Give homeless bills a hearing

Homeless people need housing, not harassment — or so say some advocates opposed to the “sweeps” aimed at moving encampments from the streets.

However, the fact remains that Honolulu can’t tolerate allowing for routine life on the streets: It’s unhealthy and dangerous, to campers and neighbors alike. And as the encampments have shifted increasingly toward residential areas, bringing crime and other problems with them, the public health and safety concerns have become paramount.

So moving homeless individuals and families off the sidewalks to someplace that’s safe is a benefit to all, assuming it’s done in a humane fashion.

Those seem to be the goals articulated by Mayor Kirk Caldwell’s administration, and its latest proposals to further restrict obstructions on public sidewalks just might advance those goals. But the ideas can’t get a fair chance, or the particulars even be discussed, if the legislation stays bottled up in a City Council committee.

That’s been the fate of Bills 51 and 52, which were shelved at a July 25 meeting of the Committee on Public Works, Infrastructure and Sustainability due to concerns about legal liability.

Councilmembers are right about the general risk of constitutional challenge with such measures, and even Caldwell has shared that concern. But it’s worth taking the risk to give this idea a shot. Further, the Council should consider adding the mayor’s proposed constraints in the final language to mitigate that problem.

The bills have been construed as an expansion of the “sit-lie” ordinance, but they are different. Sit-lie bars people from sitting or lying on sidewalks in selected business zones and at set times. Perhaps because of its limited scope, this particular law has not been challenged.

Bill 51 would prohibit any impediment to the “free and unobstructed passage of pedestrians.” There are the obvious exceptions, including people engage in constitutionally protected “expressive activity,” those who can’t comply due to a medical reason or physical or mental incapacity and those on the sidewalk due to a permitted parade, rally, demonstration or other event.

Bill 52 is aimed more to outline how people should be redirected from “lodging” in a public space. Unlike the sit-lie law, “Bill 52 is not based on an economic business model,” Caldwell wrote in a letter to City Council Chairman Ernie Martin. “Its focus and purpose are to provide them transportation to shelter.”

The general argument against enforcing prohibitions is that it unjustly penalizes people for being in public spaces when they have nowhere else to go. This is why Caldwell is proposing additional language that would require, first, a confirmation that shelter space is available before people are dispersed from their encampment, as well as an offer of transportation to the shelter.

Finally, if the person declines the shelter accommodation, he or she is given an hour to relocate and then could be subject to a fine or arrest.

These provisions seem reasonable, and worthy of discussion — which is why these bills need to move out and into a public-hearing setting. There are complications of the rollout that need airing.

Honolulu is far from the only city to seek such controls on its homeless population. Alternatives to “criminalization” that have been tried elsewhere include provision of social services and other assists. All that is already being tried here.

What this underscores is that implementation of proposed “ohana zones” providing transitional housing must be accelerated. Hawaii’s inventory of low-income rentals also must be increased, and soon.

But in the meantime, the city is facing a critical juncture, where public health and safety are threatened, and could surely use another tool in its tool chest.