Do-Away with Anti-homeless Laws
"Councilman Rosendahl Looks To Amend Car Living Rule" Violations of 8th & 14th amendments sited by 9th District Court of appeals finding initial 647(e) unconstitutional.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/whe-one-fix-leads-to-another/ NY Times covered a story how it's actually cheaper, better and safer for our communities to house the homeless rather than make non-criminals, into criminals.
Los Angeles Municipal Code 85.02 - is completely unconstitutional and has been addressed by previous LA City Councilman Rosendahl: "No person shall use a vehicle parked or standing upon any city street or upon any parking lot owned by the City of Los Angeles or under control of the Los Angeles County Department of Beaches and Harbors as living quarters either overnight, day-to-day, or otherwise."
This law is unconstitutional violating 8th and 14th amendments for several reasons: You cannot make laws to target certain groups of people, such as the homeless and based on socioeconomic (et al.) discrimination. Homeless people are still people and are entitled to the same human rights and protections and freedoms under the Constitution of the United States. Targeting a group of people is fascist in nature and violates your human and constitutional rights.
LA is now criminalizing non-criminals and using tax $ to prosecute the homeless, rather than using the $10,000 per day in court to prosecute real criminals, besides using the saved money and new re$ources to shelter and protect the homeless, rather than criminalize them and putting them in jail, for being homeless.
NYC is a highly preferrable model to adopt for homeless folks and build shelters, create more jobs and stop depleting educational resources in our community, $10,000/day to prosecute adds up.
Santa Monica SMMC 3.12.670
Vehicle Occupancy Restrictions/ 3.12.670 SMMC/
No vehicle occupied by any person for more than 30 minutes between the hours of 12:00am and 5:00am shall be parked on any street in a residential district after any occupant of such vehicle has been ordered by a peace officer to move such vehicle. To report an occupied vehicle that is parking in your neighborhood, call 458-8491 while the violator is present or before going to bed if it’s a repeated occurrence.
Nazi Pogroms, homeless were hit first before the Jews, welcome to crypto fascism and the rapists of Democracy.
LA Times:by Carol J. Williams 7/14/2009
"The survey of 273 cities by the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty and the National Coalition for the Homeless based its rankings on the number of laws targeting the homeless by making it illegal to sleep, eat or sit in public spaces."
February 15, 2012 by Arjun Sethi
"..it's wrong to treat homeless persons like criminals...This is morally deplorable and bad fiscal policy. Studies show that it costs $87 per day to jail someone, and just $28 per day for shelter....On any given night, about 636,000 Americans are homeless."
CNN: "Teen 'sport killings' of homeless on the rise" http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/19/homeless.attacks/index.html?iref=newssearch
CA Penal Code 647(e) is another anti-homeless law, 'unlawful lodging' I think someone lost scope.
In Santa Barbara they ticketed Courtney Caswell-Peyton 2010, a homeless lady whom fell asleep in her wheelchair, at the park. This is how the police use this law to target and arrest the homeless. This is discrimatory and unconstitutional and an unequivocal violation of Ms. Caswell-Peyton's civil rights.
However under a more constitutional model of 647(e) any person, homeless or not as homeless are not to be targeted as a violation of both 8th & 14th amendments, soliciting any person for money constitutes solicitation and is bothersome to folks.
Asking for food would not violate 647(e), unless harassing and asking repetitively not leaving a person/persons alone and given repetitive unwanted acts would violate harassment laws from cahr. Hinting such as saying 'i'm low on bus fare," would be allowed, unless repetitive and imposing on one's rights and freedoms defined under cahr. Any person regardless of their socioeconomic background cannot solicit other people for money. The harassment cahr addresses loitering (et al.).
History: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an earlier version of Penal Code Section 647(e) was unconstitutional in 1983 in the case of Kolender v. Lawson. It was an anti-vagrancy law appealed to the supreme court after San Diego Police repeatedly harassed a black man with dreads committing no crime. The 1st version of pc647(e) was repealed by the state legislature in 2008.
2nd version PC 647(e) May 2011, State Legislature makes a second violation - punishable of up to a year in jail and $2,000 fine.
***For being homeless; this is fascist in nature.***
Bottom line: There has to be a safe place to go and more resources for the people in need, not put them in jail for sleeping in a public place, in their vehicle or otherwise.
Making a crime from someone being homeless, living out of their car, or otherwise is unconstitutional and discrimatory and violates the 14th amendment (see below) (and 8th amendment) of the United States Constitution. This is a way to implement checks and balances where all are treated fairly and appropriately without enabling any more insolent behavior and having folks being more accountable for their actions without violating their civil/human/constitutional rights.
By imposing on one's freedoms and making non-criminals into criminals simply because of their socioeconomic status is a reflection of just how totalitarian and plutocratic and fascist our laws have become and how we treat the vulnerable and folks whom don't have money, the ones with no resources, and whom everyone else gave up on, now to be arrested for not being able to afford a home. We must respect ourselves and respect others and our first priority has to be human rights, to be fair and not to impose on anyones' freedoms, no matter how much money they don't have regardless of their vulnerabilities.
A peaceful, civil and human rights' solution to live copesthetically with neighbors:
1. No loitering at your vehicle where there are neighbors, but to simply use their vehicle for sleep between the dusk to 9am. No littering, loitering, 1 hour per week to wash car outside of the curfew time and the vehicle must be well kept as to not annoy neighbors. If there is a special needs condition where there is a conflict with what is defined it is at the discretionary of the officer to do what is in the best interest of the community, which means if the person is sick, leave them be or call an ambulance or offer to take to and from the hospital if there is a condition. Also one hour to worship per week outside of curfew times. Remember to protect and to serve, not discriminate and throw in prison, which is libel.
2. This is to prevent any and all loitering or otherwise acts that would harass or annoy, unwanted acts or disturbances, emotional distress or the like to fellow neighbors. Clean up after themselves and no physical disturbances, music, yelling, lights, etc.
**LAPD officers have used anti-homeless laws to threaten, harass and annoy and roust, as well as inflict emotional distress. They are using this unconstitutional law to target and harass based on socioeconomic discrimination violating human and civil rights subject to libel and civil penalties.
Homeless Harassment: Violent crimes against homeless people have increased.
Foreclosures on landlords often lead to eviction of their tenants. "The Sarasota, Florida, Herald Tribune noted that, by some estimates, more than 311,000 tenants nationwide have been evicted from homes this year after lenders took over the properties."
The court specifically ruled that the city of Los Angeles could not roust derelicts off the streets unless the taxpayers had previously provided a cozy shelter for every conceivable vagrant that drifts in.
In 1998, a study by Koegel and Schoeni of a homeless population in Los Angeles, California, reported that a significant number of homeless do not participate in government assistance programs, and the authors reported being puzzled as to why that was, with the only possible suggestion from the evidence being that transaction costs were perhaps too high."
*Regarding the above paragraph of research; I've personally experienced malicious sabotage with criminal intent and currently undergoing an appeals process as well as filing a libel suit for misconduct and wrongful denial of rightful benefits. DPSS (et al.) go out of their way to deter patrons, especially folks with no resources, to hire a lawyer for example. They also prey on their ignorance of the system and internal laws with a lack of re$ources for an attorney or otherwise, depending on the patrons' ignorance and lack of education and being vulnerable in general due to dire strait situations.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Amendment VIII - cruel and unusual punishment;
See Granucci, ''Nor Cruel and Unusual Punishments Inflicted'': The Original Meaning, 57 Calif. L. Rev. 839 (1969). Disproportionality, in any event, was utilized by the Court in Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349 (1910).