Rhode Island Considers First-Of-Its Kind ‘Homeless Bill Of Rights’

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

http://connecticut.cbslocal.com/2012/05/14/rhode-island-considers-first-of-its-kind-homeless-bill-of-rights/

Rhode Island Considers First-Of-Its Kind ‘Homeless Bill Of Rights’
May 14, 2012 2:20 PM
Eddie Vega, Homeless Bill of Right, Providence, rhode island PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) — Eddie Vega has been homeless for a year. He was waiting for a bus one day last week when a police officer rolled up to ask what he was doing and where he was headed. Vega said it’s the kind of subtle harassment that happens all the time.

“I get the looks,” said the 31-year-old Providence man, squinting because he recently lost his glasses in a fight that also left him with stiches on his forehead. “It’s the same hassle everywhere. Happens every day. There’s nothing you can do. You speak up and you get in trouble.”

Vega had just finished a bologna sandwich at a weekly soup kitchen set up in the Rhode Island Statehouse, where lawmakers are now considering first-of-its kind legislation that would create a “Homeless Bill of Rights” intended to give people like Vega greater protection from discrimination.

The bill would specifically prohibit law enforcement, health care workers, potential landlords or employers from treating homeless people unfairly because of their housing status. The measure’s sponsor, Sen. John Tassoni, said most Americans probably aren’t aware of the daily discrimination faced by homeless people.

“Nobody decides one day they want to be homeless,” said the Smithfield Democrat. “And nobody deserves to put up with the stuff these people have to deal with every day. It’s time we did something to stop the appalling things that go on.”

Tassoni said he’s heard stories about homeless people being kicked out of libraries even though they had library cards, rejected for jobs or apartments, or told to leave a public park just because they were homeless. He said he sponsored the bill to make it clear that homeless people must be treated just like anyone else.

The bill passed the Senate earlier this month and now awaits a vote in the House, where some lawmakers are concerned about how the proposal would be implemented and enforced. Would police face lawsuits if they asked a homeless person to stop loitering in an area? Would librarians have to think twice before asking a disruptive homeless person to leave?

“There are issues with this bill’s unintended consequences,” said House Majority Leader Nicholas Mattiello. “That bill has the potential for causing significant problems for our municipalities.”

Supporters worry such concerns could scuttle the legislation this year. No vote on the measure is scheduled in the House. Mattiello said he couldn’t say for sure whether the measure would come up before lawmakers adjourn for the year, probably next month.

But if municipal leaders or police chiefs oppose the bill, they’re doing so quietly. Daniel Beardsley, executive director of the Rhode Island League of Cities and Towns said he hasn’t heard any objections to the legislation. Tassoni said he hasn’t been contacted by any mayors or police chiefs with concerns either.

Advocates for the homeless said the Bill of Rights shouldn’t pose a burden to cities or police departments — unless they are actively discriminating against the homeless now.

Many kinds of discrimination against the homeless are already illegal under state or federal laws. Homeless people cannot be turned away at the polls, for instance, and it’s illegal for hospitals to refuse them emergency medical treatment.

But while state law already prohibits discrimination based on characteristics such as a person’s religion, gender, race or disability, there is no formal, specific protection for the homeless.

Rhode Island would be the first state to pass legislation to protect the homeless in such a comprehensive manner, according to Neil Donovan, executive director of the National Coalition for the Homeless.

“Ideally we wouldn’t have to have something like this,” Donovan said.

The idea behind the legislation is to make it clear — to the homeless as well as law enforcement, local officials and potential landlords and employers — that discrimination isn’t legal. It’s also designed to be enforceable, so homeless people who believe they’ve faced discrimination have grounds to sue.

“It’s not about giving individuals who are homeless extra rights, it’s about leveling the playing field,” said Megan Smith, a homeless advocate who co-wrote the bill of rights.

At its extreme, discrimination against the homeless can become violent. Since 1999 there have been 1,184 cases of violence in the U.S. against homeless people attributed to bias, according to a compilation by Donovan’s organization. More than 300 of those cases involved the death of a homeless person.

Rhode Island lawmakers passed a law in 2010 making it a hate crime to commit a crime against someone because they are homeless.

