You can argue all you want about the impact of different policies but at the core of the issue is whether or not local governments are allowed to remove people from public spaces.
If they lack that power they fundamentally lack the authority to govern in that area.
If homeless can be removed from any public space, and, obviously, can't legally occupy private spaces then that implies being homeless is a criminal activity since there is no space where it can legally happen.
I suppose you're proposing prison, but it seems the question as to "whether or not being homeless is a crime" is a least worth a legal discussion.
We have tons of beds here in Boulder shelters(except on the coldest nights when it fills up), but people choose to sleep in parks because you aren't allowed to smoke meth in the shelters.
> the Supreme Court will decide whether it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment to fine, ticket, or jail someone for sleeping outside on public property if they have nowhere else to go.
The point being argued is "if you don't have adequate shelters, then you can't remove people from public spaces". If you do have shelters and these people have other options than, yes, you can force them from public spaces into community provided shelters.
> Please don't comment on whether someone read an article
And no, it's not exactly the issue being debated. The issue debated is whether people can camp if there is no shelter space.
In my post, I mention the scenario that there is shelter space, but the people who are camping cannot use it based on their behavior.
Same with agression, animals, unacceptable collections (either hoarding, or something like a collection of knives), ...?
Are we going to "outlaw" homeless people with a dog?
But in reality, there are certain homeless meccas that are much more attractive to homeless people, where the local government cannot reasonably be expected to house all of the homeless people that are imported from elsewhere. In these cases, I am amenable to the idea that you can remove them from public places / and/or export them back out to remove obstructions to public life, but I acknowledge it's very difficult to determine where this idea is reasonable and prevent it from being abused by local governments that are not so disproportionately affected by this problem.
The issues are that cities may be concerned about liability in that space and where you could put that space without angering some residents.
Additionally, a lot of homeless people would probably rather have their own space so they would reject a city sanctioned location for homeless people.
Unfortunately, it seems like an unlikely solution.
Of course! And that's precisely what this case is about. It's not saying that city governments should never remove people from public spaces. It's saying if you don't have a space where it is legal to be homeless, only then can you not legally remove homeless people from public spaces.
The point being debated is not about saying homeless can do as they please. It's very specifically arguing you need to give the homeless some place where they can camp out or other wise live.
If you had a city that designated all areas under bridges as legal for homeless occupation, then yes those cities would be allowed to remove the homeless from other areas.
The entire point of this case boils down to "do homeless people have a right to exist" not "can homeless people sleep on my kids playground if they want". The point being argued that cities have some obligation to take care of their homeless populations and if they refuse to, then they are essentially giving up control of their public spaces. Want a nice downtown? Great, give the homeless sleeping on the streets there some place else to go and yes you can force them to leave.
I've read about that happening many times. People need rights, not depend on the goodwill of local government and hope; that's why we have a Constitution with limited government and don't depend on the goodwill of a monarch. You wouldn't accept that for your home - they can kick you out any time, but why would they?
Look at Grant’s Pass on Google maps. It’s a small mountain town that looks like it has a low tax base in the best of times. If, at enormous cost to their tax base, adequate shelter is built, the only result will be more homeless who gravitate to their tiny town because its better than anywhere else in the region.
The problem and solutions are regional. Who should really be being sued is the state of Oregon or the federal government, but that is much more difficult to do.
If the ruling goes against Grant’s Pass, the result will be even more off-the-books policies to harass and intimidate the homeless until they move to the next town over, because every small town will see them not as human beings but as a potentially immense local tax liability that has to be moved before someone notices.
Littering is already illegal, and without parking time limits in certain places you would not be able to park there in the first place.
I've seen many, many campsites of unhoused people. Like housed people's domiciles and yards, some are neat, some are messier. I don't see many specific problems.
I think the parent comment's characterization is a myth, in part because it maps so neatly to the common prejudices of people who are unfamiliar with unhoused people - especially that they are somehow so horrifyingly filthy, to the point of being subhuman, an object of their outrage - and not with the reality of it, including the real problems.
> feces
That's a red flag for me. People commonly play it as a trump card against unhoused people - again, that subhumanity and outrage. It clearly is chosen to press that emotional button, to bypass the listener's reason and compassion. We are probably well-evolved to have a disgust reaction to feces.
