The homeless are everywhere. Just take a walk down any street with commercial frontage in Lompoc and almost any other city, and you will see them with their signs and sleeping in the bushes or on the sidewalk.
A case a couple of years ago—involving a law enacted in Boise, Idaho, that tried to get the problem under control—came before the 9th District Court of Appeals in San Francisco. This court is noted for three things: 1) It makes very convoluted interpretations of constitutional law; 2) It is extremely liberal in the application of laws; 3) It is often overturned by the Supreme Court.
The Boise law was designed to clean up its downtown areas by forbidding sleeping on the streets, much like the shiftless do elsewhere. But, the 9th Circuit somehow determined that this was a violation of the “cruel and unusual punishment” clause under the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The Eighth Amendment says, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” How forbidding sleeping on a cold sidewalk in Boise could be construed as “cruel and unusual punishment” seems questionable.
The panel “held that the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment precluded the enforcement of a statute prohibiting sleeping outside against homeless individuals with no access to alternative shelter. And, as long as there is no option of sleeping indoors, the government cannot criminalize indigent, homeless people for sleeping outdoors, on public property, on the false premise they had a choice in the matter.”
This presents an interesting situation for those of us who take pride in our cities. Public property would include the courtyard of city hall, courthouse steps, parks, sidewalks, the entrance to police stations, the library, and any other place owned and maintained by local governments!
Feeling the thrill of victory, the next challenge for homeless advocates is to eliminate oversized vehicle parking bans—these are predominantly those campers and small camp trailers you see along the streets that are used to house the homeless. What can we do about it?
In Lompoc, a city park on the eastern end of town was the site of a “homeless triage center” a few months ago; basically, it was supposed to be a temporary camp for the homeless who were being evicted from the riverbed (which is a public space), but it became a magnet for the homeless from Santa Barbara, Santa Maria, and elsewhere. The attraction was three meals a day, access to benefits, medical care, and the hope of more permanent housing.
Of course, Lompoc, like many other communities, doesn’t have adequate housing; the county is the agency charged with housing these folks. But, when recent grants were awarded for new homeless housing, none came to Lompoc.
There were problems at the camp. Apparently, the inhabitants had a problem following the rules, they argued and fought among themselves, and verbally abused the staff. Eventually all were asked to leave, but to where? Some have been arrested for returning to the riverbed, and others simply migrated into the public spaces of town.
Cleaning up their mess in the riverbed cost close to $500,000, and within a few days after the effort, the homeless returned and re-established themselves in the riverbed with several “new” camps.
Homelessness, instead of being a temporary condition caused by the loss of work, has become a lifestyle for many societal dropouts, the mentally ill, and the veterans of our many conflicts who just can’t cope with life.
Fixing the “homeless problem” is elusive. One homeless man once described it this way: “We are like cars; you can tow us away, but until you raise the hood you’ll never know what’s wrong with us.” Police chiefs say, “We can’t arrest our way out of this problem.”
They are both right. This is a multi-level issue requiring not only housing but also additional mental illness and drug/alcohol treatment programs that don’t currently exist. Simply changing laws to allow “urban camping” and constructing large housing projects won’t solve the issue until someone “raises the hood.”
President John F. Kennedy and California Gov. Ronald Reagan both closed mental health institutions several decades ago. These were basically lockups with no real treatment provided to patients. The second phase of this process was supposed to create new state-of-the-art treatment centers; however, the only part that got completed was the closing of the inadequate institutions.
The current practice to allow the homeless to simply sleep on the streets isn’t a very humanitarian way to address the problem of the mentally ill, and it certainly isn’t fair to people who want a clean and healthful public space. There have been several reports of disease-ridden camps in several large cities throughout the U.S. that have taken a hands-off approach to the problem.
By the same token, will providing them with well-appointed accommodations for free encourage them to help themselves or just enable their shiftless lifestyle?
If activists really wanted to help the homeless in California, they would focus their energy on demanding that Sacramento lawmakers complete the treatment programs envisioned by Kennedy and Reagan several decades ago instead of placing the burden on local communities that don’t have the resources to “raise the hood” or to provide housing.
Ron Fink is a resident of Lompoc. Send your thoughts to letters@santamariasun.com.
This article appears in Sep 12-19, 2019.