Houseless is NOT Homeless!?

California seems to set the pace for cities in many ways. Throughout the country, many areas are skirting around the abolishment of former vagrancy laws and making homelessness a crime! This is a violation of Civil Rights!!!

In 1951 Santa Rosa’s population was 17,000. By 2005 had grown to 170,000 (a 10 times increase in over 50 years). By comparison, in 1994 the homeless population here (after tripling in 2 years) was estimated at about 150. By 2005 a census showed that homeless folks had increased to 1,700 (that they knew of) a 10 times increase in about 10 years). That disproportionate figure was not representative of the influx of new arrivals, but a residual affect of new arrivals that was the "growth-being-good-for-the-economy".

Comparing those notes, (they have never actually been able to count completely acurate all) the estimated current homeless population (as of-July 2007) - being over 2,200, the available space in the shelter in 1994 of 280 beds has been replaced by a facility with only 80 beds!?... and that's the progress to show for 13 years!??

It seems that some areas have more concern to facilitate folks more appropriately. There are many who do not want to be "warehoused" due to the conflicts that often occur there. It typifies the difference in attitudes between people just like the difference of behavior between people in general. The cost of housing has increased over 20 times while during the same period that the wage earnings increased less than 20%! This is typical the economic imbalance nationally which, by the way, the homeless population was last reported at 3 MILLION!!

Typically, governing agencies come up with the wrong solution to a given problem. Good examples are inappropriate law changes, "band-aids" for problems instead of an attempt to fix-it. It's the same efficiency of amendments to an amendment of an amendment etc. There wouldn’t be more need for more food at the kitchens and food banks, more shelters (the kitchens and food banks are growing in abundance), if the client population was reduced, instead of growing. The contribution to the problem is that some of the former donators are now clients!!!

A more current (attempted) “solution” not only fails to solve problems (IE: complaints regarding the homeless) but creates new problems, and doesn’t even ease the original problem (just moves it to additional areas). The complaints that are not limited to just homeless (including urination, littering, panhandling, drug & alcohol abuse, etc.) are obviously behaviors by all echelons in society. Those, with "inappropriate behavior", behaved inappropriately before becoming homeless... and likewise, responsible conduct is not exclusive to those having a residence!!?

Consider, after being refused the privilege (or should it be a right?) the use of a public restroom then walking maybe 6 blocks or more to another facility only to be refused (even shunned again), and then again.... Sooner or later common sense will dictate that nature will run it's course. Eventually, one will just skip to the last part - (go figure?). Litter violators, trash dumping are especially not exclusive to the homeless, but significant by each and every ill-mannered, uncaring and unthinking social group!!! Alcoholism starts in the home, and the last I heard, proficient drug dealers can afford a residence!

Until attention is paid to the Real facts since the 1980's... connect the dots to the reality of it all... then, more will experience the rude awakening of testing their survival skills (or the lack of!).

California seems to set the pace for cities in many ways. Throughout the country, many areas are skirting around the abolishment of former vagrancy laws and making homelessness a crime! This is a violation of Civil Rights!!!

In 1951 Santa Rosa’s population was 17,000. By 2005 had grown to 170,000 (a 10 times increase in over 50 years). By comparison, in 1994 the homeless population here (after tripling in 2 years) was estimated at about 150. By 2005 a census showed that homeless folks had increased to 1,700 (that they knew of) a 10 times increase in about 10 years). That disproportionate figure was not representative of the influx of new arrivals, but a residual affect of new arrivals that was the "growth-being-good-for-the-economy".

Comparing those notes, (they have never actually been able to count completely acurate all) the estimated current homeless population (as of-July 2007) - being over 2,200, the available space in the shelter in 1994 of 280 beds has been replaced by a facility with only 80 beds!?... and that's the progress to show for 13 years!??

It seems that some areas have more concern to facilitate folks more appropriately. There are many who do not want to be "warehoused" due to the conflicts that often occur there. It typifies the difference in attitudes between people just like the difference of behavior between people in general. The cost of housing has increased over 20 times while during the same period that the wage earnings increased less than 20%! This is typical the economic imbalance nationally which, by the way, the homeless population was last reported at 3 MILLION!!

Typically, governing agencies come up with the wrong solution to a given problem. Good examples are inappropriate law changes, "band-aids" for problems instead of an attempt to fix-it. It's the same efficiency of amendments to an amendment of an amendment etc. There wouldn’t be more need for more food at the kitchens and food banks, more shelters (the kitchens and food banks are growing in abundance), if the client population was reduced, instead of growing. The contribution to the problem is that some of the former donators are now clients!!!

A more current (attempted) “solution” not only fails to solve problems (IE: complaints regarding the homeless) but creates new problems, and doesn’t even ease the original problem (just moves it to additional areas). The complaints that are not limited to just homeless (including urination, littering, panhandling, drug & alcohol abuse, etc.) are obviously behaviors by all echelons in society. Those with inappropriate behavior, behaved inappropriately before becoming homeless... likewise responsible conduct is not exclusive to having a residence!!?

Consider, after being refused the privilege (or should it be a right?) the use of a public restroom then walking maybe 6 blocks or more to another facility only to be refused (even shunned again), and then again.... Sooner or later common sense will dictate that nature will run it's course. Eventually, one will just skip to the last part - (go figure?). Litter violators, trash dumping are especially not exclusive to the homeless, but significant by each and every ill-mannered, uncaring and unthinking social group!!! Alcoholism starts in the home, and the last I heard, proficient drug dealers can afford a residence!
Until attention is paid to the Real facts since the 1980's... connect the dots to the reality of it all... then, more will experience the rude awakening of testing their survival skills (or the lack of!).

