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 --