NEWS What are the Constitutional rights of the homeless?
This is a hot button issue, particularly in a city that likes to style itself as the “Home to the Homeless.”
There are many conflicting rights and interests of the permanent residents and the transient residents of this city. The question asked must be addressed by looking at the big picture first.
THE BIG PICTURE The U.S. Constitution provides all citizens — natural born or naturalize — the same rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under the Constitution we have the freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of religion, among others. These rights are not absolute, however.
As we are all aware, freedom of speech is a restricted right. I cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theater, I cannot arbitrarily slander others.
Many activists in our community would like to assert that the homeless have an absolue right to live in Santa Monica. That would be an inaccurate assessment of one’s Constitutional rights.
We have the right to live someplace, so long as we adhere to the laws of that location. There is nothing in the Constitution that provides me or anyone else with the Constitutional right to live in Santa Monica free of responsibilities like rent and homeownership.
“rights”
HOW DOES THIS APPLY TO ME?
I have the right to live in Santa Monica, in my apartment, so long as I pay my rent on time. 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 and not trespassing on private property.
RIGHTS VS. ENTITLEMENTS 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 activists 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.
“entitlements.” — The heated arguments between homeless activists on the one hand, and the law and order activists on the other, frequently confuse the meaning of with
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 ANSWER The answer, in my opinion, is that the two sides need to understand that the homeless 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 will not fall on so many deaf ears. (David Pisarra is a partner in the Santa Monica law firm of Pisarra & Grist. He (310) 664- 9969 or by e-mail at) LETTERS
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on May 19, 2003. Read the original PDF.