Editorial: High-court ruling offers tool to consider for homelessness

Indianapolis—particularly downtown Indianapolis—has a homelessness problem. It’s not nearly the problem faced by many big cities. But it’s a problem nonetheless, one the Hogsett administration and Downtown Indy Inc. have been trying to address.

IBJ has supported efforts to create a downtown economic enhancement district, which is meant in part to help pay for a low-barrier homeless shelter. We think the proposed shelter—which is expected to impose fewer rules on those who use it than do traditional homeless shelters—has the potential to provide services to many unsheltered homeless individuals who have been reluctant to get help.

And in general, we appreciate the city’s housing-first strategy, an approach that has been growing in popularity across the country because it allows people who need help to move into apartments without first having dealt with other problems, such as addiction.

But we think the city needs to keep all possible tools in mind as it tries to tackle this extremely complex problem—and those tools could now include relocating or ticketing people who sleep on streets or in other public places. As IBJ reporter Taylor Wooten writes in a story on page 1A, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that such actions do not violate the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution, which bars cruel and unusual punishment.

The ruling is significant because, for some time, public officials across the United States have said they have few choices in dealing with people who set up homeless camps, sleep in parks or set up tents in public places. The court has now made it clear that local governments can directly address that problem with tickets, arrests and relocations.

As Wooten reports, some communities and states are moving in that direction. To be clear, we don’t think Indianapolis can solve its homelessness problem simply through policing. Nor do we endorse mass arrests of homeless individuals or endless ticketing of people who sleep in parks or in alleys and along sidewalks.

But we hope the city won’t entirely dismiss the options the Supreme Court has provided, either. There could be times when a carrot-and-stick approach is more effective than simply the carrot. We believe the Hogsett administration is working hard to address this problem and think more tools can only help.

Still, we think it’s important that the Indiana Legislature not create a statewide ban on sleeping in public places. As Wooten reports, Kentucky has passed a law that outlaws camping in public places except where cities have created designated areas. And the law allows the state attorney general to sue cities that don’t enforce the ban.

A group that supports such laws has a registered lobbyist in Indiana, and we would not be surprised to see legislation similar to Kentucky’s be considered here. We don’t think that’s a good idea. As we have said in many other areas, we think problems like homelessness should be solved locally. A state mandate isn’t the answer.•

__________

To comment, write to ibjedit@ibj.com.