Homes, not handcuffs
Seattle isn't close to becoming one of the "meanest cities" listed in a national report, but may soon try its own take on the often-harmful "civility laws" sweeping the country
By Judy Lightfoot
September 29, 2009.
In July the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty and the National Coalition for the Homeless reported on the increase in laws across the nation that target homeless individuals. New regulations discussed in Homes Not Handcuffs: The Criminalization of Homelessness in U.S. Cities include restrictions on panhandling, some of which resemble provisions of a “civility law” for Seattle that City Councilmember Tim Burgess is expected to propose next month.
According to a Seattle Times editorial earlier this month, Burgess would prohibit among other things the solicitation of handouts near a cash machine, at road entrances and intersections, from a person entering or leaving an automobile, or after dark. Burgess says his intent is not to punish homeless people but to preserve order and make everyone in public spaces feel safer.
His proposal is reasonable. But an unintended side effect would be to make homelessness less visible, and invisibility doesn’t help the more devastating problem of homelessness go away. Further, the authors of Homes Not Handcuffs would argue that enforcing ordinances against “quality of life” infractions wastes money that is more wisely spent creating supportive housing to get people off the streets and guide them toward better lives.
Officials in other American cities have used arguments similar to Burgess’s to enact absurdly punitive new laws. The report’s “Ten Meanest Cities” among the 273 surveyed are (meanest first): Los Angeles; St. Petersburg, Fla.; Orlando, Fla.; Atlanta; Gainesville, Fla.; Kalamazoo, Mich.; San Francisco; Honolulu; Bradenton, Fla., and Berkeley, Calif. Municipal exertions there and elsewhere make Homes Not Handcuffs a lively if dispiriting read.
In Las Vegas it’s now a crime to give food to people on the street who appear indigent, the report says. In Berkeley, homeless people have been rousted out of parks during the day with the backing of new anti-loitering laws, even though parks are meant to be places where people can … well, loiter. The report quotes a Bay Area defense attorney as saying, “It’s only poor people who loiter. The rich … engage in leisure-time activities.” A homeless man in Boise was cited for theft when he tried to charge his cell phone at a park shelter equipped with electric outlets.
The problem is not just with recently imposed laws against life-sustaining activities in public places like eating and sleeping, says the report. Existing laws that punish offenses such as obstructing sidewalks and jaywalking are being selectively enforced against people perceived as homeless.
The more humane, sensible approaches of some surveyed cities keep the report from becoming a depressing litany evoking The Death of Common Sense. Constructive strategies include mentoring homeless individuals into street-cleaning jobs that can pay their rent, bringing hungry people out of public spaces and indoors to eat in the company of mental health service providers, and installing "giving meters" — special parking meters, like two in the U District, into which passersby can drop their spare change to fund broad social services instead of obliging one spare-changer.
These strategies are also thriftier than trying to manage homeless individuals through the penal system. Jailing homeless people for minor infractions is two to three times costlier than providing needed support, according to the Homes Not Handcuffs report. Florida’s Sarasota Herald-Tribune calculated that each arrest for public drinking or for bedding down in a vacant lot costs about $925, and that taxpayers there spent $1.3 million to make 1,427 arrests of homeless people over a three-year period. The $10 million San Francisco spent in four years on 56,567 citations for offenses such as impeding sidewalk traffic and camping in parks might have been used to “provide supportive housing to 492 people, put 300 people in a three-month detox center, or pay the salaries of 113 psychiatric outreach workers,” Homes Not Handcuffs said.
Moreover, people in jail can’t work, and many homeless people are employed, if only part-time at low wages. A homeless man who slept on the grounds of University District churches and did odd jobs in my yard this summer was picked up by Seattle police one morning because he lacked a photo ID with an address. Ironically, Manuel had gone to a Department of Licensing office that turned out to be closed that day, and was arrested while sitting in the empty parking lot, mustering his resolve to forget the futility of his errand and catch a bus to my house. After a nine-hour detention that cost him a day’s work and the city more than a few dollars, he was released without even being charged.
This is not to imply that the homeless are routinely harassed in Seattle. I personally witnessed police officers’ respectful treatment of people living in the tent city Nickelsville during its half-year in U District church parking lots. And business leaders in the Greater University Chamber of Commerce as well as its executive director, Teresa Lord Hugel, told people concerned about the encampment that its residents were being good citizens. “Some of the people who complained had never met a homeless person,” Hugel told me. “We have problems with criminal acts in the University District, but not, in my experience, by homeless people.”
