 All right, let's go on the record. We are on the record. So today, we will kick in with H492, which is establishing a homeless bill of rights. And I invited in, we invited in some, represented from the Chamber, Lake Champlain Chamber, from the Vermont, Louisiana Townsend, from Legal Aid. So let's get right to it. Austin, please. Good afternoon, everybody. Good afternoon. Beautiful snowy afternoon as it is. Almost quick. It'll be there. I'll be quick as I know folks want to get on the road sooner rather than later. For the record, Austin Davis, government affairs manager with the Lake Champlain Regional Chamber of Commerce. I'd like to thank you for this opportunity to engage with you on this important topic. And thank you for your continued work in this area. The Lake Champlain Regional Chamber of Commerce shares your concerns about homelessness and housing and security in our state. As the state's largest chamber and being situated in the largest metro area in the state, which has been grappling with homelessness, we understand these conversations can present a difficult balance of strength. This summer, LCRCC actually explored replicated programs such as those seen in Albuquerque and Denver and aimed at creating flexible work arrangements to lower barriers to those experiencing homelessness to a type of employment that could serve as a new hub for services to that element of our community. So with things like this, like in terms of referring services, creating community connections with individuals and providing a more collaborative way to interact with members of local government. We're actually tracking a pilot program that was in Brattleboro called Work Today, which acquired some grant funding. However, it was not able to become operational due to an inability to staff it. So we're really interested in, I understand that they are potentially gonna be used at grant funding in the coming spring and hopefully hire a staff person for that program and see how that pilot works and potentially see if it's something that can be replicated in the Lake Champlain region or in potentially statewide. So we come to you with a lot of questions about to better understand the intent of this proposal legislation. Title I of the Mont State Statutes doesn't currently contain any bill of rights for any of the protected classes. And typically we've seen protected classes as something that's non-temporal and embedded into a person's identity, not demographic. So we were wondering if this proposal doesn't need to mobilize or unlock additional resources to assist homeless populations, what those might be. We were wondering if this proposal would, what this proposal would have for an interaction with owners of businesses dealing with things such as watering or behaviors that make it more difficult to operate a business in front of their sidewalk, for example. And if the goals of this legislation are already, we're not sure if the goals of this legislation are already completed in other parts of statute. Again, we've had tons of time to see that this topic was current proposal and so we just kind of have more questions than anything. Yeah, we're also concerned that legislation might have a detrimental impact on perceptions of an already marginalized population. We know that there's a little stigma in this conception that prevents people from meaningful interaction with this population. And we sometimes keep our concern that with this added layer that folks might be even more concerned that their interaction, whether it's is or not, could be construed the wrong way, it's discriminatory. So we're partners here to better educate populations on what the intent is. We're also interested in looking at existing tools and the usage of them, such as the workforce opportunity tax credits, which are federal credits aimed at encouraging the hiring of target groups, including and not limited to homeless individuals, individuals facing housing challenges and homeless veterans. So in short, we're interested in learning more about this proposal and as always, we'd like to be considered as a resource and a partner in crafting legislation. We're interested in assessing this legislation, investigating with you and working to look at programs such as the Work Today program and current usage on ways in which we can increase existing tools such as the workforce opportunity tax credit. With that, we'll take questions and get you in the conversation. So do you want some answers to some of those questions or? Yeah, I apologize for not being able to be here when you walked through and let's the council. And I mean, maybe what I could do is forward questions I get along on this to someone on the committee or I can just kind of try to summarize them. But folks are wondering, does this, how does this affect, for example, if there are individuals outside of their business that are affecting their business during hours of operation, does this make it more difficult for those folks? If you have a public establishment and somebody decides to sleep in that establishment, which kind of interferes with how you do business. Under this, would that now be a protected activity? So very quickly, I would suggest on that particular question, I would suggest finding our, getting a recording of the testimony from Bo Yang from a week or so ago and from Julio Thompson from the Attorney General's office. They discussed, I think it's fair to say that this does not prevent that from store owners, from enforcing certain behavioral based issues that they would remove somebody for at any rate. This isn't about a demographic, this is about people and this is about erasing the stigma that comes along with it and providing certain protections. So if a store owner says, you can't come in because you're homeless, this, they're like, well, I can be here because I'm here to do something. But if they're here, if the objection is otherwise or there's other reasons to do it. So I think that's just a round way to, I would suggest just going back to some of the testimony that is on record. But first of all, actually, I just want to thank you, the Chamber, for looking at some of these other programs and some of these other ideas of trying to help in this situation. I mean, I think that's been clear, the Chamber's been pretty clear about that over the years that this is a focus and that they are aware and sympathetic towards the fact that there are people who are unhoused or some people that are suffering through some periods of homelessness. But this is not to, I think this legislation is not to excuse behavior in the public sphere. So I