#anti unhoused policies | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

justinspoliticalcorner · 7 months ago

Text

Ian Millhiser at Vox:

The Supreme Court’s ultimate decision in Grants Pass v. Johnson probably isn’t going to end well for homeless people. The case, which asks whether a city in Oregon may enact so many restrictions on sleeping in public and similar behavior that it amounts to an effective ban on being unhoused, drew many questions from justices skeptical that the federal judiciary should play much of a role at all in addressing homelessness.

That said, there is an off chance that Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett might join with the Court’s three Democratic appointees to permit a very narrow injunction blocking the web of anti-homelessness ordinances at issue in this case. Barrett, in particular, seemed concerned by the fact that the city of Grants Pass, Oregon, “criminalizes sleeping with a blanket” while outside. The bulk of the Court’s questions, however, and especially the questions from the Court’s Republican appointees, focused on the difficult “line-drawing” questions that arise once the Supreme Court says that there are constitutional limits on what the government can do to criminalize behaviors that are associated with homelessness. If a city cannot criminalize sleeping in a public park with a blanket, for example, can it criminalize public urination or defecation by someone who does not have access to a toilet? Can it criminalize lighting a fire in public to stay warm? And does the answer change if the person who lights the fire needs to do so in order to cook?

Given these difficult questions, many of the justices — and especially Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito, and Justice Neil Gorsuch — suggested that maybe the courts should stay away from homelessness policy altogether and let local governments sort out how they want to deal with this issue. Meanwhile, at least three justices — Justices Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — floated the possibility that the federal judiciary may lack jurisdiction to hear this case to begin with. Such a decision would allow the Court to punt on the broader question of whether the Constitution permits the government to effectively criminalize homelessness. Given the morass of competing concerns raised by different justices, it is difficult to predict what the Court’s opinion will ultimately say — although, again, it is unlikely that Grants Pass will end in a significant victory for people who lack shelter.

Grants Pass turns on the difference between “status” and “action”

This case asks how the Court should apply its decision in Robinson v. California (1962), which struck down a California law making it a crime to “be addicted to the use of narcotics.” Robinson reasoned that the government may not make it a crime simply to be something — what the Court called a “status” crime — so a state cannot arrest someone simply for being a person with a drug addiction. That said, Robinson does permit a state to punish “a person for the use of narcotics, for their purchase, sale or possession, or for antisocial or disorderly behavior resulting from their administration.” So it is constitutional to punish someone for actions that are closely tied to their status as an addict, even if the addiction itself cannot be a crime.

The issue in Grants Pass is that the city enacted a web of ordinances that do not explicitly ban being homeless within the city’s borders — that is, they do not actually say that someone can be charged with a crime simply for existing without a permanent address. But the plaintiffs in this case, unhoused residents of Grants Pass, Oregon, argue that the city enacted so many restrictions that it is inevitable that any homeless person in that city will eventually violate one, and thus these ordinances amount to an effective ban on the status of being homeless. Among other things, the city forbids so much as wrapping yourself in a blanket while sitting or lying down in public. Because it is often very cold in Grants Pass, that means that an unhoused individual in that city has nowhere to sleep.

[...]

The federal courts may not have jurisdiction over this case

No one is allowed to file a federal lawsuit challenging a particular law unless they can show that they’ve been injured in some way by the law they are challenging, a requirement known as “standing.” Federal courts also typically lose jurisdiction over a case challenging a particular law if that law ceases to operate against the plaintiffs, rendering the case “moot.” As at least three justices noted at oral argument, there are plausible arguments that the plaintiffs in this case either lack standing or that their case has become moot. Thomas and Sotomayor raised a potential standing problem. Robinson says it is unconstitutional to make it a crime to have a particular status, but it’s less clear whether Robinson prohibits civil lawsuits arising out of an individual’s status. As Thomas noted, it’s not clear whether any of the plaintiffs named in this suit have actually been hit with a criminal sanction (as opposed to a civil fine), so they may lack standing to assert their claims under Robinson.

Meanwhile, Jackson flagged a potential mootness problem. The state of Oregon, she noted, has passed a law that limits Grants Pass’s (or any other municipality in Oregon’s) authority to target homeless individuals with ordinances like the ones in this case. So there may no longer be a live conflict between the plaintiffs in Grants Pass and the city because state law now forbids the city from enforcing its ordinances against those plaintiffs. A decision on standing or mootness grounds would most likely delay a reckoning on whether the law can criminalize homelessness, but it is unlikely to put that dispute off altogether.

SCOTUS heard oral arguments in the Grants Pass v. Johnson case yesterday on homelessness policy, and when the court rules on it, it's likely not good for unhoused people. What is uncertain is how broad or narrow SCOTUS would rule on the case.

See Also:

HuffPost: Supreme Court Conservatives Likely To Roll Back Homeless Rights In Grants Pass Case

#SCOTUS #Grants Pass Oregon #Grants Pass v. Johnson #Homelessness #Unhoused People #9th Circuit Court #Robinson v. California

5 notes · View notes

voskhozhdeniye · 9 months ago

Text

Since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, advocates and policy analysts have warned of a homelessness “tsunami.” It’s the worst-case scenario where the combination of lost income, backlogs of owed rent, and a lack of local government foresight contribute to a surge of people losing housing and ending up on the street. Well, it has arrived—and it’s poised to get much worse as the Supreme Court is set to decide whether to make homelessness a de facto crime.

This past month, many cities and counties conducted their annual point-in-time homelessness counts. The results of January’s counts won’t be known for several more months, but they’re likely to be dire. The end-of-2023 results found that approximately 653,000 people were experiencing homelessness. That’s up more than 70,000 over 2022, or a 12 percent increase. In the 12 months since that data was collected, those numbers have likely gone up.

But the raw numbers are just the tip of the iceberg. As more people end up experiencing homelessness, they’re also facing increasingly punitive and reactionary responses from local governments and their neighbors. Such policies could become legally codified in short order, with the high court having agreed to hear arguments in Grants Pass v. Johnson.

Originally brought in 2018, the case challenged the city of Grants Pass, Oregon, over an ordinance banning camping. Both a federal judge and, later, a panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck the law down, saying that Grants Pass did not have enough available shelter to offer homeless people. As such, the law was deemed to be a violation of the Eighth Amendment.

The ruling backed up the Ninth Circuit’s earlier ruling on the Martin v. City of Boise case, which said that punishing or arresting people for camping in public when there are no available shelter beds to take them to instead constituted a violation of the “cruel and unusual punishment” clause in the Eighth Amendment. That applied to localities in the Ninth Circuit’s area of concern and has led to greater legal scrutiny even as cities and counties push for more punitive and restrictive anti-camping laws. In fact, Grants Pass pushed to get the Supreme Court to hear the case, and several nominally liberal cities and states on the West Coast are backing its argument. If the Supreme Court overturns the previous Grants Pass and Boise rulings, it would open the door for cities, states, and counties to essentially criminalize being unhoused on a massive scale.

