BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING
Senator Jim Beall, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 608 Hearing Date: 4/7/2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Liu |
|----------+------------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |2/27/2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant|Alison Dinmore |
|: | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Right to Rest Act
DIGEST: This bill enacts the Right to Rest Act, which would
afford persons experiencing homelessness the right to use public
space without discrimination based on their housing status and a
civil remedy if their rights pursuant to the Act are violated.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
Under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, provides that all persons are
free and equal no matter what their sex, race, color, religion,
ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition,
genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation, and
are entitled to full and equal accommodations, advantages,
facilities, privileges, or services in all business
establishments.
Under the California Penal Code, provides that any person who
lodges in any building, structure, vehicle, or place without the
permission of the owner or person entitled to the possession or
control in it shall be guilty of disorderly conduct, a
misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not
exceeding six months, or by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or
both.
This bill enacts the Right to Rest Act, which provides that
persons experiencing homelessness shall be permitted to use
SB 608 (Liu) Page 2 of ?
public space without discrimination based on their housing
status. Additionally, civil and human rights afforded in the
home and other private places shall be extended to public areas
where homeless persons live.
More specifically, this bill provides that every person in the
state shall have the following basic human and civil rights that
may be exercised without being subject to criminal or civil
sanctions or harassment by law enforcement, public or private
security, or agents of a business improvement district (BID):
1.The right to use and move freely in public spaces without
discrimination and without time limitations that discriminate
based upon housing status.
2.The right to rest in public spaces and to protect oneself from
the elements in a non-obstructive manner.
3.The right to eat, share, accept, or give food in any public
space in which having food is not otherwise generally
prohibited.
4.The right to pray, meditate, worship, or practice religion in
public spaces without discrimination based upon housing
status.
5.The right to occupy a motor vehicle or a recreational vehicle
provided the vehicle is legally parked on public property or
parked on private property with the permission of the property
owner.
This bill provides that a person whose rights are violated
pursuant to this Act may enforce those rights in a civil action
and may be entitled to: injunctive and declaratory relief;
restitution for loss of property or personal effects and
belongings; actual damages; compensatory damages; exemplary
damages; statutory damage of $1,000 per violation; and
reasonable attorney's fees and costs to a prevailing party.
Additionally, this bill exempts a person who lodges in any
building, structure, vehicle, or place without the permission of
the owner or person entitled to possession or control of it,
from committing a misdemeanor if that conduct is protected under
this Act.
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose of the bill. The author states that this bill seeks
to end the criminalization of the non-criminal activities of
SB 608 (Liu) Page 3 of ?
life exercised by homeless people by protecting the freedom of
movement, sitting, standing, lying, and sleeping, and
clarifying that people shall have the right to share food and
practice religion in public in California. With poverty and
homelessness reaching record numbers in California, there has
been a documented increase in laws that target people without
homes and impact the poor. These anti-homeless laws -
commonly referred to as "vagrancy," "quality of life," or
"anti-nuisance" laws - deny people the right to exist in
public. A survey of homeless people conducted by the Western
Region Advocacy Project revealed that the majority of people
without homes do not know of a safe place to sleep at night
where they would not be arrested.
A report, published by the independent federal agency United
States Interagency Council on Homelessness, called "Searching
out Solutions: Constructive Alternatives to Criminalization"
demonstrates that enforcement of laws against resting is
ineffective; it does not increase business revenue or improve
public perception of the problem of homelessness. These laws
effectively make it harder for people to escape homelessness
because the resulting warrants, fines, and criminal records
make people ineligible for jobs and housing. This report was
commended in a resolution by the U.S. Conference of Mayors.
The U.S. Conference of Mayors also urged its members to review
and adopt the recommendations in the report to meet the needs
of the larger community as a whole while also enhancing
progress on efforts to end homelessness.
2.Factors contributing to homelessness. Homelessness is the
most severe face of poverty. According to the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development, California had 113,952
homeless people, or 20% of the nation's overall homeless
population, in January 2014. Of California's total homeless
population, 27% were chronically homeless, 20% were in
households with at least one parent and one child, 10% were
veterans, and 10% were victims of domestic violence.
California also had the largest number of homeless families,
unaccompanied homeless youth, and homeless veterans.
Contemporary homelessness began in the early 1980s due to
shifts in economic and social policy at the federal level,
such as dramatic cuts in affordable housing and other programs
designed to serve low-income people. These economic and
social policies continue to contribute to homelessness today.
SB 608 (Liu) Page 4 of ?
In addition, California's homelessness rates are exacerbated
by the state's lack of affordable housing and decreased
funding from the loss of redevelopment. Rents have risen to
levels that make it difficult for low-wage workers to find
affordable rental units. California has one of the nation's
highest rates of "poor renters," or people that spend more
than 50% of their income on rent. While most homeless people
in the U.S. lived in emergency shelters or transitional
housing in 2013, most homeless people in California were
unsheltered. California's high housing costs and shortage of
shelters leave many homeless people with no choice but to rest
and sleep in public.
3.Data indicates vagrancy laws punish status, not behavior.
