Housing advocates call for building bridges, breaking barriers
ROCHESTER, N.Y. (WROC) – Advocates in Rochester called for better protections for those without a home. They came together Saturday to draw attention to what they said are complications to access care.
Various grassroots organizations were all in attendance, as well as some city councilmembers and county legislators. A Supreme Court decision over the summer, " Grants Pass V. Johnson ," was overturned. It stated that laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute as cruel and unusual punishment, allowing municipalities to arrest and fine individuals for sleeping outdoors, even if shelter is unavailable.
Those who have lived through these experiences shared their stories today, highlighting the vast complications of barriers to accessing shelters in Rochester. Some of these include shelters with a lack of wheelchair accessible entrances, lack of trauma-informed staff and staff burnout.
"There's a lot of programs, organizations and very powerful programs and organizations in the county and in the city that claim to have all of this money and all of these resources and all of these services that they can provide to people who are homeless or potentially could become homeless," said Isabel Rosa, an organizer with Vocal NY – ROC chapter. "Yet – the access and the ability to get those services seems impossible. There's a lot of barriers to access services and it doesn't really make sense."
When asked about the Supreme Court case, officials with the City of Rochester told News 8 that camping is prohibited in the city and the decision "confirms that the city can continue to enforce its camping prohibition without the concern of engaging in cruel and unusual punishment."
The full statement from the City of Rochester:
"Camping is prohibited in the city of Rochester by City Code. The Supreme Court's decision confirms that the City can continue to enforce its camping prohibition without the concern of engaging in cruel and unusual punishment. The City remains compassionate toward the unhoused, working diligently with its County and community partners to offer services and get people to shelters whenever possible.
In terms of the court ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over the federal courts in most of the western United States, had invalidated the application of similar laws where homeless people were fined or arrested for public camping when there was a shortage of shelter beds for them to go to. The Ninth Circuit's rationale was that arresting unhoused people sleeping on the streets where no shelter bed was available constituted a "cruel and unusual" punishment in violation of the Constitution's Eighth Amendment. The Supreme Court disagreed with the Ninth Circuit, finding that the Eighth Amendment does not go that far; that the act of camping was being regulated, not the status of being homeless; and that the question of how to address homelessness was best addressed by the public through local and State legislation, rather than by judges."
