Visible Homelessness in a “Liveable City”:

Municipal Responses to Homelessness

in Melbourne
By James Petty* and Alison Young†

Abstract. Despite considerable national and urban prosperity, significant

numbers of Australians are homeless. How local governments engage
with homelessness has significant implications for the homeless
population. In recent years, municipal strategies have inclined towards
the maintenance of public order at the cost of the rights of homeless
individuals. In this article, we investigate the approach to homelessness
proposed by the City of Melbourne in 2017, which centered on the
expansion of powers to remove individuals and the confiscation of
possessions, testing the council’s claims as to the impact of visible
homelessness upon local businesses and upon other users of public
spaces.

Introduction

While patterns of homelessness differ across cultural, political, and

geographic contexts, one of the most vexing aspects is its persistence
in wealthy countries. How homelessness is responded to in econom-
ically prosperous countries offers insight into barriers to its resolution
that are political rather than economic, but nonetheless intractable.
Australia has for many years grappled ineffectively with homeless-
ness, despite enviable economic prosperity, with the global financial
recession appearing to have less impact than in other highly devel-
oped Western nations.
Despite Australia’s material wealth, homelessness is a serious and
widespread social problem, experienced by as many as 1 in 200 in-
dividuals (Homelessness Australia 2016). All Australian cities host a

*Criminology, School of Social & Political Sciences, University of Melbourne, and

Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association (VAADA).
†Criminology, School of Social & Political Sciences, University of Melbourne, and Law
School, City, University of London. Email: ayoung@unimelb.edu.au
American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 79, No. 2 (March, 2020).
DOI: 10.1111/ajes.12321
© 2020 American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Inc
402 The American Journal of Economics and Sociology

substantial population of individuals experiencing homelessness of

varying kinds and duration (Mechkaroff et al. 2018). In addition, there
are numerous individuals enduring the kind of social or economic
precariousness identified by Standing (2014). The scale of the problem
directly contradicts assumptions about the quality of life in Australian
towns and cities. As an example, Melbourne for several years running
(2010–2017) was awarded the accolade of “World’s Most Liveable City”
by the Economist Intelligence Unit, but housing—a key element of
“liveability”—is inaccessible to many of its inhabitants. (In 2018 and
2019, Melbourne was ranked second to Vienna. For a critical view of
Melbourne’s “liveability,” see Lucas (2018b).)
Provision of affordable housing constitutes the primary solution to
homelessness (Kertesz and Johnson 2017). However, waiting lists are
long. In Victoria, it is estimated that over 82,000 people are in need
of housing. Around 90 percent of these annually are not assisted with
housing needs (Incerti 2018). As a result, most individuals experienc-
ing homelessness will endure living conditions that are temporary,
unsafe, or unstable. Many will endure periods in which they appear
visibly homeless through having to sleep rough or to seek donations
in public spaces. Chamberlain and Johnson (2016) state that about 1.4
million Australians will have to sleep rough at some point.
A persistent and complex social issue, homelessness demands
well-coordinated and long-term strategies at federal, state, and neigh-
borhood levels. Over a decade ago, a federal government plan to
end homelessness was proposed (DFHCSIA 2008). Since then, how-
ever, despite rising numbers of individuals experiencing homeless-
ness, Australia’s policy responses to homelessness have diminished
in scope, with the issue itself tending to be relegated to local govern-
ment responsibility ( Jacobs 2016). Local governments have thus been
placed at the forefront of the challenges posed by homelessness. In
themselves, they have a relatively limited capacity to effectively ad-
dress the structural causes of homelessness. Nevertheless, the way in
which local governments engage with homelessness has significant
implications for local homeless populations.
In lieu of lasting solutions to the issue of homelessness, local gov-
ernments tend towards balancing their commitment to clean and
 Visible Homelessness in a “Liveable City” 403

orderly public spaces with recognition of the rights of homeless resi-

dents to access those spaces. In recent years, that balancing act has in-
clined towards the maintenance of public order at the cost of the rights
or needs of individuals experiencing homelessness. Individuals who
appear homeless in public places can undergo a number of adverse
experiences. They are at risk of health problems, of being moved on
by police, or of being the victim of a crime (Adams 2014b). They may
engage in activities that amplify their vulnerability, such as drug use
or sex work. At times, their mere presence may become the object of
intense public debate and scrutiny. Our research in Melbourne exam-
ines a period in which such debate took place.

Visible Homelessness in the City of Melbourne

In January 2017, following extensive and critical media coverage of

issues relating to visible homelessness around Flinders Street Station
in the central area of the City of Melbourne (CoM), the then Lord
Mayor of Melbourne, Robert Doyle, announced plans to amend the
council’s Local Laws. The first proposed change was to extend the
municipality’s ban on camping, by rewriting the Local Laws’ definition
of camping, which had previously defined camping as taking place
in “a vehicle, tent, caravan or any type of temporary or provisional
form of accommodation.” Instead, clause 2.8 would simply provide:
“Unless in accordance with a permit, a person must not camp in or
on any public place.” This would allow council employees to clear
encampments, which were areas where groups of homeless people
were sleeping rough, usually without the kinds of vehicles or equip-
ment that the “camping” definition had previous specified. The second
proposed change was to include a new clause 2.12:

A person must not leave any item unattended in a public place. If an item
is left unattended, an authorized officer may confiscate and impound the
item, and can sell, destroy, or give away the item if a fee or charge is not
paid within 14 days.

In addition to this “retrieval fee,” leaving belongings unattended would

attract a $250 fine. In support of the proposed amendments, Doyle
(2017) made two key claims: first, that the belongings of homeless
404 The American Journal of Economics and Sociology