If you think these are problems so far... wait until you get a load of WORSE!!?!

I am John Doe Houseless...... not homeless

JohnDoeHouseless@Yahoo.COM

Edited by John Doe Homeless on Sep 29, 2005 at 6:07 PM

Homelessness is NOT Illegal!!?!

The U.S. 9th
District Court
Court Rules!!! **************************
What were the local governing agencies expecting to accomplish by punishing and persecuting the unfortunate folks who are merely attempting to survive by living within their means?! That is to reference the inappropriately created ordinances by cities and counties throughout the country making it a crime for camping in public as termed by Sonoma County amongst others. However it is worded, it merely skirts around the formerly abolished vagrancy laws and literally violates Civil Liberties as I have advocated since these laws began to be put into place.
In April, 2006 the U.S. 9th District Appeals Court ruled that "making it a crime to be homeless by charging them with a crime is in violation of the 8th Amendment." The previous link provides the complete transcript. Excerpts of that transcript in the following:

L.A., Cal., Mun. Code ss 41.18(d) (2005).
A violation of section 41.18(d) is punishable by
a fine of up to $1000 and/or imprisonment of up
to six months.
Id. ss 11.00(m).

The City could not expressly criminalize the status of homelessness by making it a crime to be homeless without violating the Eighth Amendment, nor can it criminalize acts that are an integral aspect of that status. Because there is substantial and undisputed evidence that the number of homeless persons in Los Angeles far exceeds the number of available shelter beds at all times, including on the nights of their arrest or citation, Los Angeles has encroached upon Appellants' Eighth Amendment protections by criminalizing the unavoidable act of sitting, lying or sleeping at night while being involuntarily homeless.

Jones argues that LAMC ss 41.18(d) makes criminal what biology and circumstance make necessary, that is, sitting, lying, and sleeping on the streets. He maintains that the gap between the number of homeless persons in Los Angeles, and the number of available shelter beds, leaves thousands without shelter every night. Jones claims that some 42,000 people are homeless each night in the City of Los Angeles, with approximately 11,000 living in the Skid Row area. The number of homeless persons exceeds the number of available shelter beds. Of the 11,000 on Skid Row, approximately 7,000 sleep in a single room occupancy facility and 2,000 stay in emergency shelter facilities.

[14]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.)

id. at 568 n.31
(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

That being an impossibility, by criminalizing sitting, lying, and sleeping, the City is in fact criminalizing Appellants' status as homeless individuals. Similarly, applying Robinson and Powell, courts have found statutes criminalizing the status of vagrancy to be unconstitutional. For example, Goldman v. Knecht declared unconstitutional a Colorado statute making it a crime for "'[a]ny person able to work and support himself'" to "'be found loitering or strolling about, frequenting public places,...begging or leading an idle, immoral or profligate course of life, or not having any visible means of support.'" 295 F. Supp. 897, 899 n.2, 908 (D. Colo. 1969) (three-judge court); see also Wheeler v. Goodman, 306 F. Supp. 58, 59 n.1, 62, 66 (W.D.N.C. 1969) (three judge court) (striking down as unconstitutional under Robinson a statute making it a crime to, inter alia, be able to work but have no property or "'visible and known means'" of earning a livelihood), vacated on other grounds, 401 U.S. 987 (1971).

Protection against deprivations of life, liberty and property without due process is, of course, the role of the Fourteenth Amendment, not the Eighth. The majority's analysis of the substantive component of the Eighth Amendment blurs the two. However, the Eighth Amendment does not afford due process protection when a Fourteenth Amendment claim proves unavailing.

The defense encompasses the very difficulties that Jones posits here: sleeping on the streets because alternatives were inadequate and economic forces were primarily to blame for his predicament. Id. at 390. Jones argues that he and other homeless people are not willing or able to pursue such a defense because the costs of pleading guilty are so low and the risks and challenges of pleading innocent are substantial.

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.

The complete official court transcript can be found here >>> The 9th District Federal Court of Appeals includes the opinions of the judges.

HOWEVER - . . . some areas in California (Sonoma County, L.A., and San Francisco) if not stupid stupid, then they are being soooo . . . arrogant as to continue to violate Civil Rights in this manner!!
. . . and now the "Homeland Security" mentality is protecting WHOSE homeland while pissing off the rest of the world enough to cause such a wonderful life we have now realized!!!!!?????!!

Awareness... not - ABOUT homelessness, but of the injustice to these many folks who had no clue (until personally impacted)! It's a rude awakening finding out the hard way, but then it's useless to complain then. Encouraging a focus on reducing the causes of the increase of folks resorting to attempt living within inadequate means after passing the point of the proverbial "one pay check away". Perpetuating a criminal element (and many expand that when there is nothing else to lose), is not only counterproductive but everyone pays! As the differences between wage earnings and housing costs continues to widen, so also does the ability to recover. The volumes affected already will not recover long after wages become affordable in relationship with the approaching costs of living!

The Watch Dogs are Watching
the Watch Dogs!!

... the doors

are WIDE OPEN!

>>Audio Presentation<<

PLEASE******************Observe what the hardships of a meager existence does to folks in ..............
A HOMELESS INSIGHT in * M-anytown-S- * U.$.$.A.

I am John Doe Homeless...and these are my Viewpoints!
JohnDoeHomeless@homelessreality.org

Posted June 30,2006 at 7:59 PM