Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-20-17 Health and Public Safety A.�SOL ti U �Cr Wf PEACE i a a 1865 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK KAREEMAH FOWLER,CITY CLERK HEALTH&PUBLIC SAFETY DECEMBER 20, 2017 5:00 P.M. Committee Members Present: Jo M. Broden, John Voorde, Karen White, Oliver Davis, Susan Soisson(citizen member) Committee Members Absent: None Other Council Present: Tim Scott Other Council Absent: Dr. David Varner, Gavin Ferlic, Regina Williams-Preston, Randy Kelly Others Present: Graham Sparks, Bob Palmer Presenters: Bob Palmer Agenda: Presentation on Homeless Bill of Rights- Council Attorney, Bob Palmer Committee Chair Jo M. Broden called to order the Health and Public Safety Committee meeting at 5:00 p.m. She introduced members of the Committee and proceeded to open the floor to comments from the Committee and Councilmembers. Committeemember Oliver Davis stated, I want to thank Committee Chair Broden for organizing this meeting. Often times when we craft legislation we craft it all ahead of time. The importance of this meeting is to start the whole process from beginning to end. Just like Mayor Pete talked about with the call to unity, we need to address this issue regarding homelessness. In answering that call, a part of this process is for us to craft out and see what other cities are doing in terms of Homeless Bills of Rights. We need to look at how we can adapt some of those comments and solutions to South Bend. I would like to thank our Attorney Bob Palmer.No bill has been crafted yet for South Bend because we want the public to be a part of it from the start. When you look at a chain,the strength of the chain is defined by its weakest link. If we take some time to help strengthen the weakest link of the chain then we will have a strong chain. When you're driving your car, your strength of your tires is measured by your weakest tire. If you have three (3) brand new tires and a flat, you're still stuck. And so therefore, we have to look at that. A community is defined by the way we take care of the most vulnerable populations. 455 County-City Building•227 W.Jefferson Boulevard•South Bend,Indiana 46601 Phone 574-235-9221 •Fax 574-235-9173•TDD 574-235-5567•www.SouthBendIN.gov JENNIFER M.COFFMAN BIANCA L.TIRADO JOSEPH MOLNAR CHIEF DEPUTY/DIRECTOR OF DEPUTY/DIRECTOR OF POLICY ORDINANCE VIOLATION CLERK OPERATIONS Committeemember Karen White stated, I think it is important that today we start the formal discussion on this critical issue. We will continue looking at best practices and what it will take to have a Homeless Bill of Rights. Presentation on Homeless Bill of Rights- Council Attorney,Bob Palmer Bob Palmer, South Bend Common Council Attorney with offices on the 4t'floor of the County- City Building, stated, For the benefit of the public, it is important to reiterate there has been no bill crafted. There has not been any input between myself and any members of the Council, other than the request from Vice President Davis to gather information and start the process. As I sit here tonight, I have no idea of any individual Councilmember's feelings about anything on this matter. I do not know where this will lead but it is an attempt to, at least, gather information on what other communities have done to address this issue. This is a starting point that opens discussion. As the Council has indicated,this is a public conversation. We want public input to be a part of whatever is ultimately crafted and voted on. He went on, What we are looking at is loosely referred to as a Homeless Bill of Rights. It has been called other things. It is a shorthand way of identifying what general types of things are being considered. Mr. Palmer referenced the presentation(available in the City Clerk's Office)to explain what a Homeless Bill of Rights is. He stated, It is a reaffirmation of the rights of people that may be homeless. They are entitled to the same rights and privileges that other citizens are entitled to. These rights and privileges are not always recognized by government officials, other citizens and others. Homeless people are often looked down upon and discriminated against simply because of their housing status. The original Homeless Bill of Rights was enacted in Rhode Island in 2012. It was prepared to cure some of the wrongs that municipalities had imposed on the homeless. It was enacted on the State level because local municipalities were criminalizing activities that adversely affected the homeless. They criminalized sleeping on the sidewalk, eating in public, loitering and other activities that, if you were not homeless, you probably wouldn't commit. States began enacting a Homeless Bill of Rights to decriminalize those activities so to give the homeless the same rights as everyone else.Not only did it give them those rights but it makes sure those rights are recognized. This is not a problem we have had in South Bend. South Bend has never enacted an ordinance that criminalized anything that directly impacted the homeless. We are not looking at a situation like that here in South Bend. We are not looking to correct past wrongs by the City. He continued, The goal of this Bill of Rights is to eliminate discrimination against anyone based on homelessness or their overall housing status. This will not cure all wrongs but it should raise the consciousness about the homeless. They do have rights as they are citizens of the United States,the State of Indiana and the City of South Bend. The information in the memorandum (available in the City Clerk's Office) was prepared with the idea that we would try to elevate the consciousness of the problems the homeless deal with. We look to join with the Mayor and his Administration to live out his call to a unity of purpose to address this problem. This Bill of Rights will not be a complete solution to the problem of homelessness. The complete solution to homelessness is no less than the availability of food and shelter and the willingness of everyone to take advantage of that availability. There is nothing in the Homeless Bill of Rights that I've looked at that forces an individual to take shelter. There is nothing in the Homeless Bill of Rights that I've looked at that requires a homeless person to protect themselves from the elements. 