But most of the discrimination facing the homeless is much more subtle, according to several homeless people interviewed by The Associated Press.

Fern Wante said he is routinely questioned by police when walking, sitting in a park or waiting for a bus. He said store clerks will ask him to leave before he can even make a purchase. Restaurants won’t serve him. Twice recently he was waiting at a bus stop, he said, only to see the bus drive past. One driver even waved at him, he said.

In many cases, discrimination makes it harder for the homeless to find permanent housing or a job, according to Frank Nolan, who was homeless for several months last year after his appendix burst and he lacked insurance to pay for treatment. Nolan, who now lives in an apartment, has lobbied lawmakers to pass the Bill of Rights.

“They’re trying to get off the street but they can’t get an apartment because they put a shelter down as their previous address,” he said. “The same thing happens when you apply for a job. They see a shelter on there and that’s it.”

**dogma**

Interesting. There's certainly merit to the idea given how difficult it can be to climb out of homelessness once you're there if only because, as is pointed out, it becomes much harder to find employment.

**dæl**

Seems an admirable goal, as long as its done with a delicate touch and not the clumsy oafishness that legislating peoples behaviour often turns into it would be a good idea. But that is a massive if. I've often thought that we don't allow discrimination about sex, race or religion, and not socio-economic standing, which seems wrong as its just as bad.

**Frazzled**

So cops can be moved for discrimination if they question why a homeless guy is laying in the Library?

ok....

**ShumaGorath**

Frazzled wrote:So cops can be moved for discrimination if they question why a homeless guy is laying in the Library?

ok....

The important part being can be. If it's undue harassment, then it is discrimination. If they're loitering then it's not.

**streamdragon**

Considering regular folks are asked not to sleep in Libraries, I'm guessing the answer is "no".

On the other hand, most people aren't asked to leave public parks during the day time and yet here in DC it happens pretty much every day.

**sourclams**

Frazzled wrote:So cops can be moved for discrimination if they question why a homeless guy is laying in the Library?

ok....

Yeah that seems a bit ridiculous to me as well. I once fell asleep in a library in Tucson, Arizona, just dozed off, and I was told rather firmly by the Librarian that I could not sleep in the Library and would have to leave if it happened again. That took me a bit by surprise, but as I looked about at other library patrons I realized that a good number of them were most likely homeless, and I put 2 and 2 together.

The thing was, I didn't look at all homeless, so there didn't seem to be anything discriminatory at work there, they just didn't want people camping in the Library.

I get that the disadvantaged face discrimination and suspicion. I really do, I've probably spent more time with homeless people than anyone who isn't a social worker or a law enforcement officer. But preventing people from making a library a campsite or deciding that a random dude giving himself a spongebath in the bathroom of your business might not positively affect your image (or worse, using the toilet stalls to shoot heroine--happens) is not discrimination.

**dæl**

Hence the need for a delicate touch. But seriously, if they causing a problem then they have to be moved on, if its treated the same as race/sex discrimination I don't see a problem, no cop would be done for discrimination for asking a black guy to move on when they're causing a problem. But if someone starts hurling abuse it should be seen the same as abusing a minority/woman/homosexual.

**Frazzled**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Frazzled wrote:So cops can be moved for discrimination if they question why a homeless guy is laying in the Library?

ok....

The important part being can be. If it's undue harassment, then it is discrimination. If they're loitering then it's not.

Thats kind of scary its so vague.

**streamdragon**

sourclams wrote:I get that the disadvantaged face discrimination and suspicion. I really do, I've probably spent more time with homeless people than anyone who isn't a social worker or a law enforcement officer. But preventing people from making a library a campsite or deciding that a random dude giving himself a spongebath in the bathroom of your business might not positively affect your image (or worse, using the toilet stalls to shoot heroine--happens) is not discrimination.

The things you're describing are things they don't want anyone, homeless or not, to be doing though. I don't think the issue is so much who is doing it (homeless v not) so much as what is being done. (loitering, heroin, etc)

**mattyrm**

I made a homeless bill of rights, like ten years ago. Im a man ahead of my time, I wrote it on a napkin when I was at In N out Burger in San Dimas.