If it does so, that will have ramifications for all unhoused people, from those who have been chronically homeless for some time to those currently falling into homelessness. And that last category is a large one: In the time since the January 2023 homeless count, there have been at least 1,076,396 evictions across 10 states and 34 cities, according to Princeton University’s Eviction Lab project, which has tracked data related to evictions through the end of 2023. In December alone, there were more than 69,000 evictions in those monitored areas. According to the data, evictions have almost fully returned to pre-Covid pandemic levels, after federal moratoriums and protections expired.

It’s also becoming harder to pay for housing. The housing market remains tight for anyone looking to buy, and renters are losing options. Inflation has eaten into people’s available income, pandemic-era protections have ended, rents are rising, and data from the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies that came out last month showed that renters are spending more—even as the amount of affordable housing available is decreasing.

Nearly 22.4 million households—or half of all renters—can’t afford their rent, according to an accepted standard that paying more than 30 percent of one’s income on rent renders it unaffordable. Without immediate assistance to renters, it’s a situation that will only worsen. Back rent due, as well as new rent increases, is likely to magnify the financial strain that’s already being keenly felt by renters, forcing more people out of their homes, either to depend on friends and family or end up on the streets.

If the Supreme Court sides with Grants Pass, it will effectively undo all of the protections created by the Boise case, which means that the thousands of people currently experiencing homelessness as well as those likely to fall into homelessness in 2024 will face additional challenges in an already traumatic situation. Added legal and financial burdens will only make it harder for them to become rehoused, creating a vicious cycle of escalating misery that will do nothing to actually solve the underlying causes of homelessness.

Grants Pass v. Johnson hasn’t received the same fanfare as many of the other cases before the Supreme Court this term, but perhaps no other case has as much at stake for some of the most vulnerable Americans, who now face the prospect of both additional financial burdens and the possibility of being transformed into a new class of criminal, solely because so many states and municipalities have chosen to wash their hands of a crisis their own policies have created.

Jesse Rabinowitz, the campaign and communications director with the National Homelessness Law Center’s “Housing Not Handcuffs” program (which plans to file an amicus brief in the case prior to oral arguments but has not as of press time) told The New Republic that an arrest record only makes it harder to get a job or find a new apartment to rent—and unpaid fines can lower a credit score, causing more financial hardship.

If the highest court sides with lawmakers that have abandoned the homeless to face more punitive measures for their misfortune, anyone left on the streets could be subject to arrest or other criminal penalties simply for having nowhere else to go, even in instances where local government has fallen through on the provision of adequate shelters. They will either be left to rot in jail or be forced out of the communities they call home.

The biggest obstacle to solving homelessness is the lack of affordable housing. That’s it. Either people are being priced out of homes or those on the streets can’t afford to obtain a permanent home. Thousands of units are either in the approval process or being built, but at the moment there is a nationwide deficit in housing, and construction is not matching pace with the growth of the unhoused population.

“Homelessness is increasing in many communities because rents are sky high and there is a severe shortage of affordable rental homes. More people are just one financial shock away from falling behind on rent and facing evictions and, in worst cases, homelessness,” Sarah Saadian, senior vice president of public policy at the National Low Income Housing Coalition, told The New Republic. “As homelessness has increased, elected officials are under a lot of pressure to take action, but too many of them are turning to misguided, ineffective, and costly approaches, like criminalization, rather than investing in proven solutions.”

This is not some abstract conundrum. In Los Angeles this past month, before and during dangerous storms that found officials urging sheltering in place for safety, police and city agencies were out dismantling encampments. Efforts by local advocates and organizations to help get unhoused people into promised shelters were met with confusion by local government and a lack of actual help, as documented by the group Ktown for All. Prior high-level sweeps, such as at Echo Park Lake in 2020, cleared the park of tents, but despite initial claims by Los Angeles City Council members, only a handful of the nearly 200 people cleared by the lake found temporary shelter, let alone permanent housing. Additionally, representatives with the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority said such clearances disrupted outreach attempts intended to get people to shelter and temporary housing, undoing trust-building efforts that took time to develop.

And real solutions to homelessness are up against long timelines and limited political will. There are major efforts to build new housing and fund services—the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced $3.16 billion last month for those very issues—but these resources take time to spin up, and they face political challenges along the way. An ambitious plan by New York City Mayor Eric Adams, announced in 2022, shriveled over a year, with several cuts to social services. It’s an initiative that joins other community programs in facing financing and budget issues, all while the mayor pushes increasing money to the already massively funded NYPD. Los Angeles elected a slew of progressive officials in 2022 and passed a mansion tax to fund housing and services, however it will still be some time before any new housing funded by it opens.

Meanwhile the city’s wealthy interests and corporate donors are funding the campaigns of conservative challengers to several progressives this year. If the Grants Pass case ends up allowing widespread criminalization of homelessness, it could lead to major setbacks that could render these projects far less effective.

Even large cities that have committed significant resources to helping unhoused people can’t adequately shelter people. New York, with a right-to-shelter law, still falls short of helping all of the people in need. Los Angeles has initiated several measures—several very good ones, as a matter of fact—to fund housing and services, but new units take time to actually be built, and more reactionary elements in the city government are pushing anti-homeless ordinances of their own.

And shelter, although helpful, is not housing. People in transitional or bridge housing still struggle to find permanent solutions, mainly because there simply isn’t enough affordable housing available. And it’s worth remembering that tens of thousands of people fall into and out of homelessness a year, including many who might experience homelessness for just a brief period of time before safety programs, family, or good fortune help them regain housing stability. Those who fit into this category could find themselves caught up in the criminal justice system for just a few days’ misfortune.

If the Supreme Court does side with criminalizing homelessness, local and state governments could start punishing people very quickly, according to Rabinowitz. “A lot of states have carve-outs that say this policy of criminalization can’t be enacted unless there is adequate shelter,” Rabinowitz said. “I imagine the ‘adequate shelter’ part will go away very quickly if the court rules that way.”

There are even more hostile proposals being dreamt up. In Florida, the state legislature—with the endorsement of Governor Ron DeSantis, fresh off his failed presidential run—is proposing criminalizing homelessness and putting unhoused Floridians in camps. Donald Trump is running on a nationwide version of this same policy. Under his proposal, unhoused people would be sent to “tent cities” on “inexpensive land” (exactly what that means is unclear, but it’s implied to be outside of cities).

Notably, the proposal is missing any real details on getting people out of those camps into actual permanent supportive housing. Trump hasn’t provided any idea of what his indefinite internment plan will cost or how he will pay for it; it goes without saying that it’s impossible to determine whether it would be more cost-effective than simply building more housing. But the former president appears to have retribution, not solutions, on his mind. In his 2023 video, he accused cities of focusing on “the whims of a deeply unwell few,” outright ignoring the root causes of homelessness and the factors that keep people unhoused.

When one considers the draconian ideas being conceived behind closed doors, the implications of any decision in Grants Pass are very real. The mechanisms and political desire to criminalize the homeless already exists, and lawmakers seem to be racing toward drastic and punitive approaches, instead of solutions that might actually ease the crisis. Should the Supreme Court contribute to the momentum of criminalization, it will likely exacerbate the crisis—it certainly will neither contribute to rehousing the homeless nor alleviate the economic conditions that force people out onto the streets. It’s a recipe for shortsighted, “out of sight” policies that will enable officials to pursue the cruelest possible approaches to a problem they helped create.