2 There is nothing that prevents a homeless person from living under a viaduct if that is their choice. The rights of the homeless include the right to be free from oppression in that regard. This is only a starting point and is designed to raise consciousness of the problem. He went on, As previously mentioned,the first Homeless Bill of Rights was enacted in Rhode Island in 2012. Prior to that in 1998, Puerto Rico enacted a very comprehensive Bill of Rights and they are quoted in the memorandum. Puerto Rico is a little bit different than the rest of the States because in the territory's constitution,homelessness or housing status is a suspect classification. This means they are entitled to additional rights simply because they are a suspect class such as being a minority. Ordinances or laws against a suspect class are subject to more scrutiny than any other class. The Puerto Rican Bill of Rights is very extensive and it grants many rights that no other Bill of Rights has granted. To be honest, I have not found any writings describing what effect the Puerto Rican Bill of Rights has had. I don't know if it has been a success,but it is very comprehensive. Rhode Island was the first state to enact a Bill of Rights in 2012 and it is their model that most cities and states have followed when enacting their own Bill of Rights. He then expounded the rights vested in Rhode Island's Bill of Rights. All in all there are seven(7)basic rights. There is a right to use and freely move in and around public spaces in the same manner as any other person without discrimination on the basis of housing status. There is a right to equal treatment of State and Municipal agencies without discrimination on the basis of housing status. There is also a right not to face discrimination in seeking or maintaining employment due to his or her lack of permanent mailing address, or the mailing address being that of a shelter or a social service provider. There is a right to emergency medical care free from discrimination based on his or her housing status. There is a right to vote, register to vote and receive necessary documentation to prove identity for voting without discrimination based on his or her housing status. There is a right to protection of disclosure of his or her personal records of information that are given to homeless shelters and other service providers without proper legal authority. He continued, There is a HIPA law where certain health information is protected from disclosure to essentially anyone without a waiver of confidentiality. Lastly,there is a right to reasonable expectation of privacy in his or her personal property. This means if you are staying under a viaduct or in a park, you have a right of privacy that someone,while you are gone, is not going to root through your belongings. Connecticut follows closely behind Rhode Island in passing a Homeless Bill of Rights. What is significant about Connecticut's is that it identified who the Statute was aimed at. There has been an emphasis throughout all cases on the right to rest in public spaces and the right to protect oneself from the elements in a non-obstructive manner. There is also a right to eat, share, accept or give food in any public space where food is not prohibited. Some municipalities had enacted ordinances that made it illegal to give food to homeless individuals. There is also an explicit right to occupy a motor vehicle provided the vehicle is legally parked on public property or private property with permission by the property owner. These rights, as you can see,were enacted to address the wrongs that were imposed by many municipalities across the country. He went on, Indianapolis has a different kind of model. Indianapolis battled with a Homeless Bill of Rights between their Council and their Mayor for three (3) or four(4) years. Indianapolis did try to pass a Homeless Bill of Rights similar to Rhode Island's. Though it passed their Council, it 3 was vetoed by the Mayor. A couple years later, what has been referred to as a stripped down version was passed. When I looked at it, it is far from being stripped down in my opinion. In my opinion, Indianapolis has come a long way to protect the rights of its citizens. The public policy of the Indianapolis Ordinance is stated as `No person should suffer unnecessarily or be subject to unfair discrimination or arbitrary treatment based on his or her homeless status. It is the intent of this article to lessen the adverse effects and conditions caused by the lack of a home or residence.' In enforcing that public policy, Indianapolis enacted statutes aimed at protecting people who were living in camps. Under the Indianapolis Ordinance, if the City were to come through and disrupt those camps,they had to provide the camp with a fifteen(15) day advance notice. When they do go through,the City must store belongings for sixty(60) days to give the opportunity for people to reclaim those items. They must catalog all items collected. Indianapolis does go a long way to protect at least the camps that the homeless are living in. Indianapolis also had the duty to find housing for those they disrupted from those camps. Whether it was transitional housing or permanent housing,they would have to try to find services for those people. Indianapolis is much different than South Bend in terms of services and volunteers available. He continued, One (1) of the questions that comes up in talking about the Homeless Bill of Rights is how those rights will be enforced. A statement of rights is, or can be, meaningless unless there is an enforcement procedure. To actually protect those rights and to do more than simply recognizing those rights requires an enforcement proceeding. On the State level, they can create agencies and causes of action. The State can create remedies for the violation of a Homeless Bill of Rights that cities can't legally do. Cities cannot do anything that is contrary to a state statute. We can't create additional rights that the State says do not exist. So