(Editor’s note: David Pisarra is on vacation. This column originally ran in the Feb. 21, 2006 edition of the Daily Press.) AS A LOCAL PUNDIT, I PROBABLY GET asked twice a month why the homeless get to “live that way.” The starting point to remember with the homeless is that they are citizens of our society just as much as anyone else. Flaming liberals might disagree with this, but there is no law that states a person has to have a home.
As a society, we do not have to provide people with living spaces. We may wish to, because it alleviates our sense of guilt over our personal good fortune, but there is no constitutional obligation of society to provide for people (other than for prisoners, but that is another kettle of fish.) When people decry the homeless, what is really being asked is: Why do we have to have them here? The answer is that public areas are open to every citizen. The Constitution guarantees each of us the right to live where we want. It does not state that we have to own property to be a citizen. In fact, historically, we have amended the Constitution to assure that voting rights were not tied to ownership.
While the Constitution does not require that we own property, it does allow for the government to regulate how we behave on public property. This is why laws against being drunk in public, spitting on the sidewalks and urinating in public are allowed. This is regulation of behavior, and that is allowed.
The regulation of behavior is not only allowed, it is perhaps the primary purpose of government. The government regulates how fast I drive,how old I have to be to drink,where I conduct business and what licenses I need.
The Constitution provides all citizens, natural born or naturalized, the same rights — those of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Under the Constitution, we have the following freedoms: Freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom to express ourselves religiously, among others. These rights are not absolute, however.
As we are all aware, the freedom of speech is a restricted right. I cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theater. I cannot arbitrarily slander others — these are limits put upon the right to free speech.
Many activists in our community would like to assert that the homeless have an absolute right to live in Santa Monica. That would be an inaccurate assessment of one’s constitutional rights. We have the right to live some place, so long as we adhere to the laws of that location. There is nothing in the Constitution which provides me or anyone else with the constitutional right to live in Santa Monica free of responsibilities like rent or property taxes.
Anyone has the right to live in Santa Monica, so long as they pay their way. In much the same way the homeless have the right to occupy public spaces, so long as they pay their rent, which in their case is complying with the laws against littering, defecating in public, being drunk in public, not assaulting others for money and not trespassing on private property.
“Fire” — As we are all aware, the freedom of speech is a restricted right. I cannot yell in a crowded theater. I cannot arbitrarily slander others — these are limits put upon the right to free speech
The heated arguments between homeless activists on the one hand, and the law and order activists on the other, frequently confuse the meaning of “rights” with “entitlements.” The homeless soapbox standers would have the general public believe that the homeless population is entitled by birth in America, to occupy, in whatever way they choose, public lands. The law and order activists would have the general public believe that the homeless have no right to be on public land because they are assaulting people and causing disturbances.
Neither side is correct. The homeless have the right to be on public property so long as they comply with the local laws.
The two sides need to understand that homeless citizens have some rights, but they are not absolute rights, and they have some responsibilities, which too many of them have been shirking. When the homeless begin to assume their responsibilities, I believe they will find that their arguments, and those of their high-profile supporters, will not fall on so many deaf ears.
As the debate rages on what to do with the homeless, what everyone is forgetting is that there is a large segment of this population that has no desire whatsoever to have a home. They don’t want to live in a regulated environment, one that will require them to pay bills, cook for themselves and live in confined spaces.
You cannot take a person who wants to live a carefree existence of being homeless, and put them in a dormitory and expect them to be happy. It is condescension of the highest order to think that we know what is best for others.
Frankly, I find it annoying when someone I don’t know tells me how I should cook dinner. I can only barely imagine how insulting it must be, to be told that I should live in a different manner entirely.
The smug, conceited, self-righteous, interlopers should stay out of the business of telling others how to live their lives. They should tend to their own front yard first. Don’t they have hedges to cut or something?
DAVID PISARRA is a business development lawyer in the Santa Monica firm of Pisarra & Grist. He or (310) 664-9969.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on July 24, 2007. Read the original PDF.