☆ Constitutional lawyer: No encampment zones are not, if implemented effectively, reason for concern

What does it mean to criminalize homelessness? An expert concludes that Mayor Mahan's proposal to enact no encampment zones across the City doesn't violate unhoused individuals' rights, as some wonder. Jeff Rowes, senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, breaks it down in this Opp Now exclusive: Reasonably regulating public health/safety in no way penalizes homelessness, as long as people are offered alternative housing options (as is integral to Mahan's strategy).

The Constitution forbids making it a crime to exist, including falling asleep outside when you have nowhere else to go. The Constitution also forbids banishment, forcing the homeless to congregate somewhere hidden simply because society doesn’t like them. The Constitution does, however, allow the government to regulate reasonably for actual risks to public health and safety. So the constitutionality of the Mayor’s new rules will depend on how they are implemented. Are they addressing a real problem in specific places or are they a pretext to mask the desire to push the homeless out of the community?

A major problem is that the government forbids people from using their private property in appropriate locations to give the homeless somewhere to pitch their tents. So the only choices are on the streets or in a shelter bed (that may not exist). But there is a long tradition in this country, stretching back to the Underground Railroad, of using private property for the charitable purpose of sheltering those in immediate peril. If government and the courts recognized the rights of private property owners to devise creative solutions to homelessness using private property, even if not perfect, that would open up possibilities between the two extremes that would help the homeless while protecting the community from legitimate problems.”

Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity

Image by Fastily