San Francisco Chronicle’s Post

Yesterday the Supreme Court heard the oral arguments for Johnson v. Grants Pass, which asks whether criminalizing involuntarily unhoused people violates the 8th Amendment’s protection from cruel and unusual punishment.   In a country where we face extreme shortages of both affordable housing and shelter beds, continuing to criminalize homelessness will have harmful effects on communities nationwide. We also know that “people experiencing unsheltered homelessness [are] 9 times more likely than people in shelters to report having spent at least one night in jail in the past six months” according to the Urban Institute. Adding fines and the possibility of jail time for being homeless and having a blanket does not house anyone. Housing is the solution to homelessness. Read a summary of yesterday’s arguments here: https://lnkd.in/egkX-TGJ #HousingnotHandcuffs  

"The Supreme Court of the United States is about to decide whether cities can make it a crime to be a person without housing." Incorrect. This is a common misstatement about laws surrounding homelessness and the #SCOTUS ruling on this issue that is anticipated any day now. It is unconstitutional to criminalize homelessness. However, public camping and many of the other activities that usually associate with homelessness can be and often are regulated. #housing #healthyhousing #homeless #localgov #legalnews Civica Law Group, APC California Association Of Code Enforcement Officers League of California Cities National League of Cities #citymanager International Code Council https://lnkd.in/gvgYMBCx

With the recent "City of Grants Pass" Supreme Court decision and Governor Newsom's executive order to clear homeless encampments statewide, the question on my mind is "where will people go?" The article linked below discusses the issue in San Francisco and this statistic is what is sticking with me: "At last count, there were more than 4,300 people sleeping in tents or cars on San Francisco’s streets on any given night, and only around 3,600 shelter beds..." The shelter bed tracker on SF's website says that, as of today, 93% of these beds are already occupied. Where will people go? Jail? To the other side of town for a little while? How is this helping us reach desired health and housing outcomes? Difficult questions for practitioners and impossible situations for people experiencing homelessness. https://lnkd.in/gJ_NfjGN

Often times, the barriers that people face following their release from incarceration are insurmountable. It’s one thing to go out and get a job and pay your bills, but it’s another to do that when you don’t have identification, you don’t have any job skills, all of your classes and obligations to the state take place during working hours so you can’t work a 40 hour job without interruption. There are so many different things that contribute to the chaos a person experiences after their release. Often times, this leads to relapse, homelessness, mental health struggles, and worse. Some states are doing it better than others, but I have yet to see one that does it right. They all seem to be in a fight to do it less badly than the others. Combine that with policies that literally criminalized homelessness, and the cycle of incarceration will never end for some of these people. Ever. It’s what some of us call “life on the installment plan.” You spend your whole life in and out of prison.

The Supreme Court will decide what cities can do about tent encampments —— The Supreme Court’s ruling could significantly change city policies on homelessness, influencing municipalities address this issue nationwide. The Court’s decision could shape not just the legal framework, but also the everyday realities of countless individuals facing homelessness, marking a pivotal moment in the ongoing struggle to balance public policy with human rights. —— #housing #homelessness #affordablehousing

#KeelyWebster and #CaitlinDewitt do a terrific job outlining the successes and challenges of accessing bond financing in connection with homelessness reduction programs making this article a “must read.” Addressing homelessness is a Herculean challenge and new approaches are needed. These include, among other things, increasing the use of modular housing and revising public procurement requirements so impact investors and smaller companies can more easily particpate in bringing projects to fruition. #TeamSPB is working on any number of housing projects and structuring them in a variety of ways. Feel free to reach out to explore the “art of the possible”. #infrastructurehousing #infrastructure #socialinfrastructure Impact investors are particularly well suited as investors in housing projects because they are focused on delivering value for money and are particularly adept at building consensus across large groups of project participants. But, many such investors will tell you they don’t work on public projects because of the cost of the procurement process and the lost investment opportunity costs when procurements fail or they are not selected. These investors are required to make meaningful investments and investing in procurement does not qualify. This seems to be an opportunity looking for a sponsor. We need to consider what statutory and regulatory changes we can make to procurement to attract more investors. Developers in San Francisco and in 18 other Bay Area jurisdictions have failed to submit and implement state-approved housing plans and meet production goals. This failure brings SB 432 into play which elminates discretionary review for most residential projects that include a minimum of 10% affordable, on-site units or comply with local inclusionary requirements - which ever is higher. When SB 423 took effect in San Francisco it shortened the housing approval process from what was one of the longest and most arduous processes in the California to one of the shortest. Improving the approval process is one thing, creating an environment that expands the investor base and considers options other than new construction is another. There are many different road to Rome and finding solutions for housing is not that different. We need to find or make some new roads.

HAC’s response to the Supreme Court’s opinion City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson The Homeless Action Center (HAC) unequivocally opposes today’s decision where the Supreme Court issued a cruel 6-3 opinion in City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson et al allowing states and cities to punish unhoused people who are sleeping outside even if they have no place to go. The decision permits local municipalities to fine and imprison unhoused individuals simply for being unhoused. At a time when homelessness is at an all-time high and affordable housing is woefully inaccessible and unavailable, it is sickening to see the highest court in the land empower local governments to criminalize community members for merely existing. Justice Sotomayor wrote a strong and compassionate dissent: “Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime. For some people, sleeping outside is their only option. The City of Grants Pass jails and fines those people for sleeping anywhere in public at any time, including in their cars, if they use as little as a blanket to keep warm or a rolled-up shirt as a pillow. For people with no access to shelter, that punishes them for being homeless. That is unconscionable and un-constitutional. Punishing people for their status is “cruel and unusual” under the Eighth Amendment.” Cities can now use this ruling to offer no services to those sleeping outside but instead bring in cops to force them to go elsewhere, even though there is no place elsewhere available. Using law enforcement in this manner is traumatizing for unhoused people. Sweeps of encampments cause people to lose property and documents that they need to get out of homelessness as well as to lose contact with community and service providers. Further, weighing people down with fines and a criminal record will only make it harder for them to get into housing. Notably, this ruling will have a disproportionate impact on BIPOC individuals and communities. According to the point in time count , 70% of those experiencing homelessness in Oakland are black, and thus the racial impact of this decision will be disparate and devastating. To be clear: Criminalizing an unhoused individual for existing does nothing to address any of the root causes of homelessness; instead, it only traumatizes and harms an already marginalized and vulnerable population while creating even more barriers for them to obtain stability. A carte blanche on sweeps may temporarily clear encampments, but will ultimately only increase homelessness and all of the concerns this ruling purports to address.

"A strong body of evidence shows that when people are housed stably, they commit fewer survival crimes like theft, robbery, trespassing, loitering, and prostitution. Increasing access to rental housing in low-income neighborhoods has also been found to significantly reduce violent crime, and providing permanent housing subsidies is correlated with reduced rates of intimate partner violence." Check out this insightful piece from The Brookings Institution on creating safe places and safe sleeping for people experiencing homelessness. In light of the recent Grants Pass decision, the article highlights the importance of cost-effective and humane solutions to address homelessness without resorting to criminalization. https://hubs.la/Q02HR0cR0

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