The Anti-Homeless Bill That Dare Not Say Its Name
The Honolulu City Council passed a bill Wednesday that will regulate city sidewalks.
But you’d never know from the language of , which was approved by a 5-4 vote, that its intent was to deal with the homeless who’ve moved from living in city parks to camping on city sidewalks.
The bill’s sponsor, Ann Kobayashi, and fellow council member Rod Tam, went out of their way to avoid connecting the bill to homelessness.
鈥淣othing has passed and the problem keeps getting worse. People on wheelchairs can鈥檛 use the sidewalks, children can鈥檛 go to the library, people are stumbling over each other on the sidewalk,” Kobayashi said. “Is there a beginning where we can take a first step, make our sidewalks, return it to the rights of the pedestrian? …. How do we bring back the rights of the pedestrians and people in wheelchairs?鈥
But other council members didn’t shy away from acknowledging that this bill was about the homeless, just as bills approved this spring to clear the parks of tents and shopping carts had been about the homeless, despite affecting all people who might use a tent or shopping cart in a public park.
Some council members questioned how the city will enforce the rule. Or pay for it.
“Here we are, people are gonna say ‘you guys passed the law,’ why aren’t you enforcing it,” said Councilman Lee Donohue, who voted against the bill. “I hear one councilmember say ‘we enact the laws, they enforce it.’ That’s nicely said but it’s not the way it works.”
The intent of the bill is to create an 8-foot buffer – called the “pedestrian use zone” – that will allow police to ticket individuals who violate the space with their belongings.
Despite its intent, Donohue, a former police chief, says there are still too many unanswered questions that will further burden the police department. One example of a problem police might face, he said, would be determining whether a sidewalk is on public or private property? How is an officer to determine the difference, he asked.
Donohue also said it could take the city up to two years to iron out the details of the bill, and during that time costs will pile up.
Councilman Nestor Garcia agreed.
“I did see the written testimony submitted by the Department of Facilities Maintenance,” Garcia said. “That said it would cost about $244,000 to do all they were talking about: survey work and all of that stuff. And also the storage of all of the goods they鈥檙e going to have to confiscate.”
Managing Director Doug Chin, who emphasized that he supported the bill, echoed Garcia’s concern.
“We have to see how it all plays out,” Chin told Civil Beat. “We are talking about money at a time when we don’t really have that money. But at the same time, it’s an ordinance that they’ve now passed so we’ll see where we go from here.”
In his testimony to the council, Chin noted that no money had been budgeted for fiscal year 2011 or fiscal year 2012 to address the added costs of Bill 39. He also questioned whether some legal issues could arise as to how officers are expected to deal with offenders who do not comply. The penalty is a $50 fine.
Some groups, such at the flatly opposed the bill in to the council.
Daniel Gluck, the senior staff attorney for the ACLU of Hawaii said, “This bill is vague and overbroad, as it improperly interferes with protected First Amendment activities.”
Regardless, it passed by a single vote, with council members Donohue, Garcia, Donovan Dela Cruz and Gary Okino voting against it. Kobayahi, Tam, Ikaika Anderson, Romy Cachola and Council Chair Todd Apo voted in favor.
There will be a 60-day education and warning period before the bill is enforced.
