 All right. We are picking up on the homeless bill of rights, H-492. Luke has provided us with a draft that incorporates many of all of the requests that we made last week. Luke, could you join us? Sure. Is that the draft that you and your amendment? Gentlemen, have we got quickly? You can work off it if you'd like. I don't need to do that. So I might check on something. Thank you. Sure. Good morning, everyone. I'm Luke Margarine, Chief Counsel of General Assembly. I'm here on 492. What I tried to put together is a working document. So it's not the polished or final potential strike law amendment. And it shows highlighted in yellow, I'm sorry, the changes that I think I've agreed to. And it also contains stricken language which normally wouldn't be in an amendment. That's just to show you what's being taken up. So it's a way to work through the changes I believe you've had agreed to. And then of course we can discuss. So starting on page one, three, line 18, there's a discussion about adding and perceived. And so I did it here. And you'll see later that I do it in other sections. And I think it might be easier to bypass section two for right now, section two and three and jump to later parts of the bill. And I'll just show you the changes that were made. And this is now in the subsequent sections that are dealing with the existing anti-discrimination law. So it's not talking about the homeless bill or right section, it's talking about the later sections of the bill. For example, on page nine at the very top, this is the definition of housing status. So it's still cross-referencing the federal law as you decided, but it added in actual or perceived. And I don't think we need to, I did that in the subsequent definitions also. So every time we have a definition of housing status that you are adding as a protective category to existing anti-discrimination law, we're still cross-referencing the federal definition but I added in actual or perceived. And that language is consistent every time you have that definition. Any questions about that? Okay, so now let's go to section two, which was the section in title one, the homeless bill of rights. And if you go to page four, you'll see there's a new F at it, starts on line five. So there's discussion about a couple of terms. One was housing status and one was public place or public space, and you decided to always use the phrase public space. You'll see F, as in Frank, starting on line five, you'll see one housing status. Now these definitions are in this section. They're at the end. You could have put them in the beginning. There's no difference in their impact. I nearly put them at the end because it might be easier to read. But this is just really a formatting issue. But housing status means the actual or perceived status of being homeless, et cetera. And then it cross-references the federal statute. So this is exactly word for word, the same definition that would be in title nine. The same definitions that you're now including in the existing anti-discrimination laws. So it's exactly the same. Did you combine the two, Luke? Is that what you're saying? No, I repeated the same definition more than once and added in the words actual or perceived each time. But so before housing, homelessness and housing status wasn't really defined in this section, the so-called homeless bill of rights. Now it is defined and defined exactly the same way as it's later defined in title nine, et cetera. So is that the title nine? Is that clear? Yes. Now then there's a definition of public space. And let's walk through this because this is all new. This is meant to incorporate my understanding of your decisions from last time. This wasn't defined earlier. So now we're defining this term. And so I believe what we asked you to do was to make this definition and then we put it back on the table side by side with the concept of public accommodation. Public accommodation is a common definition in our statutes already. So that we ask Luke to come up with this and then we will have that discussion as in, we can change that or delete it or rely on public accommodation. We'll have that conversation. And so let's walk through this. Public space, once again, every time you said public place, I change it to public space so there's consistency. Public space means any space or location that is customarily open to, accessible to or used by the general public and includes. So these are examples now, but they're not exhausted. So these are examples, but it doesn't mean that's a whole universe. Outdoor spaces, including sidewalks, streets, buildings and public parks and beaches. And indoor spaces, including shopping malls, libraries, town halls, community centers and government buildings. So now we've defined public space and given some examples of what our public space is. And then B, this is sort of a carve out. Does not mean restaurants, stores, schools, religious establishments or indoor spaces that are not customarily open to the general public or that require the payment of a fee or membership to enter. This is only an attempt to put into statutory language your discussion. So of course you can change and modify and maybe didn't hit all the points that you want to include. But you see what I was trying to do is have a general broad understanding of public space and