whatever enforcement proceedings the City would want to enact to protect these rights has to be done with what we have on the books already. My thought on this is if we are trying to eliminate discrimination against people based on their housing status, the term housing status could be inserted into our human rights ordinance of the City. This would create another classification of people against whom discrimination is illegal. To do that would simply require the addition of the phrase `housing status' after the term `gender' in the statute. That would allow a homeless person whose rights were violated to file a claim with the South Bend Human Rights Commission to have a hearing. That is something that could be done. I am not advocating for this route but am simply stating its possibility. He went on,As Vice President Davis has mentioned, Councilmember Dr. David Varner has agreed to look into identifying corresponding responsibilities of the homeless. This is something I have not seen in any other Homeless Bill of Rights but it is certainly something that is not precluded. A statement of corresponding responsibilities would simply be a reminder of the responsibilities that every person in this City has, including the homeless. Possible examples would be to obey Federal, State and Local statutes and ordinances, refraining from obstructing public ways or harassing other individuals and obeying lawful commands from Police and Fire personnel. We could probably list one-hundred (100) different responsibilities because we all know we have many responsibilities owing to the City and each other as citizens of the City, but this would be a reminder of those. Just like establishing a Bill of Rights, corresponding responsibilities might also need an enforcement procedure. A possible procedure could be establishing that the violation of any of these responsibilities would be an affirmative defense 4 that could be used to negate any complaint filed with the South Bend Human Rights Commission for a violation of the Bill of Rights. In other words if someone filed a claim stating a police officer discriminated because of homelessness, but the police officer and other eye witnesses could establish that the homeless person was violating a lawful command to get out of the street while a fire truck was going through an intersection, that would be an affirmative defense that would negate any claim. He continued, The difficult part with setting out a Homeless Bill of Rights is that there are so many interests that must be considered. Obviously the interest of the homeless are being considered. We are trying to protect them and provide them with everything the City can provide. There are legitimate concerns that will be raised by other citizens. A main concern is that the establishment of the Homeless Bill of Rights may encourage homeless from other communities to come to South Bend. That would further challenge the already strained resources the City has in helping the homeless. The City's resources are limited. It has devoted millions of dollars toward helping the homeless but that stream of money is not endless, to the extent that we are asked to take over the responsibility of homeless individuals all throughout the Michiana Area. We can't simply take in all homeless individuals in the surrounding area. People are also concerned the homeless individuals will discourage customers from visiting nearby businesses. That is a legitimate concerns by business owners. There are also concerns that homeless individuals may reduce a resident's property value. There is so much misinformation and there are many misconceptions about the homeless. What people don't understand and what they aren't familiar with causes fear. That fear causes concerns. He went on, When the Administration takes action like they did under the viaduct, it is from the standpoint of public health. There are many health issues that arise in people that are in this situation. That is a concern that everyone in the City should have at heart. The Council and the Administration needed to work jointly in addressing this issue. If we aren't on the same page, the issue will not go away. Both bodies need to combine their resources and, as the Mayor has said, unity of purpose is essential. Committee Chair Broden then opened the floor to questions or comments from the Committee and Councilmembers. Councilmember Tim Scott stated, I think this is a really good start. I thank the sponsors of this for bringing it forward. How many cities have been looked at besides Rhode Island and Connecticut?I am also intrigued with the performance metrics. I am very supportive of moving through this process. My biggest concern is the health perspective. Mr. Palmer replied, There are very few states and communities that have actually enacted something like this. Committeemember Susan Soisson asked, Do you have any sense of the feasibility of doing this on a broader scope instead of just a city? 5 Mr. Palmer replied, I don't have a concept of the feasibility of that. I do know at Council meetings in the past there has been brought forth a notion that South Bend should not shoulder the entire burden of this issue for the County. Committeemember Oliver Davis stated, Many rural places rely on the larger cities. Committee Chair Broden stated, I think it would be helpful to get drafts from other Counties and from their County Attorneys. I think it would be fairly easy to find any past bills that have addressed this. With regard to Indianapolis and their model, what year did they pass that? Mr. Palmer replied, I believe it was enacted in 2016. Committee Chair Broden followed up, What we are seeing is that but we need to get the backstory on that for the pitfalls and challenges. Because of the wherewithal, complaints might be more constructive. I think enforcement is important but also are the evaluative metrics. She then advertised the availability of all documents related to this issue as they are in the Dropbox Folder titled `Homeless'. The folder can be accessed on the Common Council's website. Councilmember Scott left the meeting at 5:51 p.m. Committeemember John Voorde stated, I'm