guess my question would be, are there people refusing service due to a person being homeless? Sure. There's reports of that that are, and it's more clear that those situations are not associated with behavior that some people associate with being homeless or is it just the fact that the person is homeless? And so I guess putting on the hat of folks who come to me with questions, they're interested in understanding that like in this case, other protected classes, that's something that, I guess I'm not formulating the question very well. I guess there's just some confusion as to if this extends to things that a person might need to do in your establishment, they cannot find another place to say sleep. If that person decides I want to sleep in your establishment, if because that is a part of their protected, it is a crucial component, not a crucial component, but something that is by virtue of their protected status, does that protection then extend to it? Is the question. My interpretation of this is that in the course of normal course of business, if it is interrupting a normal course of business, again, it falls to the behavior of the individuals. It doesn't give carte blanche to people to say, oh, I'm homeless, I can go sleep anywhere I want because I'm homeless. It doesn't confer that right upon them. Doesn't take the right away of an individual business to run the business in the normal course of their business. It doesn't take that right away at all. John, I think Bordeaux actually helped me anyway to parse some of this out and both seeing some of the other ones says it's not just homeless, it's perception of homelessness as well. And so it's like if Brenda Ly were sitting in a restaurant and he was well-dressed, he had his meal be lingered and I was disheveled and could be perceived as homeless. And I was lingering after my meal as well that the restaurant was urging everyone after they finished to leave with their meal. So they brought to random, they thanked me, sir, you might need to leave the table. That would not be discriminatory to ask me. But if I was singled out with being homeless or perception homeless, that would be discriminatory. So it's the due course of business. And the other issue that was made clear for all of us is we were asking this, I think you and I were asking this about if people are in front of a business that that's an access issue. And so the business is right to pay and block entrance. So, but it doesn't say someone cannot sleep on the sidewalk in front of the business and the business is closed. So when the business open for business, then it's the due course of business that why for you would ask anyone to not just... Well, I have to say, I find it kind of sad that we have to defend anyone's right to sleep outside in front of a business. I would hope that we could find the resources of the community to not have people sleep outside. But I guess that's a whole other conversation. So, my understanding of all these various conversations that happened basically was whatever laws that are on the books that exist now in terms of behavior and that sort of thing was still halt. It would be, as John said, in terms of service treatment or anything like that, that's when this kind of comes into play in terms of just assuring people that it doesn't matter where you're coming from. The treatment that you get should be the same as anyone. So, in that respect, equal treatment. But again, as far as any, I'll call them big words, see laws that are on the books now that apply to behavior. It doesn't matter who you are. If you're misbehaving in some way, then your behavior is gonna be addressed regardless of whether you're homeless or not. It has to the question as whether or would unlock any funding, no, that's not the purpose of, that's not the purpose of this. This is to, again, to basically make a statement that these individuals who are in these circumstances should be able to live their lives with the humanity dignity that everyone else expects to have and that their belongings in particular or what have your can be. That they have privacy concerns just like everybody else. But that's really, that's the, and then they're protected through housing, public accommodations, that their housing status can't be used as a, their housing as well as a piece of discrimination. Yeah, they can't be discriminated against simply because their housing status. So, I mean, again, I would I would I guess ask you to go ahead and request the whether it's written or whether it's on tape, just to hear, because I can't explain it with the eloquence that Booyang or with Leo Thompson in a more legalistic way explained what this bill would do. So, but I appreciate you sharing and participating and wanting to continue the conversation. Yeah, thank you. I answered questions and a great facilitated conversation. Certainly take some of this and share with members that have concerns and try to thank you for these folks. Great, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right, Karen. Art. Thank you. Bye. For the record, my name's Karen Horne. I represent the Vermont League of Cities and Towns. And I'm also here to testify regarding H492. Our understanding is that the bill would add housing status to the list of protected classes with respect to accommodation, housing and employment. Municipal officials, I'm sure as you know, across the state are familiar with this tragedy of homelessness and with the many causes for it. I can't think of a downtown that doesn't support assistance to victims of homelessness with both the government and non-profit providers that are out there working on these issues. And at the same time, every municipality with a downtown also works to balance the needs of a homeless population with efforts to grow a vibrant place-based economy that is attractive to the general public. We are concerned, as was mentioned earlier, why this particular legislation would be put into Title I. Title I talks about common law. It talks about the open meeting law, the public records law and access to interpreters for persons who are dealing with who are deaf or hard of hearing. It doesn't actually talk about any of these kinds of issues. The draft language would guarantee a person without housing the right to use and move freely in public spaces, including sidewalks, parks, transportation and buildings in the same manner as any other person and without discrimination on the basis of his or her housing status. And all that works for us, makes a lot of sense. And on page four, it says that no person shall be subject to civil or criminal sanctions