Brian Eason

brian.eason@indystar.com

Nearly a year after an anti-panhandling effort fizzled in committee, the City-County Council is considering a very different proposal — one that would establish new protections for the homeless.

The centerpiece of the proposal, which has raised eyebrows on the council and elsewhere, is a “Homeless Bill of Rights.”

Supporters say the ordinance would help some of the city’s most vulnerable, a population that has a high incidence of mental health and substance abuse problems. Others, though, fear it goes too far and would make it difficult for police to enforce public nuisance laws.

The political tug-of-war between protecting the rights of the homeless and keeping the city’s streets clear of potentially bothersome panhandlers already has been waged far and wide. On the one hand, Dallas and Atlanta in the past few years have passed tough restrictions on panhandling. On the other, Rhode Island and Illinois have enacted their own homeless bills of rights, after which the Indianapolis proposal was modeled.

In the span of a year, Indianapolis has considered laws on both ends of the spectrum to address the needs and challenges posed by its growing homeless population. But as with the failed panhandling crackdown, the latest proposal faces an uphill battle on the council, which has a slim Democratic majority.

In November, the ordinance emerged from the Rules and Public Policy Committee with a positive recommendation, only to be sent right back down this month when it became clear to council leaders that it wouldn’t pass.

Explicit protections

Sponsored by Councilman Leroy Robinson, a Democrat, the latest proposal would establish specific rights for a group of people that advocacy groups say are unfairly criminalized and routinely face discrimination because they lack a permanent residence.

Under existing law, homeless people “should” already have the same legal rights as others, Robinson acknowledged.

“Unfortunately, our city goes to great lengths in an effort to criminalize and demoralize the homeless,” he wrote in an email to The Indianapolis Star.“It is important that we are intentional and explicit in our efforts by indicating that the rights of the homeless ‘will’ be protected, just as any other citizen.”

Among the protections: the right to “move freely in public spaces,” such as sidewalks and public buildings; the right to equal treatment by city agencies; the right to emergency medical care; and the right to a “reasonable expectation of privacy” for their personal property, just as someone would have inside a home.

When Rhode Island passed its own Homeless Bill of Rights, the first in the country, legal experts said that its true power resides in the courtroom. For instance, advocates could use it to prevent cities from passing anti-loitering laws aimed at removing homeless people from parks.

Robinson’s ordinance also would require the city to help anyone it displaces from public property; that’s a direct response to police breaking up a Davidson Street homeless camp in August 2013, leaving many of its residents on the street.

Under the proposal, the city would have to store and catalog their possessions for 90 days, and those who are displaced would be provided certain services, including health care, substance abuse treatment and child care. Robinson said the city would connect the homeless with nonprofit providers and churches rather than offering those services itself.

Opponents worry that the fiscal impact of providing such services hasn’t been properly vetted, even though Robinson insists it ultimately would save the city money on arrests.

Much of the debate at the council and committee levels has revolved around these services, as well as a study of a proposed homeless engagement center, which would provide temporary housing and treatment for intoxicated homeless people.

But Republican leader Michael McQuillen called the bill of rights the “scariest” part of the whole proposal.

‘Over-and-above’

In an interview last week, McQuillen called the ordinance “political grandstanding” that could put the city on the hook to provide care for thousands of people.

“It’s like an over-and-above bill of rights,” McQuillen said. “Anyone in Indianapolis has the same rights as you whether or not you own a home. This would give them additional rights — that they can’t be removed from a public property.”

Under the proposal, the homeless can be relocated — but only if there’s a place to move them. And with the current shelter inventory, there’s no guarantee that housing would be available for everyone at any given time.

There are 1,956 shelter beds available in Marion County — ostensibly enough to cover the 1,897 homeless people found in HUD’s annual point-in-time census, according to the Coalition for Homelessness Intervention and Prevention of Greater Indianapolis, or CHIP.

But the point-in-time counts, conducted on a single day each January, aren’t a perfect measure. And many shelters impose restrictions on who can stay there. For instance, some refuse beds to people who drink or are under the influence of drugs. Plus, there’s a waiting list at many shelters that cater to families.

