<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<record
    xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
    xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd"
    xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">

  <leader>02291nam a22001457a 4500</leader>
  <datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">530969</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">530969</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <controlfield tag="008">250722b           ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d</controlfield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Viljoen, Sue-Mari </subfield>
    <subfield code="9">55520</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Regulating public property: The account of the homeless</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="260" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Social &amp; Legal Studies </subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">34(3), Jun, 2025: p.439-457</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">A global socio-economic problem concerns the unlawful occupation of public spaces. At a time when states are more inclined to adopt welfare-orientated, inclusive social policies, property rules continue to forbid the homeless from exercising those activities that should ideally be done in private. The City of Cape Town serves as an interesting case study to critically reflect on social policies and laws that regulate the use of public property when rough sleeping is not only excessive, but perhaps even normatively accepted. The article reflects on the social dilemma of an emerging conflict between property rules (specifically antisocial behavior laws) and what has become normatively conventional in the streets, sidewalks, and public parks of the City. Antisocial behavior laws are enforced irregularly as the homeless are informally pardoned therefrom; this can lead to civic hostility and more social violations. The regulatory framework pertaining to street people is also analyzed considering the constitutional directive to distribute land/dwellings. Property is inaccessible for the most destitute - the centrality of property is overlooked in the state's pursuit to not only provide access, but also enable the vulnerable to live dignified, self-sustaining lives. For the street population, the freedom to perform every-day acts is socially controlled by the property system to that of state forbearance, shaped by an indefinite norms-based understanding of where certain activities are considered reasonable. This is a unsustainable, inhumane practice that prejudices the entire community and the urban environment.- Reproduced 

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/09646639231225582
</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Social control, Rough sleeping, Housing policy, Antisocial behavior, Quality of life policing, Broken window theory, Housing rights, Access to property, Redistribution. </subfield>
    <subfield code="9">55521</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="773" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Social &amp; Legal Studies </subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="942" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">AR</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="0">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="1">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="2">ddc</subfield>
    <subfield code="4">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="7">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="9">406168</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">IIPA</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">IIPA</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">2025-07-22</subfield>
    <subfield code="h">34(3), Jun, 2025: p.439-457</subfield>
    <subfield code="p">AR136689</subfield>
    <subfield code="r">2025-07-22</subfield>
    <subfield code="y">AR</subfield>
  </datafield>
</record>