people constituted impediments to movement within public space

and access to the amenities of the city for its other users; and, second,
that local businesses were adversely affected by the presence of rough
sleepers. Accompanying such claims were more general assumptions
regarding the aesthetic impact of visible homelessness upon the city.
These assumptions were based on a broader tendency to construct
people experiencing homelessness as a corrosive influence within
contemporary societies (Parsell 2011; Parsell and Phillips 2013). In
a gesture consonant with that tendency, Mayor Doyle stated in the
media that homelessness had become “a blight on our city” (Preiss
and Choahan 2017).
The proposals generated a great deal of criticism (Boarder Giles
and Carlson 2017). Consultation meetings were held. Alongside the
meetings, comment was solicited by means of an online survey and
through an invitation to submit written responses to the proposals.
This resulted in 1,637 responses to the online survey, 717 written
submissions, and consultation with 202 selected stakeholders. A pe-
tition, containing 2,000 signatures, was also submitted by a service
provider located in the neighboring municipality of the City of Yarra.
The public response was overwhelmingly opposed to the proposals:
84 percent of responses rejected the extended definition of camping
and the power to confiscate possessions; 98 percent rejected the pro-
posed fines disguised as “retrieval fees” (City of Melbourne 2017a).
In September 2017, the CoM decided not to adopt the amendments,
opting instead for a formal Operating Protocol developed in conjunc-
tion with Victoria Police and homelessness service providers (City of
Melbourne 2017b). We will return to the Operating Protocol at the
end of this article.
Although not implemented, the 2017 proposal provided an instruc-
tive example of the ways in which social anxieties about publicly
visible homelessness can manifest in debates about municipal policies
and practice, often via unsubstantiated claims regarding social im-
pact. In this instance, it was claimed that visible homelessness was a
problem for users of public urban spaces, had an adverse effect upon
local businesses, and generated waste and litter within the city streets.
Our research project, begun during the months in which the CoM
 Visible Homelessness in a “Liveable City” 405

debated whether to adopt the proposed amendments and continuing

for two months after adoption of the Operating Protocol, sought to
test these claims. We began by comparatively contextualizing the City
of Melbourne’s approach, through consideration of contrasting munic-
ipal policies elsewhere (Young and Petty 2019). We then conducted
fieldwork at a total of 29 sites within Melbourne’s central business
district (CBD) in the City of Melbourne, and within the neighboring
municipality, the City of Yarra.

Contextualizing the City of Melbourne Proposals

As mentioned at the outset of this article, homelessness is an issue

addressed by most municipal authorities, which develop policies,
strategies, response mechanisms, and partnerships in relation to it.
These exist within a matrix comprising state protocols and strategies,
federal policies and directives, human rights charters, and state or
national criminal law. The CoM is not alone in having attracted critical
attention for its policies on visible homelessness. Illustrative examples
of other approaches that have been adopted in cities in the United
States, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere in Australia will briefly be
considered. The locations were selected for their exemplification of
distinctive policy approaches: the City of Sydney’s strategies show a
tendency towards indirect criminalization of visibly homeless individ-
uals; in the United States, Seattle city authorities adopted a strategy of
limited legalization of encampments, and in Britain, Manchester City
Council has implemented a combination of welfarist strategies along
with regulation and prohibition of particular activities deemed prob-
lematic in public places.

Sydney: Indirect Criminalization

The regulation of homelessness in Sydney is informed by the New

South Wales Government’s (2013) Protocol for Homeless People in
Public Spaces. The purpose of these guidelines is to “help ensure
that homeless people are treated respectfully and appropriately and
are not discriminated against on the basis of their situation” (NSW
Government 2013: 4). The protocol identifies the right of people
406 The American Journal of Economics and Sociology

experiencing homelessness to be in public space and to participate in

public events and life. In addition, the protocol delimits the grounds
on which police and city officers can approach homeless people.
However, the protocol specifies that it only applies “to homeless peo-
ple who are in public places and acting lawfully,” with the implication
that the rights of those who seem to be acting unlawfully are not
protected (NSW Government 2013: 6). In addition, despite the stated
right of visibly homeless people to be in public space, the City of
Sydney employs public space liaison officers for the express purpose
of responding to public order issues arising from visible homelessness
in public places (City of Sydney 2018).
Unlike in Victoria, begging is not a criminal offense in New South
Wales. Police and authorized municipal officers are not able to re-
spond directly to this specific behavior associated with homelessness.
However, a range of regulatory responses by the police to homeless-
ness still occur, resulting in an indirect criminalization of homeless-
ness through targeting behaviors likely to be engaged in by people
experiencing homelessness. A wide array of public order provisions
can be used to this end, including amendments added in 2011 to the
Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) to
expand police powers to move people on: when a person is obstruct-
ing another person, if his or her presence “constitutes harassment
or intimidation” or “is likely to cause fear in a person of reasonable
firmness,” irrespective of whether another person is in the vicinity, or
if a person is intoxicated and his or her intoxication is disorderly or
gives rise to a risk to public safety (§§ 197, 198, 198a). This expanded
power was backed up by amendments to the Summary Offences Act
1988 (NSW), creating a new offense of failing to comply with a police
directive. These sorts of discretionary powers in public order provi-
sions have been shown in numerous jurisdictions to disproportion-
ately affect people experiencing homelessness (Adams 2014a, 2014b;
Australian Human Rights Commission 2009; Barak and Bohm 1989;
Lynch 2002; Quilter and McNamara 2013; Walsh 2008, 2011).
Indirect criminalization can be combined with forcible removal of
groups of homeless people, as occurred in the municipality of the City
of Sydney in August 2017. A “tent city” of homeless people evolved
 Visible Homelessness in a “Liveable City” 407

in Martin Place in the Sydney CBD. In response, the NSW Parliament

passed the Sydney Public Reserves (Public Safety) Bill 2017 (NSW)
for the express purpose of its removal. Although the Lord Mayor of
the municipality, Clover Moore, refused to order the camp’s removal,
the bill was nevertheless introduced by the State Premier, Gladys
Berejiklian. Despite the existence of guidelines against discrimination
in the City of Sydney’s Protocol, the bill was passed, granting police
additional powers to remove individuals deemed to be unlawfully
occupying Crown land—that is, everyone in the encampment. In this
instance, the tent city’s occupants left voluntarily shortly after the bill
was passed, presumably to avoid forceful removal by police.

Seattle: Limited Legalization

Removal is a tactic attractive to many city authorities. In Seattle, in

the United States, there has been a struggle over homeless people’s
occupation of public space for more than 10 years. Authorities have
focused their efforts at control, first, on the formation of encampments,
and, second, on the restriction of activities associated with home-
lessness, such as begging. In 2005, the city authorities announced a
10-year plan to end homelessness in the city; despite this, rates of
homelessness continued to climb, thanks, it is said, to a persistent lack
of affordable and social housing (Sparks 2017).
In 2015, the city council’s response to the worsening situation was
unusual, taking what seemed initially to be a supportive and construc-
tive approach, by legalizing homeless encampments on city prop-
erty, one of a very few cities in the United States to do so (Sparks
2017). However, the ostensibly supportive move had repressive con-
sequences: while this move undoubtedly stabilized and legitimized
homeless camps, it also made them directly subject to governance
and regulation by the city. For example, the camps are mandated to
allow regular access to city officials and representatives from various
social and housing services, as well as being required to maintain city-
defined standards of upkeep.
Legalization of the camps also does little to address the lack of
affordable and built-for-purpose accommodation. Camps continue to
emerge, but only some are designated as “approved”; others remain
408 The American Journal of Economics and Sociology

