Are these restrictions on emergency shelters legal?

[femmedem]

Hi folks. My city's Council is considering adopting a policy which would:

1. Prohibit emergency shelters from operating except between December 1 and April 1.

2. Prohibit any shelters from accepting people who have been drinking.

3. Restrict the location of any emergency shelters to commercially zoned areas.


Does anyone know if these restrictions would be violations of the Fair Housing Act? BTW, this is only the latest in a series of anti-homeless moves by the city administrators.

Thanks for any argument-honing help you can give me.

[htuttle]

1. I've never known any shelters that took people in when they were drunk

Though it's usually not a city ordinance that says that -- it's been the shelter's own rules.

For someone drunk and homeless, I think a night in county detox (if there is one) is the only 'legal' place to sleep. So usually you'd just go find a warm place.

[femmedem]

4. The Homeless Coalition here ran a "wet shelter"

the past winter, after the city voted to eliminate our social services department. You're correct, though, that there are more dry shelters than wet, especially if the shelters are taking in families.

Unless a person is stinking, dangerously drunk, there isn't any detox place for them here. So if they've been drinking even a little, and aren't abusive or disruptive, according to this policy they'd be out on the street. In New England, that's a possible death sentence.

Thanks for replying. I'm welcoming anyone's input.

[Warpy]

7. They may not be able to enforce #1

which seems like the only one the shelters can fight and be successful.

Restricting the location can be done by any zoning board. Shelters already screen for drunks. They don't want that kind of trouble.

[demosincebirth]

2. If it doesn't accpept public funds, they can set there own rules.

[femmedem]

5. Thanks for replying. Does your post mean

that the city can't prohibit shelters from setting their own rules? That would be great.

[demosincebirth]

9. They would probably have to abide by city or county zoning laws, but

as long as they're not taking public funds, they could surely make their own rules. Like "your house is your domain."

[femmedem]

11. I think you're right

in that the zoning laws will be most difficult to fight. I think the ban on wet shelters won't hold up because according to the Fair Housing Act, you can't deny housing to someone because of a disability, specificlaly including chronic alcoholism.

[donco6]

3. They look in alignment with Denver's policies. eom

[femmedem]

6. That's depressing. Denver's such a large city.

I would think they have a sizable homeless population. Do you know if emergency shelters are actually prohibited from operating during the summer months, or if the city just doesn't have the money/energy to operate any?

Here in New London, CT a group of activists, formerly homeless people, service providers and members of faith communities have been working on putting together a year-round shelter, and the city would like to make it illegal.

[donco6]

8. They have regular shelters that operate year round.

But the *emergency* shelters only take in people when the weather is bad. It's a different thing.

[femmedem]

10. This policy would ban any shelter from operating year-round

except for one small one, for women and children, which would be grandfathered in. Sorry I wasn't clearer in my original post. Since then, I've been able to read a draft of the policy.

So it says that not only is the city unwilling or unable to provide year-round shelter for the homeless, but they are also forbidding anyone else from providing shelter, either. (We are a city with 25,000 people, a poverty rate of 15.8%, and about 300 homeless, according to the last annual count.)