then pull things out of it like the inside of a store or a restaurant. Does letter B reflect the definition of public accommodation? To some extent, because remember public accommodation includes the restaurant and the store. And my understanding of where you were headed or potentially headed was to exclude those. So I was trying to pull them out. So it's narrower than a public accommodation in that regard. Should we think about a term that would include access gained with a key? So a store owner possibly going into their establishment and unlocking the door in the morning or it can't be in any other example. It's not a public restaurant that requires accommodation. And you're thinking you want to allow those people or deny them access to that? Well, add to the bottom of this definition where you're carving out where required payments of the fee or membership to enter or someone who has access to a key to whatever. So good question. And I don't think that space that's locked nor a secure part of a building, government building, have rooms that are not customarily open to the general public. So you could absolutely list more examples. You could do that. But I thought things that are secure location, general public cannot customarily enter. That's not included in the definitions. That would be a locked space. That'd be a part of the general assembly, the police office, the general walk-in there. That's true for all those doors and walk-in either. Examples like that. I thought, or at least my preference was, I don't know if it was the committees or what, I didn't think shopping malls were, I thought we had a discussion that shopping malls were not public spaces. Like the idea again of setting up some kind of food distribution in the middle of the shopping mall, I thought we'd hurt some. That's your decision, mate. The sense I got was the general areas of the shopping mall, you did want to allow homeless people access to, but the individual stores or restaurants, you did not. But that's a policy decision. Well, it wasn't so much about, in the context of the discussion, it wasn't so much about access for homeless people. It was about, in some other section of the bill, there's a talk about being able to distribute food in a shopping prohibited. And so, again, if like Food Not Bombs, an organization that distributes food to the homeless wanted to set up inside a shopping mall, I wouldn't support a lot if they could set up inside this shopping mall. If they wanted to set up outside the shopping mall, but inside now, it's not a public space, it's a private space, privately owned, privately operated, the whole thing. Or they would ask permission. Right, of course, have to ask permission, of course. I think maybe we continue this discussion at a point when you might not have been here. That's where this might have come from. Do you want me to walk through the rest of the changes? I think there'll be more discussion about this key definition. Do you want me to walk through the rest of them? Yeah, if you want to. Yeah, let's do that, and that's it. So, let's now go to section two, and let's go to page two, please. And on page two and three, there's highlighted changes. I just want to go through them with you. First one is on page two, lines two and three, because housing status is now a defined term, you don't need to say homeless, or because of their housing status. So the change you see there, lines two and three, is just removing the language that's no longer necessary. And you'll see how to do that repeatedly on the rest of the page. So you don't need to say homelessness, for example, you just don't. Now you, I did not, you could condense this whole section. There's some repetitions language. I did not do that, because I was only trying to make the changes you'd agreed to. But if you wish, you could, there's other language you could take out that may not be necessary. I don't think it's harmful and I don't think it's negative, but you could condense it. Going over to page three. This language on four, five, six, seven and eight that I struck out. This, I didn't know if it was necessary. You did not reach an explicit decision to remove it. So this is something that you had it really discussed or decided, but it struck me that it may not be necessary in light of the other changes in housing status now being a defined term. That's something you should look at and decide whether you want that language in or out. And do you say that in the sense that the way it's otherwise defined is more global so that this could be, I mean, I look at this language and I say, okay, we singled out victims of domestic and sexual violence in this particular case because we felt it wasn't covered in other sections? Well, if that's how maybe you want to keep it in and once again, wasn't something you discussed, do you want me to give you that? It struck me four and five, what does that language actually do? So it's almost a statement of your intent and your opinion, but it doesn't, you say they have the right, but it doesn't actually do anything specific. So that's time for you to discuss. You could certainly have the language there. The other language, it was unclear to me whether it changed anything legally. And that's also something if you discuss and maybe hear testimony from their stakeholders concerning. So