Researchers from the Policy Advocacy Clinic at the University
of California at Berkeley Law School identified and analyzed
more than 500 municipal laws that criminalize standing,
sitting, resting, sleeping, and sharing of food in public
places in its report "California's New Vagrancy Laws: The
Growing Enactment and Enforcement of Anti-Homeless Laws in the
Golden State." The report found that the number of ordinances
targeting those behaviors rose with the increase in
homelessness following the sharp decline of federal funding
for affordable housing in the 1980s and again with the Great
Recession in 2008. Researchers noticed a similar correlation
between arrests and the economy; arrests rose during times of
economic recessions and fell during rises in the economy. The
report noted that these trends indicate that enforcement of
vagrancy ordinances increases in response to deteriorating
economic conditions and rising levels of homelessness.
Since 2011, despite decreases in unemployment and reduced
impacts of the Great Recession, vagrancy arrests have
continued to trend upwards. Additionally, researchers found
that statewide arrests for these types of offenses rose by
77%, while arrests for drunkenness and disorderly conduct have
decreased by 16% and 48% respectively. The report suggests
that homeless people are being punished for their status,
rather than their behavior.
4.Creating barriers to housing and other services. The Western
Regional Advocacy Project led a survey effort documenting
homeless people's experiences with the criminal justice system
for survival-related crimes. More than three quarters of
survey respondents (78%) reported being harassed, cited, or
SB 608 (Liu) Page 5 of ?
arrested by police officers for sleeping outside.
Seventy-five percent reported the same for sitting or lying
down, and 76% for loitering or "hanging out." Most of the
relevant laws are infractions, which generally do not result
in jail or prison time but do carry significant fines. Due to
an inability to pay fines or make a court appearance, 57%
reported bench warrants for their arrest.
Arrests and criminal records create a significant barrier to
employment. For those who are working, an arrest or
associated court appearances can cost them their jobs.
Involvement with the criminal justice system often limits a
person's eligibility for public programs, cutting them off
from the social safety net. The Western Regional Policy
Project suggests that enforcement of these laws ultimately
does not address the root causes of homelessness and could bar
the homeless from accessing public assistance, qualifying for
public housing, and finding and maintaining employment.
5.Local costs? Opponents argue that the enactment of this bill
will lead to increased local costs and loss of revenues
associated with maintenance and repair to public parks, public
facilities, and open spaces, and would impact businesses. The
researchers at Policy Advocacy Clinic at the UC Berkeley Law
School argue, however, that it might be more costly to enforce
these vagrancy laws. In addition to time police officers
spend issuing citations, the justice system spends time and
money processing them. In San Francisco alone, the Superior
Court processing costs for anti-homeless citations was
estimated at $4.10 per case in 2000, resulting in $77,900 in
costs that year. The San Francisco District Attorney's office
then spent $317,086 processing infractions and misdemeanors
that same year.
An analysis published by the United States Interagency Council
on Homelessness analyzed cost studies of homeless
interventions conducted between 2004 and 2009 in major U.S.
cities, including Los Angeles and San Francisco, and found
that U.S. jurisdictions spend an average of $87 per day to
incarcerate an individual in a county jail, but only $28 per
day to offer shelter. Further, programs that offer housing
and supportive services, such as Project 50 in Los Angeles,
realized a surplus after two years due to savings on
incarceration and medical services. The researchers at the
Policy Advocacy Clinic at the UC Berkeley Law School concludes
SB 608 (Liu) Page 6 of ?
that enforcement efforts may burden cities with significant
financial costs.
6.Right for homeless people to use public space. In addition to
protection from discrimination based on housing status, this
bill would establish a right for the homeless to use public
spaces in the same manner as any other person. This bill does
not preclude a local jurisdiction from imposing time, place,
or manner restrictions on use of public space, so long as
those restrictions do not treat homeless and non-homeless
persons differently. For example, a city may impose time
restrictions on the use of a park, so long as the restriction
is not intended to target the homeless or being enforced only
against them. This bill also allows a person to sleep in their
car on public property and on private property with the
permission of the property owner, provided no other laws are
being broken. For example, if a city limits parking to less
than two hours or prohibits parking a recreational vehicle,
these laws would still apply.
Further, this bill would extend civil and human rights to
public places where homeless people live. A person whose
rights have been violated may enforce those rights in a civil
action and be entitled to appropriate relief and damages,
including restitution and reasonable attorney's fees.
7.Clarification of "public space." The bill defines public
space as property owned, in whole or in part, by a state or
local government entity or any property upon which there is an
easement for public use and that is held open to the public.
Campgrounds owned by public entities and open for public use
often require payment for use of camp sites and may fall under
this definition of public space. Additionally, some state or
local entities hold property open for public use at certain
times but are closed at other times. The author does not
intend for this bill to apply to public space that requires a
fee or is closed to all persons. The author has agreed to
accept amendments that would clarify that the Act shall not
apply to a public space during a time when it is closed to all
persons or when a fee is required for entry or use.