for soliciting, sharing, accepting or offering food, water, money or other donations in public places. So today, the concern for municipalities is the language regarding the act of soliciting or hand handling, and especially aggressive hand handling. And I think that's some of the issues that Austin may have been referring to in his testimony. It's not the status of homelessness. And I have to say that in many instances, nobody knows what somebody's housing status is. That's not problematic for municipalities. But municipalities do need to retain authority to adopt ordinances that address time, place and manner of soliciting that are content neutral and do not burden people's abilities to exercise their free speech rights. The law about soliciting or hand handling remains unsettled. We've read a number of articles with respect to this legislation, and also two years ago when we testified on similar legislation that does talk about any regulations around soliciting in public places need to be neutral in content, narrowly tailored, leave open ample alternative channels of communication and serve a significant government interest that is pressing and legitimate. So we would ask you to assure that municipalities retain that flexibility if you adopt this legislation. We're also concerned about the language at the end of the bill, I believe it's at the end of the bill or on page four of the bill that allows a person agreed to bring action for appropriate relief in superior court, including damages, costs and attorney's fees. I think the first question is who is an agreed person going to sue and what is agreed? I think that that needs to be defined a little bit better. And you may need to define, if you decide to go ahead with this bill, define soliciting a little bit better. That term is not to be defined here. I'm happy to take questions. And we'll send you a copy of this testimony in the reference to at least one of these articles. Yeah, I would be very happy to. As we move forward with this and we start work through, we'll have these questions put forward. And also to Austin's point, I mean clearly the resources are inadequate right now to address homelessness in Vermont, but also right straight across the country. So, and how these, where it's visible is on Main Street in your municipal, in your downtowns. Whatever's in the bottom right there. So it's quite interesting that some municipalities around the state have done sort of like whole the sanctuary city statuses? I heard Grattleboro mentioned in Middlebury. Yeah, we're developing quite a litany of sanctuary statuses on various topics. Yeah, no, no, no, don't worry. And I was just curious if you would receive any feedback from those municipalities on how that stance is played out for them. I haven't, with respect to that particular language, I do know that a number of our downtowns are really struggling with right now with how to adequately address the whole homelessness issue. And some people, there's a whole variety of reasons that somebody might be homeless and a lot of them have to do with mental health and that manifests on Main Street also. Grattleboro, you may have read an article a couple weeks ago about Grattleboro. They have significant problem they're trying to solve down there. Oh, they're getting hurt, he hasn't been. How are they approaching it? They, I mean, that is very innovative municipality, I have to say, but they're taking a number of different approaches. They've actually put out port bodies and they're looking at the self-cleaning facilities, you know, they've done a number of things there to try and give people places to go and to maintain their dignity and not just to the bathroom, but to go to rest and sleep, those kinds of things. And they have a transient population that comes through there, close to the Massachusetts border. So, I mean, I would suggest that you read some of those articles. I can send them to you about what they've been dealing with recently. You want to follow up to my question? So, well, we're on a municipal topic. So, that's sort of like the direct governance question, but about law enforcement engagement, if a rule like this is put in place, do they change how they're engaging? I don't know that I can really answer that question. Well, I think that it might, I don't know, the two components that sort of jumped out at me and one is certainly the language around soliciting and what is soliciting and what is aggressive soliciting and are we going to have the authority to sort of address that by ordinance as if the town chose to because I think an over of towns wouldn't, but another page three, you talked about a reasonable expectation of courtesy and his or her personal property and I don't know, this is a question, but there have been occasions when police have asked people to leave parks and things like City Hall Park and so what happens with personal belongings there? That's been an issue up and on in Burlington at least. I don't know what the answer is to that question. Thank you for sharing and we will, if you can make sure we have new comments so that we can work on this, we can ask the questions, discuss them and ask the attorney why Title I, if I'm not, if that's the right place for it and then move on from there, but we may not be marking this up for a week or so. Yeah, I'm willing to look at the other, actually the language is in the bill, but when you look at the other sections that were converted to tactic classes, they're kind of scattered through the statute and not all collected in. Well no, they're all scattered in all the different, in the houses and sections. Right, right, so thank you. Great, thank you, Karen. Thank you. Good afternoon, thank you. So I'm Wendy Morgan from Vermont Legal Aid and obviously I'm here to talk about the homeless bill rights and first off I need to say that I am not an expert in this area, I don't represent the homeless personally, Vermont Legal Aid does and Legal Services Vermont provides advice and sometimes limited representation. So we handle a lot of cases between the two agencies, we handle a lot of cases of people who are homeless or at risk of homeless, but we don't have good stats for you on that because we don't collect them in that way. For example, I think arguably everybody that we represent in the Red Desperate Clinics is at risk of homelessness because if they're picked out of where they're living now and they don't have the money to pay for a new house, new housing then they're gonna be homeless. So I'm sorry I can't sort of tell you the order of magnitude of the cases that we have, but it is