I'm not sure about this, but I was wondering whether it was necessary or if you're really just saying that confidentiality as mandated by other laws should be followed. That's so, it may not be necessary to repeat it here. The other changes that you see on page three are just referencing the term of housing status or striking out without housing, which is no longer necessary or traditional for a public forum was stricken out at the very bottom of the page and public spaces was used instead. So it's just changes in language to be consistent. And those are all the changes that were made in this draft. So committee first, I guess, let's put aside the conversation of public space versus public accommodation for a minute and just concentrate on the other changes that were made as does it reflect everything that we were talking about last week in your opinion. And then we'll come back to the divine on this language in a second. But the other changes seem to be making it consistent, making the changes that were requested and making them consistent through there. Is that, do we achieve that here? Yes, Lisa. I think for the majority of the committee, it probably does myself. I'm still, I'm concerned with the actual or perceived language. So that's a stumbling block for me. But I think the rest of the committee is pretty, it captures what we were talking about minus the public space issue which you asked us to remove from our minds. For the time being. Yeah. And there's, then let's quick this move over to domestic, the domestic violence language. Do we think that that is, I mean, Luke, if you needed to look at that, would you need to look at that one more time in terms of research? To determine whether or not it's completely duplicative or is it just our choice? Well, I think that's something you may want to hear from other stakeholders either informally or formally. It's not my subject area. I can't give you an opinion that's absolutely not necessary. I think I explained my reasoning and striking it out. But I would circle back to some of the other folks who have testified perhaps. I think the language on four and five, I don't see what that adds. The other language on six, seven, eight, that's what I'm not certain about. And of course, you could just keep it all in and you know how these issues talked about in the next committee and those two or something. All right. Does the reference to the federal violence against women's act, are you familiar with that? No, I'm not. In terms of that, okay. I'm not familiar with that one specifically, no, I'm not. Because on the face of it, given the other, on the face of it, it would seem that the language on page three, line two. Oh, I'm sorry. I was looking at the straight line, which I'm sorry. Betcha. Because on the face of it, it would seem that the additional language might just be duplicative. Well, that's what I was wondering, I'm not entirely sure, but I cannot answer that question. So do you need a reason to know what that might mean? Sure. And I hear you when you say that the sentence starting within particular is more of a statement, that would include that language anywhere in the bill it would be in the findings more than within the statute itself. Any other thoughts on that language right now on page three about the identifying information, et cetera? All right, so that's still a touch point to go back to. Now public spaces versus public accommodations. I believe that if we, in the testimony we had last week also mentioned that public accommodation does include most of these things, is that right? Yes, it does include, I'm sorry, it does include things like stores, and let me read that definition to you again. I think you might have been emailed it. I think Ron might have emailed it to you, or we went through it a few times. I think he may have posted it. Yeah, I think so. Well here I have it, thank you for looking. It's defined in title nine, and it says place of public accommodation means any school, restaurant, store, establishment or other facility at which services, facilities, goods, privileges, advantages, benefits, or accommodations are offered to the general public. And so it's quite a problem, but it would include a restaurant, a store, that specific, and many other places. So public accommodation does include the things that I excluded in that definition. And all of our other protected classes that we're bringing public accommodation into, its public accommodation is what is guaranteed. Well, and discrimination. Yes, but you do that in this bill also. Remember there's, in this bill you have changes to title nine of the accommodation. You're adding housing status as a new protective category so they get the full panoply protections like race, gender, sexual orientation, et cetera. We're talking now about section two which is the homeless bill of rights which is different than title nine and which has different types of language. That's what we're talking about right now. So I'm a little, if I'm understanding, I'm a little uncomfortable because I feel like we're creating a apartheid system that all our protected classes can take advantage of all of this, but now suddenly restaurants are saying it can be like whites only, and it's like excluding homeless people. So you're not doing that, I'm sorry if I sound clear. Under