SENATE BILL: The Public means Public Act (Redraft Law'd)

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I'm cool with section 2. Section 1 and 3 may need some work. I'm not in favor of prohibiting cities from controlling the homeless. I know, I know, I am a terrible person, but if there are no controls over them, it will drive people away from these cities and then we will just have more overrun and dying areas on our hands, and that is good for none of us.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I'm cool with section 2. Section 1 and 3 may need some work. I'm not in favor of prohibiting cities from controlling the homeless. I know, I know, I am a terrible person, but if there are no controls over them, it will drive people away from these cities and then we will just have more overrun and dying areas on our hands, and that is good for none of us.

Or, you know, we could give them all a home.

A lot of people who panhandled are not homeless. Some just do it because it's an easy way to get money from those who are generous.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I'm fine with section 2, although it's mostly redundant in that cops already can't enter your car (or home) without a warrant or probable cause. I'm not sure why we need to reiterate that.

As for the rest, I worry that simply allowing people to loiter wherever they'd like will hurt the quality of life for a lot of people and erode property values, and businesses will be hurt because people simply don't want to be hit up for money every time they leave their house to go to the store. I am fine expanding our public housing projects, but the rest of it is just pretty doubtful for the reasons I just stated.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Aye, but I get the feeling that goldwater's and adam's amendments are functionally the same thing.

I get that sense as well.

ABSTAIN for now.

Part of me wants to vote nay and work out another compromise but I'd need some convincing that there is Constitutional authority for either Section 1 or Section 3 in terms of the Senate limiting the regions ability to legislate on this matter.

Yeah, I am concerned about the same thing. I am not sure we have the authority to tell regions they cannot legislate in this area. We could attach it to money and do it that way, but merely saying "you cannot enact loitering laws" may be overstepping our boundary aside from all the other issues I have with this bill as mentioned previously.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I'm all for section 2 again, but I am not a supporter of prohibiting places from restricting who can sleep where. We can certainly invest in public housing to lessen homelessness, and I also support that, but that's about where I stand at the moment.

Places that want to keep their streets safe and clean is a matter of public safety, and is something we should be promoting, not the other way around. If we put a law like this on the books, it not only ties regions and municipalities from keeping their people safe, it will hurt our economy because people will no longer visit shops, restaurants and the like.

For example, in Chapel Hill, a place I have spent plenty of time in, they passed a law much like this one and it nearly killed the downtown area because people couldn't go anywhere without being heckled and asked for money, drugs, booze, you name it. If it was like that nationwide, look out, and that isn't something I will support.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Have no fear, I won't sign this with clauses 1 and 2 present. I'll strike them via redraft if necessary. I've seen the effects things like that has IRL, and I surely will not support it nationwide in Atlasia. Remember New York in the 70s and 80s? Even chapel hill did this and it almost ruined their downtown.

We can invest in shelters and homes for the poor, but I'm not restricting municipalities' ability to keep their streets and parks clean and safe. Not only would this turn parks into loitering areas and thus turn citizens away from them, it would hurt local economies because people would chose not to go shopping, eating out, etc because of not wanting to deal with panhandling and harassment by homeless, and then we'd lose businesses and jobs. I will not allow that under my watch.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I won't sign anything with clauses 1 and 2 in section 1 still present. Your amendment would grandfather existing regions in, but it's still basically forcing regions to do something or else, their streets will be turned into places for people to loiter and panhandle. That's not fair and probably unconstitutional, especially if the region cannot afford to give away housing for absolutely free.

I think providing money to expand housing for the poor is sufficient without coercing regions into doing anything more. I apologize for being a hard ass, but I've seen this practice and what it does to cities IRL, and I can't support it.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Yes, I think we can do just what Scott is suggestion without the language threatening to strip regions some rights if they don't follow along. We can and should expand free housing for the homeless without any strings attached.

As Nix pointed out, panhandlers =/ homeless in most cases.

Strike 1 and 2 from this bill and it will be one I think most of us can agree on.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Do you think we could cut out all the dilly-dallying and just enact a federal version of the IDS/NE plans right here, right now, in this room, no holds barred? Keeping most of section 1 and all of section 2, of course.

What is the $5 billion we are giving to the regions for? We need to make sure that we specify it must be used on housing projects.

And don't be stubborn over section 1 and 2, or this bill won't even become law. I want to expand housing projects, but not at the expense of public safety and health. We can easily appropriate money to the regions to be used for housing projects and nothing else to the regions.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I'm indifferent about whether we need a federal policy. I'd prefer we just appropriate money to the regions and allow them to design their own policy, but I certainly won't veto a bill that legislates from the federal level either.

I just think if we give the regions money to implement a housing program, they can do it on their own. They're adults too, ya know?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

OK, well discuss it amongst yourselves. I am open to either approach.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I'm indifferent about whether we need a federal policy. I'd prefer we just appropriate money to the regions and allow them to design their own policy, but I certainly won't veto a bill that legislates from the federal level either.

I just think if we give the regions money to implement a housing program, they can do it on their own. They're adults too, ya know?

I'm sure all regions are capable of designing excellent policies, and they all should. I just don't plan on waiting until they do.

Why wait? Shouldn't Governor's DemPGH, Windjammer and Riley have every interest to get the jump on this issue?

Presumably, if we give them the money, surely they can craft policies. I simply feel that the punishment does not fit the crime when we mandate they do something or else we will force them to basically destroy their local economies and public parks.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

What do you mean by that? I just want to ensure cities are not forbidden from keeping their streets clean and safe. I won't sign anything that restricts them or allows for panhandling and loitering all over this country.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

What do you mean by that? I just want to ensure cities are not forbidden from keeping their streets clean and safe. I won't sign anything that restricts them or allows for panhandling and loitering all over this country.

