, 232 F.3d 1353, 1357 (11th Cir.2000) (affirming summary judgment for the City where "[t]he shelter has never reached its maximum capacity and no individual has been turned away for lack of space or for inability to pay the one dollar fee").

We hold only that, just as the Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction of criminal punishment on an individual for being a drug addict, Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 667, 82 S.Ct. 1417, 8 L.Ed.2d 758 (1962); or for involuntary public drunkenness that is an unavoidable consequence of being a chronic alcoholic without a home, Powell, 392 U.S. at 551, 88 S.Ct. 2145 (White, J., concurring in the judgment); id. at 568 n. 31, 88 S.Ct. 2145 (Fortas, J., dissenting); the Eighth Amendment prohibits the City from punishing involuntary sitting, lying, or sleeping on public sidewalks that is an unavoidable consequence of being human and homeless without shelter in the City of Los Angeles.

We do not suggest that Los Angeles adopt any particular social policy, plan, or law to care for the homeless. See Johnson v. City of Dallas, 860 F.Supp. 344, 350-51 (N.D.Tex.1994), rev'd on standing grounds, 61 F.3d 442 (5th Cir.1995). We do not desire to encroach on the legislative and executive functions reserved to the City Council and the Mayor of Los Angeles. There is obviously a "homeless problem" in the City of Los Angeles, which the City is free to address in any way that it sees fit, consistent with the constitutional principles we have articulated. See id. By our decision, we in no way dictate to the City that it must provide sufficient shelter for the homeless, or allow anyone who wishes to sit, lie, or sleep on the streets of Los Angeles at any time and at any place within the City. All we hold is that, so long as there is a greater number of homeless individuals in Los Angeles than the number of available beds, the City may not enforce section 41.18(d) at all times and places throughout the City against homeless individuals for involuntarily sitting, lying, and sleeping in public. Appellants are entitled at a minimum to a narrowly tailored injunction against the City's enforcement of section 41.18(d) at certain times and/or places.

We reverse the award of summary judgment to the City, grant summary judgment to Appellants, and remand to the district court for a determination of injunctive relief consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Jhanananda March 17, 2016, 02:16:57 AM
About time,

Attorney General Lynch demands a halt to criminalizing homelessness for profit. (http://www.politicususa.com/2016/03/16/attorney-general-orders-stop-criminalizing-homelessness-poverty.html)
On Monday, Attorney General Loretta Lynch issued a stern order to state court officials to stop, forthwith, targeting poor and homeless people and throwing them in jail for being too poor to pay fines for the crime of being too poor to have a place to live.

This seems like a way to enforce not criminalizing the homeless.

Withholding HUD Funds a Possibility For Cities That Criminalize Homelessness (http://kut.org/post/withholding-hud-funds-possibility-cities-criminalize-homelessness)
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Alexander March 17, 2016, 10:15:20 PM
I was seriously reflecting on becoming homeless, like you, Jeffrey, yesterday; and thinking about the preparations I would need to do so. Mostly due to the significant stresses of working life, along with my lack of time to dedicate to meditation. It is good to hear they are not criminalizing the homeless, as I always keep the presence of mind that could be me --- imminently. Unfortunately, I was reading they were doing the same in Hungary. It is easier to criminalize and sweep away the homeless, than attempt to reform the problems that exist within the system itself.
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Jhanananda March 18, 2016, 02:22:49 AM
Alexander, the mendicant life is the life of the mystic, but it is not without its stresses, as I am sure you have observed in my many posts.  Without a social security check coming in regularly it becomes very difficult.  One often ends up on a bicycle and living out of a tent.  For the young, this could be quite an adventure.  For the old, it is just too much of a struggle.

Justice Dept. Condemns Profit-Minded Court Policies Targeting the Poor (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/us/politics/justice-dept-condemns-profit-minded-court-policies-targeting-the-poor.html?_r=0), New York Times, By MATT APUZZOMARCH 14, 2016
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department on Monday called on state judges across the country to root out unconstitutional policies that have locked poor people in a cycle of fines, debt and jail. It was the Obama administration’s latest effort to take its civil rights agenda to the states, which have become a frontier in the fight over the rights of the poor and the disabled, the transgender and the homeless.

In a letter to chief judges and court administrators, Vanita Gupta, the Justice Department’s top civil rights prosecutor, and Lisa Foster, who leads a program on court access, warned against operating courthouses as for-profit ventures. It chastised judges and court staff members for using arrest warrants as a way to collect fees. Such policies, the letter said, made it more likely that poor people would be arrested, jailed and fined anew — all for being unable to pay in the first place...

The Obama administration has used letters, both in and out of court, to help push the boundaries of civil rights law. In dozens of lawsuits around the country, many of which involved local disputes, the Justice Department has filed so-called statements of interest, throwing its weight behind private lawsuits. It has filed such statements in matters involving legal aid for the poor, transgender students, juvenile prisoners and people who take videos of police officers.
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Jhanananda March 18, 2016, 01:38:33 PM
Justice Department Tackles Quality Of Defense For The Poor (http://www.npr.org/2013/09/03/216809388/justice-dept-tackles-quality-of-defense-for-the-poor)
All over the country, lawyers who defend poor people in criminal cases have been sharing their stories about painful budget cuts. Some federal public defenders have shut their doors to new clients after big layoffs. And in many states, the public defense system has operated in crisis for years.

But an unprecedented recent court filing from the Justice Department has cheered the typically overburdened attorneys who represent the poor and could have dramatic implications for the representation of indigent defendants.