this bill, you're giving homeless people access to places of public accommodation like everyone else. That's in section four. Okay, the B part. Section four A, four, five, zero, two. I'm sorry, I'm stuck. No, so what I'm trying to do is let me back up. Sorry if I sound clear. The bill's different parts. There's aspects of the bill that adds housing status to the existing law about public accommodations. So how homeless people under those sections of this bill state rights, same privileges, treated the same way as other protected classes. Okay, such as race, gender, et cetera, okay. Section two is different than Title IX. Section two is the homeless bill of rights and talks about distributing services in parks and things like that. That's what we're talking about right now. And there's no comparable bill, no comparable law for race, gender, sexual orientation like the homeless bill of rights. Is that clear? So what is page four, B, 16, 17, 18. What does that exclude? What aspects of this is hard? It means as to the homeless bill of rights was a section two. Okay. Forget totally different than the other Title IX changes. Okay? Right. So it's saying for what you have in section two doesn't apply to restaurant, store, schools, religious establishments, et cetera. And this includes if you look at the prior pages on section two, it's talking about using and moving freely in public spaces, et cetera. This doesn't limit what you're changing in Title IX. Some of it may be a little bit redundant, but it also goes further when you're changing in Title IX. It's talking about using and moving freely in public spaces. It has a language about you can't have sanctions or being in public spaces, et cetera. Don't see why that is necessary at all. I think the broader public conversation covers it for me. Well, as I recall the discussion, there was a concern of the page three, I decided to see the ability to offer food. It's just a little vague and there was some concern that that language would authorize or allow someone to be exempt from criminal or civil sanctions if they set up a soup kitchen and a restaurant. And we thought that's probably not a reasonable a reasonable interpretation of things. And we were so specifying that it's public spaces and not public accommodations. So that we wouldn't be in a situation where that would happen. I think that was the whole reason I thought we were delineating the difference between public space and public accommodation. I agree. That was what I'm not saying whether that's right or not, I'm just saying that's what, in general, the discussion was that language as it reads seems to allow for that possibility. And so I wonder if we can, without creating a definition that can cause confusion in that line, in that section C, reiterates other language around interfering with, so no person shall be subject to civil or criminal sanctions for the, as long as it does not interfere with the normal operation of the business or normal conduct because we've been very clear along the way that a business that we want to maintain that a business has a right to refuse service for someone who is interfering with the business practices that are going on. Or like disrupting the staff or the customer. Yeah, exactly. Because they didn't get anywhere to get. And so that's been the conversation all along. We want to maintain that, right? And so, randomly, the example that you're offering of what we were trying to avoid, I wonder if we can have, I'm now just repeating myself, but in this section, as long as it does not interfere with the normal business, and then we can use the public accommodations language and not have dual definitions. I'm saying some head nods. Okay, they're just like, one, two, three, yeah. And you don't make sense to me. So what you're suggesting is that, again, we have three different sections, right? So again, we're not talking about discrimination sections. This is just in the Bill of Rights, right? So what you're suggesting is that we, if I heard you correctly, what you're suggesting is to not use this definition of a public space, but so to allow public accommodation would be the same definition in both sections. But to put a proviso in here, that then says that whether it's our intent or it's our interpretation or whatever, is that to your exclusionary language. Yeah, yeah. But that seems to be to ask what is in current statute? For example, in the restaurant with other protected classes, is there any kind of language at all? Again, I think that, yes, there is. There's the whole, I think that's the point that Luke was making is that under the discrimination law that we have, we're adding housing status to this, where public accommodation is a part of the definition. And that, but again, that this section of the bill, which goes into a different section of law. Right, I understand. You know, again, we may be using the we, the proposal would be to say use the same definition with an exclusion to it. Well, that's what I'm kind of looking for. Is there existing language, for example, you know, or do you refuse to serve something in restaurant because they're perceived religion? I think we've heard testimony that that was, that that was part of the reason for adding perceived to the homeless is that the legal traditions, racial discrimination can