It’s better to help, not penalize, those living outdoors

Opinion editor’s note: Editorials represent the opinions of the Star Tribune Editorial Board, which operates independently from the newsroom.

•••

Regarding the complicated issue of homelessness and outdoor encampments, some Minnesota cities are grappling with how far they can and should go to penalize those sleeping outdoors.

Although a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision gives local units of government more cover to ticket, fine or even arrest people for living that way, they ought not use that power as a first step. While it is important to clear encampments due to the safety and health problems they pose for campers and the surrounding neighborhoods, the effort should include offering help to bring them in off the streets.

Earlier this summer, the high court voted 6-3 to side with the city of Grants Pass, Ore., which was sued by homeless people over a previous ban on sleeping in public. The court’s majority said that creating laws prohibiting sleeping in public does not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment,” giving cities the green light to create bans. Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch reversed an appeals court ruling that found an outdoor camping ban to be unconstitutional.

“Homelessness is complex. Its causes are many. So may be the public policy responses required to address it,” Gorsuch wrote. “At bottom, the question this case presents is whether the Eighth Amendment grants federal judges primary responsibility for assessing those causes and devising those responses. It does not.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent with two other justices, argued that such laws punish homeless people with nowhere else to go.

“Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime,” Sotomayor wrote. “For some people, sleeping outside is their only option. The city of Grants Pass jails and fines those people for sleeping anywhere in public at any time, including in their cars … . For people with no access to shelter, that punishes them for being homeless. That is unconscionable and unconstitutional.”

Numerous local and state advocate groups criticized the ruling as being overly punitive and more harmful than helpful for those experiencing homelessness.

In the Twin Cities area, where encampments have been problematic in recent years, officials are taking the right approach. Both Minneapolis and Hennepin County officials told an editorial writer that the Supreme Court decision had no impact on their approach to dealing with the unhoused.

“The city does not ticket unsheltered individuals for violating the camping ordinance. Instead, the City’s Homeless Response Team, in partnership with Hennepin County and service providers, offers unsheltered individuals the resources, services and shelter they need,” said Enrique Velazquez, Minneapolis Director of Regulatory Services.

Minneapolis already has an ordinance that makes camping illegal on city property — punishable by issuing a ticket. But that rule is not enforced. Rather, the city and county are doing more to provide additional temporary and transitional housing as well as social services.

After vigorous debate and lots of community input, this week the Duluth City Council toned down a proposal that would have more harshly criminalized camping on city property.

On the other side, the Rochester City Council adopted a camping ban on a 4-3 vote in March and the city reports that public camping since has decreased in the city. Police officers there called for more legal consequences for campers as the campers’ numbers increased. In a statement, Mayor Kim Norton said that the Grants Pass ruling “absolutely” gave her more confidence in the city’s decision. She said the city has had a “significant reduction” in camping since passing the ordinance and that the city opened an overflow night shelter to accommodate the unhoused.

The Star Tribune Editorial Board has long argued that local governments must deploy multiple strategies to address homelessness. The reasons that people are unhoused vary greatly — from mental illness to fleeing abuse to drug addiction to job loss and evictions or running away from home or abuse. And the effective solutions to getting roofs over their heads vary as well.

Decisions about those strategies are best made at the local level and, if deemed necessary and effective, could include tickets and fines. But whether a city, county or state adopts more punitive rules, enforcing them ought to be a last resort. Just because these units of government can impose penalties for sleeping on the street doesn’t mean they should.