8.Opposition. Opponents argue that this bill is misguided and
may incentivize homeless activity in cities, particularly
among a subgroup of individuals who refuse assistance, rather
than addressing the root causes of homelessness. This bill
SB 608 (Liu) Page 7 of ?
will establish a right to live on the streets, thus creating
unsanitary conditions, impeding business, and creating
intimidating and uncomfortable environments that will be
undesirable for others to visit. Opponents state that this
bill would usurp voter-approved ordinances that seek to
balance the rights, health, and safety of all their residents
by preventing camping, sleeping, and lying on the streets.
Opponents further argue that the bill creates confusion as to
what activities are permitted, making enforcement of its
provisions challenging to law enforcement, BID agents, and
public and private security personnel. For example, the
actions of those who seek to assist the homeless, under this
bill, could be considered "harassment." As indicated above,
the bill may also result in additional costs and loss of
revenues to local jurisdictions associated with maintenance
and repair to public parks, public facilities, and open
spaces.
9.Double-referral. The Senate Rules Committee has referred this
bill to both this committee and the Judiciary Committee.
RELATED LEGISLATION:
AB 5 (Ammiano, 2014) - Would have created the Homeless Person's
Bill of Rights and Fairness Act, which: 1) prohibited the
discrimination against the homeless by public entities; 2)
provided that every person had the right to move freely, rest,
eat, accept, or give food or water, and solicit donations in
public spaces; and 3) established the right to lawful
self-employment, confidentiality of specified records, and
assistance of legal counsel. The bill also required the
Department of Public Health to fund the provision of health and
hygiene centers for use by homeless persons in designated areas.
This bill was held on suspense in the Assembly Appropriations
Committee.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.: Yes Local: Yes
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on
Wednesday,
April 1, 2015.)
SB 608 (Liu) Page 8 of ?
SUPPORT:
East Bay Community Law Center (Co-sponsor)
JERICHO: A Voice for Justice (Co-sponsor)
Western Center on Law and Poverty (Co-sponsor)
Western Regional Advocacy Project (Co-sponsor)
American Civil Liberties Union of California (ACLU-CA)
Affordable Homeless Housing Alternatives (AHHA)
AWARE-LA
Berkeley Needle Exchange Emergency Distribution (Berkeley NEED)
Caduceus Justice
California Catholic Conference, Inc.
California Council of Churches IMPACT
California Partnership
Californians United for a Responsible Budget (CURB)
City Paws L.A.
Clarion Alley Mural Project (CAMP)
Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc.
Cooperation for Supportive Housing (CSH)
Drug Policy Alliance
Elica Health Centers
Esperanza Community Housing Corporation
Fair Chance Project
Food Not Bombs
Foothill House of Hospitality
General Assistance Advocacy Project (GAAP)
Girls Think Tank
Grey Panthers of San Francisco
Gubbio Project
Homeless Health Care Los Angeles
Homeless Lives Matter - Berkeley
Homeless Action Center
Housing California
HOUSING WORKS
Hunger Action Los Angeles (HALA)
Instituto de Educacion Popular del Sur de California (IDEPSCA)
Issues and Solutions
JWCH Institute, Inc.
L.A. for Choice
L.A. Human Right to Housing Collective
Labor Community Strategy Center
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay
Area
Larkin Street Youth Services
Lavender Youth Recreation and Information Center (LYRIC)
SB 608 (Liu) Page 9 of ?
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children (LSPC)
Los Angeles Poverty Department (LAPD)
Los Angeles Catholic Worker
Los Angeles Community Action Network (LACAN)
Mutual Housing California
National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and
Youth
(NAEHCY)
National Association of Social Workers, California (NASW-CA)
National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH)
National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty
Occupy Orange County
Occupy Venice
Peace and Freedom Party of California
People Organized for Westside Renewal (POWER)
Prison Activist Resource Center (PARC)
Redwood Gospel Mission
Safe Ground Sacramento
Sacramento Food Not Bombs
Sacramento Homeless Organizing Committee (SHOC)
Sacramento Housing Alliance
Sacramento Loaves and Fishes
Sacramento Regional Coalition to End Homelessness (SRCEH)
San Francisco Coalition on Homelessness
San Francisco Living Wage Coalition
Southern California Association of Non-Profit Housing
Spirit of Venice
Strategic Actions for a Just Economy
St. Anthony Foundation
St. James Infirmary - San Francisco
St. Mary's Center - Oakland
Suitcase Clinic
Tenemos que Reclamar y Unidos Salvar La Tierra (TRUST South LA)
United Coalition East Prevention Project (UCEPP)
Venice Community Housing
Venice Justice Committee
Women Organizing Resources, Knowledge, and Services (WORKS)
Wind Youth Services
6 Individuals
OPPOSITION:
California Chamber of Commerce
California Park and Recreation Society
SB 608 (Liu) Page 10 of ?
California State Sheriffs' Association
Central City Association of Los Angeles
Central City East Association
Hollywood Property Owners Alliance
Los Angeles Fashion District Business Improvement District
League of California Cities
Sacramento County District Attorney, Anne Marie Schubert
Small Business California
South Park Business Improvement District
Sunset and Vine Business Improvement District
Westchester Town Center
7 Individuals
-- END --