BILL ANALYSIS Ķ
SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING
Senator Jim Beall, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 876 Hearing Date: 3/29/2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Liu |
|----------+------------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |3/28/2016 Amended |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant|Alison Dinmore |
|: | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Homelessness
DIGEST: This bill affords 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
this bill are violated.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Provides that no person shall be unlawfully denied full and
equal access to the benefits of, or discriminated under, any
program or activity that is conducted, operated, or
administered by the state or by any state agency, on the basis
of race, national origin, ethnic group identification,
religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, color, genetic
information, or disability.
2)Provides that any person who lodges in any building,
structure, vehicle, or place, public or private, without the
permission of the owner or person entitled to the possession
or control of 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:
SB 876 (Liu) Page 2 of ?
1)Provides that persons experiencing homelessness shall be
permitted to use public space (specified below) at any time
that the public space is open to the public, without
discrimination based upon their housing status, and without
being subject to criminal, civil, or administrative penalties.
The intent of the Legislature is that this section shall be
interpreted broadly so as to prohibit policies or practices
that are discriminatory in either their purpose or their
effect. Persons experiencing homelessness may use public
space including, but not limited to, all of the following:
a) Free movement without restraint
b) Sleeping or resting, and protecting oneself from the
elements while sleeping or resting, in a non-obstructive
manner
c) Eating, sleeping, accepting, or giving food in a space
in which food is not otherwise generally prohibited
d) Praying, meditating, worshiping, or practicing religion
1)Defines "public space" as any property that is owned by a
government entity or upon which there is an easement for
public use and that is held open to the public, including, but
not limited to, plazas, courtyards, parking lots, sidewalks,
public transportation facilities and services, public
buildings, shopping centers, and parks. The ability to rest
shall not apply to a space during a time when it is closed to
all persons or when a fee is required for entry or use.
2)Defines "rest" as the state of not moving, holding certain
postures that include, but are not limited to, sitting,
standing, leaning, kneeling, squatting, sleeping, or lying.
3)Provides that nothing in this bill shall prevent law
enforcement from enforcing laws to protect the right of people
to use the sidewalk pursuant to the federal Americans with
Disabilities Act.
4)Provides that nothing in this bill shall prevent law
enforcement from enforcing the Penal Code, except Penal Code
Section 647(e) insofar as it prohibits rest. This exception
would exempt a person from committing a misdemeanor if that
conduct is protected under this bill.
5)Provides that a person whose rights are violated pursuant to
this bill may enforce those rights in a civil action and may
be entitled to: injunctive and declaratory relief; restitution
SB 876 (Liu) Page 3 of ?
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 plaintiff.
6)Requires all applicants for the U.S. Housing and Urban
Development's (HUD) Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance
Program funds to annually provide the Department of Housing
and Community Development's Division for Housing Policy
Development (DHPD) a copy of its application for funding from
HUD that includes the organization's response to the
application question regarding steps that its community is
taking to reduce criminalization of homelessness. DHPD shall
compile the information regarding community actions to reduce
criminalization of homelessness found in those applications
and provide an annual report to the Assembly Housing and
Community Development Committee and the Senate Transportation
and Housing Committee.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. The author states homelessness is the most severe
face of poverty. California is the eighth largest economy in
the world, yet home to the nation's largest homeless
population. This bill seeks to end the criminalization of the
non-criminal activities 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 United States Interagency Council on
Homelessness (US ICH), 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
SB 876 (Liu) Page 4 of ?
effectively make it harder for people to escape homelessness
because the resulting warrants, fines, and criminal records
make people ineligible for jobs and housing. To that end, HUD
included additional points to applications for 2015 Continuum
of Care Program funding that include steps the community is
taking to reduce the criminalization of the homeless. Cities
cannot continue to punish homeless individuals for engaging in
activities necessary for their survival. Arresting or
ticketing the homeless creates a criminal record that can lead
to rejection for jobs, education loans, and housing, and
further blocks their pathway out of poverty.
2)Factors contributing to homelessness. Homelessness is the
most severe face of poverty. According to HUD, California had
115,738 homeless people, or 21% of the nation's overall
homeless population, in January 2015. California had the
highest rate of unsheltered homeless people at 64% and the
second largest increase of homeless persons at 1.6%.
California also had the largest numbers of unaccompanied
homeless children and youth and veterans, and over one-third
of the nation's chronically homeless population.
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.
In addition, California's homelessness rates are exacerbated
by the state's lack of affordable housing and decreased
housing funding from the loss of statewide funding. 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
SB 876 (Liu) Page 5 of ?
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 (WRAP) 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 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. WRAP 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.
SB 876 (Liu) Page 6 of ?
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 the 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 US ICH 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 conclude
that enforcement efforts may burden cities with significant
financial costs.