be perceived. You know, if you misperceive someone, as you do as an example of a Muslim versus Hindu versus, you know, and so. I think what you're getting into is how you prove the case. And it's always fact specific. And it's hard to control a really clear line. I'm just wondering if there's not existing language we can just adapt to. You're not that I'm aware of, but so if you go into a restaurant and they're not gonna serve you because you're a person of color, because your gender not conforming, pretty easy case to prove. But if you go into a restaurant and they just don't serve you, and they don't tell you why, then you would have to establish what seems to be the reason. And that has to do with the burden of proof. So I'm not aware of any language and statute that really helps make that easier or that we could use. You could try to develop it if you want, but it's always gonna be case specific and fact dependent. Which was also testified by the Human Rights Commission. Lisa. So this is probably a very elementary question that I should have asked a long time ago, but with the clarity between the anti-discrimination and the Bill of Rights, why are we pursuing writing a Bill of Rights when presumably the status, housing status would be covered if we just included it in the anti-discrimination Title IX? Well, writing a Bill of Rights, this is, the Bill of Rights is not about, it's different from the discrimination, but this is us making a statement that people who are experiencing homelessness are doing tax. Yeah, that's what I thought. I just guess I don't really see it. Necessary, maybe, if a person's rights are going to be covered under Title IX if we add another protected class, which is housing status. And you don't have to answer that. I think I have my answer. Just hours ago, on Church Street, I walked into Starbucks and Phillip Root was there and he was at his, signed up to his petition to run for Senate. He was just standing there quietly and doing that. And I said, hey, how are you, Senator Root? Nice to see you. I signed his petition and stuff. And so, if he was unkempt and homeless, according to what we're talking about now, he would not be able to be there. But because he was looking good and quiet, he could be there, because he wasn't actively soliciting, but he had his signatures things here. And, you know, oh, you live in Chippin County. Oh, I do, oh, well, I'm gathering signatures for my petition to run. And so, that's my discomfort here, is that we're not asking restaurants, people should be served if they come and sit down and they have money, they should be served. I don't know who they are. If he was, if he was, if he was harassing people, if he was aggressively asking for signatures, that's a nice, annoying difference there. Was there a peace, any assumptions of how he looked? No, I'm not seeing to that at all. I'm talking about the method of engagement with the public as an operator. That's absolutely nothing to do with one's physical appearance and demeanor, well, a little bit on the demeanor side. But physical appearance, how they come up, if he was standing there calmly having conversations with people like yourself and asking for petitions, have that, so democracy. I take that. Sorry, I need to catch up. Yeah. I just want to be clear that all these discussions, it comes down to how do you prove your case. So you put it on paper, the shop owner does whatever they wish, it matters whether the case is brought and that gets to prove the case. So even if you add language that can interfere with normal operations of the business, I'm almost sorry, shop owner could still exclude you with your own intent and smell you if they think that's, arguably they think that's interfere with normal operation of business. So no matter what you're trying to get to, there's always going to be some legal room. There's always going to be some gray area. It's always going to come down to someone bringing case, how do they prove it? Can they meet the burden of proof? I'll be back to you. Where does that put us right this second with public accommodation versus public spaces? Well, if I'm the outlier on this, and I don't really know the rest of the people, so I wouldn't go with the group, but I'm still uncomfortable with it. If I'm not voting, we're done with this, the consensus is, but. Yeah, I think that public accommodation language is clear because it's in the president and it we're doing a new thing. And so having fewer new things is always helpful that's going to be changes. So that's my preference. And it seems like with that additional language to make sure to acknowledge the intent of this bill and to reiterate the businesses being able to operate functionally is the intent. And so that's, I'm there standing in that. Well, I mean, this is like sort of like the new uncharted territory of creating one of these constructs where it's not necessarily looking at someone for race, gender, religion, and it's more of a social construct as opposed to how somebody's born or going to faith. So I think that's where we're running into this. Can you get what I'm saying? Like this has never been defined before for this type of individual. So I think that's why we're hating someone. So currently if I'm wrong, it appears to me that we're defining public spaces and we're backing out