So even with a new “civility law” imminent, Seattle isn’t close to rating as a "mean city." In fact, we’re one of those recognized in Homes Not Handcuffs as offering “constructive alternatives to criminalization." The authors cite 1811 Eastlake, which provides permanent housing with on-site services for 75 chronically homeless alcoholics, as a project that saved King County $2.5 million in one year "by significantly cutting residents’ medical expenses, county jail bookings, sobering center usage, and shelter usage. The savings dwarfed the project’s $1.1 million operating costs.”
Still, Seattle struggles perennially with the question of how best to address the problem of homelessness. While the report doesn’t recommend tent cities as a temporary housing option, the authors deplore officials’ allowing or forcing tent cities to close without adequate alternatives. This summer UW President Mark Emmert refused a Faculty Senate-approved recommendation that the campus take a three-month turn at hosting Tent City #3, as have other organizations in the city with open spaces, including Seattle University. Hosting it, Emmert said, would “compound the complexity of our daily activity in ways that would further complicate the business of the University.” Yes, complexity does complicate.
Then in late August the Port of Seattle withdrew a tentative commitment to Nickelsville — drafted with the help of House Speaker Frank Chopp and church and tribal leaders — to give residents a full 90 days on their present site at Port Authority Park T107. A 90-day stay would have allowed them time to find their next temporary home, but commissioners told Nickelsville residents that the encampment and its people will be swept on Wednesday. Over the phone one resident asked me, “Are we supposed to jump in the Duwamish?”
Sometimes recommendations in Homes Not Handcuffs seem not fully thought through. The authors say that public campaigns explaining why money should be given to agencies instead of panhandlers “can discourage the human connection that occurs when one person gives to another person in need.” In reality, handing money to a stranger on the street is often a rushed, impersonal gesture in which both parties avoid even looking at each other — one ashamed of having so little, and one ashamed of having so much. A better case could have been made (at least in cities free of ridiculously punitive ordinances) for buying panhandlers food or other supplies instead. But the authors are onto something valuable even when their recommendations seem extreme. I like their principle of connecting personally with people on the streets, if not the way they applied it.
Another question arises from the effect of citing so many absurd ordinances in the report. Do the authors see any place at all for “quality of life” laws? If pressed, they’d probably say yes. Communities need to toss stubborn scofflaws in jail as much as they need to provide resources that will support homeless people for whom jail is not the answer. But the authors are right to question the intelligence of punishing people for behavior like drinking in public when they don’t have homes. A homeless friend of mine with a severe, untreated mental illness, who like many in his condition tries to self-medicate his tormenting symptoms with beer, once asked me quite seriously after having been cited for an open-container violation, “Where else can I drink?”
I doubt that the authors would support his logic if housing were available and he turned it down. But I think they’d agree that being arrested can’t help him or other homeless people suffering from mental illnesses or addictions unless they’re detained as well as released amid adequate resources. My homeless alcoholic acquaintance Benjamin is terrified of rehab because after the agonies of withdrawal he fears he’ll be dumped back on the streets, homeless again. Presently he camps near Green Lake unmolested by the authorities.
Similarly, a relative of mine with schizophrenia was rescued after jumping off a bridge into the Willamette River one winter night, but after two weeks in a psych ward he was out on the streets again, suicidal, collecting open-container violations and refusing psychiatric treatment because his sickness tells him he’s not sick. Both young men could benefit from arrests that steered them toward help. But they need extended help, and American adults can’t legally be forced into treatment unless they’re shooting somebody or diving in front of a train.
In sum, without a structure of resources to house and adequately care for our most vulnerable citizens, the public dollars spent on penalizing homeless people for “quality of life” offenses can’t benefit the public’s quality of life. It’s a tangle of painful problems that Tim Burgess’s proposed legislation, however attractive and reasonable it seems at first glance, doesn’t begin to address.
Comments:
Posted Tue, Sep 29, 9:57 a.m. Inappropriate
It's a shame that there is no way for me, as a "man in the street", to identify the small percentage of homeless people who are genuinely down on their luck. I'd gladly give $20 to someone if I thought it could help that person out of a rut. But the vast number of panhandlers are professional bums, and I refuse to be an enabler of their dysfunctional "lifestyle choice." Providing more resources for "transient transients" (people who were productive and will be again when get back on their feet) will solve part of the problem. Many of the laws that were enacted in the 1970s should be changed to allow authorities to commit the genuinely mentally ill to keep them off the street. That would solve another part of the problem. But something has to be done to curb the activities of the professional panhandlers. Those people are simply parasites and that is something that's frequently lost in the discussion.
