Good evening.

I am Rafael P Rome on.

Just over 40 years ago, Robert Hayes took on a pro bono case that turned into the biggest hiss -- victory in history for the homeless.

And that victory, the right to shelter, is being challenged, this time by our Adams.

His argument is that the city does not want to nullify but modify the law.

So goes the -- does the mayor's position have merit?

What are his chances of winning in court?

What would be the consequences if the law is overturned?

Joining us is Robert Hayes, original architect of the right to shelter.

Welcome to the program.

Robert: Thank you.

Rafael: In 1979, you were a young lawyer working with what you called one of the most white shoe law firms on Wall Street.

I do not think you associate that kind of place with a homeless advocate, but that is what you became.

How did that happen?

Robert: A lot of tolerance, indulgence provided to me by the firm.

They left me alone.

I still had to do my day job working for corporations on antitrust and securities law, but I learned as a brand-new lawyer and got to talking to people on the streets.

I was as wrong as most New Yorkers in believing that homelessness was a lifestyle choice.

I found out in conversation after conversation that there was nowhere to go.

Rafael: So you took on the city and Callahan versus Kerry.

The original right to shelter case and you won.

What arguments did you use to win that case when at the time there was no city in the country that had such a thing?

There is still no such thing and any other city.

Robert: New York was coming out of its fresh with bankruptcy in the mid-1970's.

I did not go to court right away.

It struck me that if city officials learned what I learned, that there was no way over these homeless -- nowhere for these homeless men to go that there would be some voluntary response.

It was New York.

We come through a period of difficulty financially.

I had thought there would be some reason to help.

Nothing interested city officials last in 1979 then helping homeless people.

I was a lawyer, probably too young to know better.

I started dating.

Rafael: What did you find?

You found something in the Constitution written during the depression.

Robert: There were so many provisions we went through.

Really the foundation is a provision in the New York State Constitution that effectively says the aide, care, and support of the needy is an obligation.

Courts have looked at that and set that is lawyer language.

It is escalation all.

-- escalational.

The mayor wants to shelter people that he does not want to have a right to shelter.

It turned out that this constitutional provision was introduced at the convention in 1836 -- 1936 the height of the Great Depression.

Proponents said no matter how hard times get in the future, this will be an unshakable message as to the relationship between the state of New York and the people.

And I do Butler's did.

I said -- I did what lawyers did.

"Shall" means "shall."

Rafael: The right to shelter has evolved.

Originally, it pertained only to homeless men.

Now it has gone beyond that.

What else?

Robert: It has been trench warfare from the get-go.

We finally got a settlement only after the court ruled that there was a right to shelter.

That was for men.

In 1979, homelessness among men was a big problem.

Three years later, the city ran out of shelter beds for homeless women and Mayor Katz refused to voluntarily apply the right to shelter to women.

That became a second case.

A couple of years later, families.

The fact that we have a mayor in 2023 who has been less than enthusiastic about this obligation has a deep precedent.

Rafael: Let's get to that.

Mayor Adams has asked the courts to modify the right to shelter.

Specific, he is requesting that the court absolve the administration of the mandate to find shelter for homeless adults.

Quote, should the city's Department lack -- necessary resources.

Robert: That is not a modification.

It is the destruction of the right to shelter.

That is at issue here.

Thinking of what government can do, it can do many things.

When one decides that is what we want to spend money on, that is what we want to assign staff to.

There are thousands of dings like that at City Hall every day.

A right to shelter, a right to vote.

There are certain fundamental things that are not optional for the executive branch, in this case the mayor's office.

With the mayor is asking for is not a modification.

He is saying it I will do it when it is easy.

The right during the Great Depression was created during a hard time.

These are circumstances we have with the migrant search.

-- surge.

But we should not walk away from rights during hard times.

Rafael: She said the right to shelter, the original right to shelter, could not possibly be interpreted to mean that the city is compelled to find shelter for everyone from outside the country, documented or undocumented, because in effect that would mean that everybody on the planet has the right to shelter in New York City and the silty -- city is obliged to shelter them.

How do you respond?

Robert: I do not know the Congresswoman and how much she knows about the right to shelter as enshrined in work documents, but this kind of problem was envisioned back in 1981.

There are pages saying there is a right to shelter and what it has to look like.

We thought to make sure shelter was at least minimally decent.

There is also an appendix to that court order that says in cases of unexpected emergency, we are not going to revisit greatly the right to shelter.

We will have discussions about what kind of conditions have to be met.

That is happening.

The current generation of lawyers have been understanding that there will not be a shower for every 15 residents for asylum-seekers.

We really are following that.

It makes what could otherwise be extremely undoable feasible.

The man has many other options rather than ruining the right to shelter to meet this usrge -- surge and demand.

If I were a Republican member of Congress, the first thing I would be doing would be fighting to get work permits for these folks.

These asylum-seekers are not much different from two centuries of immigrants coming to the United States.

These are folks who are willing and able to get jobs.

People are desperate to hire.

Some jobseekers could be licensed in New York, but they can support the needs of the people of New York.

That is true of the majority of these folks.

They will not be in shelters once they can get to work Congress and the Biden administration should listen.

Rafael: New you think that the city will always have an option besides modifying or canceling the right to shelter?

Or do you think there may be a time when that will have to happen?

Robert: I do not think it should happen.

There are generations of judges who have held mayors accountable.

We will also be demanding that Governor Hochul impose a state constitution obligation throughout the state.

The mayor tried to bust folks for a hotel room in Newburgh, they created the state of emergency.

But in the 1980's, the they were also under order.

Does this Congresswoman really want tens of thousands of people living on the streets?

Rafael: That would be what are the results.

Robert: People are still going to be coming.

We have been at this a long time.

And though there is a legal right to shelter that is enforceable.

But more important is over the 40 years since this litigation began, there has been a shift in how people understand homelessness.

I used to think people lived there by choice.

I think now there is a cultural consciousness that recognizes that New York is a better city because we do not have massive encampments.

But there are too many people on the streets.

But in small numbers compared to other cities.

We should not turn our backs on that.

Rafael: You have said that there is a legitimate concern as to whether or not the right to shelter has helped to subvert what people really need, which is permanent housing.

Ask does it kick the housing can down the road, hide the problem?

That is a concern you have had.

What is the answer?

Robert: On the one hand, I recognize the rate to shelter as something that has not just made the city better for everyone that has saved countless lives for people who were able to survive with the not great life as a homeless person.

During one administration, Ed Koch's, the right to shelter was used to force development of affordable housing in neighborhoods that were abandoned.

The city owned a lot of buildings in the interim housing program.

Ed Koch and I agreed that that may have been the best contribution to the city.

But it is hard for governments to do two things at once.

I would like to think we have a better system.

We now have a large supported housing business with too many vacancies.

They should get bureaucrats out of the way and get people out of shelters so they have some progress.

We had the mandate to end homelessness.

We have failed but we have made some contributions.