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.
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.