public accommodations out of that definition. Some part of public accommodation. Yes, you are. I think it's fairly clear. I think just to be super pedantic about this item C, when it says no person is subject to similar criminal sanctions for soliciting, sharing, accepting or offering food, right? As you said, the normal operations business, yes, but in John's example, we're at Starbucks. I'm an upstart coffee company and I decide to go to Starbucks and offer coffee samples to people of a competing brand. This seems to say that I'm exempt from any consequence of that, right? I'm not subject to any criminal or civil sanction for setting up a coffee sample distribution within Starbucks. But couldn't you be asked to leave under present law? Well, that's what I, that's like, I think that's the problem that we're trying to figure out here. I mean, that's just that simple. That's what you're, I guess it's my point. You're exempt, right? I think that's the point he's trying to get. Right. That's what I'm talking about. You can do it the fact that the person who's trying to get. But proceed. I don't think that's accurate under the language in the bill now. It doesn't, C doesn't specifically have the words housing status, but the whole section talks about housing status as the characteristic you're trying to prevent discrimination on. So if Luke Marland's coffee went to Starbucks and started handing out samples, I don't think I'd be within C. But we could, we could make that clear if you want to. We could actually make that clear. Well, I mean, then who's offering the food in that situation? It could be Wernickel's coffee company offering coffee to homeless people. Oh, you're offering it to homeless people. I thought you were handing it out to anybody. No, no, no. I'm saying the wording in there is offering food. If it was accepting and you left out offering, then, oh, I see what you're saying. The offering implies that you're the person who has resources that you're allocating to someone else. If you just left out offering, you just said sharing or accepting. I mean, sharing's a little, but anyway, it's just not everybody gonna do that. That's why. Yes. That's clear. And then the point that I mean, earlier when we talked about this is that at the US Mexico border that municipalities have criminalized by giving food and water. And so that's the perspective that I'm coming from, that I do not want to be doing that. And so again, that additional language of how to have language that says interfering with the normal business, so that the example that Randall you're having is not within this protected. But did you want C to cover your scenario at the border or not cover it? When we talked about it initially, that's what my understanding was, was that it was that you could give or receive in to be covered. It's separate from homeless status if you give or receive. In the context of homeless status. In the context of homeless status. Yeah. Yeah. So I come back to perceive that's a very loaded word. And that would mean to me in terms of public spaces, this is a public space, this building. We have a homeless person, at least one who comes and goes and so on. So I'm interpreting this, if I approach that person as actually has been done when this person first appeared, one particular person I'm thinking of. And there was an outreach of help offered because it was perceived the person was in need. Regardless of whether or not this was a homeless person because that was not anything that was clear initially. So if I reach out to this person to offer them some sort of help, service or what have you, under this law, I could be accused of being discriminatory. No. No. This happens to be a homeless person. I know, but this says no person shall be. Right. No person shall be subject to. This is in the context of a business. As I understand it. I had to go to another committee to do an amendment. That's going to be in the floor today. Can I then circle back to you after that? Yes, in committee we are going to move on to another topic at 10 o'clock. We have to, and then we attempt 30, we go on the floor. So yeah, we can check back. So we will continue our policy conversation here. So I think, thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry I have to go to the other committee. And just as you're leaving, of course, classic, if we decide on status quo of public spaces and whatnot, these changes reflect that. If we choose to go with public accommodations, then the changes you have to make are going to be changing public spaces to public accommodations. Pretty easy to do. And I just cross-referenced the definition of public accommodation and blah, blah, blah. Very easy to do. Take out the definition of public spaces. Keep the definition of homeless status. Keep that in. So did you usually do that? Not that difficult. And then the proviso, you would get you the idea of what that proviso would be. And think about that language and also subject. Sure. Thanks for letting me know what you need. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Lisa. I just want to respond to Deanna, that I get the Mexican border example. And when you first offered that, I came back with, you're in a restaurant, you're a paying patron. There is someone there who is not a paying patron who's just, who's sitting there and you bring in food from outside. You don't buy it at the restaurant and you start handing it out to people. That would seem to me that it's something that should not be allowed at that restaurant. And if the restaurant owner asked you to stop doing it and to leave, but you proved that the person that you were helping was homeless, how is that person who was offering the food or water covered under this? That person probably wouldn't be, that person could be prosecuted for handing out food because they perceived the person to be homeless. So, and I know that you missed some discussions that we've had since then, but I think that's why we're still stuck on letter C. And that's, I'm hearing that you and I are in agreement because that I think the restaurant is well within its rights and we need to make clear in letter C that we want to reiterate welcomes rights to say you cannot come in here and give food from outside to other people because that interrupts my normal business. And so, we're in agreement on that. Yeah, so if you're buying food at that restaurant and giving it to somebody who's sitting next to you, you can share it with them. That's correct, but I don't think section C is doing this. I don't think section C is saying what you and I want is right. And so then, do you agree with me that if we reiterate our intention of not interfering with the normal business because in the example you just said of, I invite a stranger that I don't know to eat dinner with me or I'm finished with my meal and there's still half a plate left and I let somebody finish that for me. I'm giving away food that that is within the operation of normal restaurant operation and is giving food. It might be, I don't agree with giving away the leftover food part and this is all coming down to, it's too specific for me. There are too many ifs and buts and I can't get into the weeds of this bill of rights part. It's just, it's too much. I've been proposed solution, I agree with both of you. Is that we go back to your original definitions of public places and public accommodations as defined in title nine and not try to redefine any of that. That we include language that addresses not interfering with the normal operation of a business and perhaps adding one more proviso or with the permission of. So obviously if a restaurant says, hey, it's okay for you to come in and end up something. But if you had it, that's like your thing, right? Do it, yeah. Yeah, and maybe I would just clarify a lot of this. Going back to original definitions of public places, places right and public accommodations and having the two provisos. Yeah, I mean, I usually would have to see the layout and nothing about that's concerning. So tell me just right out of some of that. Oh, great Lord. Really? Really? Yeah, it's really, you know, right before the, because you just, it's like when my wife gives me shopping list, the first three items I can remember is four, please write it down. The last 10, I'll get it out. Because I'll forget the first thing, models. I only have capacity for three things at once. I probably already forgot. I mean, I think about all you need to do is do this as a bullet point so we can share this with you. Luke, if this is the right direction, we end up going in. To be that bridge is what we've been discussing. The way you, I was just saying. All right, before we take a break for the next conversation, Aaron Hart, you had your hand up six or seven times. Did you want to share thoughts on anything? If you have time, I appreciate it. We have four and a half minutes. Should I do it from here or do you need me to? Eric Monca, formal housing coalition. So I think you're getting to, from my perspective, a better place with Representative Walsh's suggestion, two things that I wanted to point out. One was you're focusing a lot on the restaurants and malls and the provision of food and these sorts of things, but I just want to make sure that you understand that on page two, in B1, there's a much broader conveyance of rights to use and move freely in public spaces, including sidewalks, et cetera, et cetera. And if you do create a separate definition from what's implied online, the public accommodations definition, if you include a more restrictive definition in the Bill of Rights, that is you are potentially creating a conflict between the Public Accommodations Act and specifically this section of B1, which conveys the right to use and move freely in public spaces, including all those listed. And you're basically, you would be creating, I think, conflict and confusion in the minds of all owners and business people about whether or not they could, maybe under one section of law, prevent someone who is homeless or perceived to be homeless from entering your establishment or entering your wall. And another section of the law which says they need to be able to serve them like they would any other member of the public. So just, I know you're focusing on the other two places where public spaces. Well, no, I think the question to Luke was, if we go with public accommodations as the definition, that that would change here, that that would change this one as well, that that's my interpretation. Yeah. That's what I'm just asking for is to change any reference to a public space to an accommodation because of the broader