I've never seen it; I'm not sure how people so afraid of unhoused people have seen it so much. And how the heck did you know if it's from a dog or a person? What are the distinguishing characteristics? Did you examine it closely? I've seen city officials report it, but in limited experience: I've passed by encampments that were clean and neat, and then soon after read in the news that the city cleared the encampment due to the old 'feces and needles'. The reporting never checks the facts.
By far the feces I see most in regard to unhoused people is bull feces in textual form. That's easier to recognize!
It is indeed rare... because cities are typically allowed to arrest the people who do so. It's only in cities dominated by the idea the homeless are helpless victims who can do no wrong where you see needles and feces, like SF.
How do the cities identify this evil criminal? (The jokes write themselves.)
> cities dominated by the idea the homeless are helpless victims who can do no wrong where you see needles and feces, like SF.
Hmm .. the goalposts shift. What cities do you mean and what specific policies?
Losing your parking spot is a minor commercial inconvenience to someone with (I assume) other resources; losing their campsite, especially without alternatives, costs an unhoused person their home and their shelter from the elements.
I'm not even sure what we're discussing - these people need shelter and homes, of course. Park regulations are secondary.
Not all unhoused people litter. One person is not guilty of or responsible for what someone else does. You are not responsible for what I do and vice-versa.
Our society gets to make laws and I think laws that prevent people from turning a public space into their permanent camp site aren't unreasonable. My problem is I want to use my library and I'm going to try to solve that problem. I don't know how to solve their problem - but I'm not going to accept that I need to solve it before I get my library back.
So far as I can tell a lot of the homeless are not dumb.
If I want my library back ( I do ) than I need to find a way to make living in front of it less comfortable for them.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/permit-home-building-...
Problem is housing is a problem all over. Which is more due to the international cabal of capitalist slumlords that run things. Those guys love using the financial system to bid up prices of existing real estate vs building new stuff.
Which it has been in many places and still might be in some. But this has to be combined with some kind of program for them to exist legally.
Public spaces where theyre not bothering anyone obviously. If you sleep somewhere where no one is bothered then you wont be bothered. If you sleep in a park people want to use the police will be called on you.
But the homeless populations are symptoms of larger problem in the society. Simply making homelessness illegal is a far worse world. Those people in the picture will still exist, they'll just be contained in a prison. If, through some unexpected hardship, you found yourself without a home would you consider yourself a criminal worthy of punishment? Or do you consider the fact that you have housing some moral choice you are making in the same way you choose not to steal?
The fundamental argument being debated is: if you don't want homeless people in your public space, you need to give them some other option if you are going to force them out of those spaces.
The case is not arguing that homeless people should be able to sleep anywhere, it's saying that if you don't provide a legal space for them to live, then you can't remove them from public spaces.
Again if you don't believe homeless should have a place to exist, then you do believe they should be in prison? Can you just clarify this is what you mean.
https://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-chroni...
It's wild going to a place like Australia and seeing how differently the police and others treat homeless folks there, in short, with compassion.
We're just obsessed with car culture, militarized police, and "individualism".
I don’t follow why this practice being placed off limits for Constitutional reasons would cause local government to somehow lose its authority to govern. In our system, local governments can’t do plenty of things to their citizens, even in public spaces. Their ability to govern nevertheless remains intact.
I have the fundamental human right of movement. I'm allowed to go wherever is 'public', sidewalks, parks, etc.
Government also cant seize my property. For example a tent. Hence the inability for government to violate the homeless' civil rights.
Now I go further, what seems quite obvious to me is that it's government's fault for homelessness. Not just local, but combination of government failure.
Politicians whose failures are on display with homelessness are really hoping they could tyrannically violate people's civil rights to attempt to hide their own failures.
The core of this issue is not about “whether or not local governments are allowed to remove people from public spaces”, it’s “under what scenarios are local governments allowed to remove people from public spaces”. Even if they rule in favor of Johnson, there will still be many scenarios that allow a government to remove people from public spaces.
We seem to forget these days that we (very thankfully) have rights and live in a free country that recognizes them. People are free individuals, at liberty to do as they please unless there is some strong reason to stop them that is also constitutional, lawful, and follows due process. 'I don't like them' and 'they look/smell/talk funny' aren't sufficient reasons.
I don't see how local government has the authority to remove someone from public space except in very limited circumstances. Public space is not the property of local government. You have a right to do what you want there.
Yes it is?
> You have a right to do what you want there.
No you absolutely do not have the right to do whatever you want just because its owned by the government.
(TLDR non market housing)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_taxes_in_the_United_State...