#Greetings from America

6 notes · View notes

no2ticonderoga · 11 months ago

Text

Well, my friends, we come to the end of 2023. And It sucked on a lot of levels. And 2024 doesn’t look like it’s shaping up much better for a lot of us. There is a lot of bad shit in the world, and a lot of it is out of our control, and that can make us feel helpless and lost. But as we turn the corner into a new year, remember that there are things we can do.

Take care of yourself. Drink water. Go for a walk. Absorb some sunshine. Take a shower. Put down your phone for an afternoon, turn off the TV, and enjoy the people around you. Even if it’s just sitting in a coffee shop with a book. Even if enjoying the people around you simply means people watching and not interacting. There is still a lot of good in the world, and social media is not always the best way to see that. Spend time with your hobbies. Spend some time doing things for you.

Don’t get caught in a outrage vortex. There’s plenty of things to be outraged about, no doubt. But don’t guilt yourself into believing you need to wallow in it. Don’t fall for the argument that enjoying things is a privilege and you shouldn’t be allowed to do it just because there are people in the world who can’t. That will always be the case, and as sad as it is, you can’t go on a downward spiral forever. That way lies madness. You do what you can for who you can, and when you can, no question. But you still need to live.

Do what you can, but don’t guilt yourself for not doing more than you’re able. There are great causes to donate your money and/or time to. Both abroad and at home. The Red Cross/Crescent/Sheild is a great place to help get medical aid to those who need it regardless of where you are. Doctors Without Borders. Your local food banks, clothing swaps, and community organizations, for a more locally targeted aid. In the US, there’s a group called End 68 Hours of Hunger, which gets food to kids who might not get a meal from school lunch on Friday to breakfast Monday morning, and is amazing cause. There are so many kids who need help, and they’re doing what they can. Can’t give money? Give some time at a local animal shelter, or donate your old ratty towels. They’re always looking for them for the animals. But if you can’t do any of that…don’t beat yourself up. Do even simpler things. Hold the door for the person behind you. Even if you can’t give to the unhoused person on the street corner, smile at them. Treat them like a human. There are things that cost nothing, and have an impact far beyond you can known.

VOTE. It costs literally nothing, and is virtually the biggest thing you can do to change the world. There are a lot of countries that are holding elections this year beyond the US. Mexico will elect a new president. India is voting. The UK is closing in on election. Take the time to educate yourself. Cast your vote wisely, to protect women, children, the environment. And don’t let the perfect be the enemy of good. Look, is Joe Biden a great president? No, probably not. But he’s done some good things that he doesn’t get a lot of credit for. But really, the question is, is he 100000% better than Trump’s second term? Yes. Is it worth withholding your vote, to take that risk, because you’re unhappy about something he did. ABSOLUETLEY NOT. Is the Labour Party in the UK perfect? No, they’ve got some issues. Is it worth risking more years under Conservative Rule. Hell no. It the anti-Modi coalition perfect in India? Probably not. But are they better than the alternative? You have to understand voting is the only way to get the change you want. And to prevent changes you don’t want. Staying home accomplishes NOTHING. It’s not a protest. It’s not symbolic. It’s not a message. Staying home is allowing people and policies you don’t want to win. It’s a simple as that. DO NOT STAY HOME. DO NOT LET PERFECT BE THE ENEMY OF GOOD.

This got longer than I intended, people, but I hope you all can take something out of my rambles. And I’ll be back tomorrow my “2024 New Year Fic Resolutions” for all of you to see and to bug me about this year. I’ll be putting them out into the universe to manifest them.

#end of the year #goodbye 2023 #unsolicited advice #rambles #VOTE DAMN YOU

4 notes · View notes

beardedmrbean · 2 years ago

Text

CULVER CITY, Calif. — A new anti-camping ordinance aimed at clearing out homeless encampments has been met with fierce criticism from leaders and residents who say it will displace the most vulnerable to make way for gentrification in this rapidly changing city.

Council members in Culver City, where a new 4.5-acre Apple campus has been proposed and where the median price of a home is just shy of $1 million, voted earlier this week to ban tents and makeshift structures in public spaces, a step other nearby cities have tried only to be stopped by legal challenges.

With more than 170,000 people living in tents and cars and sleeping outdoors on sidewalks and under highway overpasses, California is the epicenter of the nation’s homeless crisis, yet few, if any, communities have been able to make a significant dent in the number of unsheltered residents living within their borders.

A 2018 federal court decision stemming from an Idaho ordinance found that criminalizing homelessness, including prohibiting sleeping in public, violates the U.S. Constitution and amounts to "cruel and unusual punishment" if no shelter beds are available.

Proponents of the Culver City ordinance say the city must stay in lockstep with surrounding communities to prevent more unhoused people from taking up residence on its streets.

But opponents say the ordinance has been rushed and will criminalize already marginalized people, especially Black and Latino residents who are more likely to experience homelessness.

They also point out that where Los Angeles’ ordinance is specific to areas near schools and day care centers, Culver City’s applies to the entire city, which could prompt legal challenges.

"I am very disappointed," said Culver City council member Yasmin-Imani McMorrin, who was one of two dissenting votes on the six-member council. "I feel this is an incredibly harmful policy that doesn’t add anything other than punitive measures."

Several homeless people who would be affected by the ordinance say they prefer living outdoors than in a shelter, and that they won't go voluntarily.

On a recent windy afternoon, Roscoe Billy Ray Bradley Jr. swept the sidewalk he has called home for more than a decade. When asked if he was aware of the new ordinance, he shook his head. When asked if he would voluntarily relocate, he bristled.

“They can’t take my tent. That’s my personal property,” he said. “I’m not going anywhere.”

Nearby, Walter Lindsey cleared debris from his encampment under a busy freeway overpass. He moved to Culver City from downtown Los Angeles two weeks ago and said he prefers the area's “relaxed” environment to the “depressing” scenes of skid row.

He now lives behind a makeshift wall of plastic tarps and cardboard boxes near Bradley’s encampment. The two have tasked themselves with sweeping the sidewalk daily to allow for foot traffic and to deter police from complaining about their belongings.

Like Bradley, Lindsey was not aware of the new ordinance and does not have a backup plan should he be asked to relocate.

“I guess I gotta prepare them,” he said of his unhoused neighbors.

“As long as the weather is fine, I’d rather be outside than cooped up inside a shelter,” he said. “It’s too depressing.”

During a heated city council meeting Monday night, officials said the ban would not be enforced until the city meets key goals, including opening a designated camping site where unhoused residents can set up their tents and the conversion of 73 hotel and motel units into permanent and interim housing.

Combined, the two programs would add roughly 100 beds for unhoused people. According to the 2022 homeless count, some 350 people live on the streets of Culver City.

“Continuing to criminalize people for being in poverty, for struggling, has never gotten anyone out of poverty and never will,” said Bryan “Bubba” Fish, who sits on the city’s homeless advisory committee. “And yet, we continue down the same path.”

