Regarding accessible housing, most citizens have only been concerned with affordability. But for many former prisoners they have had to endure a never-ending nightmare in which their old conviction affects their ability to find a place to stay. A previous conviction makes it extremely difficult and less likely a landlord would approve a tenant into their building. Even worse, some local regulations specifically prevent landlords from providing housing to former prisoners. Luckily, a new law in California starting this year overrides those local rules. Assembly Bill 1418 overturns city laws prohibiting landlords from permitting housing licenses to those with a criminal record. Since housing is not legally a fundamental right, it should, at the very least, be universally regarded as a fundamental commodity. If an individual can afford housing, under no circumstances should the government actively intrude on that person’s ability to find a place to stay.
Crime-free housing policies are ineffective at reducing crime in an area, which is the intention behind these “tough on crime” laws. Of the 104 cities in California with crime-free housing regulations, none of the cities “achieve[d] their intended objective of preventing or reducing crime.” The only thing these policies result in is a “significant increase in evictions,” and an increase in evictions leads to more instability in a convicted person’s life.
Without housing, an individual is less likely to maintain or even find a job. It becomes difficult to establish a social network. An inability to find housing, inability to find a job and increased isolation can have negative ramifications for local communities. Without the necessary resources an individual needs, there is an increased chance of recidivism. Empirical evidence has confirmed that “poor people are much more likely than wealthier people to commit street crime.” If the goal is to lower crime rates in a city, then it is imperative to remove regulations that cause groups of people to fall into endless loops of poverty.
Accessibility to housing lowers the burden a former prisoner has to deal with when reintegrating into society. Former prisoners such as Michael Griggs have elaborated on this point. On his path to rehabilitation, Griggs took college classes and currently aspires to obtain a master’s degree. When he was searching for a place to stay, he could only find an apartment roughly ten miles away from campus. Griggs was deeply frustrated with the scarcity of options for housing and asked how it could be remotely possible to “move forward with [his] life without having the first fundamental thing, which is housing, a safe place to live.” Griggs and many other former inmates are already behind in becoming productive members of society. Lifting those restrictions on housing gives them new hope for rehabilitation and a future.
Undoing ‘tough on crime’ housing policies does not reward illegal activity. Illegal activities are already punished through jail sentences, community service and hefty fines. Punishments should begin and end in a courtroom, not the court of public opinion. The point of ending those housing policies is to give former prisoners a stable pathway to a peaceful and meaningful life. Closing doors on abilities to find shelter for anyone does nothing but create more harm. California will be on the right side of history with the implementation of A.B. 1418, and many other states should follow suit. Everybody deserves a chance to chase after a fulfilling life. For countless people, that fulfilling life involves a stable place to stay.
