How to outlaw homelessness, and not the homeless

author : Marco Rosaire Rossi topic : homelessness

by Marco Rosaire Rossi

France has undergone a mini-explosion in anti-poverty activism. For the past few weeks, hundreds of people have been camping out on the streets, out of necessity or out of protest, to bring attention to France's homeless problem. The primary goal of the demonstrators, who are from a variety of social classes, was to secure a legally enforceable right to housing -- and, remarkably, they have done it!

In his New Year's address to the nation, President Jacques Chirac gave lip service to idea of a right to housing. By Jan. 8 the government agreed to enact new laws mandating housing for the homeless. Around 27,000 new places in shelters were created for France's 86,000 homeless. By Jan. 17, a bill was presented to the cabinet that will provide French citizens with the means to challenge infringements on their right to housing in the courts. With these measures, Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, believes that all of France's least fortunate will have a legal right to housing by 2008. By that time, France will have become the second nation in the world -- next to Scotland -- that guarantees the right to housing.

These reforms in housing rights came from a conservative source: the French Constitution. For years, France has recognized the right to housing via international agreements. Though not necessarily legally binding, French courts have accepted the moral persuasion of Article 25 of The United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights (1948 ) -- which declares: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being (including) . . . housing. " Also, the country is a signer to the International Covenant on Economic, Cultural, and Social Rights (1976) -- which is legally binding -- and has the same language as the Universal Declaration in its own Article 11. In addition, the highest court in France concluded in 1996 that the "right to housing" was "an objective with a constitutional value." Seizing upon this legal backdrop, activists were finally able to give these laws some teeth, and transformed moral arguments into fulfilled promises.

Seperating civil liberties from equality

In the United States the story is a lot different. Rather than opening up to the needs and concerns of the poor, the government (at all levels) has been closing its doors. The situation is especially frightening on the municipal level -- the place where the homeless have typically gotten the most aid.

Many cities have passed, and/or are working on passing anti-homeless legislation that threatens civil liberties. In Las Vegas, Nevada, the City Council passed an ordinance banning the feeding of homeless in public as an attempt to shut down a Food Not Bombs operation. In Worcester, Massachusetts, the city and the public library attempted to limit the amount of books a homeless person could check out to two. In Fresno, California, the city looked into making pushing a shopping cart that has been removed from a business against the law. The punishment being considered is up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine. Finally, in Olympia, the City Council recently revised its pedestrian sidewalk laws to prevent anyone from loitering within six feet of a building and to require street performers to get a city permit. In other words, if you aren't in the downtown to buy something, you don't need to be there.

Unlike other nations, which are taking steps to abolish homelessness, the United States is going in the other direction. It's waging a one-sided class war on its most vulnerable populations. In the process, it is stepping on some serious human rights: not only the right to housing, but also the right to food, freedom of speech, freedom of movement, the right to assemble, and the right to equality before the law. All this just goes to show that if you allow a government to take away one right, the rest will soon follow.

Steps we can take

The situation isn't completely hopeless. There are some ways for poverty activists to fight back. First and foremost is getting municipalities to rethink their priorities. The recent effort to push the homeless out of cities has got to stop. A new culture needs to form that seeks to unite civil liberties with economic equality. In some ways, this work has already begun. Due to the persistence of activists, the courts struck down the Nevada ordinance making it illegal to feed the homeless in public. Poverty activists and the ACLU in Massachusetts prevented the Worcester City Council from following through with its ridiculous two books per homeless person policy.

Next, people must put pressure on Congress to ratify the International Covenant on Economic, Cultural, and Social Rights. In 1977, President Carter signed the treaty but since then the document has been in legal limbo because the Senate has failed to move forward. Ratification by the Senate would be more than a symbolic act. According to Article VI of the US Constitution, "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land." That means that if the United States signs the treaty it becomes law, just as if it was any other part of the constitution. Like France, that move could provide the necessary moral and legal backdrop to make the right to housing a reality.

The next step is to add teeth to the law through legislative action. The Reaganomics of the 1980s gutted what little services there were for the homeless. The budget for Section 8 housing vouchers dropped from $74 billion in 1980 to $19 billion by 1989. In addition, President Clinton's "welfare reform" further devastated social service programs, and helped make families with children the fastest growing homeless population. Right now, the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987 remains the only piece of federal legislation that allocates funds directly to services for the homeless.

Lastly, America needs a new culture that fosters a radical class-consciousness. So far the right to housing -- in all nations -- has been interpreted as meaning governments must provide social services and a degree of public housing, and landlords must ensure their facilities are up to livable standards. While these are both good things, they have their limits. If we are truly interested in ensuring the right to housing for all people then we must also interpret this right to mean the abolishment of rent, establish residential management of units, and promote cooperative ownership of property. Essentially, the right to housing -- like all the other rights -- is intimately connected to the need for democracy. We will never have one, unless we ensure the other.

Marco Rosaire Rossi is a street outreach worker and member of the Olympia Movement for Justice and Peace.