The current evidence of this phenomenon is the ongoing battle against homelessness, which aims to criminalize living on the streets and restore a level of authority to the police that has not been seen in five decades.
Lawmakers in Kansas are proposing to allocate $40 million to cities to address the issue of homelessness. However, there is a condition attached to this funding. Cities must enforce local ordinances pertaining to vagrancy and unauthorized camping on public land.
Criminalizing homelessness is a regressive approach that harkens back to a time before the landmark 1972 Supreme Court decision. The ruling recognized that vague vagrancy laws violated the 14th Amendment. Prior to this decision, law enforcement frequently exploited these laws to exert control over individuals deemed undesirable by society – including hobos, tramps, drug addicts, rogues, vagabonds, the unemployed, jugglers, loafers, nightwalkers, alcoholics, buskers, anarchists, dissenters, and soapbox orators. Under this system, police possessed virtually unlimited discretion to arrest anyone who stood out as different.
The 1972 decision led cities to either narrow down the definitions of a “vagrant” or completely eliminate such ordinances. In Topeka, for instance, a search of the municipal code reveals no mention of “vagrancy,” but it does include several laws against “loitering” with criminal intent.
The proposal, House Bill 2723, received assistance from a range of lobbyists, including the Texas-based think tank, the Cicero Institute. The institute has played a role in introducing bills nationwide, including a previous attempt in Kansas last year, which aimed to classify unauthorized camping on public property as a misdemeanor.
Dion Scavina pauses as he recounts the hardships endured by him and fellow homeless tent campers in north Topeka during the scorching summer heat wave of 2023. The National Weather Service reported a staggering heat index of 111 degrees Fahrenheit when this photo was captured.
The Legislature and city councils throughout the state are adopting a tough stance. In Topeka, for instance, authorities have started cracking down on homeless encampments along the Kansas River by using heavy equipment to demolish them. Although the city cited public health concerns as the reason, the death of 5-year-old Zoey Felix, who was tragically killed after being brought to live in one of Topeka’s homeless encampments by a parent, may have expedited the action.
The City of Wichita and Sedgwick County are backing the Kansas House bill that mandates the crackdown on unauthorized camping, as it is a condition for receiving millions in matching grant funds. This bill, which includes provisions regarding camping and vagrancy, was necessary to navigate through the GOP-controlled Legislature. The budget proposed by Governor Laura Kelly, a Democrat, already includes $40 million allocated for supporting homeless shelter infrastructure, with the intention of using it as matching dollars for municipalities. This information has been reported by public radio station KMUW.
Rep. Leah Howell, a Derby Republican, expressed her growing conviction to prioritize the elimination of encampments as she gained more knowledge and education about the disturbing events that occur within them.
Being homeless, according to Howell, should not be treated as a criminal offense. However, his suggestion of prohibiting individuals from setting up tents and instead directing them to shelters revives the very concerns that were addressed by the Supreme Court in the 1970s. This approach also mirrors the historical vagrancy laws that aimed to categorize certain individuals as undesirable and forcibly relocate them. In the past, this would involve spending a night in jail and then being provided with a bus ticket to the next town.
Critics have expressed their concerns about the bill, fearing that it may unfairly penalize a vulnerable population who have no other option but to live in camps. Moreover, the bill implies that individuals who choose or are forced to live without shelter must conform to societal norms regarding their living arrangements.
Kansas should prioritize allocating the $40 million towards assisting the homeless, with a specific focus on creating secure shelters for women and children. However, it is crucial that Kansas avoids penalizing homelessness or promoting outdated beliefs surrounding vagrancy.
The rise of homelessness in our cities is a legitimate concern, particularly at a time when unemployment rates are historically low. It is understandable to have concerns about public health and safety in such situations. It is important to acknowledge that not all individuals experiencing homelessness pose a risk to themselves or others, just as not all individuals with comfortable homes are free from such risks.
In the case of Zoey Felix, her unstable home life and the systemic failures of the state agency that was supposed to help her played a significant role in her tragic demise. It is distressing to note that her final place of residence was a homeless encampment, which was just one of many contributing factors leading to her untimely death.