"This is a breakthrough moment," Norman Reimer of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers told an audience earlier this month at the Law Library of Congress. "If you want to talk about something that could give us cause for optimism, this to me is the most optimistic development we have seen in years."

At just 17 pages, the filing doesn't seem like a milestone. But lawyers at the Justice Department say the decision to weigh in on a case about the quality of indigent defense in two cities north of Seattle is nothing short of historic.

Rubber Stamp Justice. US Courts, Debt Buying Corporations, and the Poor (https://www.hrw.org/report/2016/01/20/rubber-stamp-justice/us-courts-debt-buying-corporations-and-poor)
Every year, several hundred thousand people across the United States are sued by companies they have never done business with and may never have heard of. These firms are called debt buyers and although they have never loaned anyone a penny, millions of Americans owe them money. Debt buyers purchase vast portfolios of bad debts—mostly delinquent credit cards—from lenders who have written them off as a loss. They pay just pennies on the dollar but can go after alleged debtors for the full face value of every debt plus interest at rates that routinely exceed 25 percent.

Debt buyers also rely on tax-funded state institutions—namely the court system—to secure much of their income. Leading debt buyers rank among the heaviest individual users of state court systems across the US, and various legal actions and research, including that of Human Rights Watch, have identified repeated patterns of error and lack of legal compliance in their lawsuits. These problems are often discovered long after the debt buyers have already won court judgments against alleged debtors, a situation that arises because of the inability of alleged debtors to mount an effective defense even when they are on the right side of the law. Debt buyer lawsuits typically play out before the courts with a stark inequality of arms, pitting unrepresented defendants against seasoned collections attorneys.

Justice Department Files Brief to Address the Criminalization of Homelessness (https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-brief-address-criminalization-homelessness)
The Department of Justice filed a statement of interest today arguing that making it a crime for people who are homeless to sleep in public places, when there is insufficient shelter space in a city, unconstitutionally punishes them for being homeless.  The statement of interest was filed in federal district court in Idaho in Bell v. City of Boise et al., a case brought by homeless plaintiffs who were convicted under Boise ordinances that criminalize sleeping or camping in public.

The US Department of Justice, Office for Access to Justice Home (https://www.justice.gov/atj)

March 14, 2016
Press Release
Justice Department Announces Resources to Assist State and Local Reform of Fine and Fee Practices (https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-resources-assist-state-and-local-reform-fine-and-fee-practices)
Dear Colleague Letter from the Civil Rights Division and the Office for Access to Justice to provide greater clarity to state and local courts regarding their legal obligations with respect to the enforcement of court fines and fees.  The letter addresses some of the most common practices that run afoul of the U.S. Constitution and/or other federal laws, such as incarcerating individuals for nonpayment without determining their ability to pay.  The letter also discusses the importance of due process protections such as notice and, in appropriate cases, the right to counsel; the need to avoid unconstitutional bail practices; and due process concerns raised by certain private probation arrangements.

The Price of Justice: Rethinking the Consequences of Justice Fines and Fees  (https://www.bja.gov/funding/JRIpriceofjustice.pdf)

Wednesday, December 2, 2015
Poverty Is Not A Crime  (https://www.justice.gov/opa/blog/poverty-not-crime)
December 2, 2015

Courtesy of Deputy Attorney General Sally Quillian Yates

There is no principle underlying our criminal justice system more essential than that we must treat equally the wealthy and the poor.  As former Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy said in 1962, “If justice is priced in the market place, individual liberty will be curtailed and respect for law diminished.”

To the vast majority of Americans, this concept is a given; it’s innate to being American.  This country banned debtors’ prisons under federal law back in 1833.  In 1970, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a maximum prison term could not be extended because a defendant failed to pay court costs or fines.  A year later, those same justices ruled that a defendant may not be jailed solely because he or she is too poor to pay a fine.  Again, in 1983, in a case called Bearden v. Georgia, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Constitution does not permit “punishing a person for his poverty.”

Despite these longstanding ideals and principles, in some places around our country, fines are still being imposed and people are still being incarcerated for nonpayment without a judge ever making the basic required inquiry — “Can this person afford to pay?”  In these places, court fines, fees and other financial obligations can lead to unnecessary incarceration, trap people in a cycle of poverty, and undermine the faith in the justice system that is so critical to public safety.

Take for example the city of Ferguson, Missouri.  The Justice Department Civil Rights Division’s investigation of the Ferguson Police Department found that Ferguson’s courts imposed excessive fines and routinely ordered the arrest of low-income residents when they failed to make payments they could not afford.  For example, a 67-year-old woman living on a fixed income was taken to jail for missed payments related to a trash-removal citation.  The court imposed fines totaling $1,000, which she struggled to pay in $100 monthly installments.

In a city of 21,000, Ferguson’s courts issued arrest warrants for over 9,000 people in 2013 alone, almost entirely on cases stemming from low-level offenses.  When people were arrested, they routinely sat in jail because bond was set with no regard to their financial situation.  The Civil Rights Division’s investigation found that these harms were borne disproportionately by the city’s African-American community.