“unapproved,” and vulnerable to enforcement-based approaches such

as “sweeps.” These are carried out by city officials and involve the re-
moval and sometimes disposal of belongings, and the forcible eviction
of people and the destruction of their temporary shelters. Sweeps are
supposedly regulated by the Taskforce on Unsanctioned Encampment
Cleanup Protocol; however, there has been intense criticism of how
sweeps have been carried out (Bernard 2017; Davila 2017).
The activities that may be associated with homelessness have also
been subject to specifically repressive regulatory interventions. Seattle
also has a range of public order ordinances relating to panhandling,
begging, loitering, “pedestrian interference,” nuisance (relating to
noise, public urination, intoxication, obstruction of access, and solic-
itation), trespassing on government land, sitting in the street, and loi-
tering with intent to engage in drug-related activity, all of which have
been used against people experiencing homelessness and that are
more likely to be used in and near unsanctioned homeless encamp-
ments (Columbia Legal Services et al. 2016). In short, the legalization
of certain areas for use by people experiencing homelessness appears
to have produced a stronger incentive to intervene when homeless-
ness is encountered outside of sanctioned spaces.

Manchester: Welfarism/Prohibition

In the United Kingdom, behaviors associated with homelessness such

as begging, willfully obstructing passage, or causing alarm or dis-
tress have long been outlawed (Vagrancy Act 1824; Highways Act
1980; Public Order Act 1986). In addition, the United Kingdom has
been at the forefront of more recent public order and quality-of-life
legislation (exemplified by the anti-social behavior order, or ASBO,
which has been frequently used against people experiencing home-
lessness) (Winford 2006). Despite this discouraging broader context,
some British cities have attempted to enact constructive and sympa-
thetic policy frameworks in respect of homelessness. One of these is
Manchester, which has aimed for a welfarist approach, albeit one that
has been combined with prohibition of designated activities.
Manchester City Council has a strategic framework aiming for a
steady reduction in the numbers of homeless through a coordinated
 Visible Homelessness in a “Liveable City” 409

service effort, including the implementation of ambitious standards

like “No Second Night Out” (Manchester City Council 2013). However,
in the last several years, Manchester has experienced a significant
increase in homelessness, with the number of rough-sleepers in the
city quadrupling since 2010 (Perraudin 2017). The backdrop to the
increase includes a lack of affordable housing, the widespread clo-
sure of hostels and boarding rooms, and cuts to social services at
both national and local levels. In response to an ongoing protest by
homeless people, a court injunction defined acceptable forms of shel-
ter that homeless people could use. Doorways, cardboard boxes, bus
shelters, and sleeping bags were approved, while structures such as
tents were banned, in an attempt to evict protestors without removing
rough-sleepers (Williams 2015).
In 2017, a plan to end homelessness in Greater Manchester formed a
key pillar of the election campaign of the new mayor, Andy Burnham.
Burnham announced he would donate 15 percent of his personal
salary to establish a mayor’s homelessness fund and encouraged the
local business community to join in; monies were to be distributed
to homelessness services. In this vein, Burnham publicly opposed
national reforms to welfare payments (termed “Universal Credit”) as
likely to further double the numbers of rough-sleepers (Halliday 2017).
Reform of laws directly affecting homeless people, such as those tar-
geting behavior associated with homelessness, does not appear to be
part of the strategy, with prevention instead envisioned as the key.

Researching Visible Homelessness in Melbourne

With these contrasting approaches in mind while the City of Melbourne

(CoM) debated its intended responses to visible homelessness, we
conducted a study designed to test some of the assumptions upon
which the council’s proposals had been based. The study was car-
ried out in two municipalities, the CoM and its neighbor, the City
of Yarra. Within the CoM’s geographic area, we focused upon the
CBD because of its prominence within the debates about CoM pol-
icy, and because of the symbolic importance given to the CBD as an
area used by approximately 854,000 people each day. However, we
also wished to include a neighboring, but distinctive, municipality. We
410 The American Journal of Economics and Sociology

opted to do so for two reasons. First, we wished to generate compar-

ative data, allowing different localities to reveal potentially distinctive
views of traders in other areas and to document a wider range of
sites than might be found if focusing only on the CBD with its central
grid of streets. Second, because we acknowledged that some visible
homelessness might have been displaced from the CBD to an adja-
cent municipality by virtue of the CoM’s proposals, we considered
it important to include a municipal neighbor. As a result, the City of
Yarra was included in the study.
Both Yarra and Melbourne are highly diverse municipalities, with
historically longstanding populations of homeless people and other
marginalized groups in public spaces. Yarra explicitly recognizes the
rights of homeless people to be in public space, whereas Melbourne
does not. Both municipalities have protocols determining when and
how people should be approached. In both municipalities, when the
presence of a homeless person or his or her belongings are deemed
to constitute a hazard or impediment to amenity, city officials will re-
move a person’s belongings and move them to another area. During
2017, however, the municipal approach in each was very different.
As noted already, the City of Melbourne was considering toughening
its Local Laws in order to justify the removal of people and their be-
longings; in contrast, the City of Yarra regarded public homelessness
as a welfare issue, with council staff performing outreach work in
the municipality to connect people experiencing homelessness to a
range of support services. Our research aimed to elucidate the ways
in which the visible presence, activities, or possessions within the two
municipalities of visibly homeless individuals and their activities were
interpreted by members of the public. This was investigated by means
of qualitative interviews with managers or owners of local businesses
regarding homelessness and how it affects them, and through ob-
servational fieldwork regarding the physical spaces and belongings
connected to those visibly experiencing homelessness.
In our research design, we acknowledged the heterogeneity of the
population of homeless individuals, as noted by Jahiel (1992), a fact
often overlooked in policy or media discussions of “the homeless”
as a group. We also accepted that rough sleeping is but one element
 Visible Homelessness in a “Liveable City” 411

of what Murphy and Tobin (2011: 4) refer to as the “housed contin-

uum” and that, as Arnold (2004) points out, whether or not someone
engages in practices such as begging does not necessarily reveal the
nature of the person’s current living conditions. We followed Gerrard
and Farrugia (2014), who emphasize the importance of the dynamic
through which the homed person attributes homelessness to some-
one engaging in practices such as begging or rough sleeping. Thus,
we defined “visible homelessness” to mean the presence of individ-
uals who appear to be homeless (for example, by sleeping in pub-
lic places or by displaying signs stating they were homeless) or of
goods that appear to belong to homeless individuals (Kawash 1998).
Visibility was interpreted to mean that the individuals or their be-
longings could be seen by members of the public during the course
of everyday a­ ctivities (walking along the pavement or sidewalk, for
example). Some sites were more obviously public than others. Main
thoroughfares, for example, provided highly visible locations in which
the homeless person or his or her possessions could be seen by many
individuals at a given time. Others were sites that were visible to fewer
individuals, such as laneways or alleys at the rear of commercial or
residential premises.