Mattys TRAMP Bill of Rights of 2002.

The rights of all homeless citizens as represented by Parliament.

All TRAMPS (Those Really Awful Men (who smell of ) Pee Strongly) will have..

Freedom from taxation other than giving up 50% of the meagre pitiful change you collected in your cup today, and if you don't give it up with the minimum of fuss you will be chained in the nearest police sergeants yard for 48 hours and used as his own personal servant/pool cleaner/gardener

Freedom to bear arms for their defence, but only rubber band guns, inflatable swords and Vuvuzelas.

Freedom to elect members of Parliament if you can go without booze for 30 days prior to entering a polling station, good luck with that one.

Freedom of speech if you talk coherently and brush for teeth with good quality toothpaste for 3 minutes prior.

Freedom from cruel and unusual punishments and excessive bail if you can do 79 push ups inside 45 seconds

Freedom from fines and forfeitures if an officer believes you are a good enough break dancer.

**Frazzled**

dæl wrote:Hence the need for a delicate touch. But seriously, if they causing a problem then they have to be moved on, if its treated the same as race/sex discrimination I don't see a problem, no cop would be done for discrimination for asking a black guy to move on when they're causing a problem. But if someone starts hurling abuse it should be seen the same as abusing a minority/woman/homosexual.

You can't discrminate on the basis of ethnicity under color of law as a general rule. Profiling someone icky smelly with no good intent is now discrimination? If I were a cop/librarian/whatever I'd adopt the policy of "Forget it. This is just a job. They voted for this. Let them deal with it."

**ShumaGorath**

Frazzled wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Frazzled wrote:So cops can be moved for discrimination if they question why a homeless guy is laying in the Library?

ok....

The important part being can be. If it's undue harassment, then it is discrimination. If they're loitering then it's not.

Thats kind of scary its so vague.

It doesn't seem that vague to me. Things like this are usually decided by the courts or by the institutions themselves, most forms of discrimination laws are fairly vague since they are subjective and case-by-case by their nature.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
dæl wrote:Hence the need for a delicate touch. But seriously, if they causing a problem then they have to be moved on, if its treated the same as race/sex discrimination I don't see a problem, no cop would be done for discrimination for asking a black guy to move on when they're causing a problem. But if someone starts hurling abuse it should be seen the same as abusing a minority/woman/homosexual.

You can't discrminate on the basis of ethnicity under color of law as a general rule. Profiling someone icky smelly with no good intent is now discrimination? If I were a cop/librarian/whatever I'd adopt the policy of "Forget it. This is just a job. They voted for this. Let them deal with it."

So your policy is immaturity since you can't discriminate based on wealth anymore? That's a little tammany hall.

**Frazzled**

sourclams wrote:[Yeah that seems a bit ridiculous to me as well. I once fell asleep in a library in Tucson, Arizona, just dozed off, and I was told rather firmly by the Librarian that I could not sleep in the Library and would have to leave if it happened again. .

If you were homeless you could now sue the librarian. I'm sure there will be multiple "advocates" who will take your case. Meanwhile the libary is now unsafe for everyone else.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dæl wrote:Hence the need for a delicate touch. But seriously, if they causing a problem then they have to be moved on, if its treated the same as race/sex discrimination I don't see a problem, no cop would be done for discrimination for asking a black guy to move on when they're causing a problem. But if someone starts hurling abuse it should be seen the same as abusing a minority/woman/homosexual.

The joke that is the US legal system does not do "delicate touch."

**ShumaGorath**

Frazzled wrote:
sourclams wrote:[Yeah that seems a bit ridiculous to me as well. I once fell asleep in a library in Tucson, Arizona, just dozed off, and I was told rather firmly by the Librarian that I could not sleep in the Library and would have to leave if it happened again. .
If you were homeless you could now sue the librarian. I'm sure there will be multiple "advocates" who will take your case. Meanwhile the libary is now unsafe for everyone else.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dæl wrote:Hence the need for a delicate touch. But seriously, if they causing a problem then they have to be moved on, if its treated the same as race/sex discrimination I don't see a problem, no cop would be done for discrimination for asking a black guy to move on when they're causing a problem. But if someone starts hurling abuse it should be seen the same as abusing a minority/woman/homosexual.

