COLUMN: An unfair penalty for the homeless

From Michelle Weinberg's, "For Every Action," Fall '99 From Michelle Weinberg's, "For Every Action," Fall '99Few people choose to sleep on sidewalks. But for those without other options, Philadelphia just made a night on the pavement an expensive proposition. In a city with about 4,000 homeless people and only 2,600 shelter beds, the bill seems like a superficial solution to a serious social problem. Indeed, protest has risen among homelessness advocacy groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, which has filed a lawsuit against the city of Philadelphia. These opponents of the ordinance are concerned that Philadelphia, through the use of police enforcement, criminalizes homelessness and further stigmatizes this "undesirable" element of society. In addition to the potential criminalization of homelessness, the use of police force in dealing with social ills may prove ineffective. How does the city of Philadelphia expect to collect fines from individuals without homes or, in most cases, jobs? Will they arrest these citizens for not paying the fines, turning jails into makeshift homeless shelters? And, if the police are not taking people to jail, where will they send them? Will the police continually ask these people to "move along, please," converting the stationary homeless population into the wandering homeless population? Also, the ordinance is enforced 24 hours a day, yet many shelters only provide housing overnight, sending the homeless back out into the streets during the day to risk fines and arrest. This seems an altogether counterproductive method of keeping homeless people off the streets. Furthermore, dedicating funds and the energy of the police towards enforcing the ordinance potentially could distract the attention of the police from more serious crimes. The ordinance targets the 200-300 "hardcore" homeless in Center City, who often resist assistance. But all of these potential scenarios suggest that the ordinance does not deal with the root causes of homelessness among this group. Many of the city's hardcore homeless suffer from mental illness or addictions. Fines and arrests are not appropriate means of dealing with these problems, which require medical treatment. Many have pointed out the need for more serious social welfare to deal with the homeless, citing the current lack of sufficient services. One expert, Penn Social Work Professor Dennis Culhane, stated, "There is a lack of services, particularly mental health services, for the homeless. Most shelters are not appropriate for the 'hardcore' homeless." Philadelphia is aware of the need for more services. In conjunction with the new sidewalk ordinance, the city has increased funding for outreach and services to the homeless, including an increase in available shelter beds and services for the mentally ill or those suffering from alcohol or drug addictions. These additions are extremely important, and hopefully these new efforts will prove more effective in dealing with the homelessness problem than the actual sidewalk ordinance. It is not a crime to suffer from mental illness, nor is it a crime to suffer from addiction. Unemployment and the inability to secure affordable housing are also not crimes. When enforcing the new sidewalk ordinance, the city needs to be cautious about turning societal ills into crimes. Philadelphia needs to devote more resources to understanding and solving the underlying issues which cause homelessness, and avoid a superficial solution to a serious problem.