Alliance for Housing Justice’s Post

Criminalizing poverty solves nothing. It never has and it never will. Aside from exacerbating an already challenging and deeply nuanced sociopolitical and economic situation, enacting and enforcing such laws is fundamentally cruel, unfair, and dehumanizing. Ultimately, it functions as a mechanism of oppression making it impossible to escape, let alone excel. We need to come together as human beings, embrace diversity of thought, and harness the deep and powerful knowledge that comes from lived experience to envision a new way forward built on a foundation of inclusivity, equity and fairness.

Today, June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court's ruling permits municipalities to criminalize homelessness by prohibiting outdoor sleeping, even with basic items like pillows and blankets. This decision poses a significant setback for the individuals we serve, potentially enabling local laws that further marginalize unhoused populations. ISBH vehemently opposes such measures. At ISBH, we firmly believe that housing is healthcare and homelessness is not a crime. Despite the disappointing implications of this ruling, we remain committed to advocating for policies that prioritize housing solutions and uphold the dignity and rights of individuals experiencing homelessness. #HousingIsHealthcare #Dignity

The Supreme Court will review rulings on enforcing bans on homeless encampments, potentially allowing cities to implement stricter measures. - 🏛️ The Supreme Court will review lower court rulings on banning homeless encampments. - 🏘️ Cities argue these rulings hinder efforts to address homelessness effectively. - 📉 Critics say punitive measures don't solve the root causes, like lack of affordable housing. - 🌍 This decision could impact how cities nationwide manage homelessness. #Homelessness #SupremeCourt #PublicPolicy - 🏙️ Case prompted by Grants Pass, Oregon, challenging the constitutionality of anti-camping ordinances. - 📝 California Governor Gavin Newsom supports the review to lift legal constraints. - 💡 Rulings currently view such ordinances as "cruel and unusual punishment" if no shelter is available. - 🚨 Potential outcome could allow for stricter enforcement against public encampments. Supreme Court: Cities can enforce bans on homeless people sleeping, reversing San Francisco ruling https://lnkd.in/gWzDupSt

Being unhoused is enough of a punishment. Last week, the Supreme Court decided in Grants Pass v. Johnson that communities nationwide should be able to fine, ticket or arrest individuals experiencing homelessness, even when adequate shelter is not accessible. Governor Gavin Newsom and Mayor London Breed have expressed approval for this ruling, which may impact unhoused communities in San Francisco. We stand in solidarity with our allies and fellow civil rights groups like the Coalition On Homelessness and the ACLU of Northern California in opposing this decision. Homelessness is not solved by criminalization, but rather, by safe and affordable housing. This ruling diverts attention from the real issues: lack of affordable housing, inadequate social services, and systemic inequalities. We urge our leaders to focus on proven strategies like permanent supportive housing and addressing the underlying causes of housing insecurity and homelessness. We urge our community to do the same. #HousingJustice #HousingForAll #AffordableHousing #SanFrancisco #BayArea

Here's another take on this important case that may effect many code divisions specifically those that assist with public spaces. The Supreme Court’s recent ruling allows cities like Grants Pass, Oregon, to enforce laws banning homeless encampments on public property. This decision overrules a lower court that had found such bans to be unconstitutional if no shelter beds were available. Grants Pass, a town of about 40,000, had enforced ordinances against sleeping in public spaces, leading to fines and potential jail time for homeless individuals. The town has faced issues with tents and camps in public parks, a concern for residents and local businesses reliant on tourism . The ruling will affect cities across the West by providing legal backing to enforce similar bans, potentially leading to increased penalization of homeless individuals. Critics, including dissenting Supreme Court justices, argue this approach criminalizes homelessness and fails to address its root causes, such as the lack of affordable housing and mental health services. They warn it could leave vulnerable populations with fewer protections and exacerbate the visibility of homelessness in public spaces.

The reality is cultural attitudes toward impoverished people – fueled by toxic portrayals, fear mongering in the media and systematic dehumanization – have made homelessness not a community problem to be solved, but an individual offense to be punished, and defines those who suffer this condition as enemies to the idyllic peace of ‘good (read: housed and well-fed) people’. Concerns about encampments and other sites where unhoused people make shelter are generally rooted in public safety, i.e unhealthy conditions that may arise in encampment communities, potential for localized crime, and the impact of these conditions on the surrounding community. But instead of solutions, towns and cities advance anti-camping and public-space ordinances that overwhelmingly punish people who have nowhere to go. The public safety argument positions the rights of homeless folks against the obligation of officials to protect housed people from homeless folks.

Criminalizing homelessness is not a solution to the housing crisis, nor does it build public safety. A study of nearly 70,000 cases found that prosecuting people for low-level crimes like public sleeping makes cities more dangerous and leads to more violent crime. But this month, the Supreme Court could decide if local governments can criminalize sleeping in public spaces. Lower courts have already ruled that doing so is illegal and the Supreme Court should reiterate that fact. https://lnkd.in/e9M2sWMq

So often, I see communities want to stop "pan-handling", people spending excess time in libraries, "loitering" in public spaces, tent cities, use of public parks without looking at root causes. Gregg Colburn and his colleagues are providing Real News and Real Data on housing affordability, lack of supply of housing, and ways to create safe shelter for all people. Criminalizing of people who are experiencing homelessness avoids our society - you and me- making a commitment to the common good. It is not just "housing first"; it is to see the "I" in front of me/you as having inherent dignity. That as a result, there have been those fighting for a right to housing; That no ideology can take away that dignity unless it is through lack of societal will. Unless we see the "I" in front as a criminal. How sad, we don't think of how we would want to be treated if we were to experience homelessness.

According to Opportunity Port program data, the second-most cited reason for folks applying to seal/expunge criminal convictions is housing. Are you a landlord? Property Manager? Property Owner? Real estate investor? Realtor? Do you have biases against people with criminal records? Have you ever considered the possibility that your bias is perpetuating harm? In addition to the importance of legal mechanisms to lessen the extra-legal/collateral consequences of a criminal record, we need a culture shift and to shift our mindsets about PEOPLE with criminal records. People deserve to be housed. People cannot thrive without a safe place to live. People with criminal records are PEOPLE.

🏡 We have worked with older people who have sadly experienced homelessness for the first time in their older age. For older people who remain in the private rental sector whether by choice or by obligation, interventions will be necessary to ensure their needs are met. For many others, alternative forms of housing – such as age-friendly social housing and other forms of supported housing – will need to be developed and delivered in increasing numbers. 🌐👵🏠 #DoubleDeficit #ALONEAdvocacy #Threshold