There is no clear time line for when the housing units would become available, according to the city, and officials have not determined who would be tasked with clearing out the encampments and what enforcement measures, such as fines and arrests, would be used if people refuse to relocate.

“We are putting the cart before the horse,” said Culver City Council member Freddy Puza, who voted against the ordinance. “I’m not trying to be intentionally vague — I just don’t know what the next steps are.”

In neighboring Los Angeles, Mayor Karen Bass has spent much of her first two months in office issuing emergency orders aimed at quelling the ongoing homeless crisis.

Bass told NBC’s “Meet the Press” in December that her plan to move homeless people into rooms immediately will not “address everybody, but it is going to address, hopefully, a significant number.” She said people would not be forced to move, but sanitation crews would stand by to clean up areas after people have left.

Bass declared a state of emergency on homelessness on her first day as mayor and said she intends to move more than 17,000 homeless people into interim and permanent housing during her first year in office.

Since then, she has issued emergency directives to free up surplus and unused properties for housing, clear encampments under the city's Inside Safe program and pushed for a $50 million emergency fund that would pay for homeless initiatives.

According to the 2022 homeless count, more than 69,000 people were unhoused on any given night in Los Angeles County, a 4.1% increase from 2020. About 42,000 were within the city of Los Angeles, where public frustration grew as tents proliferated on sidewalks, in parks and under freeway overpasses during the pandemic.

Bass' emergency declarations appear to have created a domino effect in neighboring cities, like Santa Monica and Culver City, which have started to issue their own proclamations in recent weeks.

But the push to clean up the most obvious signs of homelessness has not addressed what many experts say is the root cause of the crisis: a shortage of affordable housing.

"Nobody should have illusions that all of a sudden encampments are going to come down," said John Maceri, CEO of The People Concern, a service provider. "It’s going to take a minute. This is 50 years in the making."

#nunyas news #nimbys are at it again

24 notes · View notes

portlandpotholesandpride · 1 year ago

Text

The Stakeholders

The housing crisis in America, particularly in cities like Portland, involves a wide array of stakeholders with varying interests and perspectives. Understanding who these stakeholders are, what they stand to gain or lose, and their positions on the issue is crucial to comprehending the complex web of interests surrounding houselessness and the housing crisis. The most directly impacted stakeholders are those experiencing houselessness. They, along with advocacy organizations such as the National Coalition for the Homeless and local homeless shelters, advocate for systemic change, affordable housing, and improved services. Municipal governments, like the City of Portland, and federal agencies play a significant role in addressing houselessness. Their positions vary and some may contradict, such as, providing funding for shelters and support services to implementing policies such as anti-camping ordinances. Real estate developers and property owners often have a financial interest in the housing market. High property values and rental rates can benefit them and drive rent prices up, though some may support affordable housing initiatives. Local businesses may have concerns about the impact of houselessness on commercial areas and tourism, which can influence their business thus their perspectives on the issue. The broader community holds diverse views on houselessness, ranging from compassion and support to frustration and opposition. Public opinion can often affect government policies and funding. Newspapers, magazines, and online media outlets contribute to the public discourse by reporting on the issue, shaping public opinion, and influencing policy debates (VanderHart 2022). Each of these stakeholders has distinct positions on the problem. For instance, while advocacy groups and unhoused individuals call for more affordable housing and support services, property developers may resist regulations that could affect their profits. Government agencies aim to strike a balance between addressing houselessness and addressing other public priorities. Media outlets often highlight the human aspects of the crisis, while businesses may emphasize economic concerns.

Works Cited

VanderHart, D. (2022, May 13). Everybody hates Portland: The city’s compounding crises are an X-factor this year. opb. https://www.opb.org/article/2022/05/13/portland-oregon-crime-homelessness-gloom-election-politics/

#portland #housing crisis

2 notes · View notes

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 1 year ago

Photo

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

May 31, 2023

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

JUN 1, 2023

Tonight the House passed a bill to suspend the debt ceiling for two years, enabling the Treasury to borrow money to prevent a default. More Democrats than Republicans rallied to the measure, with 165 Democrats and 149 Republicans voting in favor, for a final vote of 314 to 117. Seventy-one Republicans and 46 Democrats opposed the bill. Now the measure heads to the Senate. The votes revealed a bitter divide in the Republican Party, as the far-right House Freedom Caucus fervently opposed the measure; Representative Chip Roy (R-TX) for example, called it a “turd sandwich.” Florida governor Ron DeSantis also came out against it, saying it leaves the country “careening toward bankruptcy.” The far right insists the measure does not provide the cuts they demand. Last night’s nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office scoring of the bill offered them ammunition when it said that the additional work requirement imposed on able-bodied people aged 18–54 without dependents to receive food benefits is outweighed by the expansion of those benefits to veterans, unhoused people, and children aging out of foster care. The CBO estimates that the measure will add 78,000 people a month to food assistance programs, adding $2.1 billion in spending over the next ten years. Despite their fury, though, the far right in the House appears to be backing down from challenging Representative Kevin McCarthy’s (R-CA) speakership. Their angry news conferences seem mostly to be performances for their base, and to answer them, McCarthy today said on the Fox News Channel that he was creating a “commission” to “look at” cutting the budget that the president “walled off” from cuts, including the mandatory spending on Medicare and Social Security. But, as Josh Marshall pointed out in Talking Points Memo today, the Republican base no longer seems to care much about fiscal issues. Instead, they are pushing the cultural issues at the heart of illiberal democracy: anti-LGBTQ laws, antiabortion laws, anti-immigration laws. Former president Trump is making those themes central to his reelection campaign. Yesterday he released a video promising that on “Day One” of a new presidential term, he would issue an executive order that would end birthright citizenship. Our current policy that anyone born in the United States is a citizen, he claims, is “based on a historical myth, and a willful misinterpretation of the law by the open borders advocates.” He promises to make “clear to federal agencies that under the correct interpretation of the law, going forward, the future children of illegal aliens will not receive automatic US citizenship.” Trump is picking up an idea from his presidential term that immigrants are flocking to the U.S. as “birth tourists” so their children will have dual citizenship, but the estimate from the immigration-restrictionist Center for Immigration Studies that birth tourism accounts for 26,000 of the approximately 3.7 million births in the U.S. each year has been shown to be wildly high. Trump’s attack on birthright citizenship is an attack on immigration itself, echoing people like Hungary’s prime minister, Viktor Orbán, who insists that immigration weakens a nation by diluting its native-born people with outsiders. Trump’s attack on the idea of birthright citizenship as a “historical myth” is a perversion of our history. It matters. In the nineteenth century, the United States enshrined in its fundamental law the idea that there would not be different levels of citizenship in this country. Although not honored in practice, that idea, and its place in the law, gave those excluded from it the language and the tools to fight for equality. Over time, they have increasingly expanded those included in it. The Republican Party organized in the 1850s to fight the idea that there should be different classes of Americans based on race—not only Black Americans, but also Irish, Chinese, Mexican, and Indigenous Americans faced discriminatory state laws. Republicans stated explicitly in their 1860 platform that they were “opposed to any change in our naturalization laws or any state legislation by which the rights of citizens hitherto accorded to immigrants from foreign lands shall be abridged or impaired; and in favor of giving a full and efficient protection to the rights of all classes of citizens, whether native or naturalized, both at home and abroad.” In 1868, after the Civil War had ended the legal system of human enslavement, the American people added to the Constitution the Fourteenth Amendment, whose very first sentence reads: “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.” Congress wrote that sentence to overturn the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled that people of African descent “are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word ‘citizens’ in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.” The Fourteenth Amendment legally made Black men citizens equal to white men. But did it include the children of immigrants? In 1882, during a period of racist hysteria, the Chinese Exclusion Act declared that Chinese immigrants could not become citizens. But what about their children who were born in the United States? Wong Kim Ark was born around 1873, the child of Chinese parents who were merchants in San Francisco. In 1889 he traveled with his parents when they repatriated to China, where he married. He then returned to the U.S., leaving his wife behind, and was readmitted. After another trip to China in 1894, though, customs officials denied him reentry to the U.S. in 1895, claiming he was a Chinese subject because his parents were Chinese. Wong sued, and his lawsuit was the first to climb all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, thanks to the government’s recognition that with the U.S. in the middle of an immigration boom, the question of birthright citizenship must be addressed. In the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision, the court held by a vote of 6–2 that Wong was a citizen because he was born in the United States. That decision has stood ever since, as a majority of Americans have recognized the principle behind the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as the one central to the United States: “that all men are created equal” and that a nation based on that idea draws strength from all of its people. Over time, we have expanded our definition of who is included in that equality. Now the right wing is trying to contract equality again, excluding many of us from its rights and duties. The Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health decision makes women a separate and lesser class of citizen; anti-LGBTQ legislation denigrates sexual minorities. Trump’s attack on birthright citizenship makes that attack on equality explicit, calling equality a “myth” and attempting to enshrine inequality as the only real theme of our history. The concept of equality means we all have equal rights. It also means we all owe an equal allegiance to the country and that we all should be equal before the law, principles the former president has reason to dislike. Today, Katelyn Polantz, Paula Reid, and Kaitlan Collins of CNN broke the story that federal prosecutors have an audio recording of the former president admitting he kept a classified Pentagon document about a potential attack on Iran. The material on the tape, which was recorded at his Bedminster, New Jersey, property and appears to indicate that the document was in his hands, shows that Trump understood he had taken a classified document and that he understood that there were limits to his ability to declassify records. The recording also appears to suggest that at least one of the documents Trump took when he left office had enormous monetary value. As former Senior Foreign Service member Luis Moreno tweeted: “You can bet that if the TS/SCI dox involved military action against Iran, there would be a couple of countries willing to pay a king’s ransom for it.”