According to Risa Goluboff, a legal historian, vagrancy laws have played a significant role in society’s effort to maintain established norms for centuries. However, these laws were eventually deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court due to a series of legal challenges inspired by the social movements of the 1960s. Goluboff highlights that the pivotal 1972 decision followed a range of cases involving various groups such as Vietnam War protestors, beatniks, interracial couples, hippies, cross dressers, and members of the LGBTQ+ community. The unbridled power of the police to enforce vagrancy laws and dictate societal standards became the turning point that led to reform.
According to the Cicero Institute, the Kansas House bill it authored aims to provide a comprehensive reform package that addresses ineffective incentives, promotes accountability among service agencies, and focuses on providing necessary assistance to the homeless rather than perpetuating failed policies. The proposed solutions include prohibiting unauthorized camping and reallocating funds towards short-term shelters and regulated encampments. These suggestions are in line with Donald Trump’s commitment to outlaw homeless camping and establish government-sanctioned tent cities for offenders, should he be re-elected.
The suggestion of using unauthorized camping as a means to address homelessness is concerning. While a “sanctioned, policed” encampment may have various forms, some of them potentially compromising civil liberties, the idea of targeting unauthorized camping raises additional red flags.
A woman is seen preparing her sleeping bag outside United Methodist Open Door on North Topeka Avenue in Wichita on July 19, 2022. (Image: Lily O’Shea Becker/Kansas Reflector)
Laws prohibiting “unauthorized” camping enable authorities to dismantle tent communities and relocate homeless individuals from parks and other spaces where their presence serves as a poignant reminder of poverty and unfortunate circumstances. This matter has recently gained prominence, as the Supreme Court has decided to review the case of Johnson v. City of Grants Pass. Set in Oregon, this lawsuit will determine whether individuals experiencing homelessness possess a constitutional entitlement to camp on public land when they have no alternative shelter available.
Regardless of the ruling by the high court, it is unlikely that the underlying causes of the crisis will be addressed.
The surge in homelessness stems from the unprecedented wealth inequality in America, reminiscent of the Gilded Age when robber barons thrived. Additionally, the housing market has become increasingly unaffordable for many working Americans, pushing them out of their homes. To tackle the homeless crisis, it is crucial to address the disparities between the richest and poorest members of society and ensure accessible healthcare, including mental health support, for all.
Introducing laws that prohibit “unauthorized camping” or strengthening existing ones by offering significant financial incentives may have unintended consequences that extend beyond the homeless population. Similar to the ambiguous vagrancy laws of the past, these ordinances could potentially be exploited to suppress forms of dissent.
Do you remember the Occupy Movement of 2011?
Cities would find it much more convenient to quash protests if they could simply arrest people for camping illegally. This would provide a powerful weapon for authoritarian leaders in conservative states to suppress those who challenge the status quo by participating in movements like Occupy Main Street, occupying city parks, or demonstrating on college campuses.
Even if there isn’t a wave of dissenters from the middle country, the laws against unauthorized camping would still be prone to abuse and selective enforcement. The distinction between setting up a hammock in a city park for a nap and engaging in unauthorized camping would ultimately depend on the amount of money one has in their pocket.
If you have no money, you’re considered a vagrant.
When you are denied access to adequate housing, food, and medical care, it feels like a punishment. The worst part is that you are made to feel ashamed for your failures and made to believe that you are responsible for your own misfortune. Society blames you for not working hard or long enough. However, the truth is that your real crime is simply not being born into the privileged 1% who inherited their wealth.
Money has the power to forgive anything, at least in the eyes of man if not in the eyes of God. The realm of politics is filled with a multitude of individuals who are deceitful, dishonest, and fraudulent. It seems as though these qualities have become a prerequisite for political success. The notion of being an honest public servant no longer holds the presumed advantage it once did, although there are still a few individuals who maintain their integrity. Studies even indicate that having an aversion to lying can hinder one’s chances of being reelected. In today’s world, you can engage in reprehensible behavior, such as objectifying women or facing numerous criminal charges, or compromise your integrity by accepting unreported gifts worth millions of dollars, and still come out unscathed. You can even be nominated for the presidency by a major political party or retain a lifelong seat on the Supreme Court without being held accountable for clear conflicts of interest.
Read More:
- Eldon couple faces drug trafficking charges following task force raid
- Ron DeSantis Faces Significant Setback as Disney District Allegations Create Scandal