Unfortunately, these troubling dynamics aren’t unique to Ferguson.  In Georgia – where I served as U.S. Attorney – the state had a system in which people were being fined for low-level misdemeanor offenses such as traffic violations or public nuisance citations.  Due to a law passed in 2000, private probation companies supervised these people and set monthly or weekly payment amounts that were much higher than necessary to collect funds owed during their probationary term.  In some cases, probationers were expected to pay all court fines and surcharges, as well as provider supervision fees, in less than half of the term.  Many of these private probation providers failed to consider whether probationers had the ability to meet their financial obligations.  And some of these private companies would unlawfully extend the probation term, improperly allocate probationer payments to themselves instead of the court, or obtain arrest warrants for failure to pay.  One can see how this system was not only unfair, but could easily trap low-income individuals into a cycle of poverty through the series of cascading events they set in motion.
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Jhanananda March 19, 2016, 01:15:21 PM
Department Of Justice documents:

Justice Department statement of interest (http://www.justice.gov/opa/file/643766/download)

Addressing Police Misconduct Laws Enforced By The Department Of Justice (http://ttps://www.justice.gov/crt/addressing-police-misconduct-laws-enforced-department-justice)
Federal Criminal Enforcement
It is a crime for one or more persons acting under color of law willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242). "Color of law" simply means that the person doing the act is using power given to him or her by a governmental agency (local, State, or Federal). A law enforcement officer acts "under color of law" even if he or she is exceeding his or her rightful power. The types of law enforcement misconduct covered by these laws include excessive force, sexual assault, intentional false arrests, or the intentional fabrication of evidence resulting in a loss of liberty to another. Enforcement of these provisions does not require that any racial, religious, or other discriminatory motive existed.  What remedies are available under these laws? Violations of these laws are punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. There is no private right of action under these statutes; in other words, these are not the legal provisions under which you would file a lawsuit on your own.

Poverty Is Not A Crime (https://www.justice.gov/opa/blog/poverty-not-crime)
There is no principle underlying our criminal justice system more essential than that we must treat equally the wealthy and the poor.  As former Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy said in 1962, “If justice is priced in the market place, individual liberty will be curtailed and respect for law diminished.”...

Despite these longstanding ideals and principles, in some places around our country, fines are still being imposed and people are still being incarcerated for nonpayment without a judge ever making the basic required inquiry — “Can this person afford to pay?”  In these places, court fines, fees and other financial obligations can lead to unnecessary incarceration, trap people in a cycle of poverty, and undermine the faith in the justice system that is so critical to public safety...

Fine and Fee Practices (https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-resources-assist-state-and-local-reform-fine-and-fee-practices)
“The consequences of the criminalization of poverty are not only harmful – they are far-reaching,” said Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch.  “They not only affect an individual’s ability to support their family, but also contribute to an erosion of our faith in government.  One of my top priorities as Attorney General is to help repair community trust where it has frayed, and a key part of that effort includes ensuring that our legal system serves every American faithfully and fairly, regardless of their economic status.”

The Justice Department is committed to reforming justice-system practices that perpetuate poverty and result in unnecessary deprivations of liberty...
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Jhanananda March 21, 2016, 01:47:25 AM
Homeless Bill of Rights (http://nationalhomeless.org/campaigns/bill-of-right/)
Years of research and advocacy around criminalization of homelessness and increasing violence committed against people experiencing homelessness has shown that added protections are needed to preserve the civil rights of people experiencing homelessness. NCH staff work to educate public officials and local advocates about the importance of passing protections for those without housing in the United States.

Homeless Bill of Rights measures work to ensure that homeless individuals are:

    Protected against segregation, laws targeting homeless people for their lack of housing and not their behavior, and restrictions on the use of public space.
    Granted privacy and property protections.
    Allowed the opportunity to vote and feel safe in their community without fear or harassment.
    Provided broad access to shelter, social services, legal counsel and quality education for the children of homeless families.

The following cities and states have passed or are considering homeless rights legislation:
California | Connecticut | Delaware | Illinois | Baltimore, Maryland | Minnesota | Missouri | Oregon | Puerto Rico | Rhode Island | Tennessee | Vermont | Madison, Wisconsin

Local Partner Organizations:
Rhode Island Coalition for the Homeless
Western Regional Advocacy Project (WRAP)

To discuss more local initiatives, join our Homeless Civil Rights Forum (https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/102253875590019999588).

: wiki
The Homeless Bill of Rights (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeless_Bill_of_Rights) (also Homeless Person's Bill of Rights and Acts of Living bill) refers to legislation protecting the civil and human rights of homeless people. These laws affirm that homeless people have equal rights to medical care, free speech, free movement, voting, opportunities for employment, and privacy. Legislation of this type has become law in Rhode Island, Connecticut and Illinois and is under consideration by several other U.S. states.

Controversy over Legislation Affecting the Homeless
At issue in homeless bills of rights are local codes that outlaw loitering, vagrancy, sitting or lying on the sidewalk, begging, eating in public, and other behaviors. These codes disproportionately affect homeless people.[1]

The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_National_Law_Center_on_Homelessness_and_Poverty) concludes its report on the "criminalization of homelessness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminalization_of_homelessness)" with an exhortation to change the laws:[1]

    Laws that criminalize visible homelessness are immoral and offend our basic human instincts. They are contrary to the fundamental religious and political principals from which the American people seek guidance, and their existence demonstrates that we have fallen vastly short of our religious and foundational aspirations.

Business interests, represented by the California Chamber of Commerce, have called Assemblymember Tom Ammiano's Homeless Person's Bill of Rights [2] a "job killer" which would create "costly and unreasonable mandates on employers."[3] Some municipalities and local politicians also oppose the laws, which impose state authority to overturn local regulations. San Francisco Supervisor Scott Wiener commented:[4]

    Our local laws against forming encampments, passing out and blocking sidewalks, and otherwise monopolizing public spaces would be wiped off the books. Think we have a street behavior problem now? Just wait until this passes.