—

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

#Heather Cox Richardson #Letters From an American #Immigration #history #contracting equality #equal rights #Racism #that all men are created equal #Fourteenth Amendment

5 notes · View notes

peachy-gemini · 6 months ago

Text

I have made the decision to finish pursuing my master's of social work, returning to education after about a decade away.

As part of this venture, though, I unfortunately have to be subject to the financial burden of education in the United States. As a transgender person (as with other marginalized populations), this can come this can come with its own set of financial barriers -- and #TransgenderFirst wants me to write about why it's challenging for transgender students to afford and approach college to raise awareness of these issues as part of my entry for their scholarship. More below --

You're online with me here, so I have no doubt we have all seen the conversations surrounding transgender rights and visibility. It remains to be seen if being "visible" is, in fact, "progress". Transgender individuals continue to face systemic barriers - and accessing higher education is no exception. Transgender students encounter challenges in affording and pursuing higher education -- and I have some thoughts regarding those societal, economic, and institutional factors contributing to our marginalization, and hope to propose strategies for fostering inclusivity and equity within academic environments should you be privy to them.

Socioeconomic disparities are the most obvious to track; I'll refrain from finding specific statistics because, frankly, they're too depressing for me. Transgender individuals often encounter socioeconomic challenges that hinder our ability to afford rent and groceries, much less higher education. Discrimination and prejudice in employment settings frequently lead to job insecurity and financial instability, making the prospect of financing education daunting at best. If you want to look up information, I'm sure surveys such as the ones from the National Center for Transgender Equality will show more insight on how transgender individuals are more likely to live in poverty compared to the general population, should you want to see this in depth. Furthermore, familial rejection due to gender identity can result in houselessness or lack of needed social and financial support, further impeding access to resources necessary for pursuing higher education. Again, another instance of the statistics being depressing - regardless of gender identity, you're welcome to look up statistics regarding becoming unhoused. A high percentage of individuals who become unhoused before adulthood are significantly more likely to face continual financial and health issues throughout their entire lives.

Legal and policy frameworks also pose significant obstacles for transgender students seeking higher education. In many jurisdictions, transgender individuals face discrimination in housing, healthcare, and education due to inadequate legal protections. Without comprehensive anti-discrimination laws, transgender students encounter hostility and bias from peers, faculty, and administrators within academic institutions, creating unwelcoming environments that undermine their academic success. Additionally, limited access to gender-affirming healthcare and supportive services further compounds the challenges faced by transgender students, affecting their mental health and overall well-being. Additionally, internal academic policies play a role in many institutions and specific organizations, which I will discuss further by addressing overall campus climate.

The campus climate plays a pivotal role in shaping the educational experiences of all students, and transgender and gender non-conforming students face issues regarding their existence in greater numbers than our peers. Despite progress in LGBTQI+ advocacy, many academic institutions lack inclusive policies and practices that affirm transgender identities and address issues of discrimination and harassment. Transgender students frequently report feeling unsafe on campus, with high rates of verbal and physical violence targeting gender non-conforming individuals. The absence of gender-neutral facilities and inadequate support services further marginalize transgender students, contributing to feelings of isolation and alienation within academic spaces. Legal and policy restrictions often go into play with acceptance into certain institutions - the mixed bag of women's colleges are a prime example but also I won't go in depth. I know first hand that this was a fight from within those colleges to even address the acceptance of intersex individuals and transmisogyny-affected individuals, and that isn't even to address how trans women do not feel comfortable applying to these places in the first place due to the climate toward them.

The intersection of transgender identity and mental health presents significant challenges for academic success. Transgender students are disproportionately affected by mental health issues such as depression, anxiety, and suicidality, often stemming from experiences of discrimination, stigma, and social exclusion. These mental health disparities not only impede academic performance but also diminish the overall quality of life for transgender students, hindering their ability to fully engage in their educational pursuits. Furthermore, the lack of culturally competent mental health services exacerbates these challenges, perpetuating a cycle of distress and academic underachievement.

It is essential to acknowledge that transgender students experience intersecting forms of marginalization based on race, ethnicity, class, disability, and other identities. Intersectionality shapes the unique experiences and vulnerabilities of transgender individuals within higher education, compounding the challenges they face in navigating institutional barriers and societal prejudices. For example, transgender students of color often face compounded discrimination and violence, further limiting their access to educational opportunities and resources. Intersectional approaches to addressing the needs of transgender students are crucial for promoting equity and inclusivity within higher education.

