Should California Have a Formal Right to Shelter?

By Tom Elias, Columnist

On a de facto basis, Californians have had a right to shelter for many years. But plenty of unhoused people have never had the opportunity to exercise that right and plenty of others just aren’t interested.

Together, these two populations make up much of the approximately 160,000 homeless population in this state on any given night.

Giving them a formal right to shelter would permit any of the unhoused to go to court and demand a roof over their heads; never mind who might have to pay for that.

This suggestion comes from Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg, a former president of the state Senate who has long fought to improve life for the mentally ill.

The right for individuals to demand their localities provide some sort of shelter is one new aspect of Steinberg’s proposal, not yet adopted by his own city council.

In a formal sense, this Steinberg proposal is novel. But in a de facto world where tent cities of the indigent homeless line streets in many California cities, it’s not. Many cities and counties have expended billions of dollars trying to create housing for the homeless, from large shelters to hotel rooms to colonies of tiny homes. By voting for hundreds of millions of dollars in bonds to create housing for the unsheltered, Californians essentially created a right to a roof even though it was never directly voted on.

Legislators in 2020 voted to make this a formal, legal right, but Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed it, saying it might cost too much to house everyone who needs a domicile.

What’s really novel about the Steinberg proposal is that besides giving everyone the right to shelter, it also imposes an obligation on the homeless: If this plan is adopted, they would suddenly have an “obligation to accept housing” where it’s offered.

But many thousands of the unhoused want no obligations. They know moving into shelters or tiny homes or sanctioned tent villages in spots acceptable to local governments and residents generally comes with rules. These might cover drug abuse, sanitary standards or a requirement to accept counseling.

Many homeless individuals have told this column they’d rather stay that way than accept one or another such obligation.

Which means the Steinberg plan, despite the sense in Sacramento that it’s unique, is not – except that it would require the city to provide enough housing for everyone who needs it in either permanent structures or other places deemed acceptable.

A key to this plan is the promise that outreach workers (not police) would contact every homeless individual in the city, trying to convince them to accept shelter. If that effort is carried out and fails, the city would then be permitted to remove encampments to keep streets sanitary.

One thing that that’s unclear: Could Steinberg’s plan stand up in court to challenges based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s Boise vs. Martin decision and its ban on removing individuals from public property for sleeping or living there – so long as shelter beds have been made available.

What is clear is that despite all that’s been spent on trying to solve homelessness, and despite plenty of happy talk from politicians, the problem is larger than ever, this state containing more than one-fourth of America’s total homeless populace, the weather perhaps attracting many of them.

It’s possible the Boise decision may have to be challenged and loosened, with new villages for the homeless then being built on vacant land at the peripheries of urban areas. Under that circumstance, persons who refuse to move into shelters because they don’t want rules might be compelled to move away from many places where they now congregate.

For sure, the problem now is reminiscent of squeezing silly putty: Every time a homeless encampment is closed, another one seems to spring up nearby.

The bottom line: There is little reason to deny the unhoused a right to shelter, so long as they accept that shelter and don’t persist in living on sidewalks or in parks. At the same time, it may be time for a stricter, but still quite humane, alternative for those who refuse to exercise their de facto right to a roof.

Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, “The Burzynski Breakthrough, The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It” is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net

in Opinion
Related Posts

Column: Let’s talk About the Soil

January 12, 2022

January 12, 2022

Everyone knows that we are undergoing a climate change not seen on the earth before. We all understand what is...

Opinion: A Call to Public Service: U.S. Army Veteran Mat Smith Makes Longshot Bid for the LA City Council

January 11, 2022

January 11, 2022

Mat Smith has no illusions when it comes to his bid to unseat CD-11 incumbent Mike Bonin.  A combat veteran...

Opinion: Attorney General Spurs on Big 2022 Housing Battle

January 7, 2022

January 7, 2022

By Tom Elias, Columnist There will be plenty of political battles next year, starting with likely reelection challenges to Gov....

Seismic Water Resiliency

December 16, 2021

December 16, 2021

This is the 2nd part of two-part article  (see smmirror.com/2021/12/sma-r-t-column-its-not-your-fault/ for the first part) Last week we wrote about the...

One of LA’s Best Omakase Counters is Tucked Away in a Santa Monica Hotel Lobby

December 8, 2021

December 8, 2021

Sushi Chef Masa Shimakawa’s Soko restaurant offers an extraordinary culinary experience By Sam Catanzaro Tucked into the lobby of a...

My Tiny Home Tour

December 4, 2021

December 4, 2021

As everyone in Brentwood knows, the homeless encampment on the edge of the VA property is now gone. Many of...

State’s Housing Solution Starts Happening

December 3, 2021

December 3, 2021

By Tom Elias, Columnist It’s happening. Despite the best efforts of California’s highly ideological, developer-financed state legislators, the solution to...

Opinion: SB 9, 10: The Rebellion Begins

November 19, 2021

November 19, 2021

By Tom Elias, Columnist It was inevitable from the moment Gov. Gavin Newsom in mid-September signed this year’s two most...

Sacto Dems Dump Prop. 13 Reforms

November 5, 2021

November 5, 2021

By Tom Elias, Columnist For more than 40 years, Democrats in Sacramento have talked fervently about reforming the 1978 Proposition...

Column: More Fire Prosecutions, but Still No Personal Responsibility

October 21, 2021

October 21, 2021

By Tom Elias, Columnist There were headlines all around the state late last month, when local prosecutors filed criminal charges...

Opinion: How Low Can You Go?

September 21, 2021

September 21, 2021

By Nick Antonicello Instead of discussing the issues people really want to talk about like Councilman Mike Bonin’s miserable record...

Opinion: Recall Or Reelection: That’s The Choice For D-town Voters When It Comes To Incumbent Mike Bonin

September 17, 2021

September 17, 2021

By Nick Antonicello There was good news for embattled incumbent Councilman Mike Bonin yesterday in that Governor Gavin Newsom not...

Editorial: Unprofessionalism and Racial Insensitivity at Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. Leaves a Lot to Be Desired

September 10, 2021

September 10, 2021

By Mirror Media Group Editorial Staff A recent incident in which an executive at Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. flippantly used the events...