The Los Angeles Times suggested in an editorial that the Homeless Bill of Rights does not go far enough unless accompanied by economic resources allocated to provide housing.[5] Joel John Roberts, CEO of People Assisting the Homeless, argued similarly that the Homeless Bill of Rights may be toothless and even enabling. Roberts writes:[6]

    There needs to be a balance between criminalizing homelessness with ordinances that persecute people who are forced to live on the street, and giving those same people the right to do whatever they want without any consequences.... A more powerful Bill of Rights for people who are homeless, however, would consist of one simple right: the right to housing.

Legislation in the United States

The idea of a "Homeless Bill of Rights" has been discussed periodically in the U.S., and was presented formally by a group of New York City ministers on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, 1992.[7] City Councilperson Peter Vallone introduced several versions of such a Bill in 1998, despite strong opposition from Mayor Rudy Giuliani.[8]

Puerto Rico and some states have passed laws adding homeless people to their lists of groups protected against hate crimes.[9]
Rhode Island

Rhode Island was the first state in the U.S. to pass a "Homeless Bill of Rights". John Joyce, who was homeless for a period in his life, is responsible for the initial introduction of the bill. The Rhode Island law, S-2052, was ratified in the state of Rhode Island on June 21, 2012 and signed into law by Governor Lincoln Chafee on June 27.[10] It amends the Rhode Island Fair Housing Act with wording intended to protect the rights of homeless people and prevent discrimination against them. It is the first U.S. state-level law designed to protect the rights of homeless people.
[show]Excerpt from Rhode Island bill S-2052

The well-established Rhode Island Coalition for the Homeless (and a newer subgroup called Rhode Island Homeless Advocacy Project) collaborated with the more radical Occupy Providence group to lobby successfully for the Bill.[11][12]

The law does not guarantee positive rights such as housing or food, and some homeless advocates are concerned that it has not had enough impact.[13]
Connecticut

On June 5, the Connecticut Assembly passed a Homeless Bill of Rights (SB 896) with seven protections similar to those passed in Rhode Island. Pending signature by Governor Dan Malloy, the bill would take effect on October 1, 2013. The Connecticut law significantly includes freedom from police harassment in its first section.[14]
[show]Excerpt from Connecticut bill SB 896
Illinois

On August 22, 2013 Illinois became the second state to adopt a homeless bill of rights.[15]
[show]Excerpt from Illinois bill SB 1210
California

State Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) introduced a Homeless Person's Bill of Rights[2] to the California Assembly in December 2012.[16] In May 2013, the Appropriations Committee postponed debate until January 2014.[4] Assemblymember Ammiano said in a statement that his bill was suspended largely because of the costs of setting up new infrastructure and enforcing the new rules.[4] A report by the Chair of the Assembly Appropriations Committee estimates that setting up hygiene centers across the state would cost $216 million, with ongoing operating costs of $81 million annually.[2] The report also estimates that setting up facilities for annual law enforcement reports would cost $8.2 million, with ongoing operating costs of $4.1 million annually.[2] Without providing estimates, the report notes that other costs, some potentially significant, include those associated with the right to counsel conferred to the homeless for defending against infractions, and those associated with defending against lawsuits brought against cities by the homeless alleging violations of rights conveyed under the bill.[2]

California's Homeless Bill of Rights(Right2Rest Act), SB 608, was introduced by Senator Carol Liu (D) in February 2015. The ”Right to Rest Act,” would, among other things, protect the rights of homeless people to move freely, rest, eat, perform religious observations in public space as well as protect their right to occupy a legally parked motor vehicle. Also refer to UC Berkeley's Policy Advocacy Clinic Presents: California’s New Vagrancy Laws a New Report on the Growing Criminalzation of Homeless People in California.

A vote was not rendered during the 2015 process in the Housing and Transportation Committee and was asked to come back for a vote in the next California legislation session with amendments in order to get the necessary votes and pass to the next house. Please refer to the Western Regional Advocacy Project (WRAP) in San Francisco, who drafted the legislation along with other homeless, housing, public/social policy advocates. The Right2Rest is the first of three campaigns in California's Homeless Bill of Rights (Right2Rest, Legal Representation, and Hygiene Centers). Both Oregon and Washington states have same/similar legislation and are working with WRAP to draft and pass a Homeless Bill of Rights in their perspective states. Homes should be a human right.
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Jhanananda March 26, 2016, 03:06:52 AM
Starbucks pledges to donate 100% of unsold food (http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/03/23/starbucks-pledges-to-donate-100-of-salvageable-food/82155312/)
The coffee giant set a goal Tuesday to donate 100% of its unsold food still safe to eat from its 7,600 U.S. stores. Through partnerships with Food Donation Connection and the nonprofit Feeding America, perishable food will be picked up from Starbucks stores each day in refrigerated vans and redistributed to food banks. That includes breakfast sandwiches, paninis, salads and the company's "bistro boxes," prepackaged meals filled with snacks like vegetables and hummus, fruit and wraps that otherwise would have been thrown out.

Starbucks says the program, called FoodShare, will provide five million meals in the first year and nearly 50 million by 2021, when it expects to reach a 100% donation rate. Starbucks has already partnered with Food Donation Connection since 2010 to donate its surplus pastries.

Starbucks is hoping other restaurants will get on board and that it could eventually dispatch its refrigerated vans to other chains looking to divert food waste. The pledge is significant given a government goal set last year to cut food waste in half by 2030.

Feeding America estimates the country wastes 70 billion pounds of food every year. Meanwhile, millions of households are considered food insecure, defined as lacking "access to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members," according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which says 17.4 million households were food insecure in 2014.

(https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/12140790_1600746750250798_7055889492476626265_n.jpg?oh=a20a5b4826193db81d6e981f4d996da0&oe=57905883)
This is something that the homeless will have to come to terms with.