Addressing the challenges faced by transgender students in higher education requires a multifaceted approach that encompasses policy reform, institutional change, and community engagement. First and foremost, academic institutions must implement comprehensive anti-discrimination policies that explicitly protect transgender students from harassment and discrimination. This includes training faculty and staff on LGBTQ+ issues and creating inclusive curricula that reflect the diverse experiences of transgender individuals. Additionally, colleges and universities should invest in gender-affirming resources and support services, including access to gender-neutral facilities, counseling, and healthcare.

Moreover, efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion should prioritize the voices and leadership of transgender students, ensuring that their perspectives and experiences are central to decision-making processes within academic institutions. Establishing LGBTQ+ resource centers and student organizations can provide vital spaces for community building, advocacy, and support. Furthermore, collaboration with local LGBTQ+ organizations and advocacy groups can enhance the visibility and accessibility of resources for transgender students both on and off campus.

It become obvious, then, that transgender students face significant challenges in affording and pursuing higher education, stemming from systemic discrimination, socioeconomic disparities, and institutional barriers. Addressing these challenges requires a concerted effort to foster inclusivity, equity, and support within academic environments. By implementing anti-discrimination policies, providing gender-affirming resources, and amplifying the voices of transgender students, colleges and universities can create more welcoming and accessible spaces for all members of the LGBTQ+ community. Ultimately, as corny as it sounds, advancing transgender rights within higher education is not only a matter of social justice but also a fundamental step towards building more equitable and inclusive societies.

#TransgenderFirst scholarship information can be found here: https://www.onlinedegree.com/transgender-first-scholarship/

#TransgenderFirst #transgender #higher education #lgbtqia #education

0 notes

a4bl · 4 years ago

Text

Asians 4 Black Lives: Structural Racism is the Pandemic, Interdependence and Solidarity is the Cure

The COVID-19 pandemic has driven a new surge in violence against Asian communities across the world. Several high-profile instances of anti-Asian racist violence—spurred on by casually racist remarks at every level of government, business, and popular culture—have created a terrorizing climate for many. In San Francisco Chinatown for example, overt xenophobia, combined with the economic impact of shelter-in-place orders, has left immigrants, elders, limited English-speaking people, and poor folks feeling like targets. In San Francisco, where a staggeringly disproportionate 50% of the COVID-19 mortalities are from the Asian and Pacific Islander community, the pandemic has ushered in multiple violences. This has been further exacerbated by pre-existing crises: gentrification, displacement, homelessness, police terror, inequities in education, a drastic uptick in deportations, antagonism against trans and queer people, poverty, and exploitation.

Nationally, Black people are dying from COVID-19 at rates twice as high as other groups, an outcome of deeply embedded structural racism in healthcare, housing, labor, and other policies. Communities are weakened from decades of housing discrimination and redlining, forced denser housing, targeted criminalization and incarceration, larger numbers of pre-existing health conditions, and less access to affordable healthy food. Black communities are more likely to live in places with air pollution, rely on public transit, and be essential workers, so exposure rates increase. When Black people fall ill with COVID-19, racism in the healthcare system means lack of access to quality care, testing kits, or funds for treatment. In some cases, like for Zoe Mungin, they are simply not believed and turned away from treatment, until it is too late.

We must recognize that the scapegoating of Asians as the harbingers of disease and the state violence against Black people (via systemic policing and state response to the pandemic) are two sides of the same coin. This system of oppression is what indicates whether we live or die. This moment makes it even clearer that we must radicalize our communities for cross-racial solidarity.

Asians and Anti-Blackness in the US

Asians in the US are not a monolith. Some of us are first-generation immigrants who came here to work under selective immigration policies that privileged our education and technical skills. Some of us are here through involuntary migrations—fleeing economic and military wars waged in our homelands by the US and other imperial powers. Some of our Asian families have been in the US for generations. Some of us were adopted from Asian countries by non-Asian families. Some of us are mixed-race and of Black and Asian descent. We cannot ignore the varied experiences and distinctions between how our people got to this land, our familial and community histories in the US, and the way in which mainstream American perceptions and portrayals impact us differently. What we do have in common is that we’re incentivized by capitalism and racism, particularly anti-Blackness, to hold up the dual evils of white supremacy and American imperialism.

In order to fight back, we need to be more informed. That means understanding how we’ve been asked to buy into this system and to uphold ideas, policies, and practices that ultimately go against our interests. That also means being active and vocal supporters of Black liberation, and taking responsibility to end our anti-Blackness. We must acknowledge that anti-Blackness is at the core of all racism and that non-Black Asians have benefited—conditionally—from a system of anti-Blackness politically, economically, and socially. See our statement on recent police killings of Black people for more on this. It also means understanding how the history of racial capitalism has impacted all our communities and continues to impact us.

A Shared History of White Supremacy and Imperialism

Today the current administration is seeding a second Cold War with China to protect its financial interests globally and in the Asian Pacific. Stateside, we see results of this expressed as public figures repeatedly call COVID-19 a “Chinese virus” or a “Kung Flu,” directly resulting in vigilante attacks on people of Chinese descent, or people perceived to be of Chinese descent. In the summer, we’re seeing an uptick in COVID-19 cases as states push for “re-opening,” in part so that the state doesn't have to pay the brunt of unemployment benefits. This puts frontline workers (who are disproportionately from communities of color) at further risk—a decision not made off science but because of the drive for profit. In 2014-15, the Ebola outbreak also became a racialized pandemic, sparking widespread fear of African countries and a globalized anti-Blackness by Western countries.

We’ve seen this before: racist rhetoric, scapegoating, and, eventually, military tactics that target and intimidate communities of color to reinforce US capitalist priorities domestically and imperialism abroad. During World War II, fear of military threat by the Japanese government and fear of the economic influence of people of Japanese descent in the US led to the racist mass incarceration of Japanese Americans. Despite this despicable history, racist pundits have recently claimed the incarceration of Japanese Americans actually sets legal precedent for the targeting of other communities of color in the post 9-11 era. US government officials used Southwest Asian, North African, Muslim and South Asian communities as scapegoats during the “War on Terror” which put a huge target on their backs for vigilante violence, created massive surveillance and state-sanctioned harassment programs, and provided a cover for starting endless wars in the Gulf and West Asia for geopolitical dominance. During the rhetoric leading up to the various iterations of Trump’s travel bans we saw xenophobic language like “shithole countries” targeting both Muslim and African countries. We know that within the system of immigration surveillance and detention, Black immigrants are disproportionately targeted and deported.

We also know that the modern US police force was created in the antebellum period as patrols to hunt down people escaping slavery. Their present-day incarnation has been further solidified through continued targeting of Black communities as well as cracking down on unions and workers fighting for fairer wages and decent working conditions. Similarly, prisons are the contemporary progenies of slave plantations. These systems are undergirded by a dominant white supremacist narrative that insinuates Black people are inherently criminal and Black communities and families are irreparably broken. These narratives—built on more than 500 years of slavery, Indigenous genocide, and the theft of Native land—protect white owning-class privilege and power while resulting in death, disempowerment, and suffering, which disproportionately impact Black and Indigenous communities. These dominant systems, and the narratives that support them, have a firm grip on every aspect of contemporary US life. Understanding these critical connections is required political education for all—a more strategic resistance enables growth and strength across multiple communities of struggle. Without this, our communities are more vulnerable to counterproductive responses.

