S.C. Police Chief and City Manager Oppose Rounding Up the HomelessAmanda Warren What was the plan and what makes it a human rights violation that has the manager and chief concerned? City council members voted unanimously on August 13 that homeless people could no longer loiter, sleep, or eat in the downtown streets. Their choices? Get arrested or go to a remote shelter. Extra police would be needed to patrol and carry out either task. If they want to leave, they must get permission, set up an appointment and be shuttled by a transport van. A patrolman will guard the road leading in to make sure homeless dont wander off downtown. Ex-prisoners will be shuttled there unless someone picks them up from the county jail. No foot traffic allowed only shuttle van arrival. But what if someone in the city only looks homeless? Will people sitting and eating get harassed and questioned on their living status? Interim Police Chief Ruben Santiago said: Homelessness is not a crime. Ive got to have the legal right (to question or take anyone into custody). We cant just take people to somewhere they dont want to go. I cant do that. I wont do that. The State reports: Interim Police Chief Ruben Santiago said his department cannot transport homeless adults to the riverfront shelter to get services nor can police tell them they would be charged with a nuisance offense should they refuse. City manager Teresa Wilson said that neither she, Santiago nor City Council has agreed to transfer any police officers to enforce laws that prohibit loitering, trespassing or other public nuisance offenses in the 36-block Main Street financial and retail district. [] I think there are some misconceptions out there that police are going to go out there and scoop up the homeless. We want to make sure were doing things the legal, proper way. [Santiago] said police policy prohibits not filing a charge for volunteering to accept services. Thats basically cutting a deal. Its basically coercion. The plan was spearheaded by Councilman Cameron Runyan who doesnt understand the criticism: We dont think there is any (constitutional) violation. This is not about hurting people. Its about helping them. But were not going to allow them to live on our streets anymore. [] There are people who are going to resist it. Its unfortunate that were going to have to give them some tough love. What is the basis for such tough love? More and appealing commerce to help with homelessness. Business owners had legitimate complaints, but the urgency of the counterforce is questionable. It is considered by the report: An acute emergency in the heart of the city that is having a highly detrimental impact upon the commerce community, downtown neighborhoods and the perception of safety and quality of life in the capital city However, a town with people calling in tips to round up the homeless in what is essentially a concentration camp with no foreseeable exit, police patrolling on the lookout, transport vans filled with people, and questioning residents on living status might resemble a dystopian nightmare that isnt quite appealing to tourists or residents. And the shelter only holds 240 people but there are over 1,500 homeless in the Columbia area what now, City Council? Shoot them into outer space? Advocate groups are talking aboutfiling suit. Unfortunately, it sounds like absent some outcry, Santiago will submit suggestions to manager Wilson and she will present recommendations at next months meeting. That spells compromise how much of a compromise would be necessary in order to prevent indefinite detention of the homeless? Related selfnews Post Article: Read other articles by Amanda Warren Here Sources: 