It is about time the Department of Justice came to the rescue of the last of the marginalized social groups in the USA.
DOJ Calls for an End to Jailing People for Being Poor (http://www.care2.com/causes/doj-calls-for-an-end-to-jailing-people-for-being-poor.html)

Still looking in all of the wrong places for solutions.
Don't blame police for San Diego homeless sweep (http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/mar/23/homeless-encampments-police/?fbshare=1997355)
...the police and environmental services agency cleared homeless encampments in downtown San Diego right before a major rainstorm was expected to sweep through the area, people were appalled.

According to San Diego County’s annual point-in-time count, which provides a snapshot of the number of people who are homeless on any given night, more than 5,500 people who live in the city of San Diego don’t have a home to call their own.

Of those, about half live on the streets, and, unsurprisingly, the largest concentrations of them live downtown. There aren’t enough housing programs — such as affordable and permanent supportive housing — to accommodate them, so they create makeshift communities along the sidewalks.

It is not an easy life. Tuberculosis, pneumonia and hepatitis C are relatively common among unsheltered homeless people, as are substance abuse and severe mental illness. Hundreds of the unsheltered people in San Diego are veterans. Countywide, 70 percent of people who are homeless have been so for more than a year — many far longer than that.

I understand that our sidewalks need to be kept clean and safe for everyone to use, but the least we can do is offer the people who have no choice but to live on them respect by treating them with the dignity that any human being deserves.

What upset me most was that our city government cleared these homeless encampments without clearly identifying what areas would be cleared. Signs were posted over a very large area, making it difficult for people to easily move their belongings out of the way of the sweeps.

That would be bad enough, but the police and environmental services department dismantled the only shelter people have right before a major rainstorm. I’m betting most people would consider that downright cruel.

To me, making it clear to people what’s going to happen to their things, when it’s going to happen and exactly where, is just common sense.

But if simple common sense isn’t enough, the federal government is no longer going to sit back while local governments crack down on their homeless citizens with heavy hands.
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Jhanananda March 30, 2016, 01:52:42 AM
Ending Homelessness for People Living in Encampments: Advancing the Dialogue (https://www.usich.gov/tools-for-action/ending-homelessness-for-people-in-encampments/)
This report is designed to assist communities in developing an action plan that will link people experiencing homelessness and living in an encampment, with permanent housing opportunities.

To end homelessness for everyone, we must link people experiencing unsheltered homelessness, including people sleeping and living in encampments, with permanent housing opportunities matched with the right level of services to ensure that those housing opportunities are stable and successful. The information and ideas contained within this document have been developed by USICH based upon conversations and problem-solving discussions with advocates, housing and services providers, and government officials across the country regarding what they have learned, and are still learning, about the most effective approaches and strategies.

Ending Homelessness for People Living in Encampments
Advancing the Dialogue (https://www.usich.gov/resources/uploads/asset_library/Ending_Homelessness_for_People_Living_in_Encampments_Aug2015.pdf)

Quick Guide (https://www.usich.gov/resources/uploads/asset_library/Quick_Guide_Ending_Homelessness_for_People_Living_in_Encampments_Aug2015.pdf)
Ending Homelessness for People Living in Encampments:
Advancing the Dialogue

Planning Checklist (https://www.usich.gov/resources/uploads/asset_library/Planning_Checklist_Ending_Homelessness_for_People_Living_in_Encampments_Aug2015.pdf)
Ending Homelessness for People Living in Encampments:
Advancing the Dialogue
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Michel April 01, 2016, 02:18:21 PM
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development wants to make living in a tiny-house or an RV illegal:

http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/hud-wants-make-living-tiny-house-rv-illegal/

The video is worth watching, as well.
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Jhanananda April 02, 2016, 02:31:45 AM
I do not see the following HUD rules restricting people from living in motor homes and RVs.  I see it as a regulation that prevents people from buying motor homes and RVs with HUD funding.

HUD has proposed the following law (https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=HUD-2016-0013):

    This proposed rule would modify the current exemption for recreational vehicles in the Manufactured Home Procedural and Enforcement Regulations.  Under the current exemption, questions have arisen regarding whether park model recreational vehicles are regulated by HUD’s manufactured home program. These park models are being produced with patio roofs, screened in porches, and other extensions that exceed the 400 square foot maximum exemption in the current regulations. Additionally, some of these models are being marketed as suitable for year round living. HUD’s proposed rule would permit recreational vehicle manufactures to certify that a unit is exempted from HUD’s regulations. Specifically, HUD’s proposed rule would define a recreational vehicle as a factory build vehicular structure, not certified as a manufactured home, designed only for recreational use and not as a primary residence or for permanent occupancy, and built and certified in accordance with either the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1192-2015, Standard for Recreational Vehicles, or the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A119.5-15, Recreational Park Trailer Standard. In addition, to provide consumers notice regarding the manufacturing standards used to construct the unit, HUD’s rule would require that units claiming the exemption display a notice that identifies the standards used to construct the unit and states that the unit is designed only for recreational use, and not as a primary residence or permanent dwelling.

I do see in between the lines of the effort to put all of the homeless in homes is some of us do not want to be ghetoized.  I would rather be free to live on the road, rather than be stuck in low-income housing, or senior housing with a bunch of old or poor people whom I have noting in common with.
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Michel April 02, 2016, 05:09:55 PM
... I would rather be free to live on the road, rather than be stuck in low-income housing, or senior housing with a bunch of old or poor people whom I have noting in common with.