A Qualitative Ethnography of Visible Homelessness

The project was designed around documentation and investigation

at selected sites within each municipality, first by discreet on-site
observation and then through on-site interviews with nearby traders
or store-owners. We consulted with key service providers in both
municipalities in order to arrive at a list of “active” sites. These were
locations at which people were currently engaging in activities such
as rough sleeping, asking for donations, leaving possessions, or some
combination of these. An initial working list of 10 sites in each munic-
ipality was created; this was adapted and added to during the course
of the study. A total of 29 sites were investigated.
Many of the sites were situated in high-visibility commercial areas.
In these cases, the people observed were usually seeking donations of
money or food—an activity that requires a level of visibility in order
to achieve its objectives in soliciting donations. However, other sites
412 The American Journal of Economics and Sociology

were well hidden and were being used solely for living and sleeping.
In the latter sites, data collection was much more difficult, and was
often curtailed by our wish to respect the privacy of the individuals
using the site. The main locales for observation in the City of Yarra
were along Brunswick and Smith streets in Fitzroy, and on Victoria
Street in Richmond in the City of Yarra. In the City of Melbourne, lo-
cations on Collins, Swanston, Bourke and Flinders streets in the CBD
were observed by means of repeated visits.
Supplementing these were additional sites where data were col-
lected from one-time observations. The dynamic nature of the prac-
tices of people experiencing homelessness meant that several areas
that had been named as highly active sites, such as Swan Street in
Richmond, turned out to yield few opportunities for data collection.
Those using the site had moved on or had been moved by the police.
This highlights an important issue arising from the nature of home-
lessness: transience and instability. Areas with high activity at the be-
ginning of data collection later became inactive, and other areas, not
initially slated for observation were added later when they emerged
as significant locations. Homelessness and rough sleeping (and, con-
sequently, the materials associated with them) are characterized by
impermanence, meaning that researchers need to adapt to a changing
terrain of study.
The second element of the study design involved qualitative in-
terviews. Thirty were conducted with representatives of businesses
operating in Yarra and in the CBD, in order to discover existing or
emerging types of engagement with the site by people experiencing
homelessness and traders’ views as to the ways these locations were
being used. Most interviewees were proprietors, managers, or em-
ployees; one business owner was also the president of a registered
business association representing an entire commercial area in the
suburb of Richmond in the City of Yarra.
The number of interviews was split evenly between municipal-
ities. Interviewees were approached at their place of work. Where
possible, researchers sought to interview the owner or a manager.
Where that was not possible, the interviewee’s length of employ-
ment at the business was established. No interviews were conducted
 Visible Homelessness in a “Liveable City” 413

with employees who had been employed there for fewer than six
months. Interviews were primarily conducted in the business areas
along Victoria Street in Richmond, Smith and Brunswick streets in
Fitzroy, and along Swanston, Collins, Flinders, and Bourke streets in
Melbourne’s CBD. These areas were prioritized for their high concen-
tration of businesses as well as a noticeable presence of people expe-
riencing homelessness and other marginalized groups. Business types
varied widely, and included restaurants, grocery and food stores, retail
clothing, travel agents, supermarkets, convenience stores, and a tat-
too-removal parlor.
The project’s methods were reviewed by the University of
Melbourne Human Research Ethics Committee, and protocols were
agreed to in order to ensure that the privacy of all individuals was
paramount. First, observation of sites involved discreet documentation
only, confined to determining the characteristics of each site, the ways
in which it was being used, and their potential impact upon those
using the space. Our aim was to ascertain only the occurrence of pub-
lic interaction with individuals and/or their belongings, and whether
materials appeared to impede the access to amenities or services of
other street users.
Observations occurred at different times of day and lasted varying
lengths of time: usually 30–60 minutes, though some were signifi-
cantly shorter if, for example, an individual packed up belongings and
left the area. Documentation was made using written notes and, when
it was possible to do so unobtrusively, by photographing the site.
Researchers photographed sites only when they could ensure that the
identity of individuals was not made apparent (for example, by not in-
cluding faces in any shots), and photographs indicated only the ways
in which sites were being used, and their relationship to the rest of
the sidewalk or other parts of the locale (such as shop doorways). The
researchers did not declare themselves to any homeless people using
these sites, since the lengthy periods of observation could be experi-
enced as oppressive by a homeless person, even though observation
was not of the homeless individuals themselves but rather of the ways
in which members of the public were utilizing the space in which a
homeless person or his or her belongings were visibly present. The
414 The American Journal of Economics and Sociology

project also did not seek the views of homeless individuals, since
its aims were to investigate the foundation for claims made by the
council regarding occupation of space and the impact of homeless
peoples’ activities or possessions within urban places. The researchers
decided, as a matter of research ethics, that conducting the project
unobtrusively, without interruption of homeless individuals’ use of
these spaces, was the most appropriate approach and one least likely
to add to any stress experienced by individuals living without secure
accommodation.

Public Homelessness in Melbourne: Some Findings

Impact of Visible Homelessness on Members of the Public

One of our aims was to test claims that visible homelessness had var-
ious adverse impacts upon the public, including the notion that sites
used by homeless people constituted an impediment for other users
of public places. The selected sites of visible homelessness, and their
associated materials, varied dramatically. Some locations consisted of
a single person sitting on the street against the wall of a building,
sometimes on a folded blanket or piece of cardboard, arms and legs
pulled in close with nothing but an upturned cap in front of him or
her. Other sites had multiple people, mattresses, milk crates, animals,
blankets, food, bags, and even homly decorations and utilities in them.
Belongings were usually highly organized and neatly arranged, with
minimal impact on other street users. Pedestrians had to avoid step-
ping on or running into the person seated on the pavement, though
this is the same amount of care required for any non-homeless person
encountered on the street.
A few sites were more haphazard, or arranged in such a way as to
occupy more space on the footpath. Some sites were positioned on
corners or were characterized by spread-out and disorganized belong-
ings. In these sites, pedestrians were required to proactively navigate
the materials to avoid stepping on them, or to step around the people
using the site. All those observed managed this with ease, and the
degree of impediment presented was no different than that caused by
any group of people pausing mid-footpath to consult a map, make
 Visible Homelessness in a “Liveable City” 415

