If I go downtown I can be legally approached by someone handing out religious literature or someone asking me to donate to a fireman's fund. So why is it illegal for a homeless person to approach me? Good question.
ok...here's my shot at this law...it violates the equal protection clause of the US constitution...it cuts specifically to affect one socio-economic group, not to affect the whole of society. it targets, and laws should not do that. there...there's my $.02 cut at it...not sure i completely agree with the argument, but i'd make it nonetheless. problem is, socio-economic status has not been defined as a protected class very well within the constitution (not like race, religion, gender)
When was the last time you saw someone wearing a nice suit sleeping on the street? Sitting on a downtown sidewalk? Those are the only two places you wouldn't be able to be, according to the article. I imagine if you're in a nice suit, with a latte, and you happen to be sleeping on the sidewalk, you could potentially be approached by police. I would imagine that NOBODY would be able to approach you for money, homeless or otherwise, if you're at a pulse machine, gas pump, or parking meter. That's what it says in the article.
This raises some interesting points. 1. Do rights come with responsibilities. Does society have an obligation to give rights, or uphold them if you want, to someone who does not participate in the responsibilities involved in being a member of a community? Can I say 'screw it' plop down on the sidewalk and demand its my right for you to give me a house and food? I don't think so. 2. Should mentally disabled/ill be another discussion? I guess, since they cannot necessarily grasp these concepts. But are ALL homeless mentally ill/disabled? And should we institutionalize those that are? In the end, why do you have the right to public space if you don't contribute to the community, or at a minimum, if you are unlikely to contribute in the future? 3. Is it wrong to fear a poverty sticken, possibly mentally ill, definite non-participant in the community because they ARE poor/possibly ill/non-participant (like when you are preoccupied at the ATM/gas pump)? Or are they more likely to be desperate and/or unbalanced, and hence should be feared? When was the last time someone from the firefighters fund spit on you or acted physically threatening or erratic?
Hayes -- how do you define "participant in the community"? Do they have to be a US citizen? Do they have to have jobs? Do they have to own a home? Do they have to pay taxes? Do they have to own a car? Do they have to be a member of the PTA? Do they have to wear socks...you get the idea. I think you're heading down a slippery slope of defining people's rights and worth by their contribution to the economic system. Doesn't work that way. Remember: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. I don't see anything there about socioeconomic status. As far as someone from the fireman's fund spitting on me or acting erratic -- it's never happened. But, by the same token, that's never happened to me with a homeless person either. There are questionable people in all walks of life, not just the poor. Hell, when's the last time a homeless person engaged in insider trading, brought down the company you work for and caused you to lose your job? It goes both ways.
Yes, the Constitution is a beautiful thing. But your last sentence is correct. It doesn't guarantee rights to socio-economic status, nor does it guarantee socio-economic support for anyone, including those who drop out of society. And it does not convey 'rights' without limits. To assert that is simply incorrect. This goes back to my previous question, which put another way is 'what does it mean to be a citizen?' The Constitution does not convey a right to sleep in public space, or to harrass people, or to drop out of society and unless I missed those Articles. It merely seeks to guarantee the right of equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Hey I get what you're saying, Mrs JB, but you are just going to the opposite extreme. You are NOT making any attempt to define what makes a citizen, or a member of the community. Is it merely being physically present within a certain geographical area? If I step over a territorial boundary am I 'entitled' to the rights of that particular domain? So far, no Constitutional interpretations that I know of grant rights in that manner. Aliens (not the space kind, although I guess they wouldn't either ) are not guaranteed rights under the Constitution. 'We the people' does not refer to everyone in the world, it refers to citizens of the United States. In the same way, why is a someone who does not participate in the community (not by paying taxes, not by providing thier labor, nor contributing to security, nor owning land, nor voting, or any of the criteria you might come up with) 'entitled' to those rights any more than an alien. Again I make exceptions for mentally ill/physically unable since they cannot be held to the same standards as everyone else (but they shouldn't be left on the streets either on some warped theory of maximizing liberty). I agree that the strictest possible definition of what 'contributing to society/community' is not desirable, but neither is it desirable to convey rights without responsibilities. Undoubtably, rich commit crime as well! Agreed. However, these are not the same types of crime. An insider trader is not a physical threat to me as I'm walking on the street, getting cash out of an ATM. They do not act physically erratic in a threatening manner. They are not likely to attempt to transfer bodily fluids onto my person, or react violently when I tell them 'NO, I'm not interested.' Both (white collar crime and physical threats) are bad, so...what's the point. I think you are merely creating a flashy rhetorical red herring to avoid the point. Yes, people from all walks of life are potential threats, but that doesn't mean homeless have a 'right' to squat on the sidewalk or harrass you at the ATM. Also, someone else posted 'what's the harm in trash digging.' When I was in NY this was a big issue. I remember thinking, 'hey, if they are pulling out cans and then taking them to recycle, that is GOOD. They are trying to help themselves out.' That doesn't address the issue of what they do with the cash, but I was cool with it. Then I started to realize that most of the time (this is just personal observation, not a study) they dump the trash out, take the cans/bottles, and then leave the rest of the trash. So then one of two things happens, either (a) the person whose trash they went through has to come back out and repack all the trash -more than likely a superintendent who costs money or (b) the city has to do it. Neither of these is reasonable, especially when you consider sanitation workers cost a bundle, and the extra hours they spend on this cost the taxpayers more money.