Moving Away from Counterproductive Responses

Unfortunately, in response to the rise in anti-Asian violence during COVID-19, we’ve seen vigilante groups form, bent on taking matters into their own hands. These responses reinforce the violent systems and narratives we want to dismantle. One such group that we’ve learned about in San Francisco Chinatown is composed of some ex-military. They have claimed they would perform citizens’ arrests, and have surveilled people they deem “suspicious,” and called the cops on them. Based on historic biases of the police and military, the folks targeted by this vigilante group have been Black, poor, unhoused, disabled, or a combination of the above. As we’ve seen for decades, police kill Black people at rates six times that of white people. This group has even co-opted language from the movement for Black lives in order to seem more sympathetic. Utilizing policing tactics like “patrols” and engaging in military-style surveillance and harassment of Black and poor people is an escalation and expansion of violence—not successful harm-prevention.

In this moment of the pandemic and uprisings, there is an opportunity to pivot to the future our communities want and need. Rather than attempting to solve the issues we’re facing by using tactics that replicate harm, we ask ourselves and each other: What new systems of support and care can we build and grow so that the world can be better? Asians cannot afford to hold on to the meager protections given to us by white supremacy; we can no longer be conscripted to fight the battles of white supremacy and American imperialism on its behalf while simultaneously being harmed by these systems. We need to recognize that our liberation is tied to our interdependence and solidarity.

Our Liberation is Intertwined

Hyejin Shim, queer Korean and prison abolitionist, poses an essential question: “What are the legacies we’ve inherited, which ones will we choose to protect?” In her piece questioning the limits of Asian American allyship, Hyejin reminds us that as Asian Americans, we have a rich, deep legacy of “Asian American prison abolitionists, anti-war activists, racial justice organizers, disability justice freedom fighters, queer/trans feminists & anti fascists, immigrant rights organizers, housing justice organizers, rape and domestic violence survivor advocates, labor organizers, artists and cultural workers, movement lawyers, and so many more, from both the past & present.” In all of these movements, Asian Americans have struggled alongside their Black siblings, with an understanding that our liberations are intertwined.

Again, Black and Asian solidarity in the face of systemic oppression is not new and we should continue to draw lessons from our vibrant shared history to inform our current and future work organizing for a more just society.

Early 1900s: Black US troops desert to join Pilipino independence fighters.

1969: Black, Asian, and Latinx students at San Francisco State University successfully lead a strike to create the first-ever Ethnic Studies program.

1970s: The Black Panther Party supports Pilipino residents of the International Hotel in their fight against eviction.

2006: After Hurricane Katrina, Black and Vietnamese communities in New Orleans protest the use of their community as a makeshift dump site.

2020: Black and Asian communities in New York lead a movement to Cancel Rent, focused on immigrant, undocumented, and homeless communities.

(For more on the above examples, check out these zines by Bianca Mabute-Louie!)

Grounding in Interdependence and Solidarity

In addition to deepening our understanding of our shared histories, we should deepen our interpersonal relationships—our trust. We should continue to build out the mechanisms through which we tangibly support each other. As Stacey Park Milbern—a dearly beloved queer mixed race Korean comrade and disability justice movement leader who recently passed away—taught us: “We live and love interdependently. We know no person is an island, we need one another to live.”

This month, hundreds of thousands of people flooded the streets, decrying the police murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and so many more. The people are mobilizing to uplift calls from Black organizers to defund the police while imagining and implementing alternatives to policing that actually promote community health and wellbeing. It’s a beautiful sight to behold and we must not forget that this incredible and rapid mass mobilization is a direct result of the tireless and intentional work of organizers who move in between these flashpoint moments: people who do the unsung work of cultivating and deepening interpersonal relationships over decades, holding difficult and educational conversations, supporting members through personal challenges, and creating venues for community to celebrate victories and accomplishments.

Deep, intentional relationship building is central to laying the foundations that make change possible; at the same time, it is not just a means to an end. Trust and interdependence are ends in themselves. As Asians 4 Black Lives, we aim to live out the world we are fighting for, and our deep comradeship and friendship is core to how and why we show up. For example, we have taken up the practice of beginning each of our regular meetings with personal check-ins: Do you have any needs that our community can help you with? Do you have any resources or bandwidth you can offer to community? We are often wrestling with the complexity of what it means to be people of Asian diaspora living in the United States and in joint struggle with our Black, Indigenous, and other comrades of color. This extends our questioning into deeper political territory: What, if any, is our role as US-based Asians in addressing anti-Blackness in Asian communities abroad? What does it mean to be called #Asians4BlackLives when that phrase is being used as a rallying cry for so many who express their solidarity in ways we may not be aligned with? Our work raises important questions that help us sharpen our analysis and build stronger ties with each other and the communities we are accountable to.

Whatever the world throws at us, be it interpersonal violence, a novel coronavirus, climate change, or vigilante racism, we know that communities are most resilient when basic needs are met. As others have noted, wealthy, predominantly white communities have much lower rates of policing and longer life expectancies than lower income communities of color. This isn’t because rich people or white people are less predisposed to do harm, or because they are physically or biologically predetermined to be healthier, but rather that these communities are allocated more resources and support structures. These communities are given more chances to address violence without being criminalized, but this often empowers people with privilege to continue causing harm without facing consequences. Instead of this model, we strive for a world where everyone’s needs are met and new systems help us address real issues of health and harm without relying on the carceral state.

The good news is we’re seeing more and more Asian communities move towards redistributing resources of time, money, and energy in this moment. Asian volunteers are phonebanking and getting donations pledged to Black groups—directly. Asians are encouraging each other to speak to their families and communities. Asians are supporting the campaigns and creative direct action efforts of Black-led groups to win the defunding and abolition of police and prisons. Asians are setting up strong alternatives to relying on these systems for safety. It is a powerful moment of mobilization.

As COVID-19 shifts social relations in unprecedented ways and oppressive forces leverage the pandemic to stir up fear and anti-Asian racism for their own benefit, we must resist the temptation to put up walls and isolate ourselves. It’s essential that we be resilient and creative in the ways we stay close. Let us continue to deepen our trust and ground ourselves in our rich legacies of solidarity. Let us leverage our collectivizing strength as we fight for a world that centers humanity, dignity, and the space to thrive.

#Asians4BlackLives #AsiansforBlackLives #BlackLivesMatter #BlackHealthMatters #Pandemic #Solidarity #Public Health #Health #COVID-19 #COVID19 #Coronavirus #Racism #Interdependence #Asians for Black Lives #Black Lives Matter

11 notes · View notes

afrolatinxsunited · 3 years ago

Text

Stories & interesting updates on POS & POS System Equipment.