The joke that is the US legal system does not do "delicate touch."

Yes, I'm sure there will be a great rush of frivolous lawsuits brought by the homeless against poor penniless libraries. I'm sure they all have the money for the law fees.

**Frazzled**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Frazzled wrote:So cops can be moved for discrimination if they question why a homeless guy is laying in the Library?

ok....

The important part being can be. If it's undue harassment, then it is discrimination. If they're loitering then it's not.

Thats kind of scary its so vague.

It doesn't seem that vague to me. Things like this are usually decided by the courts or by the institutions themselves, most forms of discrimination laws are fairly vague since they are subjective and case-by-case by their nature.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
dæl wrote:Hence the need for a delicate touch. But seriously, if they causing a problem then they have to be moved on, if its treated the same as race/sex discrimination I don't see a problem, no cop would be done for discrimination for asking a black guy to move on when they're causing a problem. But if someone starts hurling abuse it should be seen the same as abusing a minority/woman/homosexual.

You can't discrminate on the basis of ethnicity under color of law as a general rule. Profiling someone icky smelly with no good intent is now discrimination? If I were a cop/librarian/whatever I'd adopt the policy of "Forget it. This is just a job. They voted for this. Let them deal with it."

So your policy is immaturity since you can't discriminate based on wealth anymore? That's a little tammany hall.

You've never been subject to one or more frivolous lawsuits. It'll make you old before your time.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
sourclams wrote:[Yeah that seems a bit ridiculous to me as well. I once fell asleep in a library in Tucson, Arizona, just dozed off, and I was told rather firmly by the Librarian that I could not sleep in the Library and would have to leave if it happened again. .
If you were homeless you could now sue the librarian. I'm sure there will be multiple "advocates" who will take your case. Meanwhile the libary is now unsafe for everyone else.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dæl wrote:Hence the need for a delicate touch. But seriously, if they causing a problem then they have to be moved on, if its treated the same as race/sex discrimination I don't see a problem, no cop would be done for discrimination for asking a black guy to move on when they're causing a problem. But if someone starts hurling abuse it should be seen the same as abusing a minority/woman/homosexual.

The joke that is the US legal system does not do "delicate touch."

Yes, I'm sure there will be a great rush of frivolous lawsuits brought by the homeless against poor penniless libraries. I'm sure they all have the money for the law fees.

This is why you shold think first. They don't sue the librarian. They sue the library and any affiliated governmental entity.

**ShumaGorath**

Frazzled wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Frazzled wrote:So cops can be moved for discrimination if they question why a homeless guy is laying in the Library?

ok....

The important part being can be. If it's undue harassment, then it is discrimination. If they're loitering then it's not.

Thats kind of scary its so vague.

It doesn't seem that vague to me. Things like this are usually decided by the courts or by the institutions themselves, most forms of discrimination laws are fairly vague since they are subjective and case-by-case by their nature.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
dæl wrote:Hence the need for a delicate touch. But seriously, if they causing a problem then they have to be moved on, if its treated the same as race/sex discrimination I don't see a problem, no cop would be done for discrimination for asking a black guy to move on when they're causing a problem. But if someone starts hurling abuse it should be seen the same as abusing a minority/woman/homosexual.

You can't discrminate on the basis of ethnicity under color of law as a general rule. Profiling someone icky smelly with no good intent is now discrimination? If I were a cop/librarian/whatever I'd adopt the policy of "Forget it. This is just a job. They voted for this. Let them deal with it."

So your policy is immaturity since you can't discriminate based on wealth anymore? That's a little tammany hall.

You've never been subject to one or more frivolous lawsuits. It'll make you old before your time.

Presumably so would being thrown around based on the fatness of your wallet, the homeless usually look pretty haggard. Either way you're making strawmen.

This is why you shold think first. They don't sue the librarian. They sue the library and any affiliated governmental entity.