Of course, everyone who is in favor of the "civility" ordinance (nice name for it by the way) has conveniently ignored this quote, which is probably the most important of all. There are more than 1 million CHILDREN living on the streets of America. Never mind the people who are mentally ill. The problem is that we ignore those facts and focus on the smaller issues. Honestly, when is the last time anyone here was verbally or physically assaulted by a homeless person? Does it happen often? If it does, you have every right to go to the police just as you would if your neighbor or your spouse or your boss or a total stranger assaulted you. Equal protection. But, that isn't really the big issue. The big issue is why do we focus on all the problems with a small percentage of people and not on the bigger problem at hand? Like I said earlier in this thread, statistics show that homeless people are FAR more likely to be victims of assault than they are to be perpetrators. If that is the issue, why aren't we talking about how to protect THEM from assaults with as much vehemence and conviction as we talk about protecting ourselves?
Can I say 'screw it' plop down on the sidewalk and demand its my right for you to give me a house and food? I don't think so. No, you can't demand that. However, you ARE more than welcome to to sit there and ASK (well, maybe not anymore). They do not act physically erratic in a threatening manner. They are not likely to attempt to transfer bodily fluids onto my person, or react violently when I tell them 'NO, I'm not interested.' I find it interesting that this is being made a "safety" issue. I wonder how many people have actually been assaulted by homeless people. By the way, those things are *already* illegal. Maybe we should ban all guns as well, because those things are quite threatening too. Same with dogs. Some dogs occasionally bark at or attack people -- let's take all of those out of society as well. You know, for safety. I bet both dogs and guns are responsible for more assaults than homeless people. What this law boils down to is that people don't like the homeless, so its easy to say "we don't want those kinds around us".
Socio-economic class is not protected for a reason, at least the economic part of it anyway. Unlike race or gender, and to a lesser extent religion, people have the ability to change their economic situation. To a great extent, it is personal choice that determines whether that person is in one economic situation or another. Life is conditional. If you choose to work hard, you will see the results of that work. If you choose not to, proportional results will likewise follow. America is "the greatest nation" because of the emphasis it has placed on the individual. Individual responsibility, motiviation, and drive are what drive this nation's prosperity. If certain individuals choose not to advance themselves through hardwork, discipline, education, and the like, then so be it. There's nothing you can do about them, it's their choice. But get off of my hood asking me for money for "food" (read: weed, crack), and don't threaten me if I refuse.
It doesn't say they can't be around! It says you can't PANHANDLE in certain places (not that you can't be around), or that you can't be SLEEPING or sitting in the sidewalk DOWNTOWN (not anywhere, just downtown). That doesn't prevent them from walking the streets of downtown like everyone else!
There's a reason that the homeless congregate in downtown. There are shelters close by. It isn't like they can just catch a ride with a homeless friend back to the shelter every night. They have to stay within walking distance. Most shelters can't run 24/7 because they don't have enough money to afford it. Most are open for sitting or sleeping from 7pm to 7am. During the day, they are out of luck.
Fight the power, Mrs. JB. I can't believe there are people in this thread who wholeheartedly approve of social darwinism as an organising principle. My god, what is this, the nineteenth century? Homelessness could be eliminated. It wouldn't be simple, but it's possible. By the way, if they're not allowed to sit on the sidewalk, where *are* they supposed to sit? If they're not allowed to get food from the garbage, what do you suggest they eat? And frankly, if you're homeless *or* well-off, I'm perfectly happy for you to be high or drunk with my money if I choose to give it to you - I don't have different moral standards for poor people and rich people. Go ahead. Get high, you poor b*stard... no skin off my nose.
