By Dan Aiello
State Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) is following through on his promise to reform California’s prisons with the introduction of a homeless rights bill intended to decriminalize homelessness in the Golden State, protecting “some of society’s most vulnerable members.”
Make no mistake, Assembly Bill 5 is as much prison reform, as it is civil rights, legislation.
Among other things, the proposed law would require legal representation for anyone cited under local loitering, camping or panhandling ordinances.
It would give “every person in the state, regardless of actual or perceived housing status,” the rights to “use and move freely in public spaces,” to “rest in public spaces,” and to “occupy vehicles, either to rest or use for the purposes of shelter, for 24 hours a day, seven days a week,” according to Ammiano’s press release.
“Overall, this bill is about not being discriminated against if you are homeless,” said Ammiano. “A lot of it is aspirational. This is what we would love in a perfect world,” said Ammiano today.
In an interview last month regarding the Assemblyman’s wish to see significant prison reform, Ammiano told The Vanguard that our prisons have been an expensive “weapon of first choice” in the war on drugs, mental illness and homelessness.
Ammiano is a new generation of state government “reform” legislators – a California political legacy dating back to progressive Governor Hiram Johnson – and has fiercely sought to decriminalize marijuana while advocating its taxation as a revenue source for state government. It is the use of state prisons “as our weapon of choice in the wars on drugs, the mentally ill and the homeless, yes its increasingly illegal in this state to be homeless,” that was the biggest contributor to a prison population that has until realignment seemed uncontrollable, Ammiano told The Vanguard.
“We have focused too much time money and effort at criminalizing mental illness, victimless crimes and homelessness and then perceiving all inmates as if they are all the same, and that has been part of our problem,” Ammiano told The Vanguard.
Ammiano was pragmatic in what he told The Vanguard was a waste of taxpayer dollars for a state “not any more safe,” for incarcerating administrative parole violators who missed appointments with parole officers, mental illness, victimless crimes like drug possession and and incarceration of the homeless for loitering, panhandling and camping.
California spent $72,000 per year, per prisoner in 2012. The Golden State has the highest recidivism rate in the nation, nearly 20 percent higher than the next highest state correctional system. And 45 percent of those who were returned to prison in the three year post-release time period were returned for “administrative parole violations, including missed appointments and positive drug tests,” according to the state’s 2011 survey. According to a 2012 Pew study, the total cost to California taxpayers for returning those former inmates who did not commit a violent crime or felony: $1 billion dollars.
Ammiano told The Vanguard he believes placing the homeless and mentally ill in overcrowded state prisons is “immoral,” and likened their imprisonment to that of being thrown into state-run “Gladiator Academies.”
“It would give “every person in the state, regardless of actual or perceived housing status,” the rights to “use and move freely in public spaces,” to “rest in public spaces,” and to “occupy vehicles, either to rest or use for the purposes of shelter, for 24 hours a day, seven days a week,” according to Ammiano’s press release.”
So if a homeless person decided to park in front of your house and live out of their car that would be legal?
That’s not a public space.
The streets aren’t considered public spaces?
According to Wikipedia:
“Roads (including the pavement), public squares, parks and beaches are typically considered public space.”
So once again, if a homeless person decided to park in front of your house and live out of their car that sounds like it would be legal under this new proposed law.
I believe there is a difference between a public street and a residential streets. Residential streets are not the same as other roads and are generally not consider public spaces. For instance, someone could not picket in front of your home in most states, but could in front of your business.
Okay, even though I think you’re wrong that residential streets aren’t public property, would it be legal for homeless families to take up four parking spaces directly in front of the downtown Starbucks and live out of thir cars 24/7 as the law states?
This is from the bill text: “(k) “Public space” means any space that is predominantly within the public domain or that is held open to the public, including, but not limited to, plazas, courtyards, parking lots, sidewalks, public transportation, public buildings and parks, and may also refer to those places that receive additional services through business improvement districts or other, similar public-private partnerships.”
My guess Rusty, is that it is not referring to time restricted spaces, what it means is if the homeless person wants to park in the park’s parking lot, that would be legal.
Rusty49
I understand the point that you are trying to make regarding a public nuisance factor. However, the cases you are citing are handled by other regulations that do not criminalize the poor. For example, on my residential street in Old East Davis, I purchase parking permits for myself and visitors by the year that allow me to park on the street in front of my own home. In the Starbucks case, their are parking time limits that would handle this situation.