I mean if a public space is open to people, it is open to homeless people as well.  If it is closed then it is still closed.  But if any city is going to try to restrict homeless people from entire sections of the city then that is discriminatory and a basic violation of rights. 

We are talking in terms of allowing people to establish a domacile (SP?) on public spaces. Of course they are allowed to visit these people like any other person, but the difference is that just like anyone else, they would present not be allowed to stay there permenently if such is presently a restriction. This bill would ban those restrictions.

Right. I'm not saying they aren't allowed to go in parks and the like, but I'm not about to allow them to set up homes, tents, or loiter/harass people on public streets.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

What is a municipally administered place? A park? Does this mean municipalities can still enact loitering laws? If so, what is the point of what's added?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I'm still not sure about where I stand on this. All I wanted was to decriminalize sleeping in your car, expanding public housing, and be happy. I'm not entirely sure what the first two clauses mean now, or how they affect cities/local governments from keeping their streets clean and safe.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Well, I'm not going to sign anything that restricts regions from making anti-loitering or other public heath/safety laws. From the sound of this bill, it will forbid them from making laws but will allow municipalities to set those laws, correct? Just seems like unnecessary rigamarole. Do municipalities even have only municipality-only maintained parks and other areas? We seem to be trying to jump through way too many hoops when just striking clauses 1 and 2 in section I would be easier and less confusing.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I just don't understand what the first part even means. It needs to be cleaned up at the very least because I'm not going to sign a piece of legislation that could ban regions or municipalities from outlawing loitering and the like.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Oh sorry. I didn't know this passed. I'll redraft. The first two clauses are too vague for me, but I do want us to fund housing projects for the poor.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay, a few things after actually taking time to read this.

First, the parts on restricting regions from making loitering laws is unconstitutional. The federal government doesn't have the power to do that absent an overwhelming interest, and unlike the rapist law we just passed, one does not exist here. We could potentially tie it to funding for housing projects, like we have attempted, but even then, I'm not willing to hurt local economies by forbidding anti-loitering laws, which is difficult to construe from harassment, which these places use to keep their streets clean and people safe. If we give regions $5 billion for housing projects, I expect they will do just that without this threat of forcing them to turn their cities into shanty-towns. The power of the purse can be used but not in coercive or unreasonable ways, and this seems unreasonable to me.

Second, I don't particularly understand what the last 2 clauses of section 2 mean. Police cannot enter anyone's vehicle without their presence. They are not allowed to break into it. That's an unconstitutional search, just like police cannot search a home without someone with authority to allow them in to be there, absent exigent circumstances like the flight of a victim, potential for destruction of evidence, or if someone's life is in danger. Police may search a vehicle if they have probable cause FOLLOWING a lawful arrest or a lawful traffic stop, and it has to be more than a mere hunch. If it isn't based on some evidence, the court will always throw out any evidence gathered. The second clause in section 2 contradicts the first clause. Probable cause leads to a warrant, so this is saying they can search a car with probable cause but then it says only with a warrant right above it. Police cannot search cars of people they do not suspect are committing criminal acts. They may only seize something in plain view, if an individual has contraband laying out on their passenger seat, for example, and nothing more.

Disclosure: I just finished my criminal law and criminal procedure lectures a day ago.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

What's the difference in unconstitutionality between banning laws stopping people from sleeping in their cars and sleeping on the streets?

That's a good question. My thought is that people should have the liberty to sleep in their personal property without prosecution for crimes, and people own their cars, while people do not own public places this bill allows them to use as their personal homes or camping grounds.

Plus, from a public policy viewpoint, one sleeping in their car doesn't harm anyone else, while people loitering and sleeping in public buildings and places can harm other people, whether it be directly or indirectly.

I could see that clause being unconstitutional too, but less so than the federal government saying to the regions that they must build housing projects or we will forbid them from enacting anti-loitering laws.

From my perspective, if we give them money for public housing expansion, I see no reason why they wouldn't take it. It's not like they can take it and use it for other purposes given the strings we've put on it.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I've fixed the redraft. I do think you make good points and I'm not sure we can, at the federal level, forbid regions from making not making laws like that.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I can't say I like what the President has done to this bill and I'd rather just have DemPGH pass it, so unless convinced otherwise I'll be voting no on the redraft in order to introduce it under a more favorable administration..

Which part don't you like? The parts I removed will just be struck down if someone sues over it. And section 2 is redundant because protections against illegal searches and seizures already exist in our constitution.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Hey, I wanted to simply give the regions money to build homes for the homeless. I'm not signing anything that bans anti-loitering laws because one, it is unconstitutional and will be struck down and two, as Nix pointed out, a large portion of panhandlers are not even homeless. I want to help the homeless.

But if you all wish to reject this, so be it, I won't be that upset.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I actually think we can repeal laws against sleeping in cars using the pre-emptive powers of the constitution. The rest, well, the federal government doesn't have any right to restrict or have any say in municipally owned property because it's not federally owned property.

Now, I know that TNF wants to take all property under federal control, but until that happens, property laws don't allow us to do what we want to do. We can buy those parks and then allow the poor to sleep in them. All we can really regulate are federally owned property. There are no federal laws restricting loitering in municipally owned parks because the federal government doesn't have the power to do that. Does anyone understand this concept?

I want to pass a form of this bill so we can get people homes and expand housing for the poor. I'm not interested in giving them a park bench to sleep on. I want to give them a roof over their head. I'd hate to see this fail because we're caught up on trying to legislate something we have no power to legislate.