ÌìÃÀÊÓƵ

Are Honolulu’s homeless the target of a new proposal to clear city sidewalks, or will they just be among those who will be affected?

That’s the question Honolulu City Council members, the Carlisle administration and homeless advocates are wrestling with today as a controversial bill makes its second legislative stop.

was introduced two weeks ago by Council member Tulsi Gabbard and four others. It’s to be heard in her Safety, Economic Development and Government Affairs Committee after passing first reading last week, though not without some debate and controversy.

The measure would prohibit people from keeping their personal effects — attended or unattended — on public property for more than 24 hours or in a city park overnight. Personal effects are defined to include clothing, furniture or household items, among other things, that are stored and placed on public property.

Gabbard said the examples are numerous. In an phone interview with Civil Beat Monday, she specifically mentioned motorcycles locked up next to fences for weeks at a time and businesses keeping boxes or other items in front of their stores. Then, of course, is “the issue that everyone has been talking about: those who have a large number of personal items — tents, couches and TVs — and who are residing in public spaces.”

“To say that once this bill is enacted, if it is indeed enacted, that immediately the first target would be the homeless, I would absolutely disagree with that,” Gabbard said. “They’ll impacted along with all the other groups of people that I mentioned.”

She also said the law wouldn’t be part of the criminal code, which means it won’t be be enforced by the Honolulu Police Department. After a warning is posted, items not removed will be placed in storage and potentially available for a fee.

Some remain unconvinced.

“This Bill essentially makes it unlawful to be homeless and have any possessions of any kind; it is yet another misguided attack on the homeless, and will expose the City to expensive and protracted litigation for myriad constitutional violations,” Dan Gluck, a senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii, .

He told the Council that it should ditch the bill, which he called a “Band-Aid approach,” and instead focus on efforts to address homelessness in a more systemic way. He said the current proposal is “antagonistic toward the homeless.”

Some homeless people gathered near Old Stadium Park and King Street on Monday were aware of the debate and concerned about where they would go if the measure passes.

“This is everything I own,” said a woman who called herself Aka. She pointed to a tent made out of a gray tarp.

“All my stuff’s on wheels,” she said. “So if they come, I’m wheeling myself out.”

Two Council members were sympathetic to the concerns.

Nestor Garcia cast the lone vote in opposition to passage, but it was Romy Cachola who explained his concerns most aggressively, even drawing a couple of friendly reminders from Council Chair Ernie Martin that there will be ample opportunity to debate the merits of the bill in committee.

Cachola said the homeless are “people just like us” and that the city should come up with compassionate ways to help.

“You will make a lot of hardships for people who are already down in the gutters. We should find some ways to help them out,” Cachola said. “Even if they say it’s not targeting the homeless, time will tell the real intent of this bill.”

Lori Nishimura, executive assistant to Mayor Peter Carlisle and the administration’s representative at last week’s Council meeting, said Carlisle supports the proposal because it wants to have public property available to all members of the public.

“This bill is not about the homeless,” she said. “You’re entitled to whatever opinion you have, but the stated purpose for the bill is in the purpose clause.”

Cachola, despite his concerns, voted in favor of passage, with reservations. Seven other members voted to move the bill to committee.

“This really is about fairness and is about making sure everyone has free access to public spaces,” Gabbard said last week.

Vice Chair Ikaika Anderson said nobody has the right to occupy public property on a permanent basis with their belongings.

The Safety, Economic Development and Government Affairs Committee is scheduled to meet today at 9 a.m.

Targeting the Homeless?

Bill 54 is not the first time the Council has considered a measure that would impact the city’s homeless citizens. Here are some other proposals¹ from recent years:

• exempted vehicles converted into mobile homeless shelters from the motor vehicle weight tax.
• would have asked the administration to look for land for transition shelters for the homeless.
• relating to shelter buses
• for “aggressive panhandling”
• (2008) related to camping fees
• Bills and (2008) for park use permits
• (2009) would have banned those with offensive body odor from city buses
• to expand the prohibition against “aggressive panhandling.”
• (2010) Fees for activities in parks
• establishing homeless liaison program
• about safety of bikes on sidewalks
• (2010) No smoking at bus stops
• (2011) regarding camping in public parks
• for homeless reintegration program
• for temporary shelters

— Nick Castele contributed to this report.