I feel alone and misunderstood by my family. I find it so difficult to relate to them. The psychiatrist doesn't know what to think of me other than I have a serious mental disorder.
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Jhanananda April 03, 2016, 01:49:41 AM
I feel alone and misunderstood by my family. I find it so difficult to relate to them. The psychiatrist doesn't know what to think of me other than I have a serious mental disorder.

That is the way it is with we mystics.  We will be misunderstood, except by fellow mystics, our whole life.  So, we grow to prefer our solitude.
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Frederick April 13, 2016, 04:53:23 PM
If I didn't understand someone, but I loved them, such as family, I'd make a effort to try to understand them and to make them feel loved despite my inability.

I would not focus on classifying their mental disorders or whatever.

All humans deserve love and respect even if we don't understand them.
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Jhanananda April 14, 2016, 01:27:14 AM
This is good advice, follinge; however, the mystic is more often than not the victim in misunderstanding and it is typically the family who does not understand the mystic, and tends to abuse the mystic.
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Jhanananda April 15, 2016, 01:38:14 PM
The 2015 Annual Homeless. Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress. NOVEMBER 2015. PART 1.pdf (https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/2015-AHAR-Part-1.pdf)
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: DDawson May 08, 2016, 12:12:13 AM
Hello Jhanananda,

I've daydreamed of attempting homelessness and to begin by just getting familiar with camping but haven't really followed through with these thoughts.  The closest thing I've experienced was when I dredged for gold for two summers with my brother on the Yuba river.  It was amazing how our tent site began to feel just like a home.  We couldn't stand it for more than 4 days in a row though.  The lure of electricity and television was to much for me.  My problem is I own a couple of houses that aren't being lived in right now.  One of them is a 5 or 6 bedroom house in the little town of Mitchell Oregon.  This old town is kind of a tourist stop in the summer and is located near the painted hills east of Prineville, Oregon.  You know, if you are having trouble being homeless and want to try something different, you're welcome to live there free of charge.  It's just been sitting empty for 3 years and I have to come up with a plan for it.  I just thought I would put that out there.  If anyone else has some ideas, just let me know.  Thanks
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Jauho1979 May 08, 2016, 02:40:47 AM
Hello Jhanananda,

I've daydreamed of attempting homelessness and to begin by just getting familiar with camping but haven't really followed through with these thoughts.  The closest thing I've experienced was when I dredged for gold for two summers with my brother on the Yuba river.  It was amazing how our tent site began to feel just like a home.  We couldn't stand it for more than 4 days in a row though.  The lure of electricity and television was to much for me.  My problem is I own a couple of houses that aren't being lived in right now.  One of them is a 5 or 6 bedroom house in the little town of Mitchell Oregon.  This old town is kind of a tourist stop in the summer and is located near the painted hills east of Prineville, Oregon.  You know, if you are having trouble being homeless and want to try something different, you're welcome to live there free of charge.  It's just been sitting empty for 3 years and I have to come up with a plan for it.  I just thought I would put that out there.  If anyone else has some ideas, just let me know.  Thanks

I think this is a great idea! Perhaps Jhananda and co. here can use the place as a GWV center (if Mr.  Dawson is okay with it). Who knows?  ;D
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Jhanananda May 09, 2016, 05:35:22 PM
I think this is a great idea! Perhaps Jhananda and co. here can use the place as a GWV center (if Mr.  Dawson is okay with it). Who knows?  ;D

Great idea, and thanks, DDawson for the offer.  I would hear straight there if my van was not dead.  I have been working on it for more than a month.  I hope to have it running soon.
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: DDawson May 09, 2016, 06:10:26 PM
Hi Jhanananda.

Glad someone's interested in putting it to good use.  No obligations on your part though.  I'm going to drive up, hopefully within a month and start working on it again.  Even in its present state, its completely livable but there could be some improvement.  My brother stopped  by there a few days ago on his way down from Spokane, to weed eat the lawn and said someone broke into the shed and stole the lawn mower and the ladder but no one has broken into the house yet.  So when or if your ready check it out, let me know.  Thanks
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Jhanananda May 10, 2016, 05:12:03 PM
The town looks just right.  So, I will have to get my van running, so that I can run up there to see how it is.
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Frederick May 10, 2016, 10:33:30 PM
A retreat center seems like a dream come true!
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: DDawson May 12, 2016, 02:58:09 PM
One day at a time.  Just a place where friends can hang out.  Remember, this is a small town.  I'm happy you're interested and at the very least it will be a fun chance to explore a new place. 
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: DDawson May 13, 2016, 03:14:17 AM
Here's an update.  I'm heading north at the end of the month and hope to be in Mitchell on the 25th.  I've written an e-mail to the city there asking for the water to be turned on.  After a night there I will drive to the Spokane area and deal with things there and stop in Mitchell on my way back down.  I don't know when, but probably around the 30th.  If you can't make it there around then, I'll hide a key somewhere and let you know where its hidden.  The address is 206 Nelson street.  Its a squarish two story house with a green hip roof and a sitting porch facing the road, right across from a cattle guard that makes noise when people drive over it.  The house is painted white.  Nelson street just appears to be a gravel driveway.  I'm sure you can find it without me.

I saw a picture of van somewhere that might be yours, Jhanananda.  If its a Toyota van, I used to have one just like it.  I had a problem with my distributor caps going bad on me and creating misfiring.  If yours is doing the same thing, my solution was to keep a new distributor cap in the van and change it out if it started acting out.  Just thought I'd mention that. 
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Jhanananda May 13, 2016, 05:24:41 PM
Good to know that you are serious about the GWV having access to your house.  I do plan to head that way as soon as I can, but my van is still down, but I expect to have it running by the end of the weekend.  I will need to run it through some gentle paces before I think of taking it on a long road trip.