phone calls, or converse. The main difference worth noting is that a

group of homeless individuals or a cluster or their belongings, occu-
pies a section of the footpath for what may be an extended period of
time. These sites were more common in the CBD.
Sites marked by the presence of many material possessions re-
sulted in more obvious impact on the physical space of the street and
the other users of the space. The more belongings present at a site,
the more space was rendered unavailable for others. It was noted,
however, that sites with a lot of belongings were less likely to be in
prime commercial spaces or on major pedestrian through-routes. The
few locations that both had a considerable amount of materials and
a location on busy pavements were generally maintained to a high
degree of neatness. One site, observed on a main street in the City of
Yarra (Brunswick Street), was decorated with a palm frond. The per-
son using the site had also stuck plastic hooks on the wall from which
she had hung bags, perhaps to raise them off the ground or perhaps
to minimize the impact of her belongings on the space available to
others.
However, a few sites, notably on Elizabeth Street in the CBD, were
large and highly disorganized. At one such site, researchers observed
two mattresses (both occupied) and a large collection of backpacks,
shopping bags, blankets, crates, and other miscellaneous goods
spread around them. While this site was not located near a building’s
entrance, its size did mean the space available for pedestrians was no-
ticeably reduced. At one site, in the City of Yarra, rough sleeping and
solicitation of donations were present but were overshadowed by a
highly dynamic illicit drug trade. This site was marked by intense ac-
tivity sometimes involving approximately a dozen individuals, some
of whom manifested volatile moods and behaviors. We will return to
this issue later.
An important distinction that emerged from the research data is
the difference between sleeping rough and seeking donations. These
distinct behaviors may co-occur and tend to be conflated with one
another. However, a person may be begging in one area but sleeping
elsewhere; further, begging does not in itself indicate that a person
will be sleeping rough rather than couch-surfing or sleeping in a car
416 The American Journal of Economics and Sociology

or in temporary accommodation. The differences may appear minor

but are important: the type of activity often determines where it is
taking place as well as what kind of possessions are present. For ex-
ample, many people engaging in begging had very few belongings
with them, while sites with many belongings were often in isolated
areas or were hidden away.
Some sites were marked by low activity, with people either sleep-
ing or huddled up. In others, people engaged actively with passers-by,
chatting, calling out, or displaying a variety of signs. Researchers ob-
served the public interacting with the people inhabiting observation
sites many times, usually to donate. Donations usually appeared to
be money, with food or drink observed as an alternative donation.
No interactions were observed that appeared to be unsupportive or
aggressive. Members of the public either continued their activities ap-
parently unaffected or engaged in an apparently supportive interac-
tion with the homeless person. The relative frequency of donations,
whether of money or food, and of conversations indicates that many
hold a sympathetic perspective on homelessness and wish to engage
in a helpful or positive manner.
To that extent, our research meshes with the findings generated in
a survey of public attitudes conducted by the Victorian Department
of Health and Human Services (2018), in which 28 percent of the
1,010 respondents indicated that they “want to help.” However, there
was in our study a notable difference between the two municipalities
in respect of the frequency with which homeless people received
donations. Donation of any kind was more common in Yarra than in
the Melbourne CBD. In Yarra, researchers observed numerous occa-
sions on which people received multiple donations, and it was un-
common for donations not to be made. In the CBD, donations were
less frequent, and some periods of observation saw no donations
made—perhaps a little unexpected given that many passers-by carried
shopping bags filled with purchases and were thus demonstrably in
possession of funds themselves. It may well be that extensive consum-
erist activity, such as an afternoon spent shopping, makes individuals
less inclined to generosity towards the homeless.
 Visible Homelessness in a “Liveable City” 417

The Impact of Sites of Visible Homelessness upon Local Traders

Our other main objective was to test whether claims as to the adverse
effects of visible homelessness upon local businesses were well
founded. As elicited by our interviews, the views of business own-
ers, managers, or employees about visible homelessness were highly
diverse. All interviewees acknowledged the visible presence of home-
lessness and rough-sleepers and regarded it as relevant to the oper-
ation of their business. The relevance of the issue, however, was not
correlated to its having an adverse impact upon the business: 83 per-
cent of interviewees (n=25) said that homelessness had no impact on
the business or that the impact was small or manageable. Investigation
of the specific characteristics of traders’ attitudes to the homeless indi-
viduals outside their premises and to homelessness more generally
revealed a range of responses, most of which evinced sympathy for
the homeless individual. A slight majority regard the homeless com-
munity positively and empathize with their situation; an identical
proportion (56 percent, n=17) additionally report having positive or
friendly interactions with homeless people on a regular basis.
The data resulting from interviews in one area of the City of Yarra
(Victoria Street) swiftly revealed that homelessness was difficult to
separate from the activities engaged in by other individuals, both for
interviewees and, at times, for the researchers. Observed sites were
being used both for the activities conventionally associated with
homelessness, namely, rough sleeping and seeking donations, and for
activities connected with street dealing and use of drugs. Observations
indicated that some individuals in this area were engaging in the ac-
tivities of visible homelessness and illicit drug sale, purchase, or use;
others were engaging in one or the other but not both. In this partic-
ular locale, homelessness and street drug use profoundly overlapped
and were difficult to distinguish. Interviewees in this area frequently
conflated homelessness with drug use, discussing the issues and in-
dividuals as though coterminous. Such areas clearly present inten-
sified challenges for police, local residents and traders, and council
staff. These situations validate the emphasis of Hopper and Baumohl
(1996), Standing (2014), and Wacquant (2009) on the connections be-
tween homelessness and other manifestations of social disadvantage.
418 The American Journal of Economics and Sociology

In areas without a street-based drug trade, many respondents

reported being affected by homelessness emotionally, in that they
wanted to see a solution for the problem; others talked about the ef-
fect of homelessness on the area or city generally. For example, one
interviewee stated: “This is such a rich city and country, what does it
say about us that we’re unwilling to share that?”
Significantly, some interviewees differentiated between wanting a
reduced presence of visibly homeless people and supporting stronger
interventions on behalf of homeless people: they did not want peo-
ple simply to be “moved away” from outside their business. Rather,
they expressed a desire for affordable housing to be provided—a
longer-term solution than simply moving people from the street.
­
Traders frequently reported encountering homelessness on a daily
basis, and the majority saw this as a result of inadequate support sys-
tems and government action.
Some business managers actively tried to assist and support home-
less people. For example, the manager of a business located on
Flinders Street said that while he believed homelessness had an ad-
verse impact on the business, he still donated cardboard boxes for
use as bedding and allowed homeless people to use the toilet. Others
were also keen to emphasize that they do not blame homeless indi-
viduals but, rather, the failure of government to support them. As one
(anonymous) interviewee said:

Of course there’s an issue with homelessness here; you can’t ignore it. It’s
just part of being on Smith Street: it just blends into the background. …
What causes it doesn’t matter though: drugs, mental health, whatever; that
shouldn’t be the focus. They just need more support and housing.

