Supreme Court Won't Hear Case on Ban Against Homeless Sleeping in Public Spaces | Hacker News Reader

Supreme Court Won't Hear Case on Ban Against Homeless Sleeping in Public Spaces

npr.org

17 pointshoward94118 comments

Discussed yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21805464

Is there a way to word the title to make it clear that the Supreme Court has left the ban dead? "Supreme court won't hear attempt to reinstate ban on homeless sleeping in public spaces?"

The current title is a quadrouple-negative:

Supreme Court Won't (Negative) Hear Case (Which implies a desire to reverse the status quo) on Ban (Negative) Against (Negative) Homeless Sleeping in Public Spaces

I'd try and get that to zero negatives - perhaps "Supreme court continues allowing homeless sleeping in public spaces"? (Though I'm sure there is some legal nuance between "won't ban" and "allows"...)

Ban Against is really one negative. "ban on sleeping" and "against sleeping" meant the same thing as "ban against sleeping"

and they are opposites. consider this comment retracted.

If you think ticketing homeless people will solve the homelessness problem, then you are the reason homelessness is still a problem.

Articles like this make me sad.

Humanity can do better.

What's wrong with us?

What? The article said the Supreme Court denied the idea of homelessness ticketing.

also from the article: "The homeless and their advocates say ticketing homeless people does nothing to solve the bigger housing crisis."

Yes, I agree with the outcome of the article.

The sad thing is that anyone could ever imagine ticketing(monetary fines) as a good idea to control homelessness.

That's kicking someone when they're already down. Very sad.

It's also sad to see that my city spends extra money to make sure that every bench is designed so that sleeping on it is uncomfortable, if not impossible.

While I certainly hope humanity 'can do better', I haven't seen any strategies that are all that encouraging. Those that commit more resources end up with more homelessness and more of all the side effects that come with it: crime, filth, disease, and drugs.

I greatly sympathize with anyone that finds themselves homeless. But I also don't want to live or raise my kids anywhere homelessness is rampant. That means I'm good with my local authorities doing whatever it takes to discourage homelessness in my area.

What do you recommend?

Recommendation: Raise your kids around homelessness.

Why? Because then they will learn to have compassion for these people.

And maybe then, with compassion that doesn't come from a sheltered life, one will use their privileged education and resources to execute an innovative solution successfully.

I taught my kids compassion about homeless people. (I have experience with it)

But I don't want them going near crazy and/or drug addicts that will rape or rob them.

Street smarts are just as important as compassion.

> ...then you are the reason homelessness is still a problem...

That comes across as hyperbole. People commenting on the internet are not the cause of persistent homelessness.

I lived on the streets for a while when I was a teen. My experience was almost no one wanted to stay there forever. The only people that do are crazy or totally given up on life.

Therefore you have two homeless problems:

1. Crazy people or drug addicts that have no hope.

2. People who are in financial hardships.

Almost all these stories are about #1, not #2. #2 is solved with many social programs. #1 exists because the state can't house crazy people in asylums any more.

Therefore, the homeless problem will never be solved for #1 again because our society can't handle asylums.

People commenting on the internet are not the issue.

#1 is a problem that needs to be solved, yes. No, I don't think asylums are the solution.

"Crazy people and drug addicts" can be rehabilitated.

At this point, the only people in problem #1 are those that simultaneously have problem #2.

> "Crazy people and drug addicts" can be rehabilitated.

Not if they don't want to be rehabilitated.

Unless you are suggesting you don't give them a choice? That is an asylum.

So, crazy/drug addicts are an unsolvable problem without some kind of force. Which isn't going to happen.

I think you got downvoted because you missed the point -- the harmful laws criminalizing homelessness were struck down, and the court won't hear appeals to put them back; it's a good thing.

I understand what happened. I'm just sad this is what we're talking about in 2019.

"Public encampments, now protected by the Constitution under the Ninth Circuit's decision, have spawned crime and violence, incubated disease, and created environmental hazards that threaten the lives and well-being both of those living on the streets and the public at large."

And so their suggested solution is to just 'remove' homeless people instead of, I don't know, helping them? Thankfully the Supreme Court did something right for a change.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com