glad we are considering the addition of responsibilities in this. I also think it is important we work closely with the Administration on this. Committee Chair Broden then opened the floor to members of the public wishing to speak on this issue. Ron Packer, 122 E. Pokagon Street, stated, I've noticed that the presentation is solely public sector solutions. Has partnership with private sector ever been considered?If not, why not and if it has,what has happened with that? Cass Community Association in Detroit has been at this issue since 1905. A great deal of people on the streets now should be given better options like group homes. Henry Davis Jr., 5117 Idlewood Drive, stated, I would first like to thank you in addressing this issue. Opening this issue creates a dialog that is necessary. It makes sense to spread this out to the community. I can go many places with a shirt and tie on and everyone knows who I am. But when I dress like I am now, no one knows who I am. We are talking about discrimination. We can't legislate people's hearts but what we can do is put in laws as safeguards. People have preconceived notions of these people and I implore you to remember through this process that we aren't going to make everyone happy. I can't see this negatively impacting business owners. I've been pulled over at gunpoint and nothing I was going to say that night was going to make them happy. Let's be realistic about how this is going to work. We have enough services that we need to focus on expanding. John Shafer, 402 Bison Ridge,Nappanee, IN, stated, I'm an advocate for the homeless with my non-profit Michiana 5 for the homeless. I agree that it is a shame to have to officially give 6 homeless rights. They are citizens and they have rights. A lot of people treat homeless differently. They get treated as invisible and with disrespect. Letting the homeless know they have rights is the first and foremost importance of a bill like this. Many of them think that they've been kicked around and mistreated. They are depressed people and yes they do turn to drugs and things. But knowing they count and they matter and they have rights is important. We met a twenty-six (26)year old boy three (3) weeks ago. He didn't think he had any rights and he was laying in front of a building. He was a type-one (1) diabetic and was in critical condition. The police came to harass him to ask him to move. We had to ask the police to call the ambulance. He could have died. The fact is he got better and his toe was amputated. He also got into the FUSE Project today. He had to know that within his own person he's got rights. He did not know that. He could have died. I just want to let people know that there are people that don't know they have rights unless we make it official. Let's not stop before crossing the finish line. Nate Levin-Aspenson, 330 W. Colfax Avenue, stated, I would like to first of all join others in commending the Council for,not only taking on this issue, but including the public in the discussions. This is an important opportunity for the City to take a stand of moral leadership in the region. My concerns are, frankly, granular. I want to see, when we do get to the end of this process, when we implement this Bill of Rights, we must make sure the constituents primarily affected know about it. They need to have access to that information so they can be advocates for their own rights. While drafting this Bill of Rights, I also advocate against using language that could be too broadly construed by City or local officials. A word that comes to mind for me that is an example is using the word reasonable. It has to be more than a vanity effort. Becca Burton, 4991 N. 475 East, Leesburg, IN, stated, I'm here today to publicly advocate for the rights of the homeless. They are human beings and deserve to be treated as such. They have received a lot of humiliation. Code Enforcement took their belongings. That is unconscionable. The signs in downtown that say don't give to panhandlers need to go. They are humiliating. It is already humiliating enough to ask for money to survive and I think throwing that in the homeless faces is something we need to address. Homeless individuals should be treated the same as everyone else. Sue Kesim,4022 Kennedy Drive, stated, One (1)thing I've noticed in this issue is the availability of public restrooms. I would like something in this bill about public restrooms. There are health issues to this. They are denied access to public restrooms. There needs to be a solution of having a place to relieve oneself. We all need a place to properly relieve ourselves. I understand there had been some destruction of property and perhaps somehow that can be addressed. It is hard to get a job if you can't at least wash yourself and make yourself presentable. Some high schools allow students to come wash their clothes. I want you to consider the availability of public restrooms and a place to wash. Charles Smith, 2001 S. Warren Street, stated, This isn't a new issue to me. This is now the third winter I have watched this. Everybody had a valid point today. I keep hearing the word homeless. That life is a reality. There are some people on the streets that are actually living with somebody. And they are homeless. These individuals have mental problems, criminal problems and others. It is against the law to expose yourself to go to the restroom. I have that privilege of living in a home and taking a shower and they don't all have that privilege. There aren't beds for 7 all the homeless. I was there when the City came in. I watched it. Imagine someone put a notice on your door and you're gone, and all of the sudden you've gone to eat and you come back and your house is gone. Due-process protects us from this. Did the homeless know about this?No. The Police Department were very respectful. I'm glad this is here and I'm glad we are talking about this. We have to talk about this and we have to understand each other. With no further business, Committee Chair Broden adjourned the Health and Public Safety Committee meeting at 6:27 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, o M. Broden, Committee Chair 8