In respect of our investigation of the CoM’s contention that unat-

tended belongings caused problems for businesses through the accu-
mulation of litter and waste, 30 percent (n=9) reported that materials
associated with homelessness did create a problem for the business.
But the situation was more complicated than might be initially appar-
ent. One interviewee, who regularly has people sleep in the doorway
of her business, said that each morning she clears away unwanted
donations made to homeless people by members of the public:
 Visible Homelessness in a “Liveable City” 419

They sleep in my doorway at night but are usually gone by the time I
arrive. But people leave things for them while they’re sleeping but it’s stuff
they don’t want or need, so obviously they don’t take it with them. So, I
end up clearing away other people’s donations.

However, she had also found that the presence of a homeless person
had some unexpected benefits: “I know this is a terrible thing to say,
but someone sleeping in my doorway stops drunk people pissing and
vomiting in it.”
Those that did postulate a negative effect on their business noted
that their sense of its effect could not be quantified as lost revenue. As
one interviewee put it: “You can’t count the money you don’t make or
the customers that don’t come in.”
The problems they could identify were also hard to quantify: time
spent cleaning up what they perceive as a mess, finding interactions
with homeless people emotionally difficult, or a generalized sense of
frustration. For example, one manager said:

It’s not a problem exactly, but if someone homeless is in distress, dealing

with that person can be difficult or upsetting for my employees so I have
to manage that really proactively.

Only three respondents, all located in the Victoria Street area of

Richmond in Yarra, reported a significant negative impact. However,
all associated homelessness with drug use in the area. One interviewee
stated: “They have homes, they’re all using drugs. They pretend, so
they cannot work and not pay taxes, that’s how they get government
money and free housing: using drugs.” Another respondent in the
same area said: “All homeless, all use drugs. Very, very bad.” Such
responses clearly manifest frustration with a range of public order
issues, but also demonstrate that homelessness is easily conflated with
visible drug dealing, with negative associations from one situation
spilling over into attitudes to the other.
However, in other respects, respondents showed a facility for dis-
tinguishing between ostensible effects of homelessness and those of
other activities. Two-thirds (n=20) reported that issues such as theft,
drug use, public drunkenness, or the deterrent impact of loud or
420 The American Journal of Economics and Sociology

unmusical busking had a more serious impact on their business than

homelessness. Several noted drunk people on weekends as a major
problem for their businesses, causing a number of problematic behav-
iors such as public urination, vandalism, and disruptive behavior. One
store clerk reported that young intoxicated men come in and steal
from the store during the evening trading hours; others constitute a
nuisance through drunken pranks (such as bringing traffic cones into
the store). Another business in Melbourne’s CBD reported persistent
problems with buskers:

Most of our job is communication and when someone is right outside

doing a bad Oasis cover, you just can’t do your job. … We have reported
it to the council and they do move elsewhere but then someone new sees
the spot and starts up. It’s a regular thing we have to deal with.

In each municipality, the majority of respondents stated that the

effect of homelessness on their business was low. There were, how-
ever, some notable differences between the two areas. In Yarra, 73
­percent (n=11) of businesses reported holding the homeless com-
munity in a positive regard, whereas only 40 percent (n=6) in the
CBD reported the same. In Yarra, 66 percent (n=10) regarded local
government efforts on homelessness positively, compared with just 26
percent (n=4) in Melbourne. In the CBD, 73 percent (n=11) reported
holding some negative views of the area compared to 26 percent
(n=4) in Yarra. Around 86 percent (n=13) of participants in Yarra saw
increased support and assistance as their preferred solution, whereas
60 percent (n=9) in Melbourne thought the same. It should be noted
that during the CoM’s consultation process relating to the proposed
changes in its Local Laws, specific effort was made by the council to
engage the views of traders in the municipality. Consultation find-
ings align with our research: unattended belongings (which our inter-
viewees identified as litter that required the effort of removal) was
the issue on which council proposals received some support. Out of
38 respondents in the CoM consultation, 19 opposed the expanded
definition of camping, 19 supported a system of confiscation of unat-
tended belongings, and 27 opposed the imposition of financial penal-
ties. Our research illuminates the complexity underlying responses in
 Visible Homelessness in a “Liveable City” 421

the broad categories addressed by the CoM proposals. Traders might

support confiscation because when homeless people leave behind
unwanted donations of food or clothing, these can become “litter”
that traders feel they need to clean up; however, traders do not nec-
essarily support the removal of all unattended belongings, especially
valued personal property. As such, traders’ responses in our research
indicated recognition of homeless people as individuals with attach-
ments to property and place. The traders’ co-occupation of space with
visibly homeless people thus gives rise to particular challenges and is
deserving of careful and sensitive responses.

Conclusions

Our study aimed to test claims about the impact on users of public
space and impact upon commercial operators that have been made as
foundational justifications for the proposed changes to the CoM Local
Laws. Regarding impact on general users, people who engage in some
of the activities associated with homelessness occupy public space in
a variety of ways. They may be neat or messy, quiet or loud; sites can
be small and contained, spread-out, or disorganized. Regardless of the
manner in which homeless people occupy space, its impact on other
street users was shown in this study to be minimal. Regarding the
impact on commercial interests, few businesses reported direct nega-
tive impacts from the presence of homeless people. More commonly,
respondents identified a range of ancillary effects, including the stress
of concern for the welfare of homeless people, a desire for more to
be done to “solve the problem” of homelessness at all levels of gov-
ernment, and high levels of frustration at the intransigence of the situ-
ation. The generosity shown to people inhabiting the street by traders
and passers-by suggests that encountering homelessness does have
an emotional effect on others. Thus, we found that claims as to the
impact of visible homelessness on businesses and other members of
the public were ill-founded and overstated. That does not mean that
nothing should be done about visible homelessness by councils such
as that of the City of Melbourne, only that the proposed approach was
based on false premises about the effects of visible homelessness on
community life.
422 The American Journal of Economics and Sociology