No it is not a Toyota.  I retired that 9 years ago, and should retire this one next year, if it will make it that long.  I never had a problem with distributor caps on my Toyota 4x4 van.  I made the mistake of running the engine ON WVO at its motor oil, without draining the old motor oil.  Doing so glued the engine shut.
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Cal May 14, 2016, 03:03:54 PM
Mitchell is only a couple hours away from where I live. If you do plan on making the trip Jeff, let me know. I'd love to visit with you again. Also, you're always welcome to stay with me as well.
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Jhanananda May 18, 2016, 04:50:06 PM
Thanks, Cal.  Yes, I had thought of you and other people who live in the Pacific Northwest, who follow the GWV.  I finally got my engine running again, but it is still not ready for the road.  The vehicle just needs so much work that I doubt I will be able to make it soon.
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Jhanananda May 25, 2016, 01:29:33 PM
I have been doing research on homelessness in the USA.  Upon examining the Wiki article on Incarceration in the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States) I found that there is a most probably a direct relationship between homelessness and Incarceration.  And, the drug war has been shown to be the direct cause of the high levels of Incarceration in the United States.

Incarceration in the United States is one of the main forms of punishment, rehabilitation, or both for the commission of felony and other offenses. The United States has the largest prison population in the world,[3][4][5] and the second-highest per-capita incarceration rate...

According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), 2,220,300 adults were incarcerated in US federal and state prisons, and county jails in 2013 – about 0.91% of adults (1 in 110) in the U.S. resident population.[2] Additionally, 4,751,400 adults in 2013 (1 in 51) were on probation or on parole.[2] In total, 6,899,000 adults were under correctional supervision (probation, parole, jail, or prison) in 2013 – about 2.8% of adults (1 in 35) in the U.S. resident population.[2]

The Vera Institute of Justice reported in 2015 that jails throughout the United States have become warehouses for the poor, the mentally ill and those suffering from addiction as such individuals lack the financial means or mental capacity to post bail.[13]

According to a 2014 Human Rights Watch report, "tough-on-crime" laws adopted since the 1980s, have filled U.S. prisons with mostly nonviolent offenders.[14] This policy failed to rehabilitate prisoners and many were worse on release than before incarceration. Rehabilitation programs for offenders can be more cost effective than prison.[15] According to the Brennan Center for Justice, falling crime rates cannot be ascribed to mass incarceration.[16]

Prison population
At the beginning of 2008, more than 1 in 100 adults in the United States were in prison or jail.[20][21] Total US incarceration peaked in 2008.[/b] Total correctional population (prison, jail, probation, parole) peaked in 2007.[2] If all prisoners are counted (including juvenile, territorial, ICE, Indian country, and military), then in 2008 the US had around 24.7% of the world's 9.8 million prisoners.[8][19][22]

In 2008, approximately one in every 31 adults (7.3 million) in the United States was either behind bars or being monitored (probation and parole). In recent decades the U.S. has experienced a surge in its prison population, quadrupling since 1980, partially as a result of mandatory sentencing that came about during the "War on Drugs."

Duration
Main article: Criminal sentencing in the United States

Many legislatures continually have reduced discretion of judges in both the sentencing process and the determination of when the conditions of a sentence have been satisfied. Determinate sentencing, use of mandatory minimums, and guidelines-based sentencing continue to remove the human element from sentencing, such as the prerogative of the judge to consider the mitigating or extenuating circumstances of a crime to determine the appropriate length of the incarceration. As the consequence of "three strikes laws," the increase in the duration of incarceration in the last decade was most pronounced in the case of life prison sentences, which increased by 83% between 1992 and 2003 while violent crimes fell in the same period.[25]

Violent crime was not responsible for the quadrupling of the incarcerated population in the United States from 1980 to 2003. Violent crime rates had been relatively constant or declining over those decades. The prison population was increased primarily by public policy changes causing more prison sentences and lengthening time served, e.g. through mandatory minimum sentencing, "three strikes" laws, and reductions in the availability of parole or early release. 49 percent of sentenced state inmates were held for violent offenses. Perhaps the single greatest force behind the growth of the prison population has been the national "War on Drugs." The number of incarcerated drug offenders has increased twelvefold since 1980. In 2000, 22 percent of those in federal and state prisons were convicted on drug charges. [28][29] In 2011, 55.6% of the 1,131,210 sentenced prisoners in state prisons were being held for violent crimes (this number excludes the 200,966 prisoners being held due parole violations, of which 39.6% were re-incarcerated for a subsequent violent crime).[30] Also in 2011, 3.7% of the state prison population consisted of prisoners whose highest conviction was for drug possession (again excluding those incarcerated for parole violations of which 6.0% were re-incarcerated for a subsequent act of drug possession).[30]