“The way this proposal’s written, our police would not be able to close down a camp,” McQuillen said. On Davidson Street, he said, “there were rats, feces, drugs — a lot of things going on there.”

In all, CHIP estimates that Indianapolis had 7,500 to 9,500 homeless people in 2014. And if the city is legally bound to provide services for all of them, McQuillen worries that low-end estimates of $678,000 to operate a 50-bed engagement center could quickly balloon to millions of dollars each year.

“I just feel like it’s a feel-good holiday proposal,” McQuillen said. “Really, it’s an unfunded mandate that’s just going to make the situation worse.”

Homelessness rising

Members of both parties agree that the growth in the city’s homeless population suggests something needs to be done.

The 2014 homeless counts were the highest since 2007 and represent a 19 percent increase from 2013. According to a 2014 report by CHIP, hundreds of Indianapolis’ homeless struggle with substance abuse, mental health problems or physical disabilities. Many are ex-offenders who have struggled to re-enter society.

The most common reason given for being homeless in the 2014 analysis was loss of job. “Obtaining employment is difficult for some because of insufficiencies in transportation, life skills, education, training, and because of felony convictions,” the CHIP report found.

These difficulties, coupled with the shortage of shelter beds, are a large part of why advocates want the engagement center, which CHIP has been trying to get off the ground for years.

“If we’re being honest, we know that we’re limited in terms of shelters in our city, in the sense that some of those shelters have some very serious stipulations,” said Pastor David Greene from Purpose of Life Church, which runs a ministry for the homeless. “That’s why we need an engagement center. That’s why we need to reach out.”

The center would offer an alternative to arresting homeless people who are drunk but don’t pose a serious threat to public safety. And it would connect them with professionals who could help them find permanent housing, a job and other resources.

But at a recent council meeting, Republican Councilman Jeff Miller suggested Robinson’s proposal would fall short of that goal. By pairing the bill of rights and other items with a feasibility study on the engagement center, he said, many have been confused about what the ordinance actually would do. And at the last council meeting, a testy debate ensued.

“I’d like us to start over,” Miller said. “I’d like us to work together and make something that really matters for folks.”

Robinson, though, is tired of putting what he believes are relatively inexpensive anti-poverty measures on hold when the council routinely approves costly tax incentives to spur development.

“We as a city can give millions and millions of dollars to developers for luxury apartments and condos, parking garages, sporting teams and cricket fields without spending a fraction of taxpayer money to assist those that are most vulnerable in our society,” he said. “We will not be starting over.”

Elsewhere, similar bills of rights have drawn mixed reviews. The Rhode Island Coalition for the Homeless reports that it has been difficult to get agencies to follow the new rules since they were passed in 2012. “Committees have been established to ensure that the law is implemented, but of course, law or no law, harassment and discrimination continue,” the group wrote on its website.

Still, the coalition says it has given legal groups another valuable tool to defend the homeless. And national advocacy groups, including the National Coalition for the Homeless, consider a bill of rights to be a critical piece in broader efforts to assist those who lack housing.

In Indianapolis, the proposal faces another round of vetting at the committee level before it can be considered by the full council. Absent changes, the chances of passage are slim. Both Democrats and Republicans said they support aspects of the bill but wouldn’t vote yes on the whole thing.

Call Star reporter Brian Eason at (317) 444-6129. Follow him on Twitter: @brianeason.

‘Homeless Bill of Rights’

The City-County Council has proposed establishing a “Homeless Bill of Rights” that would outlaw discrimination against those who lack a permanent address. Modeled after a Rhode Island law, it would enact the following protections:

1. The right to move freely in public spaces, including sidewalks, parks, buses and buildings.

2. The right to equal treatment by city agencies.

3. The right to be free of employment discrimination for lack of a permanent mailing address.

4. The right to emergency medical care.

5. The right to vote, register to vote and receive documentation needed for a photo ID.

6. The right to protection from disclosure of private records, as well as the right to confidentiality already protected by federal law.

7. The right to the same “reasonable expectation of privacy” for their personal property as someone with a permanent residence has.