definitely something that our attorneys and the attorneys on the hotline at Legal Services Vermont have to deal with on a regular basis. And because I'm not personally represented as people, what I would like to do with your permission is to read a couple of case examples from Jessica Radboard who testified here two years ago when this bill was here because there's case specific and I think they maybe address some of the questions that you've raised already. So Jess writes, people experiencing homelessness are regularly specifically targeted for harassment and discrimination, violating their fundamental rights and making it even harder for them to obtain permanent housing. Please allow me to share a couple of case examples. Just a few months ago, and this was written in January of 2018, I was working with a client whose rental home was sold and her tenancy lawfully terminated. Tenants do not always get the kind of notice that they need to when they have to move even if they've done nothing wrong. They get 30 days or 60 days depending upon the length of the tenancy. In this case, my client simply did not find a new home in that timeframe. She had she remained in her home in spite of the lawful termination, she would have been subject to eviction, cause significant economic damage to her landlord and put her Section 8 voucher rental assistance at risk. So she left and she was placed in emergencies, she helped her through the Department of Children and Families General Assistance Program. I reached out to the landlord to ask her to ex but I reviewed my clients. This was a new landlord of my client's application because of her desperate need for housing only to be asked what did she do to end up at Harbor Place? This question reflects a prejudicial view that a person experiencing homelessness must have done something wrong and must be unworthy and it must be an unworthy rental application. A landlord may lawfully reject a homeless applicant because she has a negative rental history or cause damage to an apartment but homelessness alone should not be permissible basis to exclude a person from housing. Allow me to share another story that shows how the criminalization of homelessness can affect housing. Over the course of four years of homelessness our client was arrested 17 times, 14 of which were dismissed by the state or the court often without a final probable cause. Many of the arrests were based on our client's presence in a particular area of the city. A no trespass order had been issued by the police that barred our client from an entire municipal fire district rather than a particular private property including the central downtown area. So just by walking from one appointment to another or even taking the bus he could find himself trespassing and subject to arrest. These arrests and interactions with the police were profoundly traumatic for the client and he felt that he had been labeled a criminal simply for existing in space. Later when the client applied for permanent supportive housing his application was denied because of his quote, numerous arrests and contacts with the police closed quote, which the housing provider determined to make him too high risk for their program. Thankfully with legal assistance he was able to get that decision reversed and get into a safe house at home with appropriate assistance. He was able to get that decision, I'm sorry, with appropriate services. A homeless bill of rights that bars criminalization based on homelessness would prevent arrests such as the ones experienced by this client and thereby free them from yet another barrier to obtain permanent housing. So I have a few statistics that might be helpful to your consideration. According to the 2019 State of Working Vermont report more than 66,000 vermanders live below the federal poverty level last year. In 2017 our point in time count of people in shelters and on the street was over 1200 people and increase over the previous year. Looking to the agency of education's data which includes doubled up families and its definition of homelessness and that's the same definition as you have in H492. We see that in 2017, 1093 Vermont school children experienced homelessness. Homelessness and poverty are on the rise making a homeless bill of rights an imperative at this time. Aside from the human cost, the longer a family remains homeless the higher the cost to our state through our schools, economic services, the office of economic opportunity and so forth. We should be doing everything we can to protect homeless persons from discrimination and criminalization that creates barriers to their ability to obtain stable housing. So Vermont Legal Aid supports a homeless bill of rights and we encourage you to adopt in its current form or a modified form H492. Could you repeat what you said about doubled up families from the ALE? I think that that is if you have one family living with another family, one of them is considered homeless. Even if it's just a temporary situation in between homes. Do you know? I don't know. And Earhart may be able to answer that question for you, I apologize but I don't know. No worries. All right. Thank you. Any other questions? Let's call it a day on this one right now. So I would just ask into the next week or so we're gonna be doing some markup on a couple of these bills on the recovery housing, perhaps on this bill. So just if you can be as prepared as possible next week, look at what we've looked at on our website under these bills, read the material, that's the back of the material that's been provided. And we're gonna push up the utensils and get to work on a couple bills that's starting next week. I doubt, I'll see many of you guys. I suspect that I won't see many of you tomorrow. So yeah, so we have this bill, recovery residences and this bill on Tuesday and Wednesday and then we're gonna start more testimony. We're gonna have more testimony on the rental housing health and safety bill. We'll return to the resolution JRA 7, apologizing for sterilization. And that will be some markup with Michael Charnick and then again with recovery residents and the bill of rights. And that takes us really through the end of the week where we will take up S83, which we heard a little bit last year on, which is prohibiting agreements that prevent an employee from working for the employer following a settlement of a discrimination claim. We heard a little bit of testimony on that last year. That's the so-called dark in my door testimony, our bill, so we'll be picking that up. So if you come in tomorrow, I'll see you tomorrow. If not, then have a good weekend.