Policy Resolution for Closing Camps Occupied by Homeless Persons, Burlington Vermont

Presentation given 2/23/2019

Folks who live outdoors because they do not have access to the American standard of shelter –walls, roof, locks, plumbing, electricity, rent or mortgage, bills– do not have many choices.

Shelters are sometimes operated to “house” folks without homes, we have several here in Burlington, but there are not always enough beds for all who need them, and those who need them are not always welcome. Some have special needs that shelters do not accommodate. Some people are so damaged that being in a shelter is simply not possible. Some have been so damaged by the system that they have no reason to tolerate the rules. For all of these reasons, living outdoors is the only option for many we count as “homeless”.

For these, there is sometimes a neglected shed or storage unit, or a car, to hide in. Not a few sleep on benches or on the ground, in the warmer weather, and in ATM booths in colder weather. Some sleep in tents that they move every day. Some set up a camp that they return to each night.

We are here today to talk about the people who camp, in one place, on public property, who cannot afford fees, under the constant fear of being attacked and closed down by police.

We are here today to talk about the human rights and dignity of persons who, without other options, seek an out-of-view place, to set up a tent, in hopes that they will not be seen, that their possessions will not be taken, that no one will discover them and demand that they move, or worse, destroy that camp.

We are here today to discuss the structural violence imposed on persons who, because the American standard of shelter isn’t available to them, do what humans have always done: they build a camp.

We are here today to discuss protections for people who camp.

Right now, people in tents are tolerated in Burlington Vermont. Instances of being hassled by the police are infrequent. I have called the police to the Sears lane camp to respond to a conflict, and never worried about camp closure. One of the last major camp closures was also Sears lane, fall of 2017, closed because one of the occupants was bullying, entertaining people with guns, and selling drugs. The issues had become severe, and neighbors were getting anxious. As of now, the city is operating on the compassionate side of its discretion.

On the hostile side of its discretion, the City less than a year ago “cleaned up” a camp that was occupied and in use, without any warning, and without any acknowledgement that the City was wrong. One of the City departments was cleaning up abandoned camps, without informing the camping community that it would be doing that, and the workers mistook the occupied camp for an abandoned camp.

Camp closure is a traumatic event and people are in constant fear of being uprooted and forced to find another, hopefully safer location. At any time the City can charge them with trespassing, and tell them to move. The City has refused to provide services, such as trash pickup, in the fear that to do so would set a precedent, and encourage people to think they were entitled to trash pickup and water. Instead, they want to dispose of the tents people occupy to move them from their camps. In effect, the camper is compelled to live outside of the law and outside of the norms of service that everyone else expects. To not be a renter or an owner of housing is to be made illegal. You are defined, because you are “trespassing” on “public property”, as breaking the law. If you are homeless, you are without a legal right to be anywhere. If you are homeless, the right of your wealthier neighbor to stroll through a wood often prevails over your right to live somewhere. Our fear is that with too much discretion, the City will continue to operate on the hostile side of its discretion.

There are two strategies to address these issues. One is to treat campers as tenants, with the legal protections of tenants. To get this protection, someone under an eviction order would have to sue under the laws protecting tenants, and then win in court.

The other strategy is for the state or municipality to designate specific locations for camping, where peaceful, non-destructive campers would have a right to be, and where trash would be picked up and water and hygiene provided. Most homeless want to live within the law, with protections of privacy and dignity that everyone housed enjoys. This strategy sends the message that being homeless does not mean you are community-less.

Because neither of these forms of protection is available, we ask how we can protect the safety, dignity and property of campers under the City’s policy on how, when and why to close camps.

The City has had a “working draft” policy, for the last several years. This policy has held that the City would provide a three week notice, when it decided to close a camp. In 2017 the City Council took an interest in that policy, and in November of 2018 the City Attorney issued their proposal for that policy, and I have responded to that proposal, as here documented:

1.CampClosureTablizedKEY – The Policy as proposed by the City, with numbering added.

2.ClosurePolicyWhat'sItMean – An effort to translate the opaque and convoluted language of the original policy proposal.

3.PolicySummaryFailsTo – Details the failings of the proposed policy. (I was asked to critique the policy in this way.)

4.PolicySummaryAmendmentsAndComments – Amendments and replacement language.

5.GeneralDescription – Generalized critique of the policy. “policy fails to” without all of the redundancy.

The policy is being considered in the Public Safety Committee, chaired by Adam Roof. He and I have agreed to a process which includes:

1. A Critique of the proposed policy, noting its flaws, as shown directly above,

2. A response to this critique in the form of new language by the City Attorney prior to the next step,

3. A hearing of concerns from the community, at a hearing of the Public Safety Committee;

4. A revised draft of the policy to be written,

5. The Public Safety Committee votes to recommend the policy to the full Council, and

6. The full council debates, amends, and approves the policy.

The critique has been written and submitted to the City Attorney, and we are waiting for their response, so we are waiting for step 2, and for the hearing to be scheduled, step 3.

This presentation is intended to prepare you for that hearing. I probably don’t need to tell you how important a good turnout at the hearing will be. Justice, dignity, safety, and the idea that homeless persons are actually human beings, and members of the community, hangs in the balance.