Coda: The More Things Change, The More Things Stay the Same

In September 2017, the CoM announced that it would not adopt the
proposed revisions to its Local Laws: in fact, Mayor Doyle admit-
ted they might not have been compatible with Victoria’s Charter of
Human Rights and Responsibilities. He added that, if adopted, “any
change to the local law would be tested in the courts, which would tie
[the council] up in expensive legal proceedings, potentially for more
than a year” (Mills and Dow 2017). Instead, it seemed there was to be
a change in approach, in the form of a new Operating Protocol on
homelessness (City of Melbourne 2017b).
But, as the saying goes, plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose
(the more things change, the more things stay the same). In fact, lit-
tle changed from the proposed Local Law amendments to the new
Protocol. Just as the amended Local Laws would have installed en-
forceable limits on conduct and possessions, these are similarly pres-
ent in the Protocol. The conduct, appearance, and material belongings
of homeless individuals within the City of Melbourne will still be
judged according to notions of what is “appropriate” and “reasonable”
in the public spaces of the city. The Protocol prohibits the gathering
of groups of people sleeping rough in close proximity, specifies a
“reasonable” amount of possessions (namely, “two bags which can
be carried” and “bedding like a sleeping bag, blanket or pillow”),
and stipulates that ensuring unimpeded movement within and en-
joyment of public space by members of the public is its primary aim.
The Protocol’s partners, Victoria Police, within one month of it com-
ing into operation had used its guidelines to arrest 18 people in the
CBD (Masanauskas 2017). The Protocol seems to have functioned as a
Trojan Horse, achieving, without any public outcry, the outcomes that
were being sought via the abandoned proposals.
The year 2018 saw the election of a new mayor in the City of
Melbourne: Sally Capp, who campaigned around issues of support for
people experiencing homelessness in the municipality. Once again,
it seemed as though the council’s approach to homelessness might
change: after Mayor Capp’s investiture, the council announced that the
“Doyle-era crackdown” on homeless people was to be abandoned.
But the reasons given were not that the policy had been harshly
 Visible Homelessness in a “Liveable City” 423

restrictive of the rights of individuals living without housing. Rather,

according to a report by council officers, “groups of people sleep-
ing rough in close proximity have been positively managed by local
officers and police, as has the amount and types of belongings left
unattended in public spaces” (quoted in Lucas 2018a). Whatever the
substance of the policy approaches formally adopted within the City
of Melbourne, their implementation and enforcement are driven by a
desire for control of the appearance and experience of urban spaces
within the municipality.
More broadly, the recent history of policy within the City of
Melbourne provides paradigmatic exemplification of the conse-
quences of political abandonment of the issue of homelessness at
the federal and state levels in Australia. Despite its relative economic
prosperity, Australia has failed to provide meaningful financial invest-
ment in social housing or to enact tenancy reforms that might make
housing more affordable and secure. Instead, Australia continues to
respond to homelessness by relegating the problem to those with the
least capacity to implement appropriate, substantive, and system-wide
changes: local governments and street-level police.

Acknowledgments

The researchers would like to acknowledge funding support provided

by the Research Unit in Public Cultures, University of Melbourne.
Many thanks are also due to staff at the City of Yarra and Justice
Connect for their interest in and support for this research.

References

Adams, Lucy. (2014a). In the Public Eye: Addressing the Negative Impact of
Laws Regulating Public Space on People Experiencing Homelessness.
Canberra: Winston Churchill Memorial Trust of Australia.
   . (2014b). “Asking for Change: Tackling Begging with Enforcement in
Melbourne.” Parity 27(9): 24–6.
Arnold, Kathleen R. (2004). Homelessness, Citizenship and Identity: The
Uncanniness of Late Modernity. Albany: State University Press of New
York.
Australian Human Rights Commission. (2009). Inquiry into National
Homelessness Legislation. Sydney: Australian Human Rights Commission.
424 The American Journal of Economics and Sociology

Barak, Gregg, and Robert M. Bohm. (1989). “The Crimes of the Homeless
or the Crime of Homelessness? On the Dialectics of Criminalisation,
Decriminalisation and Victimisation.” Contemporary Crises 13: 275–88.
Bernard, Sara. (2017). “City Begins Sweep of Spokane Street Encampment,
Amid Protests.” Seattle Weekly September 12. http://www.seatt​lewee​kly.
com/news/city-begins-sweep-of-spoka​ne-street-encam​pment-amid-prote​
sts/
Boarder Giles, David, and Anna Carlson. (2017). “A Tale of the New Australian
City.” Arena 147: 7–10.
Chamberlain, Chris, and Guy Johnson (2016). “How Many Australians Have
Slept Rough.” Australian Journal of Social Issues 50(4): 439–56.
City of Melbourne. (2017a). Summary of Outcomes: Community Consultation
and Stakeholder Engagement Activities. March 30.
   . (2017b). Operating Protocol to Address Rough Sleeping. https​://www.
melbo​urne.vic.gov.au/commu​nity/health-suppo​rt-servi​ces/social-suppo​
rt/Pages/​homel​essne​ss-and-local-laws.aspx
City of Sydney. (2018). Public Space Liaison Officers. http://www.cityo​fsydn​
ey.nsw.gov.au/commu​nity/commu​nity-suppo​rt/homel​essne​ss/public-do-
main-liais​on-officers
Columbia Legal Services, Starbucks Coffee Company, and Baker & McKenzie.
(2016). Homeless Youth Handbook. Seattle, WA: Baker & McKenzie.
https​://www.homel​essyo​uth.org/us/washi​ngton/​foreword
Davila, Vianna. (2017). “Before Seattle Camps Are Cleared, a Homeless Team
Coaxes People to Shelter.” Seattle Times November 30. https​://www.seatt​
letim​es.com/seatt​le-news/homel​ess/before-the-tent-camps-are-clear​ed-
this-seatt​le-team-coaxes-the-homel​ess-toward-shelt​er/
Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
(DFHCSIA). (2008). The Road Home: A National Approach to Reducing
Homelessness. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Department of Health and Human Services. (2018). Hearts and Homes: Public
Perceptions of Homelessness. Melbourne: Victorian Government.
Doyle, R. (2017). “We won’t let the homeless dominate our city streets” Herald
Sun October 24. https​://www.heral​dsun.com.au/news/opini​on/robert-
doyle-we-wont-let-the-homel​ess-domin​ate-our-city-stree​ts/news-story/​
6719c​9c04a​3e21a​aeb3d​57ef4​8a6ba1a
Gerrard, Jessica, and David Farrugia. (2014). “The ‘Lamentable Sight’ of
Homelessness and the Society of the Spectacle.” Urban Studies 52(12):
2219–2233.
Halliday, Josh. (2017). “Halt Universal Credit or Rough-Sleepers Will
Double, Says Burnham.” Guardian October 7. https​ ://www.thegu​
ardian.com/socie​ t y/2017/oct/06/halt-unive​ r sal-credit-rough-sleep​
ers-double-andy-burnham
 Visible Homelessness in a “Liveable City” 425

