Housing

Legislators shorten Homeless Bill of Rights

House lawmakers cut public begging, then pass bill

man in black crew neck t shirt and white pants sitting on concrete floor
Photo by Timur Weber on Pexels.com

By Brooke Burns

Last month House lawmakers passed a bill aimed at banning discrimination toward homeless people — but not before they gutted the bulk of it.

The Committee on General and Housing amended H.132 by cutting a 10-page chunk that would give Vermonters a “Homeless Bill of Rights.” 

The rights would’ve awarded broad protections to homeless people, like the right to access public spaces, equal treatment by state and municipal agencies, the right to vote and the right to ask for money, food or other donations in public — unless the municipality already had a law banning panhandling. It guaranteed future laws cannot unfairly affect people experiencing homelessness.  

Instead, lawmakers simply moved to add housing status to a list of identities that are already protected against discrimination. They made the change after state officials called the bill’s original language vague and lacking in precedent.

State law prevents landlords, employers and owners of public accommodations — a broad term for places like restaurants, libraries and retail stores — from discriminating against people based on their race, sex, disability status and more. 

The bill, which passed out of the House on March 23, would add housing status to the list. That would mean Vermonters can’t be turned away from a public place, state aid, a job or a rental for being homeless. 

Chief Ron Hoague, president of the Vermont Association of Chiefs of Police, told lawmakers on Feb. 1 that the bill of rights’ definitions of public place and harmless activity would’ve been too loose to enforce.

“We’re most often the folks that have to actually physically deal with the issues that come up because of homelessness,” Hoague said, referring to police officers. “We don’t want ambiguity, in their mind, as to what they can and cannot do when it comes to enforcing the law or enforcing ordinances, and that’s how mistakes could be made — when they’re not confident in what they’re doing and what they’re enforcing.”

The committee also heard from Julio Thompson, director of the civil rights unit of the Vermont Office of the Attorney General, on Jan. 17. Thompson cited a lack of precedent in his reasoning. 

“As far as we know, we don’t know of another state that’s enacted a bill of rights where the state Fair Employment Practice Agency enforces it,” Thompson said. “And all that means is just that. We don’t have a sister agency or a federal agency that we know that we can talk to.”

Last year Vermont had the second-highest percentage of people experiencing homelessness in the country, according to a VTDigger article from Dec. 2023.

Thompson said his office found many people with insecure housing  already fit within one or more of the existing protected classes, so the bill might not change much. 

“It probably wouldn’t mark a dramatic rise in the amount of cases we get,” Thompson said. “But I can’t say that for sure.”

H.132 passed out of the House and is in the Senate Committee on Economic Development, Housing and General Affairs. 

The Community News Service is a program in which University of Vermont students work with professional editors to provide content for local news outlets at no cost.

Categories: Housing, Legislation

7 replies »

  1. Are the homeless – a demographic of individuals who suffer from mental health disorders and drug addictions at a much higher rate than the majority of productive, non-addicted people – American citizens? If so, then they are covered by Constitutional Rights already, which do not provide for gender “transitioning”, homes, transportation, etc. all at public expense.

    Social welfare programs were designed to meet transitory & temporary needs for those experiencing hardships – not as a means to live one’s life by. All these types of bills do is further the left’s progression toward government dependence, destabilize this society & culture, and install Communism.

    • A “right” is something we all have that dosen’t depend on other people to help you to use that right

  2. but if you stop this, what will all of the goat herders do/// they make their living milking this system and taking care of the poor down and out looser/// maybe we would find out who would be the real looser is, beside the tax payers/// oh, one more thing/// you have a bill of rights and the constitution is the limits placed on government///

  3. Pardon the insensitivity but…the “right” to be housed at the expense of the American or Vermont taxpayer should be limited and balanced by the right of decent, law-abiding, working taxpayers to not have too much of their hard-earned financial resources confiscated from them by government force. Also to be considered is that there really is no objective criteria to qualify someone as “homeless”. To this day, Vermont’s shelter programs have relied on the honor system. You can prove that you have somewhere to live but you really can’t prove that you don’t. The fact that you choose to live on “the street” or in a tent on public property that is not legally open to camping doesn’t mean that there are no other options for you to be sheltered, either publicly or privately. These points need to be made because what the majority of the Vermont Legislature considers to be “human rights” is a constantly expanding universe, while the tax base is a finite resource.

  4. A law giving only some people a right is racist in nature. Now that isn’t Constitutional. There is no part of this Socialistic agenda that fits inside a Constitution that was written for a Constitutional Republic. Helping the homeless, with no requirements for them to improve, get work, and become self sufficient is faulty from its conception. These same homeless people will be homeless next year, and the year after. That is not helping, that is just creating another class of people within our society, with no end in sight. If the elected in Montpeculier want to give out of their own money, that is their right. But you can’t (and shouldn’t) legislate charity into the tax of the whole.

  5. What we need is a “Taxpayers Bill of Rights” and a “Parents Rights in Education.”

    Two planks of my platform for Vermont Lieutenant Governor. Thank you.

    #GregoryThayer4VtLtGovernor

All topics and opinions welcome! Real names preferred. No profanity, explicit racist or sexually demeaning language, or personal criticism/mocking of other commenters allowed. Comments with 2 or more links are held in queue pending approval. All commenters registered after January 1 2024 must use their true names.