Laserfiche WebLink
that could be used to negate any complaint filed with the South Bend Human Rights Commission <br /> for a violation of the Bill of Rights. In other words if someone filed a claim stating a police <br /> officer discriminated because of homelessness, but the police officer and other eye witnesses <br /> could establish that the homeless person was violating a lawful command to get out of the street <br /> while a fire truck was going through an intersection, that would be an affirmative defense that <br /> would negate any claim. <br /> He continued, The difficult part with setting out a Homeless Bill of Rights is that there are so <br /> many interests that must be considered. Obviously the interest of the homeless are being <br /> considered. We are trying to protect them and provide them with everything the City can <br /> provide. There are legitimate concerns that will be raised by other citizens. A main concern is <br /> that the establishment of the Homeless Bill of Rights may encourage homeless from other <br /> communities to come to South Bend. That would further challenge the already strained resources <br /> the City has in helping the homeless. The City's resources are limited. It has devoted millions of <br /> dollars toward helping the homeless but that stream of money is not endless, to the extent that we <br /> are asked to take over the responsibility of homeless individuals all throughout the Michiana <br /> Area. We can't simply take in all homeless individuals in the surrounding area. People are also <br /> concerned the homeless individuals will discourage customers from visiting nearby businesses. <br /> That is a legitimate concerns by business owners. There are also concerns that homeless <br /> individuals may reduce a resident's property value. There is so much misinformation and there <br /> are many misconceptions about the homeless. What people don't understand and what they <br /> aren't familiar with causes fear. That fear causes concerns. <br /> He went on, When the Administration takes action like they did under the viaduct, it is from the <br /> standpoint of public health. There are many health issues that arise in people that are in this <br /> situation. That is a concern that everyone in the City should have at heart. The Council and the <br /> Administration needed to work jointly in addressing this issue. If we aren't on the same page, the <br /> issue will not go away. Both bodies need to combine their resources and, as the Mayor has said, <br /> unity of purpose is essential. <br /> Committee Chair Broden then opened the floor to questions or comments from the Committee <br /> and Councilmembers. <br /> Councilmember Tim Scott stated, I think this is a really good start. I thank the sponsors of this <br /> for bringing it forward. How many cities have been looked at besides Rhode Island and <br /> Connecticut?I am also intrigued with the performance metrics. I am very supportive of moving <br /> through this process. My biggest concern is the health perspective. <br /> Mr. Palmer replied, There are very few states and communities that have actually enacted <br /> something like this. <br /> Committeemember Susan Soisson asked, Do you have any sense of the feasibility of doing this <br /> on a broader scope instead of just a city? <br /> 5 <br />