Homelessness Australia. (2016). Homelessness in Australia. Lyneham, ACT:

Homelessness Australia. https​://www.homel​essne​ssaus​tralia.org.au/
fact-sheets
Hopper, Kim, and Jim Baumohl. (1996). “Redefining the Cursed Word: A
Historical Interpretation of American Homelessness.” In Homelessness in
America. Ed. Jim Baumohl. Phoenix: Oryx Press.
Incerti, Kate. (2018). “Responding to Rough Sleeping in the City of Port
Phillip.” Parity 31(3): 44–5. https​://search.infor​mit.com.au/docum​entSu​
mmary;dn=67269​89193​70257;res=IELFSC
Jacobs, Keith. (2016). “A Reverse Form of Welfarism: Some Reflections on
Australian Housing Policy.” Australian Journal of Social Issues 50(1):
53–68.
Jahiel, René, ed. (1992). Homelessness: A Prevention-Oriented Approach.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Kawash, Samira. (1998). “The Homeless Body.” Public Culture 10(3): 319–39.
Kertesz, Stefan, and Guy Johnson. (2017). “Housing First.” Australian
Economic Review 50(2): 220–8.
Lynch, Philip. (2002). “Begging for Change: Homelessness and the Law.”
Melbourne University Law Review 26(3): 609–26.
Lucas, Clay. (2018a). “Melbourne City Council to Formally Drop Doyle-Era
Crackdown on Homeless.” The Age June 21. https​://www.theage.com.
au/polit​ics/victo​ria/melbo​urne-city-counc​il-to-forma​lly-drop-doyle-era-
crack​down-on-homel​ess-20180​621-p4zmys.html
   . (2018b). “I'm Relieved Melbourne Is No Longer ‘The World's Most
Liveable City'.” The Age August 14. https​://www.theage.com.au/natio​nal/
victo​ria/i-m-relie​ved-melbo​urne-is-no-longer-the-world-s-most-livea​ble-
city-20180​814-p4zxfp.html
Manchester City Council. (2013). Manchester Homelessness Strategy 2013–
2018. Manchester, UK: City of Manchester.
Masanauskas, John. (2017). “Police Arrest 18 People in New Policy to Deal
with Professional Beggars and Homeless Camps.” Herald Sun November
2. http://www.heral​dsun.com.au/news/victo​ria/police-arrest-18-people-
in-new-policy-to-deal-woth-profe​ssion​al-begga​rs-and-homel​ess-camps/​
news-story/​ac3b2​35791​0e438​6e951​e8aeb​754a5bf
Mechkaroff, Nicole, Eleanor Chapman, and Stephen Herbst. (2018). “Tackling
Homelessness in Melbourne.” Parity 31(3): 6–7.
Mills, Tammy, and Aisha Dow. (2017). “Robert Doyle Dumps Homeless
Camping Ban Amid Legal Concerns Over Human Rights.” The Age
September 26. http://www.theage.com.au/victo​ ria/robert-doyle-dumps-
homel​ess-campi​ng-ban-amid-legal-conce​r ns-over-human-rights-20170​
926-gyowjd.html
Murphy, Joseph F., and Kerri J. Tobin. (2011). Homelessness Comes to School.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin (Sage).
426 The American Journal of Economics and Sociology

New South Wales Government (NSW Government). (2013). Protocol for

Homeless People in Public Places: Guidelines for Implementation. Sydney:
Department of Family and Community Services.
Parsell, Cameron. (2011). “Homeless Identities: Enacted and Ascribed.” British
Journal of Sociology 6(3): 442–63.
Parsell, Cameron, and Rhonda Phillips. (2013). “Indigenous Rough Sleeping in
Darwin: ‘Out of Place’ in an Urban Setting.” Urban Studies 51(1): 185–202.
Perraudin, Frances. (2017). “Andy Burnham Launches Plan to Drive Down
Homelessness in Manchester.” Guardian May 9. https​://www.thegu​ard-
ian.com/uk-news/2017/may/08/andy-burnh​am-vows-to-put-words-into-
action-in-great​er-manch​ester​
Preiss, Benjamin, and Neelima Choahan. (2017). “Mayor Moves to End
‘Blight on Our City’ with Crackdown on Rough Sleeping in CBD.” The
Age January 20. https​://www.theage.com.au/natio​nal/victo​ria/mayor-
moves-to-end-blight-on-our-city-with-crack​down-on-rough-sleep​ing-in-
cbd-20170​120-gtv69a.html
Quilter, Julia Ann, and Luke J. McNamara. (2013). “Time to Define the
Cornerstone of Public Order Legislation.” University of New South Wales
Law Journal 36: 534–551. https​://pdfs.seman​ticsc​holar.org/f89f/f4a10​
6968e​5f6a9​52bcc​e13dd​b4b01​b03fd6.pdf
Sparks, Tony. (2017). “Citizens without Property: Informality and Political
Agency in Seattle, Washington Homeless Encampment.” Environment
and Planning A 49(1): 86–103.
Standing, Guy. (2014). The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class. London:
Bloomsbury.
Wacquant, Loïc. (2009). Punishing the Poor: The Neoliberal Government of
Social Insecurity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Walsh, Tamara. (2008). “Policing Disadvantage: Giving Voice to Those Affected
by the Politics of Law and Order.” Alternative Law Journal 33(3): 160–4.
   . (2011). Homelessness and the Law. Annandale, NSW: Federation Press.
Williams, Jennifer. (2015). “Court Issues ‘Inhumane’ List of Things Homeless
Protestors CAN Sleep In—including Cardboard Boxes.” Manchester
Evening News August 6. https​://www.manch​ester​eveni​ngnews.co.uk/
news/great​er-manch​ester-news/homel​ess-inhum​ane-list-prote​st-manch​
ester-9803235
Winford, Stan. (2006). “A New (Legal) Threat to Public Space: The Rise and
Rise of the ASBO.” Parity 19(1): 55–7.
Young, Alison, and James Petty. (2019). “On Visible Homelessness and the
Micro-Aesthetics of Public Space.” Australian and New Zealand Journal
of Criminology 2(4): 444–61.