Posted Tue, Sep 29, 11 a.m. Inappropriate
Thank you Judith, for another important and well-thought-out piece. As one of the former 'hosts' of Nicklelsville, I learned how desperately most of the homeless want a safe place of their own. I disagree with dbreneman that all 'professional' panhandlers are parasites. Given a desperate series of events in life, any of us might find ourselves in such a downward spiral that would then find us on the streets - and on a corner begging. Certainly there may be some for whom this has become an 'easy' alternative, but writing them off as professional bums seems counter-productive to the situation.
-rjr
Posted Tue, Sep 29, 11:09 a.m. Inappropriate
Seattle has had a structure for the past 28 years to fund housing for very low income and homeless people - the Seattle Housing Levy. Over the years we have moved thousands of vulnerable families and individuals into homes. In fact, 1811 Eastlake was partially funded by the current Housing Levy. The Housing First (1811 Eastlake) model works - it gets people off of the streets, into housing, and changes lives. The Seattle Housing Levy has been a success and we have a chance to continue that success with a YES vote on Prop 1 this November. Please vote YES.
Posted Tue, Sep 29, 11:36 a.m. Inappropriate
The Housing Levy helps those who want to help themselves. A renewal of the Levy will prevent over 3,000 more families and individuals from becoming homeless which would further exacerbate the panhandling issue. Vote YES on Prop 1.
Posted Tue, Sep 29, 12:22 p.m. Inappropriate
The latest incarnation of the Housing Levy is not worth supporting. Once again the levy has expanded its reach to include a more affluent part of the lower middle classes while keeping homeless/indigent help at nearly static levels. In no way should the levy include help for first time home buyers when there are many people at the lower rungs who need immediate help first.
Also the Housing Levy continues with the mindset of putting together unattractive development deals with special-interest groups instead of truly understanding housing needs in the City and the region. The Director of Housing has shown no interest or aptitude in developing useful statistics on housing needs in Seattle and then using rigorous analysis to determine how best to program levy dollars. Instead it will be the same groups competing for contracts to build, build, build while ignoring the glut of apartment/condo buildings in the City that could potentially be purchased for pennies on the dollar and immediately added to low-income housing stock.
The proposed amount for the November vote is a staggering sum, with no detail showing why this is the preferred amount by the Mayor and Council and why so much is needed at this time. Let's fix the homeless problem first and let a new Mayor with a new Housing Director come up with a prudent, no nonsense, levy for next year that will truly put us on the path to ending homelessness within 10 years.
Vote NO on Prop 1.
Posted Tue, Sep 29, 1:45 p.m. Inappropriate
@George:
Actually, the Office of Housing has very detailed data on exactly who the Levy has served, and its enormous success in getting Levy dollars out the door to serve the very needy in our City. Information on the success of the 2002 Levy can be found here: www.seattle.gov/housing/docs/Levy_exceeding_goals.pdf I would argue that OH has been enormously successful in meeting the targets established by the Levy, and serving the most vulnerable of our City.
Secondly, the new targets for the 2009 Levy are here - www.yesforhomes.com under "housing levy information". 60% of the rental production amount is targeted to those making at or less than 30% of median income (maximum $20,000 for a family of two), i.e. the homeless and those at immediate risk of becoming homeless. Another 30% of rental production is targeted to folks making up to 50% of area median income (max $33,000 for a family of two) - the low wage workers that make up the backbone of our economy and struggle to find affordable rentals in this city, especially close to downtown. That leaves a full 10% of the rental production money that will be targeted to folks up to 80% of area median income. And as the previous Levy demonstrates, these funds will probably only be used up to 50 and 60% of AMI due to restrictions of other funding sources (i.e. low income housing tax credits).
I am sorry to get so wonky on the policy numbers here, but it is an outright fallacy that this Levy does not serve those most in need in this City. The Levy also goes to both new construction and acquisition rehabs, and many nonprofits are using Levy money to buy buildings that are cheaper now than they have been in years. And lastly, less than 10% of the Levy will go to first time homeownership and these funds specifically target workers that even in this economy/housing market struggle to find an affordable home to buy in Seattle(office workers, teachers, etc.)
Posted Tue, Sep 29, 2:05 p.m. Inappropriate
I think it's pretty basic that people with disabilities, the elderly, veterans and low income working families should have the opportunity to live in a decent place. Let's vote YES on Prop 1! to keep this basic safety net going
Www.yesforhomes.org
Posted Tue, Sep 29, 2:08 p.m. Inappropriate
I would argue that it's very productive because it helps to focus the effort on those who would actually benefit from it: 1) Those who are temporarily down on their luck, and 2) Those who need mental help. There are, however, many self-styled "homeless activists" who would like us to believe that all people living on the street are there against their will, and that is simply not the case. For many it is a "lifestyle choice" and society should do nothing to reward that choice.