definition and you're seeking continuity between two different sections. I was speaking to if you kept the proposed definition for public spaces in the Bill of Rights section as Luke had outlined earlier, then you would be creating a potential conflict with the Public Accommodations Act. And I just want to make sure that among, while you're focusing on the restaurants and malls and providing food or whatever, things that normally any owner would say, please don't do this here and the person to leave, with the great focus on that, I think what you were not looking maybe at as much is B1. And so if you did go with Luke's proposed public space definition, then I think you're creating a conflict under this section. So I think you're in a better place with what Representative Walsh was suggesting. The other thing I just wanted to make you aware of is on page three, this is in section six. Top of page three, lines four through seven. Luke had suggested striking the victims of domestic and sexual violence and stalking components. My recollection back to when we originally worked on drafting this a while back, this was something very important to domestic violence victims and advocates. And there are actually, for instance, carve-outs in the Federal Homeless Management Information System specifically for the kinds of information that can share about and not share about victims. And so calling this out was something that was important at the time. I haven't gone back and compared this to the bill that you all passed last year on domestic violence to see if maybe that's now covered. But just wanted to make the point that I think probably it would be a good thing to leave this language in. Those are my comments. So we will ask Luke to draft up, to do the full strike all on this bill. In my hearing consensus that public accommodation is a sufficient definition with the two provisals that Tommy put in, the two additions, and that's what we will ask to see for the next time we take this up. And what about the inclusion of domestic? I'm fine keeping it in. I seem to remember it's older language that was, but if we want to hear from domestic violence advocates or just put it back in, I think we just keep it in. What about referencing the while it was passed last year? Or looking at it to see if it already includes homeless individuals? I don't believe it does, if my memory serves correctly. And in Earhart's memory, I think of using the homeless management information system. I think that clarifies the conversation we had on this two years ago. But we can certainly, I believe I saw Kara Casey in the building today, where we can send it if you want to reach out to them. If you can reach out to them, that would be fine. So getting away from definitions, I'm not working on a lay of those out and into just more of like the totality of the picture. Are we gonna talk to anybody from like the mayor's organizations or the EPA or anything like that to talk about how they see this for a point of engagement? You know, we've put this out, the police, citizens and towns have testified on it. I think, I mean, my concern is if they haven't heard about it already or haven't offered anything already, then do they have something to offer? I suppose, I mean, we clearly will have another session on this because we have to review the changes made. I think we're really close on terms of settling the issues now that it becomes just a question of whether there's support in the committee for the bill. We're trying to end the different changes. That said, if we don't have time, I don't know that we have time scheduled for this, but it's, so we would go over into next week. Probably for the final vote. I mean, if somebody wants to reach out and see that's fine, it would be one more opportunity, but again, it's one of those, it's not finished here either. Yeah, no, no, no. If it passes here, then people have more comments than the Senate is willing to take a lot of this too. Yeah, I'm just curious, because if you just didn't, other than whatever that was, 15, 20 minutes would be used to get Karen Horne. Yeah, it's been. Would you know what you're really from the municipality side as coming in? So I just wasn't sure what they, I would think that Karen Horne was aware that she was notified of the people through VST, but I'm making an assumption of that case. But again, no one is, you know, we've reached out to Burlington earlier to see who was interested in talking to him. And the chambers spoke, the chambers spoke. We reached out to police association. We did, we had at one point, we thought we were gonna have testimony from police officers or police chiefs. That's kind of what I'm curious about, that we didn't see anybody from the enforcement side. They didn't want to come in. I think there was a real split between what someone may want to testify on a personal experience, personal professional experience, versus what they might have been, what their municipality may have wanted to possess. I, you know, it's just too loud. It's speculation. You know, I think the opportunities have been out there. And again, it's hard, here we are in the middle of February. And I think we've, I think we've philosophized this bill upside down backwards and we really work a language and try to get it right. So, or as right as we can get it.