The U.S. incarceration rate peaked in 2008 when about 1 in 100 US adults was behind bars.[21] This incarceration rate exceeded the average incarceration levels in the Soviet Union during the existence of the Gulag system, when the Soviet Union's population reached 168 million, and 1.2 to 1.5 million people were in the Gulag prison camps and colonies (i.e. about 0.8 imprisoned per 100 USSR residents, according to numbers from Anne Applebaum and Steven Rosefielde).[43][44] The Soviet Union's incarceration rates from 1934 to 1953 were historically the world's highest for a modern age country, according to The Gulag Archipelago book (1973) by Nobel Prize winner Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.[45] In The New Yorker article The Caging of America (2012), Adam Gopnik writes: "Over all, there are now more people under 'correctional supervision' in America—more than six million—than were in the Gulag Archipelago under Stalin at its height."[46]
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Jhanananda May 30, 2016, 02:45:50 AM
Lawsuit: NYPD Harassing and Targeting Homeless New Yorkers (http://www.democracynow.org/2016/5/27/headlines/lawsuit_nypd_harassing_and_targeting_homeless_new_yorkers)
In New York, a new lawsuit accuses the New York Police Department of intentionally profiling and harassing people who live on the streets. The suit was filed by the ACLU and the group Picture the Homeless. It says the NYPD is engaging in discriminatory policing by targeting people who live on the streets with so-called "move along" orders, in which officers tell people sitting or standing on the sidewalk to go somewhere else, even though they have broken no laws.
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Jhanananda June 07, 2016, 01:31:34 PM
(https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13335533_10154871166151521_1637037398149648093_n.jpg?oh=a39842e36c179504120562d34ce4f5e4&oe=57C2EF15)
Wanted, Safe, legal sleep (https://www.facebook.com/events/260222431002679/)
There will be a meeting of supporters of the Prescott area homeless population, where a group of homeless people will present their problem of finding a safe, legal place to sleep in Prescott, AZ. Please come if you are interested in supporting this cause.  The event will be at the Congregational UCC Sanctuary at 216 E. Gurely St., Prescott, AZ., this Thursday, as 6PM.
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Jhanananda June 21, 2016, 12:29:13 PM
A friend of the GWV just sent me a link to freecampsites.net (https://freecampsites.net/).  I plan to spend some time checking it out as a resource.  With a few minutes of investigation it did not give me much more information than I have now, but I will continue to use it as a resource for now.

Yesterday a fellow rubber tramp told me of a rubber tramp rendezvous, which was held nearby.  Apparently the forest service ran them off.  I did not find a website for them, but here are some photos of the rubber tramp rendezvous (https://www.google.com/search?q=rubber+tramp+rendezvous&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjrz_nzjrnNAhXLVz4KHVmVDhwQsAQIKg&biw=1436&bih=799).
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Jhanananda July 07, 2016, 12:51:37 PM
(https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/45107_533453686665034_1429169322_n.jpg?oh=1324637d361dfd267494c119f1dfc5f7&oe=582B7FBC)
Published Wednesday, February 5th, 1902 edition of the Daily Arizona Journal-Miner, Prescott, AZ.

A friend showed me this article that was published in the local Prescott, AZ newspaper around the early part of the 20t century.  It provides reasonable compelling evidence that old homeless people are not valued in any culture.

Attacks on homeless have police in manhunt, population on edge (http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/jul/05/homeless-attacks-suspect-burned-fliers/)
By David Hernandez and Lyndsay Winkley | 6:28 p.m. July 5, 2016 | Updated, 8:16 a.m. | July 6, 2016
Fourth vicious attack targeting homeless leaves man critically hurt. Two dead, two critically hurt in what police say is series of attacks on men living on streets.

San Diego — San Diego’s homeless population and the organizations that work with it are on edge as police continue to hunt for the assailant believed to have killed two homeless men and left a third fighting for his life.

Investigators have been working around the clock to catch the killer, San Diego homicide Capt. David Nisleit said. Detectives and the department’s homeless outreach team have been patrolling known encampments to prevent any other attacks and to inform transients of the danger.


: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Jhanananda August 23, 2016, 02:32:51 PM
As a homeless person I have found that there are a number of causes of homelessness in the USA.  Our punitive legal system is at the root of it: 

Being tough on DUI has its pros and cons; because, since 50% of the population is 1 paycheck from homelessness, then a tough fine for DUI means the first offense could lead to homelessness.

Strictest And Most Lenient States On DUI (https://wallethub.com/edu/dui-penalties-by-state/13549/).  Arizona is considered the strictest state in the USA on DUI.

Comparing the lower chart with this chart we can see whether strictness on DUI leads to fewer death due to DUI. It seems so.

2013 Drunk Driving Fatalities by State (http://2013 Drunk Driving Fatalities by State)
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Jhanananda August 30, 2016, 07:20:03 PM
I started an urban camping project for the homeless with the help of Paul Michelle of the Coalition for Compassion and Justice (CCJ) about 8 months ago in Prescott, AZ. Here is a link to an article about it.‘Safe Legal Sleep’: Project offers temporary shelter to the homeless (http://www.dcourier.com/news/2016/aug/28/safe-legal-sleep-project-offers-temporary-shelter-/)
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Frederick September 13, 2016, 12:59:41 AM
Drinking and driving is dangerous, but there is too much emphasis on it for road safety.

Our roads are dangerous by design and engineers know that. So to get around having to make safer roads, they use drunk drivers as a scapegoat.

It's nice that we have less deaths due to drinking and driving. I'm a fan of that.

Last time I checked, 1/2 the people who died in car wrecks were sober. They can't give a dui for driving like an asshole, even if in some cases, that might be more dangerous.
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Jhanananda September 13, 2016, 03:12:26 AM
Good points, follinge.  Good to hear from you.

I am not really sure what to say about DUI laws.  We really cannot afford to have drunk drivers running people over.  On the other hand we cannot be making homeless people due to laws which are too strict.
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Frederick September 15, 2016, 04:55:02 PM
They could have fines proportional to one's income. They can grant community service instead of fines depending on the situation.

There's a lot that can be done to make the roads safer which has nothing to do with socially engineering fallible humans or demanding perfection of us.
: Re: homeless, and urban camping rights
: Jhanananda September 15, 2016, 06:38:58 PM
In my experience people are generally made homeless, and without an automobile and driver's license before fines are made dependent upon income, or replaced with community service.  By then the individual's life has been ruined for good.