6)Right for homeless people to use public space. This bill
would establish a right for a homeless person to use public
spaces in the same manner as any other person without
discrimination based upon their housing status and without
being subject to criminal, civil, or administrative penalties.
This bill does not preclude a local jurisdiction from
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 is only being enforced
against them.
This bill also does not preclude law enforcement from
enforcing the California Penal Code or laws that protect the
right of people to use the sidewalk pursuant to the federal
Americans with Disabilities Act. Further, a person whose
SB 876 (Liu) Page 7 of ?
rights have been violated may enforce those rights in a civil
action and be entitled to appropriate relief and damages,
including restitution and reasonable attorneys' fees.
7)Differences from SB 608. This bill is similar to SB 608,
which was heard in the Senate Transportation and Housing
Committee last year. The author's office made the following
changes to that bill to address concerns raised by members of
this committee and the opposition:
Deleted the definitions of "BID Agents," as the bill no
longer applies to them;
Deleted the definition of "harassment," as the bill no
longer applies to harassing behaviors;
Deletes the protection of people who are lawfully
occupying their car or recreational vehicle;
Clarifies the bill applies only to "public space," or
space held open to the public, and does not apply to public
space when it is closed to all persons or subject to a fee
for entry or use;
Clarifies that the bill does not prevent law enforcement
from enforcing laws to protect the rights of people to use
the sidewalk pursuant to the federal Americans with
Disabilities Act;
Clarifies that the bill does not prevent law enforcement
from enforcing the California Penal Code, except insofar as
it prohibits rest in public space.
1)Opposition. Opponents argue that this bill would preempt
local authority to address important issues affecting public
health and safety in public spaces and on property held open
to the public. Further, opponents allege that this bill will
not help the problem and would instead undermine existing
efforts to address homelessness. Instead, they propose
providing resources to provide permanent housing beds and
accompanying social services such as mental health treatment,
job training, and addiction counseling.
2)Double-referral. The Senate Rules Committee has referred this
bill to both this committee and the Judiciary Committee.
Related Legislation:
SB 608 (Liu, 2015) - would have created the Right to Rest Act,
SB 876 (Liu) Page 8 of ?
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. This bill failed passage in the Senate
Transportation and Housing Committee.
AB 5 (Ammiano, 2014) - would have created the Homeless Person's
Bill of Rights and Fairness Act, which: 1) prohibited
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,
March 23, 3016.)
SUPPORT:
ACLU of California
Affordable Homeless Housing Alternatives, Inc.
Affordable Housing Network of Santa Clara County
Alameda County Health Care for the Homeless Program
Consumer/Community Advisory Board
Alchemist Community Development Corporation
Alliance of White Antiracists Everywhere
American Friends Service Committee
Anti-Eviction Mapping Project
Building Opportunities for Self-Sufficiency
California Central Valley Journey for Justice
California Church IMPACT
California Civil Liberties Advocacy
California Coalition for Women Prisoners
SB 876 (Liu) Page 9 of ?
California Food Policy Advocates
California Partnership
California Partnership to End Domestic Violence
Caduceus Justice
Civic Center Roundtable
Coalition on Homelessness San Francisco
Community Homeless Alliance Ministry
Compass Family Services
Consumer Attorneys of California
Courage Campaign
Critical Resistance Oakland
Critical Resistance Los Angeles
Denver Homeless Out Loud
Disability Rights California
East Bay Community Law Center
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Episcopal Community Services of San Francisco
Faith in Action Bay Area
Food Not Bombs
Fort Collins Homeless Coalition
Gray Panthers
Health Care for the Homeless - Sacramento
H.O.M.E.L.E.S.S.
Homeless Action Center
Homeless Advocates for CHRIST
Hospitality House
Housing California
Housing for All Alliance of Silicon Valley
Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco
Hunger Action Los Angeles
Humboldt Unitarian Universalist Fellowship Social Action
Committee
The Instituto de Educacion Popular del Sur de California
Justice Reform Coalition
Larkin Street Youth Services
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Los Angeles Catholic Worker
Jericho, a Voice for Justice
Los Angeles Community Action Network
Los Angeles Human Right to Housing Collective
Los Angeles Poverty Department
SB 876 (Liu) Page 10 of ?
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights of The San Francisco Bay Area
Manilatown Heritage Foundation
Mission Neighborhood Resource Center
Mutual Housing California
National Association of Social Workers - California chapter
National Coalition for the Homeless
National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty
National Lawyers Guild - Sacramento Chapter
People Organized for Westside Renewal
Planting Justice
Prison Activist Resource Center
Resources for Independent Living
Sacramento Homeless Organizing Committee
Sacramento Housing Alliance
Sacramento Hunger Coalition
Sacramento Loaves and Fishes
Sacramento Regional Coalition to End Homelessness
Safe Ground Sacramento
San Francisco Tenants Union
Senior & Disability Action
Silicon Valley De-Bug
St. Anthony Foundation
St. James Infirmary
St. Mary's Center
Stop LAPD Spying Coalition
Street Spirit
Suitcase Clinic
Tenants Together
Transition Albany
United Coalition East Prevention Project
Venice Community Housing Corporation
Veterans Democratic Club of Sacramento County
Watts Labor Community Action Committee
Western Center on Law & Poverty, Inc.
