Outlawing homeless shelters in New London (of eminent domain fame)

[noamnety]

The city attorney for my sister's hometown, New London, CT, has drafted an ordinance which would

a. prohibit any emergency homeless shelters from operating from April 1 to Dec. 1.
b. ban "wet" shelters, i.e. shelters which will take in people who've been drinking
c. limit the location of any shelters to commercially-zoned districts.

Does anyone know if this is legal? She was speaking against it at tonight's Council meeting, but it won't come up for vote for at least another two weeks.

[GrumpyGreg]

1. The wet shelter ban could be legal because of the safety

and comfort of the other residents but I can't imagine that the others would be.

Looks like it doesn't pay to be homless OR to own your own home in N.L.

[noamnety]

3. Yep, it's quite a system

Evict you from a house you legally own, then arrest anyone that tries to provide you with a bit of shelter.

[Cleita]

2. It's certainly is heartless if it's legal.

Maybe activists should set up tents for the homeless on the front lawns of the backers of this law. Surely, if they don't want the shelters operating, then they should be willing to put up these people they have left homeless from even the homeless shelters.

[femmedem]

4. Hi folks. I'm lwferns's sister. She started this thread for me

because I'm too new at DU to start my own. But here's some context for this proposed policy:

Last June New London's council voted to eliminate its social services department, effectively dumping the care of its poor entirely onto private agencies and volunteers. Since then, a whole host of people have been meeting regularly to figure out how to both provide stopgap measures like the seasonal emergency shelter and move towards longer term solutions. They successfully and safely operated a wet shelter this past winter. Now they are trying to locate a building for a permanent year-round shelter.

Some members of the city government have been trying to push the homeless out of New London for years. It's not necessarily the council. It appears to be our city manager, the city attorney, and the head of planning and development. These three are well-paid,permananet staff, whereas our councilors are basically volunteers (they get paid $1500/year) who are up for election every two years. Technically, they are supposed to set policy, but realistically the permanent staff runs the show.

Even before social services was eliminated, the city manager's office had stopped honoring requests for bus passes and laundry vouchers for the homeless and destitute. Then on the night of the budget vote, councilors were informed that the union had agreed to eliminate social services in exchange for saving some other jobs. According to the union reps, this wasn't true. But the council voted based on this misinformation.

Then when the shelter opened in December, the administration pressured the Fire Marshall to re-inspect the shelter and find some reason to shut it down. He ordered the shelter closed. Immediate public outcry and the genuine outrage of councilors kept it open.

Now this. I think we will successfully argue against most of it. The need for a year-round shelter is irrefutable, and no one's asking the city to pay for it. The ban on wet shelters is legislating morality. Drinking is legal; it shouldn't be a death sentence. Shelter staff addresses safety by reserving the right to evict anyone who's causing a problem. Additionally, no alcohol is allowed on premises.

But the restrictions on location are tougher. In light of all the other action against the homeless, it's clear that the purpose is to limit the real estate options and make it harder to find anything at all. Residential homes in New London can still be had fairly cheaply: I just bought mine for $127,000. But commercial real estate is tougher to come by. Much of downtown is owned by outside speculators, and most of the rest is owned by the very people who are least sympathetic to the homeless.

I would like to argue that a year-round shelter will act as emergency shelter for some, transitional shelter for others, and permanent housing for others. Some people aren't capable of living fully independently. They will always require some sort of group living arrangement. So if this segment of the population is banned from living in residential sections of the city, is this housing discrimination? Is anyone here enough of an expert on housing rights or civil rights to know if this argument will hold up?

Thanks.

[MadHound]

5. I can't help you with the legalities, but I've do have a question

And possible long term solution.

In my city, and other cities that I've lived in, the city council does have the power to hire and fire the city manager, city attorney, etc. Have you considered that once you are done with this immediate crisis to go ahead and pressure the city council to fire these people that you speak of? It seems that it would make life in your town much easier, both for the homeless and other residents. Perhaps then you could hire people who are more sympathetic to the ordinary citizen rather than to the monied few. Just a thought:shrug:

[femmedem]

6. Yes, it is possible to fire the city manager

but it takes a supermajority of the council. He's long overdue for a performance evaluation, though, and I will certainly argue that his clear bias against the poor--15.8% of New London's population, if I remember correctly--makes him unable to look out for the wellbeing of our city.

Many of us in town are also interested in charter revision, as well. But that takes longer.

[newyawker99]

7. Hi femmedem!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[femmedem]

8. Thanks . Much appreciated.