Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 291 posts

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#101

Post by Terr_ »

delecti wrote: post #17
tomcam wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it a dumb decision?

It makes it, not just de facto, but de jure illegal to be poor. If someone can't afford a home, where are they meant to go? Just fuck off and die?

> It makes it, not just de facto, but de jure illegal to be poor.

Wha? No, that's literally not true: Taking a de facto situation and making it more intense doesn't magically transmute it into de jure.

If it is truly de-jure illegal to be poor now, you'd be able to point at a law on the books which says that.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#102

Post by crooked-v »

legitster wrote: post #98
nimbius wrote: post #45

I feel like the outcome of this is unilaterally bad. Most homeless are elderly and mentally Ill. The solutions are institutionalization and retirement housing/pensions but no state did this after Reagan and instead made homelessness an issue to ignore. Faced with the ability to legally incarcerate nearly 600,000 people, states likely won't hesitate to do just that without a second thought. For a country that prides i…

> Faced with the ability to legally incarcerate nearly 600,000 people, states likely won't hesitate to do just that without a second thought. Prisoners cost ~ $40k a year annually in taxes. It's actually cheaper to house them - so I don't think states are going to be gung-ho about doing either.

There's plenty of political support across the US to imprison people, no matter how much it costs. There's almost none to build people housing, even if it's cheap. People are illogical like that.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#103

Post by notaustinpowers »

EPWN3D wrote: post #91
notaustinpowers wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are enough vacant homes in the US to give every homeless person 25 homes. That is not the root cause of the problem.

And who's going to rent their property to every homeless person? You? I'm unclear on what the volume of available housing has to do with this. That housing is owned by people who are free to rent it or not rent it as they see fit. Are you saying that the federal government should just confiscate it so it can be given to homeless people free of charge? Or that those owners should be forced to sign leases with homeless…

My comment on this is that the statement "just build more homes" is not an effective solution to this problem. We have enough homes. The issue is that as homes are viewed as an investment, rather than as a necessity to live a decent life, they must maintain scarcity. If there is not a scarcity, then it will be created.

Interest rates have tripled, which should have dropped house prices. Construction is faster than it was before the 2007 Housing Crisis. Both of these factors should have drastically reduced housing costs, however, prices are still 40% higher than they were in 2020.

I'm not saying to confiscate homes. I'm not saying to force people to rent out their homes to homeless people.

>A large chunk of homeless people are drug addicts with serious mental health problems.

Only 26% of homeless people abuse drugs. A vast amount of homeless people are veterans who have complex mental health problems from their service in the military, elderly people who are trying to survive off of insufficient SSI payments, or LGBTQ youth who were kicked out of their homes.

This isn't a problem that can be solved with some witty one-sentence solution. This is a problem that takes layers of support systems ranging from health services, to public transportation, to subsidized housing, to job placement programs.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#104

Post by crooked-v »

legitster wrote: post #94

*Correction: the cities can ban camps. It would still be a violation to ban "homeless" camps, and the decision was very clear that homelessness is a protected status, but just because you have a protected status does not mean you get to break laws that do not target you. "Under the city’s laws, it makes no difference whether the charged defendant is homeless, a backpacker on vacation passing through town, or a studen…

I really don't see the mens rea of someone sleeping outside because they have no where else to sleep instead.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#105

Post by alan-hn »

asdff wrote: post #22
sschueller wrote: post #6

This is insane, so you are at your lowest in life and it is now illegal for you to exist.

I think its more about regulating where you can do certain things vs making it illegal to exist. For example its illegal to urinate and defecate in public despite these being automatic functions, sometimes involuntary and demanding release right then and there wherever you are. Despite this biological reality, we also understand that there are sanitation issues to allowing the body to relieve itself wherever it happe…

So where do you suggest homeless people sleep

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#106

Post by canada_dry »

wilg wrote: post #5

Dumb decision, but we really just gotta build more homes mainly. A good overview of why this is the best solution to homelessness: https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/everything-you-think-you-know-...

> build more homes mainly

Having effective and readily available mental health programs is a more critical step IMHO.

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#107

Post by jjav »

legitster wrote: post #98
nimbius wrote: post #45

I feel like the outcome of this is unilaterally bad. Most homeless are elderly and mentally Ill. The solutions are institutionalization and retirement housing/pensions but no state did this after Reagan and instead made homelessness an issue to ignore. Faced with the ability to legally incarcerate nearly 600,000 people, states likely won't hesitate to do just that without a second thought. For a country that prides i…

> Faced with the ability to legally incarcerate nearly 600,000 people, states likely won't hesitate to do just that without a second thought. Prisoners cost ~ $40k a year annually in taxes. It's actually cheaper to house them - so I don't think states are going to be gung-ho about doing either.

> Prisoners cost ~ $40k a year annually in taxes.

The racket is that many prisions are private for-profit companies. So this is a way to funnel taxpayer money into those corporations. Who in turn are friends and campaign contributors of the politicians who push for more people into prisions. So it all feeds itself and the cost doesn't matter. The more cost, the better (to them).

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#108

Post by notaustinpowers »

engineer_22 wrote: post #95
notaustinpowers wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IDK man, I think arresting people for just existing in public who have nowhere else to go is a morally reprehensible act and has no right existing in a form of government that should operate under the best interest of it's citizens. But that's just me I guess.

No problem, go to your municipal meetings and let them know you are in favor of allowing camping in public spaces in your municipality. If you vote in your local elections your representatives may also have similar opinions to yours. Talk to your friends and neighbors to ask how they feel about it too, maybe they agree. Democracy.

People dying in the streets isn't something that should be up for debate or popular vote :)

Re: US Supreme Court allows cities to ban homeless camps

#109

Post by jjk166 »

Terr_ wrote: post #26
wilg wrote: post #5

Dumb decision, but we really just gotta build more homes mainly. A good overview of why this is the best solution to homelessness: https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/everything-you-think-you-know-...

> Dumb decision Well, what's the alternative? Do you believe all local laws such as "FooBar park closes at dusk" are federally unconstitutional , and that actually enforcing any of them is "cruel and unusual punishment" against people who desire to camp there overnight? Remember: It's perfectly possible to say that certain situations are unlawful/unjust/immoral for other reasons, it's not like "I think it violates th…

I believe "cruel and unusual" is obviously context dependent and intended to prohibit the government from applying punishments that are technically permissible under the law but which society considers completely unreasonable under the circumstances. The argument that fining a homeless person is not cruel because fining a rich person is not cruel and thus fines can not be cruel is absurd.
Post reply on HN