Western Regional Advocacy Project
Women Organizing Resources, Knowledge and Services
149 individuals
OPPOSITION:
Advanced Knitting Mills, Inc.
Alameda; City of
SB 876 (Liu) Page 11 of ?
Albany; City of
Alhambra; City of
American Planning Association, California Chapter
Antioch; City of
Association of California Cities - Orange County
Azusa City Council
Bellflower; City of
Buena Park; City of
Building Owners and Managers Association of California
California Apartment Association
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Downtown Association
California Police Chiefs Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
California Travel Association
Carpinteria; City of
Carson; City of
Cathedral City; City of
Central City Association of Los Angeles
Central City East Association
Chino Hills; City of
Civil Justice Association of California
Clayton; City of
Clearlake; City of
SB 876 (Liu) Page 12 of ?
Cloverdale; City of
Colton; City of
Commercial Real Estate Development Association
Concord; City of
Covina; City of
Danville; City of
Del Paso Blvd Partnership
Desert Hot Springs; City of
Diamond Bar; City of
Downey; City of
Downtown Long Beach Associates
Downtown Pomona Owners Association
Downtown Sacramento Partnership
Dublin; City of
El Cajon; City of
Farmersville; City of
Fortuna; City of
Fountain Valley; City of
Fowler; City of
Fremont; City of
Glendora; City of
Greater Merced Chamber of Commerce
Greenfield; City of
Harold Markey and Son
Hayward; City of
Highland; City of
Hollywood Property Owners Alliance
SB 876 (Liu) Page 13 of ?
Huntington Park; City of
Imperial Beach; City of
Indian Wells; City of
Indio; City of
Inner-City Arts
International Council of Shopping Centers
La Caņada Flintridge; City of
LA Fashion District
La Habra; City of
La Mirada; City of
La Quinta; City of
Laguna Beach; City of
Lake Elsinore; City of
Lakeport; City of
Lakewood; City of
Leadership of Mt. Shasta
League of California Cities
League of California Cities, Los Angeles County Division
Lincoln; City of
Little Tokyo Lofts
Livermore; City of
Lodi; City of
Long Beach; City of
Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
Los Angeles Cold Storage Company
Los Banos; City of
Malibu; City of
Manteca Chamber of Commerce
SB 876 (Liu) Page 14 of ?
Marin County Council of Mayors and Council Members
Martinez; City of
Mayors' and Councilmembers Association of Sonoma County
Merced; City of
Montclair; City of
Moraga; City of
Mt. Shasta; City of
Murrieta; City of
Napa; City of
Needles; City of
Newark; City of
Norwalk; City of
Oakdale; City of
Ontario; City of
Pacific Grove; City of
Palmdale; City of
Palm Springs; City of
Palos Verdes Estates; City of
Paradise; Town of
Paramount; City of
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Pepper Spray Times
Pomona; City of
Prospect Enterprises, Inc.
Rancho Cordova; City of
SB 876 (Liu) Page 15 of ?
Rancho Cucamonga; City of
Redding; City of
Richmond; City of
The River District
Riverside; City of
Riverside Downtown Partnership
Rocklin; City of
Rosemead; City of
Sacramento; City of
Sacramento Downtown Partnership
Salinas; City of
Samdae Enterprises, Inc.
San Clemente; City of
San Fernando; City of
San Gabriel; City of
San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors
San Juan Bautista; City of
City of San Juan Capistrano
San Luis Obispo; City of
San Marino; City of
San Rafael; City of
Sand City; City of
Santa Ana; City of
Santa Barbara; County of
Santa Monica; City of
Scotts Valley; City of
SB 876 (Liu) Page 16 of ?
Sea Win, Inc.
Selma; City of
Signal Hill; City of
Sonora; City of
South Park Business Improvement District
South Pasadena; City of
Southwest California Legislative Council
Studio Liliana Becerra, Inc.
Sunnyvale; City of
Susanville; City of
Tashdjian Holdings LLC
Temecula; City of
Thousand Oaks; City of
Torrance; City of
Tracy; City of
Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors
Tuolumne County Chamber of Commerce
Turlock; City of
Umeya Inc.
Union City; City of
Venice Stakeholders Association
Veteran Company
Villa Park; City of
Visalia; City of
Vista; City of
Waterford; City of
Watsonville; City of
West Coast Industries, Inc.
SB 876 (Liu) Page 17 of ?
West Covina; City of
Whittier; City of
Yamasa Enterprises
Yucaipa; City of
Three individuals
-- END --