Oops…. There are
Most Davis neighborhood’s don’t require parking permits. As far as my Starbuck’s example, what laws would trump, the 24/7 law or local parking restrictions? I don’t think Ammiano has really thought this out.
Rusty49
True that most neighborhoods do not currently have parking regulation by zone. Mine didn’t before a problem was identifies with train commuters taking up the parking spaces. My point was not that all streets are currently regulated the same, but rather that is possible to make modifications if and when problems arise instead of hypothesizing about what might happen and restricting behavior based on “what iff” instead of on what is.
Rusty: From the language I quote from the bill it’s clear that neighborhood parking is not anticipated from this legislation.
“From the language I quote from the bill it’s clear that neighborhood parking is not anticipated from this legislation.”
“Not anticipated”? But is it not legal?
Medwoman
“True that most neighborhoods do not currently have parking regulation by zone. Mine didn’t before a problem was identifies with train commuters taking up the parking spaces. My point was not that all streets are currently regulated the same, but rather that is possible to make modifications if and when problems arise instead of hypothesizing about what might happen and restricting behavior based on “what iff” instead of on what is.”
I think the time to take up the “what ifs’ is before something is made law, not after. This proposed law is so poorly proposed with many probable problems.
Rusty: No more than it might be legal now. But given the amount of authority that HOA’s have now and the legal differentiation of public v. private with regards to protests rights, I don’t see it as a legitimate threat.
“But given the amount of authority that HOA’s have now and the legal differentiation of public v. private with regards to protests rights, I don’t see it as a legitimate threat.”
I don’t have an HOA, I don’t think very much of Davis residential areas are covered by HOA’s. Streets are public, the law states that anyone could park 24/7 on a public street and live in their car, what does this new proposed law have to do with protest rights?
First of all David is wrong about the street issue unless there is permitted parking. Anyone can park their car on any street and I’m not aware of anything saying someone cannot picket in front of a residence if they are on the sidewalk. The occupy group actually squatted in the yard of a residence in Woodland and David didn’t say they couldn’t do that.
I have no issue addressing the homeless issue, especially as to the mental health end of it, but Ammiano’s idea is just ridiculous. We are actually fortunate enough to of had a preview of this bill with the occupy protests. The protests devolved into little more than homeless camps that left nothing but trash and damage behind. I don’t think we want to see that again.
HuffPo:
[quote]The heart of Assembly Bill 5 would give legal protection to people engaging in life-sustaining activities on public property. Among other activities, it specifically mentions sleeping, congregating, panhandling, urinating and “collecting and possessing goods for recyling, even if those goods contain alcoholic residue.”[/quote]
I don’t think letting people walk around with “collected” open containers and a free pass to urinate at will is a good idea. I hope people here are smart enough to see this as a free pass for transients to drink beer and keep wherever piles of stuff they’ve collected pretty much anywhere they want. I HAVE to believe the readers here are smart enough to read between the lines on this one.
Mr. Obvious:
“I HAVE to believe the readers here are smart enough to read between the lines on this one.”
I have my doubts about that.
rusty49 wrote:
> I don’t think Ammiano has really thought this out.
I think that he HAS thought this out… It is important to remember that like almost all politicians Ammiano does not really care about the homeless (how many does he let live in his SF home when he is in Sacramento?) and that all he “thought out” is how to get more campaign cash and a “law that would require legal representation for anyone cited under local loitering, camping or panhandling ordinances” will bring in tons of money to his friends the defend the drunk pedophile that hangs out in front of the school/defend the homeless drug addict that takes a dump in the playground playhouse attorney friends who will kick back some of the cash they make from Tom’s new law to Tom (and many of the other supporters of the law)…
SOD
“I think that he HAS thought this out”
You know, that occurred to me. How much is this going to cost CA in legal fees while more lawyers suck the system dry. If this law passes and Californians start seeing and experiencing its bad affects it will fall squarely on the Democrats as they’re now calling all the shots.
[i]”occupy vehicles, either to rest or use for the purposes of shelter, for 24 hours a day, seven days a week,”[/i]
Is it presently illegal to occupy vehicles?
Don wrote:
> Is it presently illegal to occupy vehicles?
The Davis City Code says:
No person shall camp in any city open space area, except in areas established by the city and/or if granted a special permit by the director. Camping is defined as erecting a tent or shelter, or arranging bedding, or both, for the purpose of, or in such a way as will permit, remaining overnight. This section shall be applicable to camper-style trucks, camp-trailers, or other similar vehicles. (Ord. 1877 § 1)