Or they wouldn't sue anyone at all since they can't afford a lawyer and no one is going to do that case pro bono without legitimate discrimination. They won't win since loitering laws still exist. This is some "gay marriage leads to communism" level slippery slope stuff fraz.

**streamdragon**

I'm not sure what you're talking about Frazz. Again, even people in business suits and sporting classy hats are asked not to sleep in a library; so asking the homeless not to do it is not what this bill is designed to prevent.

Their being asked to leave a public park, being refused service in a store, or basically being shut out of doing things that someone not homeless could do is what the bill is.

Another example: I was at a Wendy's a long while back, sitting in there eating my Jr. Bacon Cheeseburgers and such when a homeless man walking in and sat down at a table. He didn't say anything to anyone, didn't smell badly enough for me to notice it a few tables away and basically did nothing else; including buy food. He was asked to either buy something or leave, refused to buy something, and was told to leave.

This is acceptable whether the man was homeless or not; he's taking up space a paying customer could use.

This is entirely different than saying "You have to go. No, you can't buy food here, leave." Granted, many restaurants and stores now have the "we reserve the right to refuse anyone service for any reason" clause, but I believe that is the sort of discrimination that the bill is meant to fight. The kind that prevents the homeless from doing everyday things that everyone does; like paying to ride the bus, sit in a public park, grab a snack at a 7-11, or in some cases just walk down a street.

**Frazzled**

Nope. If there's potential money and attorneys involved, its never a strawman.

**ShumaGorath**

Frazzled wrote:Nope. If there's potential money and attorneys involved, its never a strawman.

Yes. It is. You're making a big and very visible one.

**Frazzled**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Nope. If there's potential money and attorneys involved, its never a strawman.

Yes. It is. You're making a big and very visible one.

You shouting strawman doesn't make it a strawman.

**ShumaGorath**

Frazzled wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Nope. If there's potential money and attorneys involved, its never a strawman.

Yes. It is. You're making a big and very visible one.

You shouting strawman doesn't make it a strawman.

No, but the slippery slope fallacy and falsely implying undue vagueness in a lawset that must be vague (as bills of rights always are) is. The implication that the homeless will suddenly start suing everyone is inane, especially considering the circumstances assure that the laswuits you imply would be universally failures thus putting them more in debt. It's just not going to happen. It's silly. Your repetitious inference that people that are low on the social ladder are scummy is pretty questionable. You do it in a lot of threads and I wouldn't be so quick to call strawman if that wasn't something you employ a lot.

**biccat**

ShumaGorath wrote:Or they wouldn't sue anyone at all since they can't afford a lawyer and no one is going to do that case pro bono without legitimate discrimination.

You don't know much about lawyers, do you?

**Frazzled**

biccat wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:Or they wouldn't sue anyone at all since they can't afford a lawyer and no one is going to do that case pro bono without legitimate discrimination.

You don't know much about lawyers, do you?

**dæl**

Surely after the first case gets thrown out lawyers will be far less willing to take on such pro bono cases? You'd probably still get a couple of firebrands willing to "stick it to the man", but if it doesn't pay why do it. Do lawyers over there take on many spurious sexual discrimination cases that are doomed to fail, as its obvious it wasn't discrimination because the person was in the wrong to begin with?

**biccat**

dæl wrote:if it doesn't pay why do it.

It's called pro bono.

**dæl**

I get that, but if its a complete waste of everyones time then its not in anyones interest. Theres a point to pro bono if you can win because the other side would pay costs, but to do it knowing you'd lose? Seems like a futile endeavour.

**Palindrome**

Frazzled wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Frazzled wrote:So cops can be moved for discrimination if they question why a homeless guy is laying in the Library?

ok....

The important part being can be. If it's undue harassment, then it is discrimination. If they're loitering then it's not.

Thats kind of scary its so vague.

Why is it vague? Its exactly the same standards that are applied to the rest of the population.

**Frazzled**

If a cop says move it buddy I don't have recourse. Under that proposed law if I'm homeless and the cop says move it buddy I can now sue him and the police department. Bring on the Benjamins.

**Palindrome**

If there is no legitimate reason to move someone one then it is harrasment, just like it would be to move anyone on, A legitimate reason won't be hard to prove in court either.