The Daily Delegate

Of the many issues being addressed in this weekend’s heated Forum, there is one question permeating the future of America’s rights: How far should lawmakers go to ensure the protection of underprivileged citizens at the detriment of other major national objectives?

Such points of consideration are being raised at the bill proposed by the Assembly’s 13th Committee, Civil and Human Rights. The law adjustment is set to come to fruition as an amendment to an existing act (CIV 1954.091) instituted in 2023, which clarified the circumstances surrounding hotels and similar entities as locations for shelters. The new bill contains many of the same provisions, as secured in its original variation, with the exception of granting an extra 20 days of notice to shelter inhabitants being evicted.

This adjustment would extend the eviction period in California from 30 days to 50 for participants in the program. The 13th committee promotes the necessity of such a change, citing the over 18% increase in homelessness in California, accounting for almost 3% of the nation’s total yearly increase.

Additionally, they believe that the issue they hope to rectify almost directly correlates with the upkeep of American civil rights, as should the bill be solidified, it would only further support legislation such as the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process clauses.

For these reasons, along with the possibility of a decrease in defections from California citizenship, proponents of the bill consider its conditions in high regard. In a survey conducted amongst members of the Assembly, 87.5% of respondents expressed approval for the premise of the bill, with only 12.5% against its implementation. The minority group, those who disapproved, cited a concern over elongating the notice period of inhabitants set to be evicted, worrying that such inhabitants are being kicked out for misconduct.

In fact, the majority of reasons supporting the veto of this proposition conspire from a disapproval with the existence of the original bill at all. There is question as to where the funding of such a program would be found, as well as if its use of funds would undermine the efforts to rectify more important issues for the state. Additionally, aside from financial controversy, many believe that this bill is actually leading to an increase in homelessness, seeing as how those evicted are allowed entry into shelters and therefore bypass those waiting to be admitted. Lobbyists remark, “While it’s important that everyone has the security of shelter, we simply cannot allow this automatic admission to continue. The people waiting to be granted shelter do so while remaining on the streets.” Despite its respectable approval rates amongst Assembly members, there is valid inquiry as to whether the 13th committee’s bill is befitting of the tribulations of our current government.