Posted Tue, Sep 29, 2:22 p.m. Inappropriate
@ktstine: Took the words right off of my screen.
@George: 145 million over 7 years is a large, but needed amount. It will fill the gap create when the State Legislature reduced the State Housing Trust Fund in half for the current biennium, and things won't get any better this year. The Seattle Housing Levy is an innovative resource that allows Seattle to ensure that the most vulnerable people in the city are protected and housed.
The need for additional affordable housing is clear - the 2009 One Night Count found 1977 people living unsheltered and on the streets, a 2% increase over 2008. That number doesn't capture the nearly 6000 people (in all of King County) in shelters, transitional housing, or extreme cold weather shelters. http://www.homelessinfo.org/onc.html. The bulk of Housing Levy dollars will support those families and individuals closest to being on the streets.
Vote YES on prop 1.
Posted Tue, Sep 29, 2:41 p.m. Inappropriate
Ktstine,
I applaud your commitment to low-income housing, but I find it hard to believe that you think a 2 page advertisement from OH is an adeqaute representation of the success of the 2002 Housing Levy. The Office of Housing is so inept that they don't even keep digital records of who is living in their properties and how the economic well-being of their tenants may have changed since moving into subsidized housing. They do indeed collect the once-yearly survey that all Seattle Housing Authority properties are supposed to submit detailing the most general data possible, but without bothering to even track it. No doubt they have physical copies, but nothing you can query on to see trends.
Frankly I don't consider success to be measured on how many buildings were built and how many people moved into them. What I would consider success is a statistical analysis of the make-up of the people being subsidized and how their new housing has affected their lives. This could be seen by changes in household income, changes in education levels both from heads of households and dependents, changes in health levels, etc. Various housing levies have been going on for over two decades and I still have yet to see any meaningful data from the City or from OH as to the demographic trends of their tenants.
Another area I'd like to see research committed to would be the efficacy of different programs. My rudimentary understanding of low-income housing programs is that programs such as Section 8 housing that provide rental vouchers to individuals and families to use for existing market-rate housing offer the most bang for the buck without having to spend time and money creating new living spaces. Instead qualified households could seek living spaces available today and receive rental assistance with constraints on income. I would argue that the more people that are helped with the same amount of money would be the best use of the next levy. I understand that Section 8 programs are federally funded, but it doesn't seem much of a stretch to me that Seattle could augment existing programs of that nature or replicate one themselves.
I still believe that home buyers assistance is the wrong way for any levy dollars to go. Much as I am against federal tax credits and exemptions that prefer homeownership to other means of living. I would have been against ownership help seven years ago, but the recent calamity of moving people into home ownership who are ill prepared for it should move the most ardent supporter of housing assistance to take pause on continuing such programs.
I will still vote NO on Proposition 1.
Posted Tue, Sep 29, 3:51 p.m. Inappropriate
@George, so you want to bite off your nose to spite your face? By voting No on 1, you will ensure that there will be NO NEW HOUSING acquired or built for the homeless in coming years - how does that better serve the most vulnerable in our City, especially now, as many people are finding themselves homeless for the first time due to the economy.
Every publicly funded affordable housing project has a VERY DETAILED yearly report to produce on exactly who is living in each unit. This report is produced for the low-income housing tax credit investor, the City, the State and any other number of funding sources that are used to build or buy this very important form of housing in our City. Several providers also routinely survey their residents to ask just the questions you are also asking. Also, one of the realities of this kind of housing is that many permanently disabled, senior or mentally challenged individuals live in affordable housing that is subsidized by the Levy. Because these individuals are living on a fixed income, you don't see great changes in household wealth. The 1811 Eastlake project is a great example of this, and a tremendous amount of research has been done on the fact that it saves taxpayers about $4million a year by housing the "hardest to house" - chronic inebriates.
On your last point I completely agree. Homeowners in this country receive the single biggest housing subsidy (over $300 billion annually) in the form of the mortgage interest deduction. It is one of the reasons that I support the housing levy - the average homeowner will pay $5.50 a month - a very small amount of what the federal government gives back to them each year in the form of mortgage tax deduction. And a small sum to pay to ensure that the most vulnerable in our city have a place to lay their head at night that is safe, warm and secure.