Samantha “Sunshine” Conley was homeless before Austin rolled back its citywide camping ban in 2019. She was homeless for the brief interim that the repeal lasted, and—if nothing changes soon—she’ll still be homeless when the police begin arresting the city’s unhoused for camping again. Over the years, she’s pitched a tent all over the city, sometimes in the open and sometimes hiding in the woods. Now, she’s joined a different sort of camp: A protest occupation of some 50 tents lining the perimeter of Austin City Hall since early this month.

Conley, 34, recalls how the policy shifts played out on the streets. Before summer 2019—when the city council decided to allow camping in a number of areas including highway underpasses—she stayed in hidden crannies of the city. After the policy change, it became safe to pitch a tent under I-35 near downtown, where the overpass offers rain protection and visibility is high. “Since we’ve been more out in the open, they’ve housed more people; when you see us, you’re forced to help,” she said last Tuesday on the City Hall steps.

Samantha “Sunshine” Conley on the steps of Austin City Hall. Gus Bova

On May 1, though, Austin voters approved a ballot proposition, spurred by conservatives and Texas Republicans and aided by sensationalist local TV news coverage, to reinstate the city’s old camping ban, along with two other policies that restrict panhandling and sitting or lying down in Central Austin. Between 2000 and 2019, tens of thousands of tickets were issued under those policies, with the vast majority becoming warrants. “What they want is to push us back to where they don’t see us anymore,” Conley says. “But it’s gonna be just like before: They’re gonna overload the jails, then they’re gonna stop the ban because there are more dangerous people out there than the homeless.”

Austin police have laid out a multi-stage plan for enforcement of the revived camping ban: education and outreach through early June, with tickets and arrests potentially starting later in the summer. In a statement, a city spokesperson said: “This phased implementation applies equally to anyone who may be camping around City Hall in violation of [the ban].”

Conley, who’s been homeless in Austin on and off since she was a teenager, says the way to get the protesters to leave City Hall is simple: “If you want us to leave, start housing us.”

The City Hall protest began shortly after the May 1 vote with a few housed activists pitching tents for a demonstration, says Morgan Longoria, who works with the LGBTQ rights group Little Petal Alliance. Then, unhoused Austinites living at camps just across the road and down the street showed up to support, expressing interest in forming an Occupy-style camp. Now, the majority of campers on-site are unhoused individuals.

Longoria is formerly homeless herself. “When I was unhoused, it was before the camping ban was lifted, and it was a nightmare,” she says. “When I needed help [in the woods], there was no one around. … We just need more time to house people.”

As the city struggles to figure out how to proceed, legislators just up the road at the state Capitol are working to make sure no Texas city can ever try to decriminalize homeless camping again.

House Bill 1925 passed the Senate last week with bipartisan support and is likely to take effect September 1. The measure would create a statewide Class C misdemeanor for camping in public, which would include napping under a blanket. The measure is largely redundant in the state’s big cities, including Austin after the May ballot measure, which maintain various anti-camping ordinances. But smaller towns often don’t have such policies on the books. HB 1925 would also require state approval for any sanctioned—meaning legally authorized—homeless campsites and forbid such camps in public parks. Finally, it would allow the state attorney general to sue any city that refuses to enforce its camping ban. If the state prevails in court, cities could lose state grant funding for a year.

Meanwhile, Austin City Council is looking at locations for sanctioned camps with basic infrastructure and services, where people can relocate as the ban unfolds. Two years ago, the city declined to take similar action on the grounds that it would waste money that could go to permanent housing. It also said that such camps, while supposedly temporary, tend to become intractable.

Niketta Moore outside of Austin City Hall

Last week, city staff released a preliminary list of some 45 possible camp locations. Early signs suggest intense opposition from neighborhoods where the camps might be created. City Council members themselves pushed back against certain spots during the meeting; the main group that pushed the camping ban reinstatement took to social media to condemn the list out of fear the camps would infringe on parks or be near schools. Austin has one sanctioned camp currently, a 7-acre site in far Southeast Austin, a two-hour walk from downtown, opened by the governor in late 2019. A nonprofit working at the site says it is full.

The city’s traditional homeless shelters tend to be full too, and many on the streets avoid traditional shelters due to rules banning pets, segregating by sex, or curfews.

One unhoused City Hall protestor, Trisha English, says sanctioned camps should be centrally located and provide private security and storage options, along with “food, water, clothes, and hygiene”—conditions the city appears to be planning to provide. For Conley, moving to a sanctioned campsite would be an option if it’s close to downtown, where she volunteers at a Presbyterian church, and if “they’re actually helping people with medical needs and getting people housed.”

This post was published here.

We trust that you found the above of help and interesting. Similar content can be found on our main site here: southtxpointofsale.com Please let me have your feedback below in the comments section. Let us know which topics we should write about for you next.

youtube

#Point of Sale #lightspeed Pos Reviews #lightspeed Retail #lightspeed Support #point of sale #shopkeep App #shopkeep Support #toast Point Of Sale #toast Restaurant Pos #touchbistro Reviews #touchbistro Support

0 notes

afroavocadowitch · 3 years ago

Text

Stories & interesting updates on POS & POS System Equipment.

Samantha “Sunshine” Conley on the steps of Austin City Hall. Gus Bova

Conley, who’s been homeless in Austin on and off since she was a teenager, says the way to get the protesters to leave City Hall is simple: “If you want us to leave, start housing us.”

As the city struggles to figure out how to proceed, legislators just up the road at the state Capitol are working to make sure no Texas city can ever try to decriminalize homeless camping again.

Niketta Moore outside of Austin City Hall

The city’s traditional homeless shelters tend to be full too, and many on the streets avoid traditional shelters due to rules banning pets, segregating by sex, or curfews.

This post was published here.

youtube

0 notes

anagamitofotografia · 3 years ago

Text

Stories & interesting updates on POS & POS System Equipment.

Samantha “Sunshine” Conley on the steps of Austin City Hall. Gus Bova

Conley, who’s been homeless in Austin on and off since she was a teenager, says the way to get the protesters to leave City Hall is simple: “If you want us to leave, start housing us.”

As the city struggles to figure out how to proceed, legislators just up the road at the state Capitol are working to make sure no Texas city can ever try to decriminalize homeless camping again.

Niketta Moore outside of Austin City Hall

The city’s traditional homeless shelters tend to be full too, and many on the streets avoid traditional shelters due to rules banning pets, segregating by sex, or curfews.

This post was published here.

youtube

0 notes

afriendlypokealien · 3 years ago

Text

Stories & interesting updates on POS & POS System Equipment.

Samantha “Sunshine” Conley on the steps of Austin City Hall. Gus Bova

Conley, who’s been homeless in Austin on and off since she was a teenager, says the way to get the protesters to leave City Hall is simple: “If you want us to leave, start housing us.”

As the city struggles to figure out how to proceed, legislators just up the road at the state Capitol are working to make sure no Texas city can ever try to decriminalize homeless camping again.

Niketta Moore outside of Austin City Hall

The city’s traditional homeless shelters tend to be full too, and many on the streets avoid traditional shelters due to rules banning pets, segregating by sex, or curfews.

This post was published here.

youtube

0 notes